Which is better this lens or the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM? I will mostly be taking portraits and full body shots of my children? Thanks!
633524
I have the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. It's my go to lens especially for taking shots of my fast moving son. I don't mind standing away from him that way I can take more candid shots, more day-to-day happenings & on-the-spot mischievous events. I have not tried the 28 though so... this more on the 85. I do use this inside of the house. It takes some getting used to initially but once I got used to the 85, it's my main lens now... ^_^ I hope this helps!
633525
Honestly, I'd think it was less a question of which lens is better than if you have a full-frame or crop sensor camera, and how far you are willing to stand away from your children to take their photos. With a crop sensor camera in particular, you'll have to be across a large room to take full-body shots of your children with the 85mm.
633526
85 is considered a good focal length for portraits. the wider focal lengths like the 28 sometimes distort features. if you're using a crop sensor camera - a camera with an APS-C sized sensor, then it'll be a bit on the long end, so you might try a 50mm.
633527
You have to be further back for the 85 - so it is somewhat difficult to use inside, however, the 28 will give you some problems with making faces and things closer to the lens to look larger - not that great for a portrait lens. I personally love my 50 1.4
425390
Depends on what you need it for. The EF version is just as good for all intents and purposes...the extra $400 is for the Image Stabilization. Do you need IS? The main reason for IS is if you also plan on using it as a medium telephoto prime lens (such as for portraits). If so, then yes! I did, and I'm very happy. But if all I needed it for was to take photos of small inanimate objects while using a tripod, then I would have gone with the EF version and saved the $400!
132381
Hi, I have no experience with The Zeiss 85mm 1.4 and can't make a comperasion, but The Sigma 85 mm 1.4 is a perfect lense and I am glad I bought it. Regards...
241545
If you are looking for a great portrait lens then go with the 85mm 1.4, it's fantastic. The 35 mm is a great lens too but better as a walkaround lens for general photography. You definitely want longer focal lengths for portraits.
2240582
I've been using the 17-85mm IS USM with my cameras for several years - love it. I have not used this lens, but you can find the 17-85 used for several hundred dollars cheaper than the 17-40L and it is a more versatile lens.
2240581
Thank you Very much for your Help, what do you think about the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II and the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM? If you had the money for only one general purpose lens, wich one will you chose?
2064344
Thanks for your reply. I need a good lens to photograph swim meets and football, both for children. Maybe I should consider the 70-300. I want sharp pictures.
659560
Hi glenn: how the 105 mm compares with the 85mm f/1.4 lens for portrait shots thank you for your advice
427331
are you upgrading the camera? D600 is great, the 85 mm lens 1.4 is beautiful for portraits and i would definitely recommend it, you can get a very shallow depth of field and very sharp images.
579921
It's a better lens. There are video tests on youtube of these two lenses against each other and this lens is considerably sharper. It's sharpness is somewhere between the Canon 85mm 1.8 and the Canon 85mm 1.2 L lens. This is a very powerful lens.
96399
I have both this 15-85mm lens, and the wonderful EF-S 10-22mm. Since getting the 15-85, I almost never use the 10-22, even though most of my photography is on the wide-angle side of normal. I recommend both lenses, but get the 15-85 first, and you may find, as I did, that it is very adequate all by itself. If you do need extreme wide-angle, however, by all means get the EF-S 10-22mm, which is excellent. Best, get both!
1402683
It is a good lens for portrates I am not sure which I like most the 85 or the 35, I seem to get more room around the subject on the 35 for the full frame printing but both are good lens.
1312084
get the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Pancake Lens - sharper, cheaper, betterThe Nikon 35mm 1.8 is not sharp until f2.8 anyway
2173346
The best review of these two lenses in on Ken Rockwell's website. I currently have the Canon35 1.4 and the 35 2.0 non-is. I also had the 35 2.0 IS but sold it and then got the non-IS on eBay. Why? The IS is great but big and I was looking to put together a lighter combo than the 5DMK3 and 1.4. I have a 6D that fits the bill and thought the new 35 IS would work well as an everyday combo to carry around. The image quality is very good but it is big. So, I sold it, found a good version of the non-IS, and in combination with the 6D it meets all my needs. Good quality images, smaller lens, less weight.
448718
I've owned both lenses, and in my opinion for use with FX cameras the AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR lens is a better lens than the old 24-120mm f/3/5-5.6G. The 24-85G is sharper, especially at the edges; it's lighter; and its VR function works better. Of course, you give up the extra range, but I've found that 85mm is adequate for most general photography.
1789044
The 2.8 works great for indoor pictures and the image quality difference is minimal. I've used both and I dont see any reason to buy the f/4 besides saving money. In April, Canon is updating the 2.8 lens with updated optics and the new IS. Alos the minimum focusing distance is shortened to just under 4 feet. I will be upgrading lenses at that time for sure. After having both lenses, my f/2.8 lens is the one that lives on the camera 95% of the time.
552637
I have the canon 17-85mm lens and it works great. You could also get the 40mm pancake or if you have a bit more of a buget, get the 24-105 mm canon lens, it is a sweet lens with a sharp image.