the volume level in your video is too low. an annoyingly loud ad came up and scared the shit out of me. You need to learn how to level your audio properly
For portraits I use the 85mm to focus the eye on my client and I use the 50mm to incorporate my environment. The 85mm makes the background wider and closer. But I have the same problem and bought both lol😂
I love the 85mm. I already have a 35mm, I’m definitely adding the 85mm to my lineup. Also, it’s worth mentioning that it’s great idea to rent the lens you want before purchasing. Try before you buy!
The 50mm is good, I use it for street photography and portraits, but I’m very invested in the 85mm. I plan on trying it out this summer for street and family portraits.
The thing is this: if you were to get closer to the model with the 50 you would get much more background blur. I have used both lenses in the past and the 85mm hands down is better for portraiture. However the 50mm 1.2 is just as amazing a lens and the background blur is just as good but you have to get much closer to the model otherwise you get environmental portraits. The lens that beats both the 50 1.2 and the 851.2 with background blur is the 135 1.8 The difference between the 135 and the 85 is that the 85 1.2 beats the 135 when it comes to subject separation but the 135 beats the 85 when it comes to background blur
In those images, I generally have a strong preference for the 50mm shots. The 85mm gives more background blur, obviously, but I like the bokeh on the 50mm too and I find the 50mm shots more interesting and engaging. Seeing 55mm and 65mm (eg Sigma 65nm f2) shots for comparison would be interesting too.
50mm was my first lens back in the 80s, and I'd been drooling over my roommate's 85/1.4 for DECADES, hearing it was the ultimate portrait lens and more complimentary to the model, until I got the rough equivalent when I went M4/3... and was a little disappointed (42.5/1.7). I don't have an MFT "50" to compare it with. Your shoot underscored for me that the compression in the 85 removes some of the reality / life from the subject compared to the 50, so I find the 50 more life-like, lively, and engaging... which surprised me after all those decades. Thank you for posting this!
I am with you, both are needed. In fact I would add a 35mm fast 1.4 as well. In the portrait world, the 35mm is a story telling lens. With the 35mm full body, you are able to highlight the subject and the setting equally. The 50mm lens is still a story telling lens, but with slightly more emphasis on the subject. The 85mm will create more bokeh background blur and places primarily emphasis on the subject. Now there is one other way to use focal length. If someone has a wide fuller face, and is self conscious of it, a 35mm used up close will narrow the features. On the other end, an 50mm lens up close tends to flatten the features and produce a wider face. The 85mm is in my opinion, as you stated, a more “Normal Lens” Now there’s going to be people commenting that the 50mm lens in the “Normal Lens” not the 85mm. That was and is true for vintage lenses from the 40s to 60s, but optics has evolved since then. In the vintage time period, were many of these phrases became gospel, 85mm lenses were extremely expensive, and overly distorted the frame. This is simply no longer the case, making the modern 85mm the more “Normal Lens”.
You say, "If someone has a wide fuller face, and is self conscious of it, a 35mm used up close will narrow the features. On the other end, an 50mm lens up close tends to flatten the features and produce a wider face. The 85mm is in my opinion, as you stated, a more “Normal Lens”. So in your opinion, a "normal lens" is not a lens between a fattening 50mm and a narrowing 35mm lens but rather a lens that results in an even fatter face than the already fat 50mm. Is this what I am hearing? I shoot lingerie and swimwear and I can assure you that I have never met a woman who wants a broad fat face and large ears, which is exactly what you get when you shoot at the distances facilitating the use of 85mm or longer.
I shoot with 50mm and 85mm focal length lenses on full-frame cameras. I prefer to use the 50mm for environmental portraits, full-length portraits, and 3/4 length portraits. I like to use the 85mm for half-length portraits, head & shoulder portraits, and face shots. For tight face shots, I like to use 105mm or 135mm focal lengths. For group portraits, I use 35mm or 28mm focal length lenses.
@@Big_belly_kingdom I only used prime lenses until I received a Tamron 28-200mm zoom as a gift from a friend. Fell in love with that zoom lens. I especially love using it when taking portraits on the beach where I do not want to expose my camera and prime lenses to wind, sand, and saltwater while changing focal lengths.
Have a 24mm 2.8, a 50mm 1.8, and am considering an 85mm now. I like the way the 85mm seems to make your subject *pop* just a little more from the background compression.
