85 f/1.2 vs. 50 f/1.2 for weddings?

[o._wagner]

So, I'm drooling over the Canon 85 f/1.2 and 50 f/1.2. I have seen some of

the images these lenses can produce and I am completely floored. I am pretty

much a zoom shooter so I am wondering if anyone uses either of these for

weddings and which focal length they find more useful?

[stephen dohring]

The photographer produced the images not the lens. If you not getting almost the same shot wiht your 2.8 lenses but with obvious differences in depth of field then they won't make that much difference. Your not gonna shoot with the lens and be floored unless the lighting subject and backgrounds are all there also. There should be a little more sharpness and contrast with the prime but not that much of an impact. Now if you use f4 lower quality zooms then you might be a little floored ;)

[ni_gentry]

I get floored by great images, not expensive lenses - unless maybe someone hit me over the

head with one, which plenty of people would love to do I'm sure !

[picturesque]

Marc Williams has and uses both. Here is one thread.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JEXR

 

You might want to do a search. Several thread about each lens. I use the non L versions of these focal lengths. Of the two I would use the 85mm more. On the 85mm L--be aware that it is bigger and focuses slower than the non L version.

[jml]

Hey guys! I believe this was the question: "I am wondering if anyone uses either of these for weddings and which focal length they find more useful"?

If you don't use either of those two lenses then it's not useful for you to comment especially when the comments neither answer the question the poster posed or serve any purpose than to waste our time with useless editorializing. If "O" is floored...then good for him. People are more and more prefacing their questions on this forum with..."please don't slam me...etc. etc.... People, esp. newbies are apprehensive of posting and this is a good example of why. PN is getting a nasty rep because of the negative posts rather than positive help and educational criticism. Let's not continue to contribute to that okay?

 

Answers

[fotografz]

Yes, I use both of those lenses at every wedding.

 

Shallow DOF is one obvious benefit that can produce a really nice seperation from the

background clutter often found at weddings. Both these lenses have beautiful Bokeh.

 

Also obviously you gain higher shutter speeds when shooting at f/1.2

 

Another less mentioned benefit is the ability to shoot wide open at a distance in lower

light while maintaining more of the ambient feel of the surroundings. I personally like this

aspect as much as I do the shallow DOF when closer to the subject.

[fotografz]

Oh, I forgot to add that of the two the 85/1.2 is a tad better IMO.

 

If you are using a crop frame sensor Canon DSLR, then the 50/1.2 might be the better choice

since it is the equivalent of an 80mm. But it depends on what focal lengths you favor. On a

crop frame, the 80 becomes the field of view of a 128/1.2

[fotografz]

Oops, I meant the 85 becomes the field of view of a 136/1.2 ( I was thinking Nikon and Leica

R which have 80mms).

[lovcom_photo]

Mark, do you or have you noticed a serious back focus issue when shooting wide open? My copy has such an issue, and for those shots I have to perform manual overrule with the focus ring. Although this mitigates the issue, it really bothers me that for the price of this lens, it has the horrible back focus. F2 and stopped down, the back focus seems to be much less pronounced, and by F5.6 it is razor sharp, giving great color rendition, and contrast...

 

...but this lens does not fit in the same category of the 35L, 85L, 135L and 200L in regard to wide open sharpness, and for this reason I think this 50L is a Canon flub.<div></div>

[lovcom_photo]

forgot to mention, I do use the 50L for posed in-church shots, w/flash, and at F5.6 or stopped from there, it does perform as expected. I use this focal length perhaps 75% of all the shots, and I shoot fullframe.

[wedding-photography-denver]

don't have the 50/L so can't comment on that one. However, I have the 50/1.4 and a couple 85's (one of them is the 85mkII).

 

I can see using the 50 for some stuff (full length couples portraits that include a little environment, landscape shots of small groups chatting at receptions, etc.), but I don't.

 

Now the 85's get used all the time and I love that focal length. I use them in conjunction with the 24/1.4 35/1.4, so the 50 is a little close to either for me.

[wedding-photography-denver]

BTW, I use these on 5D's so bear that in mind. I used the 50/1.4 on the 30d/20d/10d/rebel bodies a fair amount. Not really that surprising when you consider the crop..

 

Best, D.

[jeff_b.1]

"Mark, do you or have you noticed a serious back focus issue when shooting wide open?" - Dan

 

Dan,

I am new to this thread so please excuse me jumping in mid-thread. Can you explain what you mean by "back focus"? Does that mean it is focusing on the background instead of the subject you are shooting?

