# 50mm vs 85mm on FF for portraits & group portraits?



## JRPhotos (Sep 12, 2016)

I moved up from Canon 7DMKII to a Canon 5DMKIV. On my 7D I used the Canon 35 1.4 L II which I LOVED; portraits and group portraits came out really well. Now, on the 5D, it's so wide and if I get closer there's distortion. 

I need to replace this lens with either a 50 or 85 for the two types of shots. Never used either on FF. I'd rent but it's so much money to do so. What is recommended for the two types of photos?


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 12, 2016)

24-70 II. The 50L has lower resolution and is harder to get good results. I also find the 70mm to be shorter than what I'd like, and that's when I tend to use a 70-200, but if you're trying to match the AOV of the 35L II on the 7D, then the 24-70 would suffice.

This is one of the main reasons why there are so many threads here and elsewhere asking for a 50L or 50 f/1.4 update. Some people will use the Sigma 50 Art, but it's not first party AF, so it's AF performance varies based on how each photographer uses the camera and what camera he is using.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 12, 2016)

At this time, Canon does not offer any 50mm or 85mm with good value for money. I've had the Canon 50mm F1.4 and hated the contrast and sharpness when used in F2 or more open. Now I am very pleased with the Sigma 50Art.

To complement the great 35L II, the Canon 85mm F1.8 seems pretty decent when used in F2 or more closed. I preferred the Canon 100mm F2 for my purposes.


----------



## d (Sep 12, 2016)

JR, what aperture are you normally shooting at for your portraits? You should give the Canon 50mm 1.8 STM a try - it takes a pretty good photo once it's stopped down slightly, and for group shots you're probably stopped down a bit anyway for DOF. And it's cheap!

d.


----------



## JRPhotos (Sep 12, 2016)

d said:


> JR, what aperture are you normally shooting at for your portraits? You should give the Canon 50mm 1.8 STM a try - it takes a pretty good photo once it's stopped down slightly, and for group shots you're probably stopped down a bit anyway for DOF. And it's cheap!
> 
> d.



Good question, I should have had that in my OP. 

It depends, normally, I shot at 1.4 - 1.6 for most portraits.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 12, 2016)

JRPhotos said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > JR, what aperture are you normally shooting at for your portraits? You should give the Canon 50mm 1.8 STM a try - it takes a pretty good photo once it's stopped down slightly, and for group shots you're probably stopped down a bit anyway for DOF. And it's cheap!
> ...


For my personal taste, not even the Canon 50L has good sharpness and contrast when used in F1.4.
In this case, Sigma 50Art is a solid choice for optics, and still unknown to the AF performance in the 5D Mark iv.


----------



## DannyPwins (Sep 12, 2016)

I would stay with the 35mm. If you must purchase a new lens look at the 40mm pancake or 17-40L depending on your needs. Unless you have a lot of distance between you and the group you're shooting I would stay away from the 85mm. Just my opinion.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 12, 2016)

JRPhotos said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > JR, what aperture are you normally shooting at for your portraits? You should give the Canon 50mm 1.8 STM a try - it takes a pretty good photo once it's stopped down slightly, and for group shots you're probably stopped down a bit anyway for DOF. And it's cheap!
> ...



I'll be interested to see where you are with this in a few months and whether or not you're scratching your head wondering why you didn't stick with the 7DII and 35/1.4II 

Seems what you want is a 58mm at about f/2.8


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Sep 12, 2016)

JRPhotos said:


> I moved up from Canon 7DMKII to a Canon 5DMKIV. On my 7D I used the Canon 35 1.4 L II which I LOVED; portraits and group portraits came out really well. Now, on the 5D, it's so wide and if I get closer there's distortion.
> 
> I need to replace this lens with either a 50 or 85 for the two types of shots. Never used either on FF. I'd rent but it's so much money to do so. What is recommended for the two types of photos?



Given how you shoot portraits, the 85mm f/1.2L II would be an excellent compliment to your 35L. Aside from the 200mm f.2.0L, it is the best, classic portrait lens that Canon makes. It can often be had for a significant discount on the Canon refurbished site or elsewhere. I also like the 24-70mm f/2.8L as an all-around lens that is also excellent, and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is also a great portrait lens, but the bokeh from the 85mm f/1.2L II is unmatched.


