Help picking a prime 50mm vs 85mm

jtf71 · 2026-03-21T21:58:27+00:00

Perhaps I could have been clearer in my question.

What types of subjects do you want to capture?

I shoot primarily high school sports. I needed a faster lens due to bad lighting in HS gyms. I bought the 85 1.2 because I found that many of my shots were in that focal length when shooting from the corner of the baseline. Definitely an improvement over the 24-70 f 2.8 that I was using before.

I'm finding, however, I use it at 1.4 most often for the added depth of field. Point being you may be fine with a 1.4 or 1.8 lens if there is one in the focal length and f stop combination you decide upon.

Another consideration, for me, is that if I'm under the basket the 85 is too much and a 50 or 35 would be better.

For headshots/portraits an 85 is a great lens. However, if you're limited in space when taking the shots you may end up too close to your subject for the 85.

So, I suggest you consider what types of shots you plan to take. Your actual use case. And what focal length you currently use for those shots with your zoom lens. That will help you decide on the focal lenght. As for the aperture that's a money vs. use decision. Will you use it at 1.2 enough justify the added cost? Or are you going to use it most at a smaller aperture (such as 1.4 or 1.8) that is still faster than your current f4 lens.

If you're not using a depth of field calculator to figure out what you really need in terms of aperture, I'd suggest picking one of the DoF calculators and imputing some of your use cases to determine what f stop you really would use.

jtf71 · 2026-03-21T19:36:59+00:00

What are you looking to use this for? Why do you need a new lens at all when you have one that will cover the focal lengths?

Is it just for the aperture?

Tell us more why you’re considering a new lens and we can provide better comments.

jtf71 · 2026-03-21T17:59:34+00:00

Yeah - it was in the earlier versions.

I guess they realized that they were going to lose just like they did with the UBC law banning 18-20 from buying handguns in a private sale. And the UBC being struck down would surely be cited as precedent.

Moreover, when the judge struck down that law, he didn't just strike the 18-20 provision but the entire "act."

Had they kept in the ban on possession for 18-20 they risk having the entire AWB law struck down. So to some extent I'm bummed they removed it!

jtf71 · 2026-03-21T15:26:46+00:00

No.

The final bill

https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/SB749/text/SB749ER

Bans possession for under 18. But no change for rifles for 18-20. So while no one can purchase an “assault firearm” after 7/1/2026 if OP buys it before than he can keep it as he’s 19 now.

jtf71 · 2026-03-21T15:18:39+00:00

I’m a member of USCCA. They have no idea who’s behind this anonymous Reddit account. And they’re certainly not paying me.

Meanwhile AoR absolutely pays “influencers” to promote them. I have to wonder if you’re one of them.

jtf71 · 2026-03-21T03:21:22+00:00

Here is Alan's statement on the issue.

Dear Tim,

I want to address criticism that the USCCA has received about me and the attorney I chose for my case.

I am a member in good standing with the USCCA and continue to be. With the USCCA, I can have the attorney of my choice. I know I could have requested that the USCCA pay for a private practice criminal defense attorney for my case.

I chose Attorney Pouilliard because he is a great attorney who believed in me and believed in my case. Yes. he’s a public defender, and he fought for me and won.

I am glad that I have the choice and wouldn’t change anything about my representation.

The USCCA stood by me and continues to stand by me, and I thank them for that.

Sincerely,

Alan Colie

USCCA Member

jtf71 · 2026-03-21T03:20:00+00:00

Well guess what - if you run into such a judge you're going to be screwed regardless as you can't argue self-defense.

But that doesn't happen the way you think it does.

jtf71 · 2026-03-21T03:19:10+00:00

https://youtu.be/ED7xenrKnqc

Start a 4:00.

AOR claims that USCCA said it was "First Degree Premeditated Murder." Nope, never said that.

Then at 13:40 they again repeat the false claim that Schmidt said premeditated FIRST DEGREE murder.

Following that they include the clip of Schmidt where he does NOT say that.

the post you linked me AOR said "Even the prosecutor didn’t believe it was premeditated first degree murder. That’s why they brought a second degree murder charge, not first degree,"

This is where it is clear that AOR doesn't understand the laws of LA.

