85mm f/1.2L on 20D - need advise

[fly_guy]

I am very intrigued by the creative possibilities offered by the

shallow DOF of this lens, and am considering it as a strong

contender for my next lens on 20D. I have so far acquired a 17-35

zoom, a 28-75 zoom, and the 70-200 IS (with 1.4x extender), in

addition to the "el cheapo" 50/1.8 II.

 

Having done some research on the Fred Miranda website, I understand

that if AutoFocus speed is of concern, I would be better off with

the significantly cheaper and almost equally good 85/1.8 USM. But

1.8 is not 1.2, and I've recently become a sucker for shallow DOF.

 

Could those among you who have this 85/1.2L and use it with a 1.6x

sensor (preferably 20D) tell me the good, the bad, and the ugly with

any caveats that I need to consider before I take the plunge?

 

Thanks in advance.

[ben_granillo]

what you need to get is a set of extension tubes. this will make all of your lenses have a very very shallow depth of field. You can get a set of 3 for under 100$.

[barmijo]

Ben's suggestion would yield shallow DOF . . . provided you're into Macro photography (which I am by the way).

 

The 85/1.2 is a superb medium telephoto lens and is easily my favorite for use on my D60 and 1D MkII. DOF wide open is paper thin, yet the image is still razor sharp. In portraits the eylashes are crisp, there's detail in the pupil, and yet the hair by the ear will be indifferentiable. The 85/1.8 is also a sharp lens . . . at f/8, but wide open can't touch the f/1.2.

 

I know there'll be folks that claim you can do this in photoshop, but every attempt I've seen looks fake (everything except the face is blurred) compared with the real thing. It's subtle, true, but when you're looking at $1500 glass that's obviously what you're into.

 

The 85/1.2 seems to be a design from a different era than most modern Canon lenses. It's not internal focusing, so it changes length as you focus. AF is slow by comparison to USM, but doesn't hunt. For anything other than sports or perhaps some photo journalism it's adequate. And, of course, it'll focus in extremely low light that other lenses simply can't handle.

 

Weight may be an issue for some folks (imagine the weight of your 70-200 IS packed into a lens a third the length) but I don't find it a hinderance.

 

Oh, and one last issue - attention. This is a BIG piece of glass and even non photographers will be drawn to it.

 

My suggestion - beg, borrow, steal - whatever it takes to try this lens!

[yakim_peled1]

I purchased the 85/1.8 for it's possibility to create shallow DoF. However, and as I use it frequently, I can tell you that it's DoF at 1.8 is so shallow (for me, YMMV) that I sometimes stop it down to 2.8 or even 4 just to get more DoF. My advice? Get the 85/1.8 first and see if 1.8 is not shallow enough for you. HTH.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[rayn]

Optical performance is alomst identical to the 85/1.8, except at 1.2 and 1.4 of course.

Here is a review:

 

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm

 

There is a picture at the bottom comparing both wide open for portrait.

[brian_potts]

I own both the 85 f/1.2L and the 85 f/1.8. I shoot with these lenses on both my 1DM2 and 20D. I have used the 85 f/1.8 on a number of other bodies as well.<br><br>

 

I love the 85 f/1.2L. If you have the money for it and like to shoot portraits, I would highly recommend it.<br><br>

 

I can tell you that the focus speed has been highly blown out of proportion. It really isn't that bad at all (more on this later). I have also read of a number of people who have a problem getting what they want in focus. I think this is 95% technique, so it is something that you just need to work on. When I first started shooting with the 85 f/1.8 years ago, I had a problem getting the correct eye in focus. I am accustomed to working with fast glass at this point (135 f/2L, 200 f/1.8L, etc), so I don't have a problem with this at all.<br><br>

 

The only negatives is that if you are taking at or near wide open shots, one of the two eyes can easily get out of focus. You just need to be aware of this when your subject is at an angle. I really don't even look at this as so much of a negative as something to be aware of. Ok, now my biggest pet peeve (which really isn't that big)...As was mentioned in a previous post by Bert, an internal tube comes out when you focus closer than infinity. This is all fine and good until you turn off the camera, and take off your hood. Now you can see it sitting there, and when it is focused to infinity it is sitting on a rest which is a better postion for moving the lens. Ok, this sounds easy. Just move the focus to infinity. Well, guess what? This lens requires you to have the camera powered on even for manual focus. So now, you are turning the camera on, changing to manual focus, focusing to infinity and turning the lens back to AF so you won't get messed up the next time you shoot with it. You would think this would become second nature, but apparently I am slow, so I always discover this after the camera is off. Does this really bother me? Ok, it does a little. It won't even slightly hinder me from grabbing this lens though. It really is great. I have only had this lens for a short time, and I love it everytime that I use it.<br><br>