----------



## JRPhotos (Sep 13, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> JRPhotos said:
> 
> 
> > d said:
> ...


I have been considering just sending it back or selling it to avoid the 15% restocking fee. I really miss the 35 on a crop sensor. I had a shoot tonight that I used both bodies but on the 5D I had to use to Canon 100 f/2.8 L lens to get a similar look that I usually shoot for. If I could just test out the 85 1.2 from someone local I may stay with the 5D if I am happy with it.


----------



## timmy_650 (Sep 13, 2016)

Buy a 50 1.8 stm and and see if you like the FL. It will run about $100 and can be sold for $80 pretty easy. So it is $20 to try and you might like it. It will be a lot better than reading about it.


----------



## geekpower (Sep 13, 2016)

the 50/1.2 is fantastic for environmental portraits (sharp in the center with dreamy bokeh around the edges) and is the focal length you want if you are used to 35mm on the cropped sensor. however, for groups you might find it too soft around the edges to get everyone in focus, so the earlier suggestion of the 24-70/2.8 might be your best bet.


----------



## JohnUSA (Sep 13, 2016)

Keep the 35mm and get the Tamron 85mm f1.8 IS... Focus is super accurate, consistent and sharp!


----------



## rs (Sep 13, 2016)

To have an equivalent of the 35/1.4 on crop with your new 5D4, you're looking at a 56/2.24 lens. In other words, the 50/1.8 STM, while slightly short, would easily give good results stopped down to that aperture. As others have recommended, the 24-70/2.8 II is an excellent stand in. Hardly any slower, but lots more flexibility.

If you do want to go down the prime route, having just a 35 and a 50 will give you two lenses which are very close to each other in terms of AoV. A more common approach is a 35 and an 85 - with the 85L being a real stand out lens. Use the 35L for group shots, and the 85L for portraits.


----------



## Duckman (Sep 13, 2016)

50mm on full frame will most closely match the 35L on the 7d and is what I would personally recommend as a direct replacement. The 24-70ii is a great general purpose lens and is a good suggestion/replacement, unless
that extra bokeh from a wide a prime is a must. 
It might be worth shooting more with the 35; it may grow on you.
assuming you have no other lenses I normally would normally recommend having more spread between focal lengths but, if you really don't like the 35 I would recommend a 50mm ESP for group portraits And sell the 35. It's usually easier to get closer to frame your shot than it is to get further away. You can always crop too if needed with the 50 (or the 35). 85 might get too tight for groups. (Indoor mostly) That said-
I do have the 85L and it is absolutely wonderful portrait lens; great resolution and rendering though it suffers from purple fringing/chromatic abberations wide open with high contrast areas. Autofocus is quite slow compared to anything else I've ever used (though very accurate) so it is not a great general purpose lens IMO. So IF portraits is all you need it for, perhaps it's worthwhile. The 85 1.8 also has some abberations wide open, faster autofocus, a fraction of the price but doesn't render as well.
The 50L I've used for a portrait shoot and was underwhelmed by it honestly. I own the 50 1.4 and as another stated f2 or wider is crap basically. It is also inexspensive but, The build quality isn't great. Optically 2.8-8 it's great.. My brother recently got the sigma 50 ART and is very pleased so far. No focus issues with 5div (which seems to be the only real concern with it). So that's worth considering.
If it's possible get the 24-70 2.8 and a prime 50 or 85 and you'll be pretty well covered.
35/85 prime combo can also cover the bases well.
-J

P.s. Forgive my format, this was sent on an iPhone


----------



## jd7 (Sep 13, 2016)

Duckman said:


> ...
> It might be worth shooting more with the 35; it may grow on you.
> assuming you have no other lenses I normally would normally recommend having more spread between focal lengths but, if you really don't like the 35 I would recommend a 50mm ESP for group portraits And sell the 35. It's usually easier to get closer to frame your shot than it is to get further away. You can always crop too if needed with the 50 (or the 35). 85 might get too tight for groups. (Indoor mostly)
> ...
> ...



At the risk of straying too far off topic ...

I have seen lots of comments on the internet about 35 and 50 being so close together it's not worth having both. However, to me they do give a substantially different look/result from each other. And I don't think using a 35 and moving forwards is really the answer, in that I think that change of perspective makes a very real difference at typical portrait subject distances. However, is it possible the real reason 35 and 50 is often regarded as "too close" to each because, unless you are printing very large and really cannot afford to lose the pixels, you can use the 35 but stand back and then crop in post to match the 50 AOV?

