5D 85mm 1.2 user help please

[terry_evans3]

Hello,

 

I have had so much help hear recently that I hate to even ask another lens

question. So, thanks for your patience. I have ordered a 5d and have not

chosen my lenses yet. Since I am more familiar with Nikon, my head is

starting to swim. I have searched and read reviews, but am still undecided.

 

My intent in buying the 5D is to capture the best posible pictures of people,

both formal and informal settings. The same goes for the lens, I want the

best for this particular purpose. My photograhpy interests have been on and

off for the last 30 years, so I am used to thinking primes are prefered. My

first thought for a FF DSLR was 35mm, 50mm, and 135-150mm primes. So, I was

going to start out with the 35mm 1.4 and 135mm 2.0 lenses, and wait for the

50mm 1.2.

 

Today, I looked at as many images as I could in the Portrait gallary that were

taken with a Canon, especially 5D. I was supprised to see that most were

using the 24-70, 70-200, and even a 50 1.8. The results were very nice,

causing me to rething the whole prime vs. zoom idea. This really started to

frustrate me.

 

My favorite lens so far is the 85mm 1.2. It doesn't seem to be as popular on

the forums, but came highly recommended. Wow, is it expensive! It would blow

my budget for lenses right now. I am prepared to order one tonight, if it is

the best choice. Just have shoot with that alone for a while, not a bad

problem to have. Or, I could get the 35 and 135 and wait for the 50mm.

Probably even more practical, I could the 24-105mm (?), or a 24-70mm with the

135mm. Again, I don't mind spending $2,000.00 for one lens if it is awesome

and add other focal lengths later.

 

An opinion from a 5D user with the 85mm 1.2 would be very much appreciated.

 

Sincerely,

 

Terry

[sean_flanigan]

If you can, get the 85/1.2 I shoot it all the time w/my 5d's.

 

No other lens can give you the same look as the 85/1.2.

 

First 2 images in my portfolio are with this combo.

 

http://www.seanflaniganphotography.com

 

A big aperture is more important than range IMO (for what I do.)

 

I am fresh on the Canon scene from Nikon and I very happy with the Canon optics. I love the 24/1.4 and the 85/1.2.

 

Just get the 85/1.2 and don't look back my friend.

 

Regards,

 

Sean

[erik_ingvoldstad]

Terry,

 

I have the 85 1.2 for use with my 1DII and 1v. It's a fantastic lens, and my favourite portrait

lens. BUT I would never have bought it if I didn't have a 24-70. 85mm is just too limiting for

me. I say give the zooms a chance, they're pretty good...

[terry_evans3]

Thanks guys. I was thinking that both lenses would make a nice combination, what do you think? Sean, which version do you have? Should I just get the new version and be done with it? I am a slow deliberate shooter, just wondered if the slower focus old version would really matter. The 24-70 would be practical and the 85 would at least satisfy my want for it. Don't need any of it, it's all for fun. Thanks, Terry

[h.l.]

I would go with the 70-200 2.8L IS for a single lens solution. Later on, you can supplement with the 85 1.2L if you like that range. Otherwise, go wide for environmental portraits.

[jim_doty]

Terry,

 

It doesn't make sense to me to spend your whole lens budget on one lens.

 

A couple of zoom lenses, perhaps starting with the Canon EF 24-105mm L lens, would serve you well.

 

If you prefer primes, a set of 3 or 4 reasonably fast primes would fit in your budget and give you more flexibility.

 

Your posts over the last year indicate you are on a quite a photo equipment search, using several systems with varying degrees of satisfaction, plus asking questions about several other options. Anyone that curious about equipment shouldn't limit themselves to one lens.

 

Good luck in your lens search!

 

Jim

[beauh44]

I'm with HL... My 70-200 f/2.8L IS is on my 1DsII 90 percent of the time for portraits. Nope, it's not as fast as the 85 1.2 but the noise on a 5D is so low you can really crank the ISO in low light. You'll also have the 85mm focal length "built-in" to the 70-200 and it has image stabilization - something that most Canon primes unfortunately lack. Yes, the 85mm 1.2 is a great lens and the zoom is certainly bigger and heavier, but there's no way I'd trade my 70-200 for the 85mm 1.2. Just my .02 cent's worth. Here's a portrait using the zoom: http://www.photo.net/photo/5053172 Good luck!