 

Thanks,

Jeff

[robbie_caswell]

I recently got the 85mm f/1.2 Mark I version and can compare it to it's little brother. The f/1.8 has snap focus that I like. The f/1.2 sorta rolls up to the subject (I hope that makes sense).

 

It certainly is slow, but with practice and antcipation not really an issue. The extra stop is nice to have.

 

I think focal length is a matter of style and taste. For me, I could likely shoot the entire wedding with a 50mm, but like that extra reach of the 85mm.

[stephen dohring]

Jan it's all about education - O Wagner doesn't need to spend a bunch of money thinking he will get the same results, we are trying to help and educate.

[rtrace]

"I am pretty much a zoom shooter so I am wondering if anyone uses either of these for weddings and which focal length they find more useful?"

 

Focal length is an individual preference really, not sure how a query will help you decide. I've used 50 and 85. What does it matter which *I* prefer?

 

Bogdan

[conraderb]

o. wagner - on a full frame, I would choose the 50 1.2. on a 1.6 crop, I woudl go with the 85mm.

 

I personally think that you should get the 85mm 1.8 for 1/4 the price, 2x the focusing speed, 1/2 the size and 1/2 the weight. THEN decide if you want to upgrade to the 1.2

 

I own the 50 1.4, 85 1.8 and 85 1.2. all are good lenses.

 

my favorite combo is teh 17-55 on a 1.6 crop body and the 85mm on the other 1.6 crop body. it becomes around 125-135mm, which is nice for getting candids of individuals over people's shoulders, or of couples together (nice and tight).

[jml]

Steve, well said, and I don't disagree. I think I saw his post as two separate entities. The first being his appreciation for what the lens "could" do (albeit in the right hands). The second being the question he was seeking an answer too. Really didn't mean to slam, but honestly if we dissect the way people ask their questions to the extent that the question itself gets lost, then what's the point? And again, if this was not the trend here then why so many apprehensive posters, prefacing their questions with pleas not to be too harsh? Anyway, sorry Steve if I offended, I truly wasn't targeting you per se, but the problem as I see it, in general.

[fotografz]

There are a number of mitigating factors when considering lenses like this.

 

Both of the L lenses being discussed are built like tanks and the promise is one of

longevity under heavy duty use (as it is with any of the L prime lenses).

 

Focusing: a 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 will indeed focus faster ... the lens elements are smaller

and not as heavy. But at f/1.2 both of the L lenses focus faster than the non-L versions do

... since they don't offer f/1.2 : -) When shooting the L versions with flash in dim light, the

red focus assist light of the flash helps a great deal. If shooting available light, I use an

ST-E2 in the hot shoe to provide that focus assist.

 

Useage: I use the 85/1.2 for the first dance shots at every wedding. I don't have any issue

with the focusing even if the lights are dimmed down during the dance. And I use off

center focusing points when doing these shots rather than the more sensitive center AF

point. It's a matter of practice and prefocus so the lens doesn't have to move the elements

so far to achieve focus (a good technique to master with any lens in low light).

 

One of the best things about using the faster glass is that with flash there is less work for

the flash to do ... which helps tone down that flash look. In effect, even in lower light, the

flash often acts as fill as opposed to looking like the "obvious" main source of light with

cast shadows and hot spots.

 

Here are three shots done at f/1.2 ... all using flash. The common aspect is that "creamy

dreamy" look that flatters women and has a romantic feel I like for wedding work. Will

others get this just by purchasing these lenses? That question is true for any lens ... so it's

a mute point. Heck, in some hands I'm sure they'll even do a lot better.<div></div>

[robbie_caswell]

My Mark1 example.

 

I've been having a heck of a time with autofocus on both my 5D bodies recently. The thin DOF only complicated things.

 

But I like the lens!<div></div>

[robbie_caswell]

aisle shot.

 

Pushing ALOT of glass with a finicky 5D was a PITA. But I like this shot.<div></div>

[stan43]

I don't have the 50 1.2 but I do have and use the 85 1.2L for weddings. I like it on both the 20D and 5D, depending on how close you can get during the ceremony. I did have the 50 1.4 and I still like the 85MM FL better, I would highly recommend the 85 1.2L MK2.

 

Judging lenses by "the best bargain, or bang for your buck" is just as bad as thinking "overpriced lenses" will automatically produce great photos. I'll take my chances with the best lenses.