Head to to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code JAMESREADER
Gear Featured:
Canon RF 50mm 1.2:
Canon RF 35mm 1.4:
Canon RF 85mm 1.4:
Model Instagram:
My Lightroom Presets:
My full gear list:
My written reviews:
My website:
Follow me on Instagram:
All My Gear
Camera Setup:
Main Camera:
Backup Camera:
Travel Camera:
Favourite Lens:
Best Portrait Lens:
Favourite Video Lens:
Wide Angle Zoom:
Telephoto Zoom:
Best Budget Prime:
Accessories
Best Travel Tripod:
CF Express Card:
Best ND Filter:
My New Favourite Camera Backpack:
Travel Camera Bag:
Tech Pouch:
My Favourite Camera Strap:
*** Please note, clicking any of these links above and buying from Amazon helps support my channel as I get a little commission from each order at no extra cost to you. Thank you for your support. ***
General Enquiries: me@jamesreader.uk
For business enquiries: jamesreader@filmmakeragency.com
00:00 – Intro
0:28 – Full Length Portraits
1:35 – 50 vs 35
3:54 – 50 vs 85
5:30 – Sponsor
6:35 – 85mm Strengths
7:39 – One Lens Is Better
8:18 – Mid Length Portraits
9:30 – Depth and Bokeh
10:58 – Headshots?
12:35 – Models Thoughts
15:30 – 50mm Cons
17:16 – Final Thoughts
Comments
34 responses to “I Replaced My 35mm + 85mm With One Lens”
35, 50 & 85 work best if you think of it like a film director. 35 for calm establishing shots with the environment through to 85mm for more attention on the person and more intensity. 50mm often works best vertical orientation I find.
I used quite a few different mid range zooms years ago on my 35mm film cameras and eventually settled on using 50mm and a 24mm primes.
When I recently bought a full frame DSLR and I also bought 50mm and 24mm primes and don't really use anything else on that particular camera.
I have a crop sensor camera with several zooms which cover everything from very wide to quite long focal length which really covers all of my photographic needs but the two primes on my full frame camera are my favourites.
If you’re shooting with a Canon R7 asp-c, would you still recommend the 50mm over the 35mm if it’s the only lens you buy?
Greetings from Turkey, Mr. James.
35mm is much better plus macro and other things… especially if you are on crop…
this is the only video ive ever seen where someones actually using the 50 the way i enjoy it being used and the way I think it should be used: showing a whole model subject head to toe or waist up and including environment, the same way people would with 35mm. doing that thing people think you can only achieve with 28mm-35mm. and you've highlighted nicely why after i dunno like 10+ years of 35mm i finally started looking into why high fashion photography + design mags (which has some of the most intentional backgrounds relative to subjects in the game) i enjoyed looked the way it did -> pros aren't scared in this world to scoot tf back and get photos of their subject & environment on a more tele lens. 99.9% of 50mm photos you see on the net are just people shooting way too close, way too tight. its pics of cats, a grass blade, lightbulbs, mugs in a restaurant and up close face shots all the way down, and it's for whatever reason very rare to see someone using a 50 like you've used it here. 50mm lenses are conflated with entry photography recommendations so you really gotta go dig to find some interesting photos shot with 50.
this age of photography and the internet for whatever reason would have you believe that inclusion of environmental elements can only be had with 28-35mm. i believe that's because people are kinda scared to go out and get the discipline to get comfortable needing to move ur dang legs to position urself for the right composition. it is uncomfortable in crowds and tight spaces, that's the discipline, there's skill wrapped up in that exercise: working under constraints brings out some problem solving and creativity, and that really builds up your ability to be masterful with your equipment. do it so much it becomes something you're used to, push yourself outside of your comfort zone to see what you can get. film studies in the 70's thru the 90's really emphasized constraining yourself to a telephoto lens of some sort and just living with that, it's one of the best exercises you can do to build the confidence to not shoot so tightly with a zoomier lens, and yeah that involves simply standing back. you successfully explained why 50mm if ya just scoot back can not only get the backgrounds you're after, but manipulates them just enough that it's not overblown, and feels just a smidge more stunning. i balk at the idea that 50mm requires you to stand "too far away" from your model, this is not a telephoto lens you will absolutely be fine 7-10ft from your subject. some would be surprised how much more comfortable a model can feel exploring poses when the camera isnt 3 feet from their face. give your model room to breathe & feel comfy and with some effort you can still get the same framing you're after.