 

Here are a few samples...<br><br>

 

<center>

 

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/kristen/kristen%2011-14-04%20(ha3j2871)_std.jpg"><br>f/1.4<br><br>

 

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/kristen/kristen%2011-14-04%20(ha3j2880)_std.jpg"><br>f/1.8<br><br>

 

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/kristen/kristen%20xmas%2004%20holding%20doll%20(ha3j3910)_std.jpg"><br>f/1.2<br><br>

 

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/kristen/kristen%20(ha3j2870)_std.jpg"><br>f/1.2<br><br>

 

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/rachel/rachel%2012-27-2004%20(ha3j4055)_std.jpg"><br>f/1.4<br><br>

 

</center>

 

I can tell you that comparing the f/1.2 lens to the f/1.8 that the f/1.2 is definitly sharper (at equal apertures) and more contrasty. It is also sharper at f/1.2 than the f/1.8 lens is at f/1.8.<br><br>

 

Ok, so why do I keep both lenses? Well, the f/1.8 lens does autofocus faster although the f/1.2 isn't a bad autofocus lens. I would compare the 85 f/1.2L with a 50 f/1.4. It is funny how you never hear people go on about how bad the 50 f/1.4 is at autofocusing, but it isn't as fast as the 85 f/1.8. I use the 85 f/1.8 for both dance and gymnastics. I use the f/1.2 for portrait work. They are both nice lenses.<br><br>

[sheldonnalos]

Wonderful shots Brian - now I want an 85mm f/1.2!

[joe_r1]

Wm Castleman's review of the 2 lenses is very intersting. Essentially he finds that at 50% MTF the f1.8 version is slightly sharper.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm

 

You can't beat the bokeh of the f1.2 version - worth 4x's the price? You decide. I am really happy with the f1.8 version, but if anyone wants to trade for the f1.2 let me know. Heh heh.

[el_fang]

Great portraits, Brian - especially the last one. Very, very nice.

[fly_guy]

Thank you to everyone who responded, but most of all, a BIG THANK YOU to Brian for showing some of the most stunning portraits taken with this lens. I think I'm sold.

 

I called a local camera store in the neighborhood and they have it for rental for $28 a day (they said it's usually out, so call in advance to book it!). I will take it out for a spin and see how I like it on the 20D. My concern is 1.6x crop of the 20D, and the FOV that this lens would provide (136mm) may or may not be to my liking. I will know after a day of shooting with it.

 

Happy Holidays!

[ayn]

wow, those are amazing portraits, very very nice!

 

I really want this lens, too bad it doesn't have the triple rebate, otherwise I'd get it for sure.

hmm... still very tempting...

 

-Andrew

[brian_potts]

Thank you for the compliments.

 

For those who are considering this lens, I can tell you that I debated for a while due to the cost. After I got the lens, I can't believe that I ever debated about it.

[andrew_certain]

I rented the 85 1.2 to shoot at my sister's wedding and the assorted parties around it.

What I can tell you is that that time was not long enough for me to get used to the lens.

I'm just warning you that after renting it, you might conclude that it's too difficult to work

with, which might not be the case if you owned it and used it for months. The difference

in DOF for portraits is substantial. If you or the subject moves at all between when you

focus and when you release the shutter (even 5mm), you can be disappointed.

 

I'm not saying it isn't a great lens. I just want you to be prepared for a longer learning

curve than with other lenses.

 

On the other hand, you might be much more skilled than I and adapt in days.

 

Andrew

[fly_guy]

Thanks for the tip, Andrew.

 

I'll be mindful of that, and not make any rash judgments re. this fine lens.

[flyfisher1]

Spectacular Brian, I just got mine a week ago. Would you be kind enough to share what you've learned about shooting and focusing the 85 1.2 lens.

