50mm or 85mm (Page 3): How happy are you with the results you get from the 50mm lens? If you are not then the 85mm lens is for you.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

How happy are you with the results you get from the 50mm lens? If you are not then the 85mm lens is for you.

Bob Evans

Thank You, I like the 50mm just thought if the wife gives her approval the 85mm would just give me more options. Thanks to all of you as I said I got an education by just asking. This site is good for educating, newbies.

BudsOwl Loc: Upstate NY and New England

Since you already got all the advice you need, I won't give you any. Just want to welcome you to UHH. Don't forget to share some photos with us.
Bud

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Several posts also indicate using the 70-200 is a great portrait lens. Great compression and it's an "L" lens. Almost twice the money as the 85, but in my opinion much more versatile.
I like my 50 for head shots, my 85 for head and shoulders or on occasion 3/4 shots. The 70-200 can do it all, but you need a little more room indoors. Outdoors always the 70-200.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Several posts also indicate using the 70-200 is a great portrait lens. Great compression and it's an "L" lens. Almost twice the money as the 85, but in my opinion much more versatile.
I like my 50 for head shots, my 85 for head and shoulders or on occasion 3/4 shots. The 70-200 can do it all, but you need a little more room indoors, which I use with artificial light sometimes. Outdoors always the 70-200. I have the f/4 non-IS which works well for me.

Kuzano

Bob Evans wrote:

If I have a 50mm do I Need a 85mm for my T3i, to get best portraits/

Applying the Crop Factor to your 50 on an APSc sensor, puts your 50 on a 35mm equivalent of 75. Thats in head shot portraiture range. An 85 would reach equivalent of 120mm or about that. That's "short telephoto" in equivalency to 35mm, and a bit longer than accepted head shot. Now if you were using a full frame sensor and avoiding the "crop factor" as it's called, then yes, an 85 would be appropriate for portraits.

Mike 27613 Loc: Raleigh, NC, USA

Having more than one portrait lens gives you the chance to change the perspectives.
I hope your wife allows you to get a lens or two :)

The first two are 31 mm APS-C and the second two are 77mm APS-C.

I'll look around this weekend and see if I can find the 50mm ones.

FA31 limited
FA31 limited...

FA77 limited
FA77 limited...

SteveR Loc: Michigan

This link will show you how various lenses affect portraiture. Of course, these were taken using a full frame camera, so you'll have to figure in the crop factor.

http://gizmodo.com/5857279/this-is-how-lenses-beautify-or-uglify-your-pretty-face

Mike 27613 Loc: Raleigh, NC, USA

That is really amazing! Just a note: My sister takes portraits with (I think) a 300mm lens. Whichever Nikon lens that is $12,000 used. I don't really know the nomenclature. I can say that I really don't see any difference between that and my setup. Mind you I'm not disparaging very expensive Nikon equipment. It could very well be that I just don't have good eyes.

forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

I appreciate the whole comment but especially the part about compressing (face) features. I've not heard it said that way. Mostly we hear about compressing distance at the long end and about exaggerating face features at the short end.

I'd note that Nikon has written that 105mm full-frame (100 for Canon) is ideal for portraits. Presumably this Nikon remark is about avoiding distortion of face features as well as about framing the subject.

machia wrote:

An 85mm will give you more compression as it will ... (show quote)

SteveR Loc: Michigan

sirlensalot wrote:

Several posts also indicate using the 70-200 is a great portrait lens. Great compression and it's an "L" lens. Almost twice the money as the 85, but in my opinion much more versatile.
I like my 50 for head shots, my 85 for head and shoulders or on occasion 3/4 shots. The 70-200 can do it all, but you need a little more room indoors, which I use with artificial light sometimes. Outdoors always the 70-200. I have the f/4 non-IS which works well for me.

Actually, the 50 is best for full body shots, and longer lenses best for head shots.

marty wild Loc: England

rjaywallace wrote:

There are no rules or obligations that come with camera ownership. Only you can decide what you need. Take some portraits with the 50mm and decide whether you like them. If not, you can consider other options.

I have them both they are wonderful lenses but you need plenty of room to work 85mm go F 1.4 if you can

O2Ra

Again think about it , the Sigma 50-100 f/1.8. It's equal to 80-160 f/2.7 focal lengths and DOF. Then it's still F/1.8 aperture for light gathering which is great for low light . A prime for each of these focal lengths would cost a ton . The Sigma does cost more than the 85 1.8 but your not just stuck there and this lens is supposed to be as good as the best primes. And also can be used as a sports lens too.

Mike 27613 Loc: Raleigh, NC, USA

I can't do this until August. But this thread has really stimulated my thinking. I'm going to take head, waist up, and full body portraits with the 21, 31, 40, and 50 lenses. Unfortunately I lost the 77. I may try to use a zoom (?; 18-35). Not really fair to compare a cheap zoom with expensive primes. But I'm curious to see the results.

JohanneT Loc: South Africa

joer wrote:

With you camera the FF equivalents are: 50mm=80; 85mm=136.

80mm is more versatile for portraits.

I have learn from a well known great German photographer, in 1982. Never take a photo with a lens that has the same angle of view as your human eye. Since then I never had a standard 50mm lens. Always use 85mm for my weddings, portraits and landscapes etc.
Made sense to me....
Have fun