In terms of all-round versatility, would you say a 50 mm lens is

-- A. A lot more versatile -- B. Somewhat more versatile -- C. No more versatile -- D. Less versatile

than an 85 mm lens?

-- Michael Fuhrmann (fuhrmann@interlog.com), January 28, 1999

Answers

The answer that comes closest to "my" needs would be B. The 85 is my favorite portrait lens, but the 50 seems to be the lens I would choose if I could only have one. Now ask this question to someone who photographs birds and it's probably C, since both lenses would not be very useful.

-- Ron Stecher (stecherr@vafb5a.vafb.af.mil), January 28, 1999.

Not quite sure what you mean by "all-round versatility". But if you mean that I could only have one lens my answer would be A.

If you gave me two identical cameras one with a 50 and one with an 85 mm lens (both lenses with the same f stop), and I always had both with me. I would guess that during the course of a year I'd run twice as much film through the camera with the 50 mm lens. I guess that answer would be a B.

-- Geoffrey S. Kane (grendel@pgh.nauticom.net), January 28, 1999.

If I could have only one, I'd take the 85 (my working set tends to be 50-85-200), but I still answer B to your question. The pictures I really care about are generally portraits and candids with the 85, but the 50 covers a broader range of situations, and in that sense I think it's more versatile.

-- Jim Gauch (jegauch@jonesday.com), January 28, 1999.

For me, the 50 even if speed were comparable. I'll expand on that by adding that focal lengths between, oh about 60 and 90 seems kinda nowhere to my eye (which is why I've owned but never really got much use out of 35-70s or even 28-85s). I seem to see at 28mm, 50mm, 100mm, and 300mm. Maybe I should get my glasses adjusted?

Don't feel bad John. I don't even see much at 100mm. My 28-80 mostly stays at 28 or 50, and my 75-300 almost always stays at 300. - Brad

This is really a question only you can answer for yourself.

-- John Kuraoka (kuraoka@home.com), January 29, 1999.

Michael, You need to tell us something about your photographic subjects and objectives if you want a meaningful answer to your question. Speaking for myself, I find the 85 a much more useful focal length than the 50, but this is because I've never liked the 50 (which always seems to me, when I have one on, to be either too long or too short) and greatly prefer the 35 as a normal lens. I find the 35 and 85 combination of prime lenses to be a great one (and the 50 rarely comes out of the bag). If you like to do portraits and people photography, the 85 will definitely be more useful to you than the 50. If you like to do landscapes, travel pictures, street photography, the 50 will be more useful to you (but in my experience the 35 is even better for these things, at least for the first two).

-- Dave Kemp (Kempda@worldnet.att.net), January 29, 1999.

And in contrast to my good friend Dave Kemp, I would always prefer the 50, which seems "normal" and natural to me, while I seem to struggle to make the slightly wider 35 work, and I have never taken one single picture that I liked with an 85, try as I have. I like the 50, 28 and 24 for scenics and interiors, and the 105 and 180 for portraits. Is it personal preference, or have I had bad luck with glass? I always wonder if a different 35 or 85 would make a difference....

-- Mark Hubbard (hubbard@humboldt1.com), February 02, 1999.

By the way, I didn't choose italics -- the system seems stuck there.

-- Mark Hubbard (hubbard@humboldt1.com), February 02, 1999.

It's Brad's fault! It's Brad's fault! The italics started when he inserted an editorial comment into the body of my answer above. I didn't do nuthin'!

OOPS!!! - Brad

-- John Kuraoka (kuraoka@home.com), February 02, 1999.

fixed?

YES, IT IS!

-- - (a@a.com), February 02, 1999.

I like working with a 35, and 50 for general landscape photography. Both lenses suit my view of the world, and get used about the same amount of shooting time. Then I move up to a 105.

-- Jim Bridges (jcbejb@worldnet.att.net), February 02, 1999.

I use the 85 much more than my 50. The reason for this, I think, is that the 85 seems to better take in exactly what I saw that got my attention. Maybe the 50 is more normal but often when I look at a subject I seem to "zoom" in slightly or focus on certain aspects and the 85 best matches this perspective. JLee

-- JLee (jlee@sccoast.net), February 03, 1999.

Michael- These are really great answers youve been getting. I hope you realize just how good they are, even though they might seem, at first, to be avoiding a direct answer to your question. If I could rephrase your question another way (correct me if Im wrong) what you asked was something like, Im thinking of buying a prime lens and was wondering which would be more useful, a 50mm or an 85mm? And what people have told you was: Either one, or something else. But, you can tell from the way the answers are put that they spring from great experience, because this is the way it really is. It does depend on how you see. Im looking at a print right now that I did of a Fall Western scene and a realize that, though at first it looks like a wide-angle shot (partly because its a 35mm printed full frame horizontal) , the near-far relationships are those of a telephoto shot, that is, compressed. And thats something I just like to do. I like to step back (where possible), get a wide view of a scene and then push the near-far together with a telephoto. If I were to walk up close and use a wide-angle, I wouldnt like it; now that thing in the middle-ground looks too far away. Others, I know, love the near- far perspective. They even like to exaggerate it, heaven help us. Those are the answers above from people who like a 35mm lens as a normal. Personally I think of a 50mm as a wide. So, no clear answer for you, it seems. But read the answers above very carefully. Theres a wealth of information and experience there. -Steve

-- Steve Pfaff (spfaff@hrl.com), February 03, 1999.

Very well said, Steve. I wish I had written that.

There was one point I left out of my note above that I would like to add: I have seen many, many beautiful photos by OTHER PEOPLE using lens-lengths that never seem to work for me. This suggests that it's an issue of personal vision (or deficit on my part!), but still leads me to wonder whether getting just the right 85 or 35 would make a difference. After all, this is an equipment forum! ;-)

-- Mark Hubbard (hubbard@humboldt1.com), February 04, 1999.