# Do I need the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM?



## mchale (Mar 19, 2013)

I have the 17-40 f4L, the 24-70 f2.8L and 70-200 f2.8L IS II
Used on both the 7d and 5d mark II.

Will the 85mm f/1.8 give me noticeably better bokeh or any sharper images because it is a prime lens? I cannot afford another L lens at the moment.

Thanks!


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 19, 2013)

mchale said:


> I have the 17-40 f4L, the 24-70 f2.8L and 70-200 f2.8L IS II
> Used on both the 7d and 5d mark II.
> 
> Will the 85mm f/1.8 give me noticeably better bokeh or any sharper images because it is a prime lens? I cannot afford another L lens at the moment.
> ...



If you have the two 2.8 zooms ...particularly the 70-200 f2.8II ...i'd say the 85mm isn't going to add that much. But if you have extra money to burn and think 1.3 stops will add to your shots...go for it


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 19, 2013)

My main use for my 85mm f/1.8 is the wider aperture for low light use. However, I feel comfortable with using my 5D MK III at ISO 12800 or even 25600 in a pinch, so I'm on the verge of selling it since I picked up a 70-200mm f/2.8 and am planning on a 24-70mmL in the next few months.
85mm seems to be a magic spot for lens manufacturers. The sharpest lenses all tend to be 85mm, so from that standpoint, its a good lens to have. But, if you seldom use it, sell it.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 19, 2013)

I'd ask why there is no 50mm, but that's just me.

Personally, I'd buy the 100mm F/2 over the 85mm. A small prime like these can be a compact tele when you don't want to lug the 70-200.


----------



## BrianHawkins (Mar 19, 2013)

I have the same lenses as you and haven't used my 85 f/1.8 very much. The 70-200 is almost always a better choice. Go with a 50mm f/1.4 instead. I have the Sigma and I use that much more often than the 85. You get 1.3 stops more light over the 85 (due to increased aperture and reduced shutter speed). Plus, the depth of field is noticeably different compared to the 2.8 zoom, whereas the depth of field on the 85 is not much different than it is at 2.8. 

Come to think of it, I should probably sell my 85.


----------



## dstppy (Mar 19, 2013)

I love this lens on FF (50mm for Crop). 

I really like primes though, they stop me from overthinking while shooting; I end up with better composure shot-for-shot.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 19, 2013)

The 85 f/1.8 is a superlative lens...but I don't think it's going to give you better image quality than your 70-200 II. And the f/2.8 of the 70-200 combined with the high ISO ability of the 5DIII takes care of all reasonable low-light needs.

All that remains is two considerations: shallow depth of field and size.

If you keep the framing the same -- that is, "zoom" with your feet -- then the 70-200 @ 200mm wide open will give you significantly more background isolation than the 85 will. Even at 135mm, the 70-200 should still give you a bit more background isolation.

So, do a quick test: shoot a typical subject framed the way you like it with the 70-200 at 135mm, then zoom it to 85mm, move closer to your subject so you've got the same composition, and compare the two images. If you prefer the perspective of the 85mm shot but wish you had the background separation of the 135mm shot -- or if your typical working distance puts you in the range of the 85mm shot -- then the 85mm is for you. Or, if you wish you had a small and lightweight and unobtrusive lens that can do a bit more than the 70-200 can at 85 mm, then the lens is for you. Otherwise, not.

My guess is that it's probably not worth it for you, but only because you're not complaining about any shortcomings of the 70-200. They're both great lenses....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## helpful (Mar 19, 2013)

The 85mm f/1.8 will give you better images at f/2.8 than the 70-200mm II as well much better light transmission.

In Tstops, the 70-200mm II lens is really T/3.4. It is more than 1/3rd stop slower than f/2.8 (not "huge" in the grand scheme of things, but very real). So the 85mm f/1.8 lens is actually more than twice as bright, about 250% as bright.

The 85mm f/1.8 is also lighter and thus more useful in enabling you to remain fresh and keep getting good photos compared to the 70-200mm lens in real world situations where 85mm is an appropriate focal length and/or when you can zoom with your feet. It is much faster in actual shooting of fast action.

The 70-200 II is what you need when you need a zoom and need that zoom to be as perfect as can be. But an f/2.8 zoom can never compete in situations that a fast, lightweight prime lens is designed for.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 19, 2013)

I would question whether the 85 1.8 gives better quality at 2.8 that the 70-200 f2.8 ii @ 85mm/f2.8. 

