# Best effective use of my 50mm f/1.4



## RMC33 (Jan 1, 2013)

I have been doing some event work lately and have found the need for an 80-100mm "portrait" lens. I have a 5DIII 2x 5DII and 7D for bodies. I generally work with a 24-70 f/2.8 MKI on the 5DIII with a 600 EX RT and 70-200 f/2.8 IS MKI on the 5D II with a 2nd 600 EX RT and the 50 f/1.4 on the second 5dII. The issue I run into is I have a lot of crop work on the 50 f/1.4 to get that ideal portrait look. 

I was thinking today (doing some wildlife work since the snow has been out in force) while shooting my 7D that the 50 would become an 80mm. I have rented 85 f/1.2's in the past and not liked them for one reason or another. So the question is: Using a 50mm f1.4 on a 7D will make it an 80mm, BUT how much light do I lose due to the crop factor? Has anyone done this with much success? Or should I just buy an 85 f/1.2 and learn to love it? I also would not be opposed if the 7D +50 idea works to buying a 50 f/1.2. I also own a 100 f/2.8 IS Macro but the DOF is a bit too shallow for what I want without stopping down to f/5.6


----------



## rs (Jan 1, 2013)

When using a 1.6x crop sensor, multiply both the focal length and the aperture by 1.6x to work out what the lens would be equivalent to. So the 50/1.4 will act like an 80/2.2 lens in terms of field of view and DoF - and as it happens, a 1.6x camera should be just over a stop (x1.6) worse than full frame for noise.

Exactly the same thing will happen if you shoot with your 5D II and crop to that same central part of the frame your 7D sees.

You'll gain a clearer idea about the 80mm composition with the 7D, and of course get better AF. If you don't need it wider than 80mm, the 7D will make life easier.

If you're looking for a FF equivalent of the 50 on crop, as it works out at 80/2.2, the faster focusing Canon 85/1.8 is nearer to a direct equivalent than the 85L. The Sigma 85/1.4 is meant to be quite good too.


----------



## gjones5252 (Jan 1, 2013)

If the depth of field on the 100 2.8 is to shallow for what your looking for then the 85mm 1.2 would not be the lens for you. And personally just because its a lens that receives rave reviews calling it the best portrait lens doesn't mean its a lens for your portraits. I think if you should give it a chance and you have already done that but if there are things that drive you nuts then getting it again isn't going to remove them. Get 85 1.8 if you like that focal length, save your self a bunch of money, and you will get a lens that looks great stopped down. 
As far as using your 50 1.4 on a crop camera that is great. Some of my favorite lens combinations are with EF lens on EF-s camera. I would challenge you to find out why though. Is it the focal length? is it the smaller body? Once you know what you like about it you can decipher for yourself if a new lens is the key to carry your style to a full frame.


----------



## RMC33 (Jan 1, 2013)

RS,

THanks for the reply I had assumed that everything got the 1.6X treatment. I have not tried a Sigma f/1.4 or the Canon 85 f/1.8. Will be trying both for a week it seems. 


gjones5252,

I found the DOF on the 85 f/1.2 to be hard to work with in an active people moving around setting. If one person in the shot moves a bit forward the shot can be ruined, or with two people flanking a central subject and at a slight angle. I guess I can give it all a try. I do know what you mean about APS-C bodies. Something fun about them and an EF series lens. I personally enjoy my 100 f/2.8 Macro on that camera more then the 5d3.


----------



## bycostello (Jan 1, 2013)

don't know the precise technicalities of light loss... but none that you'd notice...


----------



## elflord (Jan 1, 2013)

RMC33 said:


> I was thinking today (doing some wildlife work since the snow has been out in force) while shooting my 7D that the 50 would become an 80mm. I have rented 85 f/1.2's in the past and not liked them for one reason or another. So the question is: Using a 50mm f1.4 on a 7D will make it an 80mm, BUT how much light do I lose due to the crop factor?



In terms of depth of field, it behaves like an 80mm f/2.4 on a full frame.

In terms of metering, it meters like any f/1.4 lens but the smaller sensor won't tolerate as high ISO settings. 



> Has anyone done this with much success? Or should I just buy an 85 f/1.2 and learn to love it? I also would not be opposed if the 7D +50 idea works to buying a 50 f/1.2. I also own a 100 f/2.8 IS Macro but the DOF is a bit too shallow for what I want without stopping down to f/5.6



If you want to shoot an 85mm lens and get similar depth of field to what you would get on APS-C with 50mm at f/1.4, you need to stop it down to about f/2.4 on full frame (assuming subject distance and therefore composition are the same in both cases -- the 50mm lens focuses closer than any 85mm lens so this assumption isn't always true). Generally you can get away with shooting primes wide open on APS-C whereas on full frame you need to stop down much more often.