[terry_evans3]

Does it make since to have the 24-70 and 70-200 as a system? Is it really splitting hairs to do much better? The speed is good, they are both L lenses, the focal length is great. I see both lenses all over the Portrait and Nude gallaries, the images are beautiful, especially your Beau.

 

Also, yes Jim you are right. I went from an RB to a Hasselblad, to a combination of an S2 and F100. A lot of that has to do with leaving film for digital. I just wasn't sure. I finally decided on digital. I have been considering the S3, D200, and D5. I decided on the D5 and now I am trying to find the right lenses so I don't go through all this again any time soon. I don't want to buy, sell, and upgrade lenses down the road, I am trying to make the right choice now.

 

Thanks,

 

Terry

[mendel_leisk]

My 5D lens:

 

#1 Canon 24-105mm f4.0 IS (very versatile & compact zoom, good range for the 5D, more or less the "kit" lens for this body)

 

#2 Canon 50mm f1.4 (just an old favourite, the normal perspective of course with the full frame, so light and compact for walk-around & candid)

 

#3 Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS (wonderful lens, & 70mm much closer to normal perpective on full frame body)

 

#4 Canon 24-70 f2.8 (very nice lens, don't want to let go of it, but I barely used it since getting the 24-105)

[tom_bunnell]

Terry, are you aware of the fact that a $600 rebate on a 5D takes effect 10-15-06 and also some lens rebates.

[del_bomberger1]

I bought the 5D with 85 1.2 and 35 1.4, and I couldn't be happier. Lot's of options out there,

but I doubt you would have any second thoughts if you did purchase the 85 1.2. Good Luck.

[sean_flanigan]

Terry, I have the mark II version.

 

Just get it. If you are not shooting PJ or sports the 85 will serve you well.

 

You can zoom with your feet.

[keith_lubow]

Hello,

 

Well, I have not used the EF 85mm 1.2, but I can tell you that it is probabaly as good or better than my FD 85mm 1.2, which is a really stunning lens. The only thing I have to warn you of regarding the lens (and remember, I am talking about the FD mount version, but the focal length, max. aperture, L glass, etc. are the same, so the same generalizations should apply) is that it is not a good choice to have as your only lens. If you only shot at a couple of different distances all the time, and had plenty of time and room to move closer and farther (for instance, in studio head and shoulders portaits, and moving back for waist up), then you might be OK. However, doing street or impromptu type portraits, or environmental portraits, that focal length will leave you feeling a bit choked for room. The way I use my 85mm is not for a portrait lens, but almost exclusively for live concerts in small clubs using the stage lighting rather than flash. In these lighting conditions, F/2.8 and even 2.0 can really be a drag, depending on the place. I put the 85 on a second body, and use it for a little more reach over the 50mm 1.2 or 1.4 that I put on another body. Usually the 85 is to frame a performer's head or hands tightly. My point is that although I love the lens and it is very useful, I have never, ever had it as the only lens in my bag, so I would caution against getting only the EF 85mm 1.2.

 

For set up portraits (which I hate doing and am horrible at), I almost always use a medium or large format camera with a normal lens for portraits, when the slow speed of setting up and shooting allows it.

 

Nothing beats a 50mm 1.4 for all around balance of versatility and speed. I would start with one of these, especially since they are reasonably priced, especially on the used market. If I could afford to drop 1,600 bones, the new 1.2 version would be first on my list (but ONLY if I had a full frame body, like you).

 

The zooms can be convenient and tide you over for awhile. They are really helpful is you are restricted to one spot for some reason (i.e. if you're a journalist with an assigned spot on the red carpet, etc.). Since I got my EOS camera to use for journalism, all I have for it is two zooms and a 35mm 2.0 (which is about normal on my 1.3X crop camera). I am just getting started with EOS, I wanted to cover a lot of bases with only a few lenses, and capturing action is more important than image quality. However, if I was seriously doing planned portraits, I would use a fixed focal length lens for best results. You need every image quality edge you can get on a digital camera, because the sensors are much more demanding on lens quality than film is.

 

blah blah blah. My points, basically, are:

 

1. I recommend against purchasing the 85mm as your only lens

 

2. A zoom may be the best way to cover a lot of bases quickly, and will likely do everything you need it to do, but if you are a stickler for primo lens quality, I would plan on eventually upgrading to a fixed lens for the portrait work.

