|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
I was all excited about buying one of these. Had my piggy bank tucked under my arm and everything! I'd read such great reviews about it. Went into B&H, asked them to drop it into a 5D for me so I could see what it was gonna be like when I got home. And I was just not all that thrilled by it. Lightning and thunder did not knock me off my feet. Magic didn't flood into my ocular cavity. I dunno. What's the big deal about this lens? Jul 26 07 01:02 pm Link 1.2L Glass? I think the focus is very slow, but 1.2 .....wow! Jul 26 07 01:06 pm Link swhnyc wrote: It's price, followed by bragging rights. Jul 26 07 01:06 pm Link I Love my 1.8 Mk II for less than optimal lighting, so I can't help but drool at the 1.2! Jul 26 07 01:09 pm Link minor thread jack.... What percentage of your shots are done wide open? Jul 26 07 01:13 pm Link AndrewThomasDesigns wrote: lol. Jul 26 07 01:14 pm Link I have the 85mm f/1.8, only wish I could afford the better one. It's great for low light and portraiture. Jul 26 07 01:17 pm Link I'm not generally doing portraits in low light.. So I'd probably want a wider lens for such speed.. Jul 26 07 01:19 pm Link swhnyc wrote: Like I said a while back it takes some getting used to... Jul 26 07 01:20 pm Link The bokeh is creamy smooth and I find it to be sharper than the 1.8 aven at f4-5.6 which is where I shoot most of my headshots (my bread and butter). I use it on the 5D as well. Jul 26 07 01:22 pm Link I have been shooting mostly with it since 1993 (the original version after the FD) Its still the main lens on my camera today... For me, its not about the 1.2 that I used once or twice, but the quality from 5.6 to 11 that rocks... My other rocket is the 200 1.8L but its weight and bulk keep it hidden. Jul 26 07 01:22 pm Link the lens is absolutly amazing! the way it shapes light and color with such low depth of field is comparable to no other lens. I shot this series with it, wide open of course! all natural light.  Jul 26 07 01:23 pm Link I love it for my wedding stuff. If you don't see the value of this lens it is because you don't shoot in many situations that have extremely low light or very distracting backgrounds. It's just another tool but if you don't need what it can do stick with a 1.8 it is a hell of a lot cheaper. Jul 26 07 01:23 pm Link someone should graph this out as far as the price paid for the different lenses, and then another line for the quality of pictures from those lenese. Prices would be taken from B&H on a given day, and the quality of pictures would be graded by a set of judges from MM, they would not know which lens too the pictures, and each pictures submitted from members would be graded on a 1-10 scale. We would do about 50-100 pictures to get a good sample and only industry professionals would be able to submit. Then to make things fun, we would grade the pictures again - only this time with adverage members - and this time they would know which lens too what. I'm willing to bet a few things. 1) the first graph as far as prices would show what we all expect, the 1.2 is about 10-14 times more expensive than the 1.8, however the pictures as graded by the pro's wouldn't be that different from the 1.8, 1.4, and 1.2. Now I would be willing to bet that all the gwc's on here would rate the 1.2 ones as better just because they would get a hard-on seeing anything from that lens. but that's just my opinon. Jul 26 07 01:24 pm Link Marcel Vocino wrote: Beautiful work! Jul 26 07 01:26 pm Link you are buying glass not bells and whistles. Jul 26 07 01:29 pm Link Bernie Browder wrote: ???? Jul 26 07 01:30 pm Link the sharpest lens they make mtf wise the fastest lens they make and the fastest 85mm there is --period awesome build That's a pretty good list. On the side that makes it a little challenging is it is hard to walk around and shoot at f/1.2. You need to be damn adept at focusing. As anyone knows-- in lower light situations, one doesn't use AF for the most part with this lens. This is my fav lens. Fully agree about shooting wide though. At 1.2 your depth of field is about the same as the thickness of the models make-up! I shoot on a DsII and the sharpness is unbelievable. Jul 26 07 01:31 pm Link VisualRamblings wrote: Sorry what i meant, is many times when you are looking at lenses the speed of the lens relates to the amount and quality of glass. That is a super fast lens and you might use the wide apreture but its not going to hit you like a ton of bricks, now the quality of the glass is where you are going to get "struck by lighting". I guess thats how i interpreted the OP comments. Thats what I meant by you are buying glass not the fact it can shoot such a fast apreture. Jul 26 07 01:36 pm Link Well I was thinking about it for low light situations... I want to do a lot more night shoots using just available street lamps, etc, and it seemed like