But the prime has size, weight, speed and price on it's side.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 19, 2013)

helpful said:


> The 85mm f/1.8 will give you better images at f/2.8 than the 70-200mm II as well much better light transmission.



Actually, the 70-200 II is sharper at f/2.8 than the 85 f/1.8 at f/2.8, and very significantly so in the corners.

Light transmission is only of a concern for videographers. For still photography, through-the-lens metering takes care of those types of differences. And I really doubt there's much of a T-stop difference between the two when used at the same apertures.

Don't get me worng -- the 85 f/1.8 is a fantastic, great lens. And its usage profile certainly does overlap with the 70-200 II.

It's just that there's only a very, very narrow range of things that the 85 does better than the 70-200, and sharpness emphatically isn't one of them. And, if you've already got the 70-200, there's no point in the 85 unless you actually need one of those very few things (size / weight / noticeability and background separation at that subject distance) that it does better.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 19, 2013)

I own both the 85 1.8, the L, and the 70-200 2.8II.

My rather non-committal comment earlier was based on the fact you may want to invest in something new based on the way your post was phrased. The 85 f/1.8, if you can find a place for it in your line up, is a great lens.

For portraits you are not going to get the look from 70-200II at 2.8 that you will get from 85 f/1.8 at f2!!! they will look very different. The canon 85 is a dedicated portrait lens... 70-200II, while capable of taking great portraits, is a jack of many trades.

The reason Canon has not updated 85 f/1.8 since 1992 (20 years!), is not because they are lazy, but IMHO because they feel it is still good today, and has relevance. 

Also, sharpness is not everything in portraiture, though 85 1.8 is plenty sharp. I will have to give the nod to the zoom on sharpness _across the frame _ though 85 has really good center sharpness which is what you go for in portraiture for the most part.

Importantly, at the same focal length of 85mm, my passing impression was that there was a little more compression with the zoom than with the prime. I haven't tested this very carefully, but you shouldn't expect the same framing or "look" from the two lenses.

They are both competent in their own right.


----------



## TexasBadger (Mar 19, 2013)

I have both the 85 f/1.8 USM and the 70-200 f/2.8L. I find that the 85mm is an excellent portrait lens. It is also small and inconspicuous and focuses really fast. Great lens at a great price. If you can afford it I would buy it.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 20, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I'd ask why there is no 50mm, but that's just me.



I will echo RL's comment... 50 f/1.4 is affordable, even slightly cheaper than 85 f/1.8, and will do great portraits...you can walk back a bit and get a wider field of view (35-like "field" not "angle" of view) or closer and get near ~85mm range... 

Also you will actually get 2 stops more light from your 2.8 zoom. As for bokeh...it produces lovely blurred background.

Here is a simple 50mm f/1.4 shot stopped down to f/1.8.


----------



## helpful (Mar 20, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> helpful said:
> 
> 
> > The 85mm f/1.8 will give you better images at f/2.8 than the 70-200mm II as well much better light transmission.
> ...



No, the corners wide open on the 85mm f/1.8 are 2,888 line pairs per image height, versus 2,954-3,100 for the 70-200mm II. That difference is almost invisible. At f/2.8 they are essentially the same in resolution figures (28 line pairs difference), but the chromatic aberration of the 70-200 mm II is at least five times worse: 29 - 60% versus only 5% for the 85mm f/1.8.

The shallow depth of field of the 85mm f/1.8 causes halos around out of focus details, making people think that it is not sharp, but for me that's the beauty and my intent in using this lens.

It doesn't impress people watching me take pictures, but my photos impress the people selecting them for running in the news. I can react much more quickly, focus more quickly, and use 3-4 times faster shutter speeds.

There is that much of a Tstop difference when used at the same apertures.

As a reference for those who may own the 50mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.8 is much better. Even when stopped down two stops all the way down to f/2.8, the 50mm in the corners is worse than the corners of the 85mm wide open.


----------



## risc32 (Mar 20, 2013)

helpful how is it that you can use 3-4 times faster shutter speed with an 85mm 1.8 -vs- a 70-200mm 2.8 IS? you can react faster with a prime than a zoom? halos around out of focus objects making things appear less sharp? 

dude, what are you talking about?


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 20, 2013)

helpful said:


> No, the corners wide open on the 85mm f/1.8 are 2,888 line pairs per image height, versus 2,954-3,100 for the 70-200mm II. That difference is almost invisible. At f/2.8 they are essentially the same in resolution figures (28 line pairs difference), but the chromatic aberration of the 70-200 mm II is at least five times worse: 29 - 60% versus only 5% for the 85mm f/1.8.