 

Keith

[philg]

If you like the 85mm perspective and think that you can use it for most of your photography, I wouldn't advise you to get the 70-200 zoom. The zoom is great, but very heavy and bulky and it changes your relationship with the subject if you look like you're loaded up to shoot (literally) bear. Maybe a good rule for portrait photography should be "never bring a camera/lens combo that is bigger than your head".

[beauh44]

<I>Maybe a good rule for portrait photography should be "never bring a camera/lens combo that is bigger than your head".</i><P>

 

Perhaps. But I've found that models are impressed with the sheer girth and rigidity of the 70-200, pointed right at them.<P>

 

My apologies. ;-)

[savas_kyprianides]

I agree. In this age of miniature digicams and phone cameras, a DSLR body alone appears

conspicuous. I bring my gear to a casual party and right away, people notice and ask

questions about the camera.

[terry_smith2]

I've had the 85/1.2 for over ten years and it produces stunning low light portraits wide open. Stopped down, it's excellent for general subjects. There's really nothing else like it. Later on you can add the 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 24/1.4, and 135/2 lenses plus the 24-105/4. My only digital body is a D30 with just 3.2 Mpix, but all the same, the 85/1.2 gives fantastic images. I still shoot mostly film and have a 3, 7n and 10s bodies for that plus lots of lenses and a G5 and a Yashica Lynx 14E for those times that I don't want to lug a heavy bag of SLR gear around.

[nick_hazidis]

Obviously the 85mm 1.2 is an amazing lens but there are no major benefits that it will provide over the 85mm 1.8 for portrait work. FYI I use a 5D and tested it with the 1.2 before going with the 1.8.

 

If used to make large prints the 1.2L will be very slightly sharper than the cheaper canon 85mm but personally i spend huge amounts of time in PS trying to get my portraits (hair & skin in particular) looking less sharp.

 

If you're a resolution nut then I'm sure you'll find that using a zoom and making sure the model fills the frame perfectly will give you more of a res-boost than the minor benefit provided by using a prime for all your shots.

 

The only other stand-out characteristic of the lens is the ability to shoot at f/1.2, and if you've ever tried shooting a portait with an aperture that large, you'll know that it's far from practical (generally you want both eyes in focus and unless your model's facing you perfectly, thats very hard to achieve consistently). You'll get plenty of bokeh at f/4 and most likely too much at f/1.8. The other thing you have to consider is whether you'll be able to shoot that wide open when using studio lights. Even at iso 50 and using ND filters, I often have to stop down to f/5.6 or f/8 to avoid overexposing shots.

 

If you've got the money to burn then by all means by the 1.2 but I'm absolutely positive you will learn more and take far better pictures if you invest the money in maybe two good zooms and two lower-end primes

[terry_evans3]

All of you have been extremely helpful, thanks. I am confident that I could follow any recommendation here and be just fine. Your replies also help me choose among the lenses that others have personal experience with. I know, there's know right answer, I just need to mount something nice on my new D5 and start enjoying it. You guys are great, love your sites. Terry

[jim_doty]

Terry,

 

"Does it make since to have the 24-70 and 70-200 as a system?"

 

Yes. Although the EF 24-105 f/4L IS lens has image stabilization which is very useful. The same can be said for the soon to be released 70-200 f/4L IS lens which is smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 versions. Both are worth your consideration and make a nice pair of do everything lenses. (If you really like wide angle work, the EF 17-40mm f/4L lens will complete your set.) After that you can specialize on lenses that match your specialized interests.

 

I should add that I use the 24-105mm lens on my 5D and it makes a great mid-focal length lens.

 

Jim

[keith_lubow]

Philip,

 

I highly disagree. I think you should use whatever gives you the result you want, without worry about something as unimportant as size. I normally use my Graphic View, Speed Graphic, or Mamiya Super 23 for portraits, and nothing in 35mm format touches them for quality and good old simplicity of operation. I am no pro, but no one I have shot has ever been intimidated by these camera. If anything, it gives us an icebreaker for converstation, because they're used to digital SLRs or Hasselblads, etc. I have tried digital cameras or a 35mm instead, but feel much more comfortable with the bigger cameras. Can't say I have tried a Hasselblad. Maybe that would be perfect.

 

Keith

[terry_evans3]

Well, I finally decided and ordered the 24-70 and 85 1.2. Thanks