Topic: 85 1.8 or 50 1.4

[j5brock]

Starting to shoot a few more shows and I doubt I will upgrade to a ff.. that said - I am looking for a little more speed than the 17-55 for some shots in a few really dark clubs.. At some point I will probably buy both - but which lens would you start... thanks

Jeff

[eric.B]

Starting to shoot a few more shows and I doubt I will upgrade to a ff.. that said - I am looking for a little more speed than the 17-55 for some shots in a few really dark clubs.. At some point I will probably buy both - but which lens would you start... thanks

Jeff

depends on the venue and how close you are to the artists..   the f/1.8 is plenty fast..  just be careful 'bout being wide open, as your DOF is *very* thin..  you can get by (depending on the light etc) up to 2.8 +/-..

[phanophish]

depends on the venue and how close you are to the artists..   the f/1.8 is plenty fast..  just be careful 'bout being wide open, as your DOF is *very* thin..  you can get by (depending on the light etc) up to 2.8 +/-..

I agree.  IMO the 80 is a bit long on a crop body if you are shooting from the stage lip.  If you are back say near the soundboard the length the 80 gives you is a plus.  Also the 50 can be handheld at lower shutter speeds than the 80.  It's a small difference but it is there.  I'd definetely start with the 50/1.4 or even go to a 50/1.8 save $150-200.  I have a 1.4 and rarely shoot it that wide open as the DOF becomes about like a sheet of paper.  I like that on portraits and such I can have the eyes sharp and the tip of the nose is out of focus, but for concert stuff my focus is rarely that accurate (movement & difficult lighting) so if I'm shooting that wide open I miss a lot of shots.

[hypnotoad]

I would rather have the extra light from the 50mm, and then crop later if needed.  You can always crop in from the 50 but there's no way to get more light out of the 85.

[bugg100]

I would rather have the extra light from the 50mm, and then crop later if needed.  You can always crop in from the 50 but there's no way to get more light out of the 85.

How much MORE light will you get out of a f1.4 vs. f1.8?
How much more MONEY will that light cost?
How many of those shots will have blown focus due to small DOF?

Pick the lens with the focal length that meets your style shooting and be happy you have sometimes 5 full stops more to work with than a kit lens shooter at their tele variable aperture.

[Brian Skalinder]

How much MORE light will you get out of a f1.4 vs. f1.8?
How much more MONEY will that light cost?
How many of those shots will have blown focus due to small DOF?

~65% (I think), about $30 (comparing the 85mm f1.8 USM and 50mm f1.4 USM at FM;  I'm not familiar with Canon gear, so never mind the pricing - it's merely illustrative;  for all I know, non-USM lenses of these two specs have a vast price differential;  my main point is the next one...), and the same number of shots with blown focus as the 85mm f1.8 due to small DOF.  In a typical, stage-lip shooting environment, the depth of field will be pretty thin with either lens wide open^* - and the user must take this into account in either case.  And alternatively, one might well ask:  how many blown shots will occur due to too narrow a dimensional field of view with the 85mm, or too much noise due to needing higher ISO as a result of less light, or too slow shutter speed for capturing a rapidly moving subject as a result of less light?  With respect to these questions, the 50mm's wider FOV or f/1.4's extra 2/3 stop may provide benefit, depending on one's usage.  (Which you get at generally in your next comment...hang on...I'm getting there.)

^*Assuming an APS-C sensor (with 1.6 crop factor) and the same diagonal FOV for a reasonably direct comparison (with the same FOV, one could capture a similar image in either scenario):  50mm / f1.4 @ 10' = 5' 4.9" FOV and 0.65' (7.8") DOF;  85mm / f1.8 @ 17' = 5' 4.9" FOV and 0.81' (9.72") DOF.  So we're talking a total DOF difference in this example of a whopping 1.92".

Pick the lens with the focal length that meets your style shooting and be happy you have sometimes 5 full stops more to work with than a kit lens shooter at their tele variable aperture.

Hear hear!  Never mind all my blather above, this is the proper answer.  And I think it's consistent with hypnotoad's comments about which lens he would rather have, and other TSers comments.  Love my 50mm 1.4! (Pentax)

[phanophish]

How much MORE light will you get out of a f1.4 vs. f1.8?
How much more MONEY will that light cost?
How many of those shots will have blown focus due to small DOF?

~65% (I think), about $30 (comparing the 85mm f1.8 USM and 50mm f1.4 USM at FM;  I'm not familiar with Canon gear, so never mind the pricing - it's merely illustrative;  for all I know, non-USM lenses of these two specs have a vast price differential;  my main point is the next one...), and the same number of shots with blown focus as the 85mm f1.8 due to small DOF.  In a typical, stage-lip shooting environment, the depth of field will be pretty thin with either lens wide open^* - and the user must take this into account in either case.  And alternatively, one might well ask:  how many blown shots will occur due to too narrow a dimensional field of view with the 85mm, or too much noise due to needing higher ISO as a result of less light, or too slow shutter speed for capturing a rapidly moving subject as a result of less light?  With respect to these questions, the 50mm's wider FOV or f/1.4's extra 2/3 stop may provide benefit, depending on one's usage.  (Which you get at generally in your next comment...hang on...I'm getting there.)