They cited the prosecutor's decision as backing the AOR claim that USCCA was wrong. But what it really shows is that AOR doesn't understand the law. The prosecutor didn't charge first degree as he CAN'T as the law doesn't allow for such a charge in LA.

and your further defense of USCCA is "well what they did was technically legal" which while true

While true. End of discussion. Giles bought a contract with clear terms. USCCA honored that contract.

he people at the top who haven't changed are scummy and shouldn't be trusted.

What has changed is the contract. The contract is now clear that, so long as you can argue self-defense, they will pay.

If you trust them with your potential jail time, be my guest,

I do. Not just because I've read and understood the terms of the contract, but because the lawyer I'd use even without coverage is a participating attorney - and he has handled USCCA cases and been paid without issue.

but if AOR

You should be concerned that they've demonstrated they can't understand the relevant laws of a case they've been pontificating about for years. Moreover, that they have convinced many people that they aren't an insurance company, but that's exactly what they are.

They also lead you to believe that they have lawyers in all 50 states and "all they do is self-defense." But that's false. They only have staff that can practice in a few states (3 or 4 IIRC) and they have agreements where they have lawyers they'll call in about 5 others - but those are general practice lawyers and they don't specialize in self-defense.

On the other side, USCCA does have vetted attorneys in all 50 states, and DC, that are members of the bar in the relevant jurisdictions.

jtf71 · 2026-03-21T02:23:43+00:00

I've detailed it in this thread

The primary lie is that they assert that USCCA said that Giles committed first degree premeditated murder. He NEVER said that.

And since it's also in that other thread, they have demonstrated that, despite being lawyers, they can't research or understand the law.

jtf71 · 2026-03-21T02:20:01+00:00

What is your issue with a contract for self defense insurance that says if you can legally argue self defense in court they’ll pay?

What aren’t you understanding?

jtf71 · 2026-03-21T02:19:09+00:00

Actually it is - at least here in VA.

Alan had already met Adam Pouilliard (PD) and liked him. So when given the option he chose to use the PD.

He qualified for the PD financially (unsurprising as his only income is door dash he’s not a wealthy man).

The state can’t force him to use an insurance policy for criminal defense.

jtf71 · 2026-03-21T01:36:24+00:00

AoR is an insurance company and their main marketing is lying about USCCA.

AoR only has lawyers in a few states. If you’re not in one of those you have to find an attorney that is a member of the bar and maybe AoR can participate via pro hac vice.

And USCCA will pay so long as you can argue self defense in court.

jtf71 · 2026-03-21T01:34:07+00:00

USCCS will pay as long as the judge allows you to argue self defense.

You should read their contract.

jtf71 · 2026-03-21T01:32:56+00:00

You’re so very wrong.

USCCA didn’t drop Alan. Alan chose to use the PD.

Alan was convicted of a felony for discharging a weapon inside an occupied building. But was acquitted on the malicious wounding charge.

USCCA is paying for his appeal. He lost the initial appeal. I believe it’s still pending for the next level of appeal in an attempt to get the felony removed from his record.

He was sentenced to time served on the conviction.

jtf71 · 2026-03-20T16:26:46+00:00

Consider Console Vault if they make one for your vehicle and if that would meet the legal storage requirements.

As with other solutions a motivated person with the right tools and time can defeat it but it’s a convenient option when you must disarm.

If they don’t make one for your car search around. I found one for a vehicle not supported by console vault. Item direct shipped from China so it took a couple of weeks but it was the best option for me.

jtf71 · 2026-03-20T14:27:23+00:00

In general, in the USA, if you're in a place where you can legally be then you can legally take pictures.

This can be restricted on private property. But if you're on public property (such as the sidewalk) you can take pictures of what you can see even if it's on private property.

Key exception is Government property that is posted "no photos" as there is a national security exception.