this might make life easier. But I dunno, maybe the 1.8 would suit me fine. Jul 26 07 01:37 pm Link I have the 85mm 1.2L Mk1. Yes, the focus is slow, yes it's heavy as shit, but I love it. I use it in the studio with strobes at f5.6-f11 and it's sharp as anything. I use it in natural light at f1.2-f2.8 and the bokeh is gorgeous. I have it on my 1Ds 2 more than anything else I own. Now go back to B&H and get one. Jul 26 07 01:37 pm Link I agree with Olaf Jul 26 07 01:56 pm Link I am in 100% agreement with Olaf. I had the Mark I version of this lens and upgraded to the Mark II version when it became available. There is far more to this lens than the 1.2 aperture. Of course you can shoot by candlelight. Of course the bokeh is unmatched in Canon's entire range. By this I mean the diffuse circles of light that are rendered in the out-of-focus regions of the photo are actually circles! They are octagons. They are beautiful. The lens focuses more slowly than other comparable lengths, however, it is not meant as a sports or action lens. It is a portrait lens and available light lens. In addition, I have found that it renders colors more accurately. My subjective opinion is that colors seem more robust and saturated when I use this lens. It is one of my most used lenses. Here are two examples of the beautiful results obtainable from this bad boy. And, I second that directive....get back to B&H and buy one!!! Following links to nudes shot with this lens...... http://www.pbase.com/transposure/image/ … iginal.jpg http://www.pbase.com/transposure/image/ … iginal.jpg Jul 26 07 01:58 pm Link end of discussion! Jul 26 07 02:00 pm Link Transposure wrote: Can't post 18+ images in the forums - though they are stunning. You may want to leave it at links.... Jul 26 07 02:10 pm Link What's the big deal about this lens? The 85mm 1.8 is sharper and cost much less. Jul 26 07 02:15 pm Link swhnyc wrote: The Magic of that f1.2 is DOF. it might not be the sharpest lens but it is the DOF that kicks butt. Jul 26 07 02:18 pm Link All I can say is that It is my latest purchase (only have had it one week) and I only wish I had purchased it sooner. It's so sweeeet!!!!! Jul 26 07 02:21 pm Link swhnyc wrote: The question is, what did you THINK was going to be the big deal about it? What did you expect out of it that it didn't provide? Jul 26 07 02:29 pm Link Lee K wrote: Sharpness... but then again, maybe the store wasn't the ideal place to be testing it out. The shots Transposure linked to have me thinking that maybe I should rent it for a shoot and see how it turns out. Jul 26 07 04:32 pm Link ChanStudio wrote: Chan, your nikon colors are showing thru here... It is razor sharp. I shoot raw and have never had to sharpen a keeper. In fact, they are usually too sharp raw.... I am not for for skin smoothing, but with the 85mk2-- it displays every pore with the utmost clarity. It puts the nikkor 85f/1.4 to shame. Jul 26 07 05:50 pm Link swhnyc wrote: If it's sharpness you want just get the 85 1.8. I'm serious. It's sharper than you'll need. Jul 26 07 06:27 pm Link fStopstudios wrote: What Canon and Nikon cameras are you using for this comparison? Jul 26 07 06:30 pm Link fStopstudios wrote: Canon Digital applies sharpen to their images already. A true comparison would be shooting both on film or through some other method. I have to find the lenses comparison and you will see why the Canon 85 f1.2 isn't the sharpest lens. Jul 26 07 06:31 pm Link ChanStudio wrote: I own just/have own about every prime under 400mm from canon and most from nikon. The 85, 135, and 300 are the sharpest lenses I've ever held... it's not even close with any zoom. The f/1.8 is very sharp and on par if your just looking at sharpness in center, etc... The mtf curves do vary and deviate quite a bit. The 85mk2 has pretty much flat line mtf plots-- hard to find better. Jul 26 07 06:34 pm Link fStopstudios wrote: Comparing what Canon body to what Nikon body?? Jul 26 07 06:38 pm Link Livingston Photography wrote: I added a little expl. to my comment. My nikon bodies include/d: fm2n, n90, f100, d70, d200. Jul 26 07 06:46 pm Link fStopstudios wrote: So...... you have shot files with a D200 and a 5D and put them side by side? Jul 26 07 06:49 pm Link swhnyc wrote: Please tell me you at least judged the shots on a monitor and not on the LCD screen? Jul 26 07 06:56 pm Link Livingston Photography wrote: Yes and no. Nothing scientific (i.e. imatest, and plots), but of course when I first got the 5d, I did plenty of side by sides. More to the point is that having taken well over 100k frames on d200s, and prob around 40-50k on the 5d, I have a pretty good handle on making generalizations when it comes to sharpness. The resolution and sharpness with unsharpned raw isn't that close... at least on my bodies. Again tho, i refer back to my previous post and say in terms of the 85L-- this is noise... Jul 26 07 06:58 pm Link |