^*Assuming an APS-C sensor (with 1.6 crop factor) and the same diagonal FOV for a reasonably direct comparison (with the same FOV, one could capture a similar image in either scenario):  50mm / f1.4 @ 10' = 5' 4.9" FOV and 0.65' (7.8") DOF;  85mm / f1.8 @ 17' = 5' 4.9" FOV and 0.81' (9.72") DOF.  So we're talking a total DOF difference in this example of a whopping 1.92".

Pick the lens with the focal length that meets your style shooting and be happy you have sometimes 5 full stops more to work with than a kit lens shooter at their tele variable aperture.

Hear hear!  Never mind all my blather above, this is the proper answer.  And I think it's consistent with hypnotoad's comments about which lens he would rather have, and other TSers comments.  Love my 50mm 1.4! (Pentax)

Take your data and fancy math and leave us to our gut feelings and hyperboble.  Such concrete information will not be tolerated!

In all seriousness, nice post.  +T  And as you said the 50 is where I'd start.  Mine is a 1.4.

[Petrus]

I have both 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 and use 50mm all the time, 85mm practically never (ff EOS- 5D is the camera). With 12 MPIx sensor I can crop a bit if needed and dobody notices anything. With crop sensor EOS-1DmkII 50mm is a perfect portrait lens.

[hypnotoad]

Yea, I also have both a 50 and an 85mm.  I'd say I use both quite a bit, with the 85 is a great portrait lens.

[sunjan]

I would rather have the extra light from the 50mm, and then crop later if needed.  You can always crop in from the 50 but there's no way to get more light out of the 85.

How much MORE light will you get out of a f1.4 vs. f1.8?
How much more MONEY will that light cost?
How many of those shots will have blown focus due to small DOF?

This is a common misunderstanding about the rationale of large aperture lenses.
The main reason many pro photographers buy low-light primes is not to use it with the largest aperture possible (i e 1.4 or 1.8 ).
No, the real benefit is the fact that they often are much sharper than their entry-level counterparts after stopping down 1, 2 or 3 steps!

So if you're able to take concert shots at 2.8, those shots will be noticeably sharper using a Nikkor 85/1.8 (stopped down to 2.8 ) than a Nikkor 85/2.8 at maximum aperture.
But you have to read up on your particular lens' characteristics. Some low-light primes can't compete, even though their maximum aperture is larger. Bring a Nikkor Noctilux (50/1.2 or even 1.0) to a show, and it might be terribly "fuzzy" around the edges even after stopping down, compared to a 50/1.4.

Personally, my all time favorite concert lens is my Nikkor AI-S 135/2.0 - alas no AF though.
Using my Jedi skills, I can get sharp handhold shots at 1/30 sec, which allows me to stop down to 2.8 or even 4.0 depending on the light show and my ISO.

So those of you planning on grabbing a 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 only for the purpose of squeezing out the most light out of it and shooting at 1.4 or 1.8: rethink your usage pattern and dare stopping it down, to get value for your money spent.

[dmonkey]

So those of you planning on grabbing a 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 only for the purpose of squeezing out the most light out of it and shooting at 1.4 or 1.8: rethink your usage pattern and dare stopping it down, to get value for your money spent.

I've got to disagree somewhat with this statement. Sure it's true that stopped-down these lenses really shine, but IMO the real benefit lies in being able to use them wide open. The expensive fast primes out there (such as Canon's L series, and Nikon's counterpart) look really nice wide open due to glass composition and optics design, and you shouldn't be afraid to use them wide open. Fast lenses also throw more light on your AF sensor, and that can be a lifesaver in low-light AF conditions...whether or not you're stopped down for your shot.

Keep in mind also that DOF increases the further away the subject is from your camera, so you can get somewhat forgiving DOF wide open if you're focused farther away.

That said, I have both a 50/1.4 and 80/1.8, and I rarely use my 50 anymore on my camera (1.3 crop). However, I don't do concert photography with my dSLR so I can't speak to that. I would pick the focal length you feel you'll use the most, there isn't that much of a difference in f stop to worry about -- especially when you consider how clean most cameras are now at high ISO.

[spreetaper]

i own the 50 1.8 85 1.8 and 50 1.4 as well as a host of other lenses
but i have to say the 85 1.8 is one great lense
crisp shots from up close and also a great walk around lense for general stuff
in my book u cant go wrong with the 85 1.8
i use the 50 1.4 but not nearly as often

[jdawg]

I've had both lenses for the past year and I must say that I'm using the 85 way more than the 50. But, like others have already said, it depends on the situation.    The 85 is killer sharp!!! Awesome for portrait work, too.  Will be taking both lenses to see HBRSB this weekend!

I'll PM you a link to my concert galleries where both lenses are being used so you can get an idea.

edit: here's an example of both lenses. Right up front - stage lip. This should give you an idea to the FOV on a crop body.

50 @ f/2.0


85 @ f/1.8

[Jimna]

nice shots!

[phanophish]

FWIW Nikon is releasing a new 50/1.4 with a Silent Wave motor so it should be really nice for AF speed.  The rumor is alos improved optical coatings so expectations are pretty high.  It also means I've seen some smoking deals of the "old" 50/1.4.

[BayTaynt3d]

The 85mm f1.8 is incredibly sharp and the bokeh is pleasant too, I think of it as L-class glass even though it isn't actually. The lens is just awesome, I regularly shoot it wide open at ISO 1600 with very good results. Absolutely stunning portrait lens too. This lens is way underrated IMHO, and I say that as someone who owns a lot of high end fast Canon glass (it's not on the caliber of my 135mm f2.0, which is just a ridiculous lens, but for a third the price, the value is there bigtime).