Curious about this as I'm really enjoying the Sigma 35 Art, and as much as I like 85mm I often prefer a bit of background/environment in portraits and rarely shoot headshots, which has got me thinking about whether I *need* (ahem) a 50 Art 

(And yes, I guess I just need to set my 24-70 at 50mm for a while and see how I feel about it. Just have to find time to do it!)


----------



## Luds34 (Sep 13, 2016)

jd7 said:


> However, is it possible the real reason 35 and 50 is often regarded as "too close" to each because, unless you are printing very large and really cannot afford to lose the pixels, you can use the 35 but stand back and then crop in post to match the 50 AOV?
> 
> Curious about this as I'm really enjoying the Sigma 35 Art, and as much as I like 85mm I often prefer a bit of background/environment in portraits and rarely shoot headshots, which has got me thinking about whether I *need* (ahem) a 50 Art



I agree with your two main points. 35mm and 50mm are far enough apart that they do give distinct looks. But I also agree with your statement about it being just as easy to use 35mm and crop a bit to gave a similar FOV/look as the 50mm.

I've had the Sigma 35mm Art for over a year now and it is my favorite lens. The shots I get are just so contrasty and pop. I also love the 35mm focal range to capture people/portrait shots that really show the environment.


----------



## Duckman (Sep 13, 2016)

jd7 said:


> Duckman said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I generally agree they are not too close; I have both and I certainly think it's worth it to have both... and then some! Just not if you ONLY own two lenses. that is just my personally opinion. If were to have only two lenses, I would find it far more versatile to have a 35mm and 85mm for portraiture (and other types of photography). Having very different FOV and distortion/compression qualities would potentially yield far different results and possibilities than a 35/50 combo ever could IMO, and that's why I say too close. And yes, most times if you aren't too close you can just crop the 35! *(unless you need every pixel like you mentioned)
If I was to only have one lens for portraiture (or general photography) I would go with 50mm, for versatility as well; it's wide enough to include some environment and also would allow head shots (or anything up close) without distortion. 
The 35L is one of my most used wedding lenses BTW. I have also seen 35 used up close to intentionally create a distorted/unique type portrait however I suspect most people, woman especially, that pay for a portrait shoot do not want that type of a 'dramatic' shot. 
I embrace all focal lengths. I just use them to serve different purposes. Just my 2 cents
-J


----------



## manyhats (Sep 13, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> At this time, Canon does not offer any 50mm or 85mm with good value for money. I've had the Canon 50mm F1.4 and hated the contrast and sharpness when used in F2 or more open. Now I am very pleased with the Sigma 50Art.
> 
> To complement the great 35L II, the Canon 85mm F1.8 seems pretty decent when used in F2 or more closed. I preferred the Canon 100mm F2 for my purposes.



terrible advice. the 50L is super sharp if used properly. who cares about contrast? RAW & LR are your friends.


----------



## Pookie (Sep 13, 2016)

manyhats said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > At this time, Canon does not offer any 50mm or 85mm with good value for money. I've had the Canon 50mm F1.4 and hated the contrast and sharpness when used in F2 or more open. Now I am very pleased with the Sigma 50Art.
> ...



Yea 50L does rock, the worst advice here but then again its a forum so take it with a grain of salt. 

I'm really surprised that the OP wants a 50 or 85 for group portraits. A prime would really be a waste as the DOF would limit the size and depth of people stacking if it's needed for low light. If it's not needed for low light there are much better suited lenses for such a task. In this circumstance I would and often do use a 16-35 f/4 as even in low light with a group most people can stand still long enough for a good shot with an appropriately large enough DOF. In my business, weddings and portrait photography the 16-35 has become indispensable.


----------



## JRPhotos (Sep 13, 2016)

Pookie said:


> manyhats said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



I primarily used the 35 for couples and single photos but have used it in the past for groups with success but for large groups I typically switch over to the 24-105 and sacrifice the shallow depth of field due to the positioning if everyone.

The 85 1.2L II will arrive this Thursday for me to test. I used my Canon 100MM Macro L lens for portrait session last night and really liked how the bokeh came out but was a little limited being at 100 so I'm hoping that the 85 will be better. If it's not, I'll consider the 50. I had rented the 50 1.2 on my Canon 7D a few years ago and found it very difficult to get any tact sharp photos in a timley fashion with the slow auto-focus.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 13, 2016)

It may come down to personal preference, but I found (on a crop camera) that 30mm seemed best for groups, 50mm for individuals, 100 for head shots, and 600mm was to be avoided at all times


----------



## Pookie (Sep 13, 2016)

JRPhotos said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > manyhats said:
> ...