there's a lot of uninteresting takes on why 35mm is "the focal" one of the worst ones I see is "it's closest to what our eyes see". like, people put a ton of effort making youtube videos on that point and dont put much more thought into why that might not be the selling point they think it is.. generally the last thing i want photography to look like is what my eyes see. give me familiar but different enough that its striking, and catches my eye because my eyes aren't used to it. the reason photography has always been interesting is because of the ability to just bend light and perspective with glass, a marvel of human prowess. something that you could easily miss day to day that looks benign or uninteresting can look remarkable when manipulated tastefully using cameras and lenses. if anything, the only time 35mm lens photos really do interest me is when the photographer leans into the fact that it does distort and transform things its close to. one must be intentional about that though, because it can be unflattering if you+your model aren't prepared for that. it's an effect that is used in fashion but rarely ever does it compose the entire gallery of a shoot. probably like one or two photos with a weird angle and you want to make something feel in your face, and that can look nice against a handful of other pictures that aren't in that perspective. it loses its magic fast when an entire gallery/shoot uses the perspective tricks. but the proverbial razor blade to shooting on a 35mm lens is when you scoot back enough to do a head-to-toe with the environment, its almost too easy to end up with uninteresting photos. ironically it's starting to feel like the modern-internet-photography-age had it backwards: 35mm is great for up close in your face tight shots used sparingly and very interesting qualities can be had from that, while all the people shooting 50 need to ease up a little on trying to get tight shots and explore getting more more in the frame and thinking about the environment the way you would with a 28-35mm.
ill be frank. i think why people gravitate towards 35mm is because it feels easier. its easy to get comfortable with "i got a pic of a person and interesting background all in one" but it takes a long journey before you really start thinking about all the different elements of a composition and weaving them together. i gravitated towards 35mm for that "it just works" reason, i mistakingly conflated this with "versatility". that is not versatility, a 35mm is too far on one side of the lens focal length spectrum to be versatile, it does not serve "portrait" perspectives well at all, in fact it's terrible at it. yet 35mm is good at getting your environment in there relatively easily, yet something still feels missing. it's taken me a lot of time and shooting a lot of people for me to really wrap my mind around what that was, and i think a lot of it has to do with what it does with the background: virtually nothing at all. it's not much diff than my iphone so its a perspective that must contend with the billions of photos grandma posts on facebook. BUT that doesn't mean i want the other extreme, im not wanting the background to just… fkn disappear into stardust like you get with 85mm or 135mm. the more ive bent my mind around possibilities of light, geometry i see in backgrounds & placing a model against those, or placing them under or next to some weird light/shadow/shape, finding interesting and unconventional angles for your model, it's very clear to me that i want the background there. but i dont want the background to be boring, i dont want my model standing against a background to feel like anyone could've taken the photo. i dont want the background cut out of the photo like you'd get with 85mm/135mm, but i want it to be just manipulated enough to be a departure from 35mm which is entirely too close to what real life feels like. if i flip through diesel mag shoots or something ive noticed this a lot, the backgrounds that play very well with a model aren't in the perspective they would be in in real life. theyre juuuuuust different enough, but not so different / separated / compressed that it looks like wedding photography (which… i find boring). just different enough to be striking, just different enough to really pull it together with your model and with any luck deliver a picture where the background+the model are a world worth taking a second look at.
so. nicely put together video, somehow it coincides with my own timeline of shooting on 35mm lenses for freaking ever and finally realizing that the 50mm i scoffed at for so long had more to it. for the past decade if i had to choose one lens it would be a 35mm because i bought into the "it's the most versatile". i think what you've shown here is that 50 is quite honestly the most versatile. these days i would probably just one camera body + one 50mm lens and be done with it, i look at all my past photos realizing i could've realistically achieved the same success on a 50mm. and saved a shit ton of money. oh the journey (pain)
Off-topic question, but always a question for me when I watch you pros work. How many images did you end up with during that modeling session? I realize in this case there might have been more because you were duplicating a lot of shots with the different lenses. I ask because I struggle with culling a few dozen images and I’m sure you fire off several hundred. Do you have a methodology for culling and down-selecting all those images? I gotta believe many of them are nearly identical. How do you not spend days finding the best of the best?
I like 85
Great video – can tell it took a lot of time to put together but the side by side comparisons are really helpful! My one nit is that you're comparing the 1.2 vs two 1.4s and the 'dreamy' effect is certainly affected by that. If you don't have access to the VCM, think it could have been fairer to shoot the 50 @ 1.4 . Just an idea for the future, but like I said – terrific, beautiful and useful video!!!
My Sigma 40mm 1.4 Art turned out to be a great portrait lens. Very sharp.
Great comparision. Thank you.
I also like 50mm the most – which many people say boring :D.
How do you feel about the 24-105mm rf f2.8 as a do all lens for portraits?
Good video.
Yes and no. 50mm is the perfect balance between the other two, but that's a weakness as much as a strength. Because 50mm does not exaggerate in any direction to our human eye. 35mm does exaggerate the perspective so we can make the perspective larger than life. 85mm does the opposite so we can exaggerate the focus on the subject. With 50mm we lose the ability to exploit any of these things, we just feel the picture the way we would see it in real life. Great if that's what you are after, but I am more fascinated by purposefully exaggerated pictures than real life pictures. Not always but most of the time.