----------



## CharlieB (Jan 1, 2013)

RMC33 said:


> Using a 50mm f1.4 on a 7D will make it an 80mm, BUT *how much light do I lose* due to the crop factor? Has *anyone done this* with much success?



1. You don't lose any light
2. Yup, all the time

And the big 3.

What makes you think you need a super fast lens for portraiture? The DOF at 1.4 o 1.2 is mniscule... like the eye in focus, and the eyelashes not in focus.

Classic portraits where you have the eyes and nose both in focus.. you're going to shoot at f/5.6

Intimate portraits... you can shoot however you want for effect, but things go get dicey as far as keepers go when you shoot so close, so wide open, with a (slightly moving) human subject and hand held camera. Very dicey.

As far as oof part of the image is concerned, any outdoor background will be well blurred with 100mm shooting at f/5.6, so no worries there. If you're doing studio portraiture - well, there's a reason all sorts of muslin prints and such were created to give the soft background effect. You'll need a few feet of separation for shadow control anyway, except with the broadest (and most boring) of lighting setups.

If you're tending FF, 100macro gives you dual duty of portraiture and macro

I've always found the 85 too short for portraits, tend to go with 100 for head-n-shoulders and 135 for closer


----------



## Meh (Jan 1, 2013)

Completely agree with CharlieB...

*How much light do I lose due to the crop factor?*

None, the exposure is the same. Only FOV and DOF change. There could be a slight difference between different bodies because ISO ratings are perfectly standardized (for digital sensors) but that has nothing to do with sensor size per se.

*I have a lot of crop work on the 50 f/1.4 to get that ideal portrait look. 
*
I suppose that depends on the portrait you're shooting. A 3/4 portrait or an environmental portrait could be nice with a 50mm. Getting close for head shots might have too much perspective distortion... big noses are not good unless they are painted red!

*I have been doing some event work lately and have found the need for an 80-100mm "portrait" lens.... I have rented 85 f/1.2's in the past and not liked them for one reason or another.*

The 85mm f1.2 is a sweet lens, but if you don't like it you don't like it. Have you tried shooting your portraits with the 70-200mm since it covers the range you need? The Mark I isn't considered to be the sharpest lens but should be quite good enough for event portraits... besides, your subjects may not want to see the pores in their skin anyway 

*I also own a 100 f/2.8 IS Macro but the DOF is a bit too shallow for what I want without stopping down to f/5.6*

I don't get this statement... the 100mm f/2.8 is too shallow but you want the 85mm f/1.2. If you have to stop down to f/5.6 with the 100mm to get the look you want then you'd have to do the same with the 85mm. Am I misunderstanding something?


----------



## RMC33 (Jan 1, 2013)

I guess portraits was the wrong term. I need a faster lens in situations where I can't use a flash due to either the size of the room or the color/texture of the ceiling. This is mainly convention halls with high ceilings where a bounce will not work. I have worked a few smaller venues with this issue as well (mainly texture/color of the ceiling). The distances involved usually exceed 50ft, or the texture/color on the ceiling/walls is black and has the texture of a sound room. 

For studio I run my 100 and 70-200 and get wonderful results. 

I guess I should have thought my question out a bit more before going to work last night.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 1, 2013)

The 50mm is usable for portraits, but the 100mm F/2 or 135L is ideal.


----------



## gjones5252 (Jan 3, 2013)

RMC33 said:


> RS,
> gjones5252,
> 
> I found the DOF on the 85 f/1.2 to be hard to work with in an active people moving around setting. If one person in the shot moves a bit forward the shot can be ruined, or with two people flanking a central subject and at a slight angle. I guess I can give it all a try. I do know what you mean about APS-C bodies. Something fun about them and an EF series lens. I personally enjoy my 100 f/2.8 Macro on that camera more then the 5d3.


I totally understand what you mean. I had the 85 1.2 ii for about a week. I like it...sorta. When people were sitting still and i got the focus right it was very good. But for weddings, portraits or any other seemingly high paced picture environment it was just a really frustrating endeavor. 
Yeah the 100 2.8 has actually become one of my favorites to play around with. I can use it to take a great sharp picture and then very easily be operating the camera in video mode and it looks like i have a stabilizer. The IS works so well. 
I do love the 50mm range as well. I am eager about looking for an upgrade to any of the 50mm line. Not that the current ones are good i just havent purchased one yet(other than the 501.8ii and my wife dropped it. Great manual focus lens now) and so i might as well wait to purchase one of the upgraded ones. Especially if it has IS. It does wonders for video. And it just as fun to toy around with when there is no tripod available.


----------

