85mm F1.2, F1.8 and 135mm F2.0 Depth of Field?

I am trying to decide between these three lenses for general portraiture. Even

though it's expensive and heavy, everyone who owns the 85mm F1.2 lens seems to

love it. I'm considering an older Version I, thinking the slower focusing

shouldn't matter that much in taking portraits -- and I should be able to save

several hundred dollars.

 

Having said that, I have read posts that have indicated the depth of field on

this lens is so shallow when wide open that they generally have to stop it down

a couple stops. Similarly, I've heard the same thing about the 135mm, when

it's wide open. So now I'm wondering if I wouldn't be better off buying the

85mm F1.8 and saving some money -- or even the 100mm F2.8. Any thoughts from

those of you who use these lenses for portraits? Thanks!

I have the EF85/1.2 L Mk I, and yes, I tend to use it only from f/1.6 and f/2.0 onwards. More open and the dof is unpractical and focus very critical. I have also tried the f/1.8 version. It actually has marginally higher resolution (hi lpm) and marginally less contrast (low plm) than the f/1.2 vrsion. I bought my lense second hand and should I have considered a new lense it would have been the f/1.8 version. The EF135/2 L is also a fantastic indoor sports lense. Which ever you are going to take it's a very good lense.

You might wantto take a look at this if you want real numbers:

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh_background_blur.html

 

A smaller DOF and more background blur give better subject isolation for portraits, but if you want closeup portrait which are razor sharp from the tip of the nose to the back of the ear, you're going to have to stop down.

The Canon Lens Museum has DOF charts for all their lenses. You can see exactly how much

will be in focus at various distance / aperture combinations on those charts.

The 135/2 might have shallow depth of field wide open, but the plane of focus is very sharp. If the 135/2 isn't too long for your needs, it's a great lens. The 85/1.8 is a very good lens, with fast AF, but I prefer the 135/2. But, you can get an 85/1.8 at a relatively low price, so you could first see if this lens meets your needs.

 

--tom

For general portraiture, I can't see the 85/1.2 having much of an advantage over the 85/1.8. If you're talking about capturing candids in low light, then yes. Otherwise, I'd go with the 85/1.8 *and* the 135/2. Should be able to pick both up for about the same as the 85/1.2.

 

I really like the 135/2. Can't imagine parting with it. But for general portraiture? Not usually my first lens to grab. The 85/1.8 would be for head shots and the 35/1.4 is for full body + environment The 135 is for when I can't get close enough.

 

 

Eric

At f/1.2, DOF is *very* shallow. Even on a crop-factor body (which has more DOF), the subject has to be perfectly square to the camera for a head-shot, or both eyes won't be in focus. Unless you're trying for super-shallow DOF, If you try to use this lens wide-open (or even close to it), you'll lose quite a few of your images.

 

The real strength of the f/1.2 is the bokeh. Backgrounds melt into an almost "creamy" blur.

 

steve

I shot about 500 images yesterday with the 85/1.2II at f/1.2 for a jewelry shoot. About 35% of the images are immediate deletes, because the DoF was so shallow that, when focused on a necklace on a model, her face was COMPLETELY out of focus. On the other hand, when focusing on the eyes, I got another 35% or so that are absolutely gorgeous (though I'm not sure they will serve the purpose or not, i.e., selling the jewelry. But thankfully we shot with the 85, the 3 L zooms, and the 100 macro:)). The point is that if you're not careful, you can get into trouble with this thing. But when you are not being a dork, you remember why you paid so much for it...the images are worth the missed shots that happen if you're not careful or not paying attention to the plane, i.e., if my model's eyes were equidistant from the lens with the jewelry focus-point, all would have of course been fine, or at least acceptable...

 

Shawn

I think you can also consider the 100/1.8.

Eu 100/2..