If I have to use ONE prime, it will be a 50. Two bodies? 85 + 35.
I'm still stuck trying to decide on either 85mm or 50mm, so much contrasting information
Hi James, fantastic video as always👍🏻
Have been debating a 35, 85 prime setup for travelling then saw this video come out 😂
Want to move to primes to shoot more intentionally, travel lighter and not have to lug my 70-200 2.8 about!
Would you recommend 35mm + 85mm combo as an all round travel setup from the vcm series?
Is this where the 24-70 is just so capable, I’ve just picked up the 35mm having compared to the 50, I thought the 35 would add something I didn’t have with the 24-70.. about to travel on a trip so will hopefully get some use
I was surprised by how much I liked the look of some of those 35mm pics. A 50mm is my portrait lens of choice but I may have to play around with 35 and 85!
I just did a senior portrait session with my rf 50 f1.4 vcm and my rf 70-200 f4 and it came out great!!!
Unfortunately the only 35 I have in the RF 1.8 version and tbh the quality I get out of that lens can't match the 50 and 70-200 so sometimes I feel like I should have splurged on the 35 1.4 vcm instead!! Maybe when my budget goes up I can do it. 🤞🏼
I have a 20, 35, 50, and 135… I keep debating getting the 85. I am fortunate where price isn’t the issue as much as space in my camera bag. This reassures me I am not missing too much. Great comparison!
I feel for people with tighter budget the 45mm 1.2 is a great choice. Lighter and travel friendly as well
40 mm…
Amazing portrait photos♥️.I have rf 35 f1.4 vcm,rf 50 f1.2 and rf 85 f1.2.
I love 50mm too😇
Thank you for this nice piece of video art, James. Even if it is not immediately the subject I was looking for, I will still take time, relax and enjoy the smooth entertainment you provide. The colour grading on this video is really great, I find.
I use the 24-105 f/4 and for my "top work" the amazing 70-200 f/4 – this one I bought after your portrait lenses comparison, on your recommendation. And it is a bulls eye, certainly at the price you can get it for now (around 1500€). So I can take images and not have to switch lenses. And yes, f/4 is not f/1.2. But I have sometimes already issues with f/4 DOF on parties. Even f/4, certainly at 200mm, will single out the person my camera focussed on and the others at the table are reduced to a backdrop. But these party shots are sooooo gorgeous, this 70-200 is a dream. And the 24-105 pictures processed with DXO PureRAW5 also produce great photos. Especially with this EF 24-105 f/4 IS USM Mk I, DXO lifts the quality of the pictures to a 70-200 like quality…. almost… So what you present here is a one model portrait session and that is not something I do.
But as always, you make me think. Would the 50mm f/1.4 VCM be worthwhile owning for me? At the photo shop I go to, they rent out these lenses. Maybe I should plan to do that some day and try it out? I do have the Pentacon 50mm f/1.8 of the early 1970s, it has a lot of character, but light transmission is not great. You need a lot of light for this lens.
Canon 45mm f1.2, the solution for those who can't choose 35 or 50))
I have been using this lens for 3 months, I am very satisfied.
A 50 cannot in any way replace an 85 or 35. Completely different looks. you may like 50 better which is great but is NOT the perfect balance..is just the one YOU prefer.
I'm the proud owner of several lenses: the RF 35mm f/1.8, RF15-35f/2.8, and RF70-200f/2.8. But my favorite is the EF 50mm f/1.2. I chose the EF version. Your video does a fantastic job of explaining the purpose and capabilities of each lens. Thank you.
Thanks for the comparison video – definitely shows the strengths and weaknesses of different focal lengths. For me – 85 and 135 are more of a "Subject Isolator" focal lengths and I've understood that when you go wider than 50mm, the composition skills matter more than the subject. It's harder to compose a nice "35mm" scene than an "85mm" scene. 85mm will make your subject look good based on the isolation itself. However, when using 50 and especially 35, your choice of background, foreground, and the relative depth of the subject matters a lot more. In wide angle photography the angles, lines, curvature, etc. become much more exaggerated and hence need more skilled set of eyes to perfect the composition. Hence, it is easier to choose 50 over a 35 mm lens.
Having said that- if I'm asked to pick my favorite focal length of the 3 (35, 50, 85) – it would be a 50 for most of the reasons you mentioned here. There's something about the 50mm perspective that makes it uniquely appealing 🙂
Great Video, I have the 35, 50 & 85 VCM primes. I absolutely love them for travel because of the size and weight.
Come on, we all know that 42mm is the lens for everything.
I have 24-70 2.8 and thinking to add rf 135 or replace zoom with 50 1.2 …, any advice?
Literally the cheapest 50mm is enough. I love it so much and the cheaper, the smaller! Nobody will even know.
I love my RF 50mm f1.4 🥰🥰🥰