The 50 mm prime has been a mainstay of mine and love it. That said, I did consider getting an 85 mm for portraits because of all the positive reviews of that focal length. After more deliberating I chose to go with a 100 mm macro. To me it fits the bill of having a bit more reach , is pin sharp for portraits, bokeh is decent, and it's also a macro lens when I want it!.
Pin sharp for portraits??? You must have models with flawless skin and brows. Most women do not appreciate pin sharp resolution of their face with every single flaw on full display.
if you can bare the long distance between yourself and the subject, a good 135MM lens absolutely smokes the 50mm, 85mm, and 24-70(i know, a zoom?!!! gasp!! the gmaster is super sharp on sony). the drawback is the distance from the subject and you run out of space quickly in some tighter spots.
@@sexysilversurfer You are condescending! What made you believe Wojtek had a hearing problem? He was right and honest enough to provide the author feedback. The video volume is so low I had to boost it up so much that the random ad almost blasts its sound to the roof. Jessica, your video audio needs to amplify by 25%.Thanks!
I went with the Canon 85mm F1.2 and have no regrets. That said I think they both are excellent. I also use my canon RF 28-70 F2 as it is amazing and feels like shooting a prime at all its focal lengths.
Thank you for the informative video! I would still prefer 50mm prime because I'm used to my lens but I'm keen to try the 85mm. I really hope your videos will get more views in the future because your vid deserves it.
After seeing this video, i now understand why most RU-vidrs say the 85mm should be your fourth lens purchase. A nice to have lens but not recommended over other choices such as a 28, 50 or a 28-75 zoom lens. Since i plan on using a camera as a hobby for street/event photography, most likely i will start off with a 28-75mm f2.8 lens. Thanks for sharing your comparison.
beginner here; since you can adjust aperture to get the same bokeh effect on both, does it not make sense to get a 50mm and move closer to the subject if you want that more personal close up view? Doesn't the distance from the subject compensate for the difference in focal length? Or am I missing something?
There are no zoom lenses between these two focal lengths that can provide such incredibly fast aperatures that these two lenses provide... there are 24 -70mm f.2.8 lenses that are very sharp and contrasty but are 3 stops slower.
Each lens have a different goal. The 50mm gives a better relation of the subject and surroundings, the 85mm is more for classic portraits and when is needed to separate the subject of it's surroundings. Also to notice, the 85mm doesn't give a more real view of the subject, it just doesn't have the deformation that the 50mm gives.
50mm is Great for more look to the scene but if u take stolen to the specific 85mm is great.. . also use the right aperture for the scene .. i think the best all around is 24-70mm F2 if u bring only one lens .. or the 35mm -150mm Tamron
great video and suggestions. Thank you for this information. I have a 50mm and 35mm. But I am trying to decide if I should add a 85mm. Best that I rent it and try it for myself.
@@darkreigncometh Why? Do you have clients who want their face to appear fat? Or are you only looking at the potential for a very blurred out background that looks like an airbrushed studio backdrop as opposed to a real environment?
@joansmith7649 I have never had a client's face look fat or complain about that with an 85mm. My backgrounds are blurred, but I typically use an aperture of 3.5 to 4 to keep things mostly in focus.
@@darkreigncometh A typical portrait client won't notice the difference unless you show them a side-by-side comparison and ask them which one looks more attractive. Invariably they will select the shot taken with the 50mm, especially if you spent 2 minutes and reduced nose size by 3% in PhotoShop for the 50mm image.
The very first lens I owned as a beginner photographer was the nifty 50. It was a Canon 50 mm 1.8. Everyone told me I should start with the 50 mm as it was so versatile. But when I started, none of the photos wowed me. They were technically fine. But nothing that made people go wow. My next lens was the 85 mm 1.8. And that was a game changer. Even with my most mundane pictures, I got compliments at how gorgeous the pics were. No matter what I took, I got some compliments from someone. It was as if it was impossible to take a bad photo. Over many years, I've expanded my lineup. Now my most common lens is the RF 35 mm 1.8 but my default go-to lens is my RF 85 1.2. Whenever I want to grab a lens, it's the 85. The 50 falls in this limbo zone with me. It's not as wide as the 35 and doesn't really capture the environment well or groups well. But it's not beautiful like the 85. I've been going wider at one end of the spectrum (I want a high quality 24 mm) and more telephoto at the other end, leaving a big gap between 35 and 85.