No clue where you're getting those numbers from, 'cuz it shore don't match what I'm seeing with my own eyes over on Bryan's site:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Once again, the 85 f/1.8 is a wonderful lens, and it can unquestionably do things the 70-200 can't. But not much and not by much, and sharpness isn't one of those things.

And, seriously? Chromatic aberration five times worse with the 70-200? No clue what you're smoking. The 85 is notorious for those purple halos around specular highlights, and everything I've seen of the 70-200 shows CA to be negligible in the real world.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Zv (Mar 20, 2013)

I would't recommend it for OP unless you really need something wider than f/2.8 even then the 85 fringes so badly at those wide apertures it makes it pointless. However it does have one great use - put it on a 7D and you get some decent reach in a compact design. Great for street photography and sneaky candids.


----------



## helpful (Mar 20, 2013)

risc32 said:


> helpful how is it that you can use 3-4 times faster shutter speed with an 85mm 1.8 -vs- a 70-200mm 2.8 IS? you can react faster with a prime than a zoom? halos around out of focus objects making things appear less sharp?
> 
> dude, what are you talking about?



I will answer, but by my answer I mean no disrespect to those, like myself, who invested over $2,000 in the 70-200 lens:

In regards to stops:
The transmission of the 70-200 II is T/3.4. The Tstop of the 85mm f/1.8, in both Nikon AF-D and Canon USM versions, is almost exactly T/1.8 as advertised. Let's just say 1.9 to be safe. The reason for the difference is because of the sophisticated lens design in the 70-200mm II that is used to correct aberrations at many distances and many focal lengths, not to mention the extra elements used for the IS unit.

To compute the relative speed of lenses to one another, one simply divides the higher Tstop value by the lower Tstop value, then squares the result.
3.4/1.9 = 1.789
1.789 squared = 3.2, i.e., three times faster of a shutter speed. 3-4 times was a bit of an exaggeration because I did not actually do the math, but was just basing it off of real-world experience.

In regards to out of focus characteristics:
There are those who look at the edge of someone's jersey, and see a halo/blur, and return their lenses, not realizing that the plane of focus is sharp. It happens most often when people are shooting stage events from down in the seating, and their cameras consistently focus around waist level because that's the nearest object within the active focus points, making 80-90% of the shots unsharp.

By no means is the 85mm lens perfect, and yes, it does have the purple fringing problem, but at f/2.8 it does not have it more so than the 70-200 II lens.


----------



## preppyak (Mar 20, 2013)

risc32 said:


> helpful how is it that you can use 3-4 times faster shutter speed with an 85mm 1.8 -vs- a 70-200mm 2.8 IS? you can react faster with a prime than a zoom? halos around out of focus objects making things appear less sharp?
> 
> dude, what are you talking about?


Yeah, I mean, it's pretty well known that "f/2.8" is relative on a lot of lenses, similar to how "f/1.4" is relative on a lot of lenses; one f/1.4 is really f/1.6, one f/2.8 is really closer to f/3.2, etc. But, even if the f/2.8 of the 70-200 was really more like f/4, you still wouldn't get 3x fast shutter speeds on the 85mm.

Basically, the reason for you to get the 85mm is if you are shooting in rooms dark enough that you occasionally get motion blur with your 5dII. There, instead of shooting at 1/60th, you could be at 1/125th and avoid that issue, that'd be a big deal...as you'd avoid going that extra stop of ISO that can ruin photos. But, that's a pretty particular need. 

If you decide 85mm is "your focal length", then I'd consider getting the 85L instead...because the look it gives is undoubtedly incredible. If not, and you are comfortable shooting portraits at 135mm f/2.8 and getting about the same look as 85mm f/1.8, then save yourself the money. As someone who is looking into buying the 85mm, a lot of people selling it mention it's been made obsolete by their recent 70-200 purchase.


----------



## stipotle (Mar 20, 2013)

I have both the 85mm f/1.8 and the 70-200mm f/28 ISII.
I got the 85mm first, and yes it's true - I hardly pull the 85mm out anymore. I think it's mostly because of the flexibility of the 70-200mm, and because I tend to be comfortable at 200mm. 

BUT

I do still have uses for the 85mm. It is fun to have the extra stop (for both shallow DoF and light gathering), and you might enjoy working with the prime like *dstppy* said. Having 1 prime, just be able to work with the fixed focal length might be the biggest reason, and I personally think the 85mm 1.8 would be the prime to pick when having to keep price down. 

Do you _need_ it? probably not, but for under $400, I think it has enough uses to be worth it.