The 85L is a killer lens... enjoy it. Probably not a good idea to rent as you'll want to keep it 

One of my favorites for work and play...




So many people talk smack about the 50L but at least in my hands it delivers consistently... also another great choice but you may want to hold off until v2. Not that v1 is bad at all, i love it actually for all things from close ups to distance. Nice carry size to when you can only use one but need low light.

This was shot at f/1.6...


----------



## d (Sep 13, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> ...and 600mm was to be avoided at all times



;D


----------



## yungfat (Sep 14, 2016)

DannyPwins said:


> I would stay with the 35mm. If you must purchase a new lens look at the 40mm pancake or 17-40L depending on your needs. Unless you have a lot of distance between you and the group you're shooting I would stay away from the 85mm. Just my opinion.



Hi DannyPwins, just asking, I thought many people have abandoned 17-40 f/4 go with the 16-35 f/4?
You might be the owner of 17-40, wish to know your thoughts on this lens.Thank you.


----------



## DannyPwins (Sep 14, 2016)

yungfat said:


> DannyPwins said:
> 
> 
> > I would stay with the 35mm. If you must purchase a new lens look at the 40mm pancake or 17-40L depending on your needs. Unless you have a lot of distance between you and the group you're shooting I would stay away from the 85mm. Just my opinion.
> ...



I've personally never used it, but from the reviews I've read the 16-35 f4 is a great lens. Sharper all around than the 17-40, especially at the corners. I have the 17-40 f4 and it's fine for my needs. I shoot mainly events and assist in occasional videos for a young youtube star. The ultra wide-angle lenses are fun (at their widest angle) because they give you a unique look..focusing closely while getting a lot of background with your subject. You probably won't do too many shots like that often. I personally love them because I can shoot groups in tight spaces when I need to. The 17-40 is a lot cheaper though, almost half the price from canon refurb store (I buy almost all my lenses there). Here's a website I found that does a great comparison of both lenses. http://www.grahamclarkphoto.com/canon-16-35mm-f4-review-hands-on-shootout-17-40/

Looking over my post I may have gotten a little distracted..lol.
I think the 17-40 is still a great lens, especially for the price now. I would get the 16-35 f 2.8 iii if I could afford it though. I didn't like my experience with the 16-35 f2.8 ii.


----------



## Pookie (Sep 14, 2016)

DannyPwins said:


> yungfat said:
> 
> 
> > DannyPwins said:
> ...



I own both the 16-35 f/4 IS and 16-35 f/2.8 II, also the 17-40 and 11-24. The 16-35 f/4 is the winner in my book as it is ridiculously sharp with little distortion. Unlike the 11-24 which can distort the foreground very strongly. I rarely use the 11-24 as when I want that much distortion I usually go for a fisheye. 

The 17-40 cannot compete with these lenses... great lens but it's long in the tooth and nowhere near as sharp as the current offerings. I keep it to put on bodies that do scud work where I don't really care if it takes a dive. Not sure I'll get the new 16-35 f/2.8 though as I like the IS and for wide angles I rarely use the 2.8.


----------



## suntoryboss_ (Sep 15, 2016)

No mention for the 135L? Isn't this more bang for buck for potraits?


----------



## Pookie (Sep 15, 2016)

suntoryboss_ said:


> No mention for the 135L? Isn't this more bang for buck for potraits?



Probably my second favorite lens behind the 85L... but the OP specifically asked about the 50 and 85. I would and do actually take the 135L over the 200 f/2 most of the time (both lenses were gifts from my wife  ). So much easier a carry.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 15, 2016)

suntoryboss_ said:


> No mention for the 135L? Isn't this more bang for buck for potraits?



Too long for the OP. He's trying to replicate the FOV of a 35 on APS-C to FF. 50 is closer, 85 is a little longer. 135 is too long.


----------



## d (Sep 15, 2016)

Pookie said:


> suntoryboss_ said:
> 
> 
> > No mention for the 135L? Isn't this more bang for buck for potraits?
> ...



Whoa, how do you get a wife like that!?!


----------



## Pookie (Sep 15, 2016)

d said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > suntoryboss_ said:
> ...



I lucked out


----------



## Baba_HT (Sep 29, 2016)

I love the 50mm on my 5dmk3 for portraits and daily shots. I always have 35 prime but want to add the 85 also. I think the 24mm is too wide for portraits. too much distortion

8)


----------