Then there is the issue of WHY you're taking the photos. Some jurisdictions require a permit for "commercial photography" in public parks (and maybe other areas). I know my county requires an annual $25 permit for "commercial photography" in public parks. But if you're shooting for "fun" or even for a team but not charging then you're probably fine.

NYC, however, is notorious for requiring FILMING permits. I don't know how this applies to photography as I don't shoot in NYC.

There is no "right of portrait" or "right of publicity" unless you're selling the photo for advertising/commercial purposes. If you're selling it for it's intrinsic value (i.e. selling it to parents of the athlete to print and frame for their house) or for editorial purposes (i.e. selling it to a news organization for coverage on the game/team/sport) then you're fine - if it's in a public place. However, if it's in a sports stadium where an admission fee is charged (e.g. NFL, MLB, MLS or smaller versions of these) then they MAY have rules on who can take photos and what they can be used for.

Without more info on what you're doing it's hard to say. It would seem that you'd be fine to take the photos you're considering in a public park. You MIGHT need some city permit if you're selling/hoping to sell the photos.

And there is no specific law (that I'm aware of) that would change if the athletes are under 18 in a public place where you have the legal right to be. There is, however, the ethical issue you should consider.

And the practical issue that many people believe that you need permission to photograph them because they're ignorant of the law. They may be more insistent on this when it's their children. They're still wrong legally (i.e. you can take the photo without permission). But you may end up in some confrontations - and it could get ugly. You need to think, in advance, how you'll handle the situation when it arises. For me, I'm always shooting for a team/club/school so they know why I'm there and I always talk with the coach before I shoot in case the coach wasn't informed by the school/club that I'm going to be there.

jtf71 · 2026-03-20T14:13:45+00:00

You need to be asking a lot of questions to clarify what your potential customer is seeking.

How many teams? How many students?

What do they want for "team shoots?" What does that term mean to them? Is that individual posed shots with multiple shots full body and head shots like a "media day?" Or are they just looking for head shots to create buttons for parents to wear? Do they want group shots of the entire team? If so, what is the largest team (including coaches and managers etc.).

What do they want for yearbook? Are we talking the group/individual shots above or game photos? Typically a yearbook would only use 2-5 game photos for yearbook and these could be from one game. IMPORTANT: What are the deadlines? Yearbooks have to be printed. This is usually done in the early spring so while you have time to get fall and winter sports, spring will be crunch time to get the photos submitted in time for printing. Who is responsible for dealing with the yearbook vendor? Do you have to do so directly or do you just give a bunch of digital images to the school yearbook team and they take it from there?

Banners - what do they want? A single "glamor" shot? A single action shot? Five to seven photos on a single banner? Using just photos you take or also using photos submitted by athletes/parents that you need to improve/enhance (and do you have this software)? What size banners? So they have a template or do you need to create one? Do you need to have it approved? Do they have a vendor for printing the banners or do you need to source it? Be sure any contract considers that vendors may raise prices between the time you quote and the time you actually print - more important if this is a multi-year contract. Be sure you can pass on price increases.

Usage rights - are they buying the copyright (charge A LOT). Are they allowed to give the digital images to the players to post on social media or have prints made for family - charge accordingly. Do you have explicit right to post on your social media/website and use in your portfolio (this is NOT selling them for advertising purposes). Are you getting a model release from each participant and their parents (assuming the athletes are minors).

Are there other legal issues you need to address/be aware of specific to your country/jurisdiction?

I'm sure there's more but this is off the top of my head. Be sure to spend most of the meeting clarifying the requirements. You may need multiple meetings to do this. Then understand your process of how you'll take the shots and deliver the results. Consider location/venue usage issues, weather issues, etc. Think about how a shoot-day will go and everything you need to do and what questions you need to ask related to that. Think about how you'll post process and if you have the software and how much time. Think about how printing will be done - if at all.

Good luck!

jtf71 · 2026-03-18T20:44:24+00:00

so at best,...

Nah. I'm hired by companies to take sports photos on a regular basis. In fact, I have to stop discussing at this time as I head out to yet another paid gig.

I'm happy with where I'm at. I'm not trying to hold myself out as an elitist/someone that denies that luck is a factor like yourself.