@@TelevisionCrews I am sorry to hear that the 50mm lens has a boring personality, and that @onlysublime only gets compliments on his photos if the background is blown out with the artificial contrivance of a high magnification lens (85mm) shot wide open and relatively close to the subject, which of course maximizes the creamy dreamy bokeh to the point where the background appears to be an airbrushed studio backdrop instead of an actual real environment.
I just got the 85mm I love it, and added it to my lenses, I focus mostly on Landscape and found it saved a few shots. Also wanted to start working on portraits. Having said that, it was nice to see side by side difference and see the benefits of the 50mm. Next on the list. Buying used with an ethical company that lists the quality of their products in detail is a big plus. Thanks!
I have a 50 mm 1.4..I love it so I may stay with it. With that said, I have a 100 mm 2.8 that I need to try for portraits. I also have a 70-200 that I’m starting to use also but I like the 50 mm for close ups.
Hi Jessica, I just want to ask about 16-35 or 17-55 of canon's high level lens.Can those be good for everyday use as well as people/portrait photography?
If you shot Canon APS-C the 17-55 /2.8 is normally the way to go. Brilliant allround lens (only for aps-c) from moderate wide angle for scenery to short telephoto range for portraits. You can always add a prime for a narrow depth of field and better bokeh or a wide angle or dedicated tele to cover your needs.
Going from 85mm to 100mm will generally result in your subject-lens distance increasing. And an increase in your subject-lens distance will result in a flatter wider face with a small less prominent nose and bigger ears. If this sounds attractive, then by all means purchase a longer lens and stand back from the subject more.
@@joansmith7649 hi, thanks for a to-the-point, albeit gloomy :), response. I do agree with your opinion but then it raises the question: why do most portrait/people photographers prefer 85mm and above in general, with many going for the 70-200 as their go-to portrait lens? Thanks.
The 85 is not what one sees in "real life". Instead, it is what one sees in real life from the same subject-lens distance as that used to shoot at the distance using the 85mm lens.. If you are standing 2 feet away from someone, that is what you are seeing in real life two feet away. And the perspective of that subject's features will change at every distance. So the statement that the 85mm lens provides a "real life" view of the subject, as opposed to the view provided by the 50mm or 35mm lens, is ludicrous for two reasons. A) The lens itself is not what provides the perspective of the subject. Instead, it is the specific subject-lens distance that provides the specific perspective of the subject at any given subject-lens distance. B) One's perspective of any subject is relative to the subject-lens/eye distance, and this subject-lens/eye distance varies all of the time in real life. So there is no one lens that will provide a real life view of a subject. If the subject is your lover, and you are frequently standing only 2' or 3' away from your lover, perhaps the 35mm lens will be the lens that one uses to capture the real life perspective of the subject at those close distances. In addition, neither the 35mm nor the 50mm lens distorts the body. Instead, the lens records the perspective it views at any given distance. One may not like what that view is, but for one to say the image provided by the lens is "distorted", or that the subject's face or body is distorted by the lens, is not accurate. I am always happy to see other photographers producing educational videos, but if the information is not accurate it can lead to confusion. And as it is apparent from the video content itself, Jessica did not get into the real reasons why a certain lens will be selected for certain portrait sessions and this has to do with the photographer's desire and ability to manipulate the perspective of the subject (through the use of subject-lens distance) in such a way as to create the most flattering and/or desirable rendition of the subject. This should have been the emphasis of this video, and not discussions of bokeh. In addition, there is no such thing as a "traditional portrait lens". Gorgeous portraits have been created using lenses from 24mm to 200mm. So the notion that certain lenses are traditional portrait lenses and other lenses are not is ridiculous. In fact, there have likely been more portraits shot using 35mm and 50mm lenses than all of the other lenses combined. Jessica mentioned one's desire to "upgrade" their camera kit presumably with the purchase of additional lenses, but if one sets aside their 50mm and adopts the 85mm lens (or longer lenses) as their go-to portrait lens they have effectively downgraded their kit unless they are wanting to fatten up the appearance of anorexic models and introduce alien ears. Specifically, it is plainly evident in this video that the model's appearance is more flattering in all photos using the subject-lens distance that facilitated the use of the 50mm lens as opposed to the subject-lens distance that facilitated the use of the 85mm lens. Without being overly blunt, the model appeared to be squattier, dumpier, heavier, shorter, wider, and just plain fatter, in the images produced using the 85mm lens and the longer shooting distances. There is no real comparison here. So unless you are selling Christmas lights or architecture, the focus should be on the model if this is a portrait shoot. Does the model look gorgeous? If not, the portrait is a fail, and it does not matter how creamy and dreamy the bokeh is.