----------



## RGF (Mar 20, 2013)

mchale said:


> I have the 17-40 f4L, the 24-70 f2.8L and 70-200 f2.8L IS II
> Used on both the 7d and 5d mark II.
> 
> Will the 85mm f/1.8 give me noticeably better bokeh or any sharper images because it is a prime lens? I cannot afford another L lens at the moment.
> ...




The 85 mm will give you several things

1. a lighter lens - the 70-200F2.8 is heavy
2. 1 1/3 stops
3 perhap slight improvement in IQ
4 Make you picture much better because you have the lens you want. The makes the photographer happier and happy photographers take better pictures

So go for it


----------



## Saurus (Mar 20, 2013)

Check ou this review...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.8-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

He says: "I didn't find myself using the 85 f/1.8 very much after getting the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens. Although 1 1/3 stop slower, I found the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens to be far more versatile. 

The bottom line is that the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens is simply a very nice lens at a reasonable price. "


----------



## AudioGlenn (Mar 20, 2013)

I've been considering getting an 85mm since I sold my 50 (which I liked for portraits on a crop) but found that my 70-200 covers that need quite well. Every time I start to consider it again, I read something somewhere that reiterates how redundant it would be to have both the 70-200 and an 85mm. If or when I do get around to making that purchase, I'll have to go for the L. 2 stops of light might be worth it for me but it really isn't a big need right now.


----------



## timmy_650 (Mar 20, 2013)

I would use the 70-200 most of the time. The weight doesn't brother me, Only if it was too big for the place but that is rare for me.
Personally I would say save your money and save up for the 24-70 2.8 II.

I was looking at the 85 and 40 mostly bc i want a new toy. If you want a new toy it, will be a new toy and fit the bill.


----------



## CanNotYet (Mar 20, 2013)

First question: What do you shoot?
If it is mostly outdoors, landscapes, outdoor sports etc. I would say stay with 70-200 2.8
If you do portraits and/or indoor sports (or similar) with bad lighting and need for fast shutter speeds, get the 85 1.8.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 20, 2013)

mchale said:


> I have the 17-40 f4L, the 24-70 f2.8L and 70-200 f2.8L IS II
> Used on both the 7d and 5d mark II.
> 
> Will the 85mm f/1.8 give me noticeably better bokeh or any sharper images because it is a prime lens? I cannot afford another L lens at the moment.
> ...



Canon 85/1.8 is a good lens but old and far from superlative for today's standards. It only gets sharp around f/2.8, and wider than that you're also going to be cursed by CA and fringing. Bottom line: in your kit it will be an unremarkable addition.

If you want a portrait prime to expand you possibilities - which means one that you can comfortably use wide open - buy the Sigma 85/1.4.


----------



## bholliman (Mar 20, 2013)

RS2021 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I'd ask why there is no 50mm, but that's just me.
> ...



+1 to RL and RS's endorsement of a 50mm prime. 

I have the 70-200 2.8 II, 85 1.8 and 50 1.4 for use on my 6D and 7D. My 50mm gets more use than the other two for low light situations and shots of our 11-month old around the house. 

That said the 85mm is a terrific lens, light and fast with nice bokeh. Since I added a 135L, I've used the 85mm less often, but still recommend it highly.

The 70-200 2.8 II is of course extremely versatile. I use it for events where I don't have time to change primes. It also gets plenty of landscape and short range wildlife use. After my 24-105L, its my 2nd most used lens overall.

For me, I enjoy having the flexibility of owning 50, 85 and 135mm primes in addition to a 70-200 2.8. If I had to choose 3 of the 4 however, I would probably sell the 85mm first.


----------



## coryparris (Mar 20, 2013)

Images shot with wider apertures pop off of the background more. I shoot mostly primes and love the 85 1.8. Small, light, very quick to focus, sharp, and lovely bokeh. The only knocks on this lens are the CA, which is easily removed in LR, and it sucks up dust so much that I have to have the innards cleaned once every couple years. I own 2 85 1.8's.


----------



## mdmphoto (Mar 21, 2013)

I have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS "I" and I love it. It is versatile, sharp, impresses civilians, and so on. I also have the 85 1.8, which is rather discrete or even nondescript. It takes great portrait shots, and because of the wider aperture, comes in quite handy indoors for available-light portraiture. I owned the 85 before the 70-200, but I would buy one anyway just for that extra 1 1/3 stops that will help me get some shots that would be otherwise unavailable to me. Fringing and other aberrations are easily fixed, usually automatically, in current versions of most modern editing software.


----------