 

Also wondering your thoughts and examples on the 135 f2 which I'm also concidering.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Bart

[brian_potts]

Hi Bart:<br><br>

 

Thank you for the compliment. One of the biggest things is to really think about the plane of focus. Normally you want this on the closest eye when making a portrait. Many people like to use the center point, and recompose. This does not work well when you are working with a limited DOF like the 85 f/1.2L provides. Take the time, and pick the correct focus point. Make sure to not sit there too long after acquiring focus then do the standard slow squeeze. After you have played with this a bit, and you really think about how focus will come out it becomes very second nature, quick and easy. I miss very few shots due to poor focus.<br><br>

 

Regarding the 135 f/2L, this lens has no downsides with the exception that the focal length isn't always well suited for portrait work especially now with cameras that crop the image even further. It is realatively small, fast to autofocus, sharp wide open (although I prefer to start at f/2.2), and it works very nicely with teleconverters. I like to use this lens for dance and gymnastics.<br><br>

 

Here are a couple of examples:<br><br>

<center>

 

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/kristen/kristen%2010-17-2004%20(ha3j2297)_std.jpg"><br>f/2.2<br><br>

 

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/rachel/rachel%207-18-2004%20(ha3j0672)-dpp_std.jpg"><br>f/2.2<br><br>

 

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/lisa/lisa%20in%20red%20shirt%2010-23-2004%20(ha3j2472)_std.jpg"><br>f/2.2<br><br>

 

</center>

<br>

Apparently, I like f/2.2. I noticed that the three quick examples that I picked were all taken at f/2.2.<br><br>

 

After you get those, you can get the 200 f/1.8L! :)<br><br>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/lisa/lisa%20pulling%20hair%20back%208-21-04%20(ha3j1416)_std.jpg"><br>200 f/1.8L at f/2.0<br><br>

 

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/kristen/ha3j7258_std.jpg"><br>200 f/1.8L at f/1.8<br><br>

[fly_guy]

Brian,

 

You're a very gifted photographer, as I can gather from these beautiful images.

 

I sure hope Canon introduces some new L-primes at the PMA next month. Perhaps a Mark II / USM version of 85/1.2L, in addition to a new 50/1.2L.

 

If my understanding is correct, both 200/1.8 and 50/1.0 are sold out and not produced anymore, making them collectors items. It would be nice to see a replacement of these fantastic lenses.

 

Than you for posting such inspiring images.

[brian_potts]

</center>

Thank you for the compliment Fly Guy.<br><br>

 

I personally wouldn't be that excited by a replacement for the 85 f/1.2L. I am afraid it would be easier to hurt it than help it. It really is a nice lens. The 200 f/1.8L is a great lens as well, and it is the only piece of photography gear that I have that keeps going up in value!<br><br>

 

I don't own the 50 f/1.0L. I have read a number of times how the lens is fairly soft, and it isn't up to the 50 f/1.4 standards. I would be very happy if Canon introduced a 50 f/1.2L. This is one of the few lenses that they could release that I would probably buy. They are overdue on releasing any new primes.

[astcell]

I am glad I found this thread, I hope it keeps going. After seeing these the 85/1.2 is on my list, right after the 300/2.8. I, like many others, was concerned about the slower focus speed.

[michael_vearing]

I have just had the 85mm f/1.2 & 135 f/2 sent out from B&H and what I have taken so far coincide' with Brian Potts, as Brian said the 1.2 is certainly a big lump of glass. The bokeh and shallow DOF is very pleasing, highlighting the subject which is what one wants in portraiture.

[jim_larson1]

OK: Question:

 

Are standard precision sensors upto the shallow DOF of the 85/1.2? Only the 20D center sensor is high precsion. All the other sensors (and all the sensors on the 10D) are all standard precision. . and the coverage of each sensor is HUUGGE. Place it on the eye, and both the Eyebrow and nose will be within the AF zone. Does this represent a problem with a 85/1.2?

[squareframe]

revelation ... have we come so far that we can't twist a ring and focus manually? AF is nice, but in this application with a slow-focusing lens, it gets in the way.

 

fast lenses are great fun. my favourite lens is my Hasselblad 110m f2.0 with the 6x6 format. bodacious!

[jim_larson1]

<i>revelation ... have we come so far that we can't twist a ring and focus manually? AF is nice, but in this application with a slow-focusing lens, it gets in the way. </i>

<p>

The 10D viewfinder is so dim. . .. my eyes are so bad. . .yes we can't twist a ring and focus manually.

[paul_kurian]

85mm/1.2L is my favourite lens for portraits. Its shallow D.O.F gives you lot of possibilities.<div></div>