Jessica, how much does one need to spend on a tripod for it not wobble when taking a shot? I've had a tripod before that was in the $150 range (granted 10 years ago) and it really wasn't stable enough for me to shoot at a lower shutter speed.
Hi. You could use expensive tripod or like I have second hand used one for less than $100 As long it’s solid on the ground and you can Pan or tilt vertically.
I shot with nothing but the 85mm for about 10 years. I'm changing it up for the next 6 months and won't shoot anything but a 50mm or 135mm. Shooting with a 50mm felt like shooting an ultra wide fishe eye. The 135mm makes me feel like a pirate shooting with a brass telescope.
85mm is more personal than the 50mm. What I mean is 85 the model is present in the picture , the 50mm on the other hand the model is among and part of the surrounding so the eyes gets drifting around the model. For me the 85 is more versatile. Zoom in to get personal or zoom out include the model and the surrounding.
@@SilatShooter Yes, but cannot you not soften the background blur a bit more in the computer in 5 minutes or less and not sacrifice the shape of model's head? Just a thought.
@@joansmith7649 you make a valid point. My experience has been the background blur done in post (software) doesn't roll off as naturally. So to me eye not as pleasing as from a quality fast lens.
@@SilatShooter If the raw image was shot at f/2 to f/4 with a 50mm lens, the raw image will have some degree of background blur based upon the depth variances in the environment. The goal is to simply accentuate what's there rather than starting with everything in focus and building the blur from there, which can be rather tedious. After working with the various blurs available in PhotoShop for awhile you will be able to create the perfect degree of blur that will appear completely natural, and you will be able to do it in a controlled modifiable manner.
Helpful video. I’m Considering 80mm for commercial shots and was Good to corroborate that 80mm gives a graphical look to the composition right what I’m looking for…I learnt photography with 50mm, was supposed to be the closer to real vision, but for me it’s too wide and distorted, nevertheless good for other storytelling 🙌
Correct answer: 50mm. Chuck out all of your lenses and purchase the best possible fast 50mm lens you can afford. Chuck out any zooms slower than f/2. Forget 85mm unless you have a line at your door of women who would like you to make their face fat and their ears huge. So buy a fast spectacular 50mm lens, and don't worry about it anymore. Leica lenses are worth the money. Sell one of your kids and put the other half on your credit card. $6000 for a single lens is not much for what you get. So get one, and be happy....... and then learn how to actually shoot and separate your subject through the judicious use of light and texture so you don't have to rely on fake phony blown out bokeh to make your images interesting, because creamy dreamy really blurred out backgrounds say only that you are lazy and suck as a photographer. And once you no longer suck as a photographer (which could be a while), you will be able to stop down your lens a bit to make absolutely sure that both eyes of your subject are tack sharp no matter what the pose. Once you are able to have tack sharp eyes and good subject separation from the background using light and composition, then you will be on your way to becoming an actual photographer.
Informative video with nice photos in tough conditions, but you should consider helping the viewer on the comparing parts to highlight the differences between the lenses. I know, everything has to be so darn quick these days, but be brave and slow down. This will help inexperienced viewers. And turn off your focus beep on your camera! 😅
I believe what you meant to say is that you wished the photographer moved in such a manner that the framing of the subject (size of the subject) in the camera's viewfinder did indeed stay exactly identical so you could evaluate the appearance and perspective of the subject at various subject-lens distances using the different lenses with different magnifications (focal lengths). And of course, it would be helpful if the model had the exact same pose for each set of images so a meaningful comparison could be made. And when I say a meaningful comparison, I am referring to an evaluation of facial features and not the background buildings as this video was meant to be focused on portrait photography and not on architectural photography.