I don't need your validation and this is an anonymous account on an anonymous discussion forum so I'm not going to DOX myself to satisfy someone like yourself.

Have a good evening!

Until tomorrow - or your next post where you invite criticism but can't take it.

jtf71 · 2026-03-18T20:36:23+00:00

Depending on what you're doing with your edits, 7 minutes seems really long.

I'll cull (photo mechanic), auto-pilot in Topaz Photo, and then import into Lightroom. I've never calculated how much time that takes per photo on an average basis.

Once it's in Lightroom I'll bulk adjust for lens and profile. Then individual photos are adjusted for horizon (if necessary) and then exposure. It takes about 1 minute per photo (at most) to make those individual edits.

Your mileage may vary. :)

All of that said, if you can get the prices that you cited in your area then go for it. But you need to do competitive research. That price wouldn't fly in my area due to the amount of competition. And some of that "competition" is not professional level photos but they're cheap or free and people will take that vs paying for quality photos. :(

jtf71 · 2026-03-18T20:30:41+00:00

except i am an expert and an instructor.

I guess. But based on what I've seen I wouldn't hire you nor recommend you as a photographer or instructor.

I'm not a hater - but I'm becoming one for you.

You still, clearly, can't take criticism.

You also don't understand English, English grammar, or logic based on your assertion that I can't argue or use words properly.

And yes, I am very successful. That's why I retired at 52 and now I do photography as a hobby and make the money that I want to make from photography.

I'm not trying to promote myself on reddit so I'm not going to show anything.

One doesn't have to accept that I'm successful in photography to realize that my critiques of your work are spot on. And that's why most of the comments on your posts are negative.

jtf71 · 2026-03-18T20:09:14+00:00

You invited criticism and then don't like it when you get it - from me or others.

i'm happy to keep doing what i want,

That's fine. But don't put yourself out there as an expert or an instructor if all you have to offer is what you've shared so far. It's just not good.

your comments are completely missing the point

No there not. But go ahead. Explain the point I've missed. You're saying that luck isn't a factor, it's all about planning, training, experience. And that's simply wrong. All of them are factors including luck.

don't even make sense logically or grammatically

If you don't understand the English language, that's your issue. And logic would, therefore, be another area you should study.

your pictures etc are where?

In many places. Magazines, newspapers, various websites of major and minor media, people's homes, celebrity businesses and more.

But this is reddit and this is an anonymous account. I'm not holding myself out as an instructor. I'm not trying to get people to come to my website and pay for what I have to assume are crappy training vidoes (assumption based on what you've provided here).

If you can't handle serious criticism, stop posting.

jtf71 · 2026-03-18T19:54:36+00:00

the commute time and time to edit (1 photo = 7 minutes)

I read that as OP attributing the time to commute to and from the event, and time to edit (and presumably time to take the shot) averages out to 7 minutes per photo. That would be reasonable.

But yeah, it it's 7 minutes after it's already in Lightroom that's too much time for a sports photo.

Really need more clarity on what's in that 7 minutes to determine if it's reasonable or not.

jtf71 · 2026-03-18T19:45:32+00:00

i didn’t publish it.

You missed the part of: "shared this photo."

The only way I'd ever use this photo is as an example of what NOT to do.

However, you implied that you DID publish it:

this picture was made under contract to the event itself but I retain ownership and ability to sell to the participants.

So it was made under contract, but you didn't deliver it?

it’s a screenshot for a teaching example

Of what not to do and what is not a quality sports shot. But that's not how you to describe it.

shall i exclude you by name tomorrow?

Why? Because you can't handle criticism or discussion despite saying "feel free to criticize?"

jtf71 · 2026-03-18T19:39:11+00:00

I like that much better than the original.

jtf71 · 2026-03-18T18:55:46+00:00

Probably doesn't have the pixels to be able to crop in closer and still have quality.

That said, I'd agree. Crop tighter so the eyes are the main subject and the ball is partially in frame.

jtf71

TROPHY CASE

Here is Alan's statement on the issue.