Just Starting Out!

[scottelly]

<p>Well, I see what you mean William. Still, I think the advantage of the greater amount of light let in at f1.2 vs. f2 makes the 85mm f1.2 L a lens that I would consider to be superior. Yes, the depth of field on a 7 D at f1.2 would probably be about the same as the depth of field produced by the 135mm f2 L at f2 on a full-frame camera, but that is not all that is to be considered. To me, wide lenses are more often about possible shutter speed and ISO settings. Sure, depth of field is certainly part of the equation, just as price is part of that equation. Bokeh is indeed an important part of the overall image, though I understand that may not have been what you were talking about, when you made your statement. My opinion still stands though - the 85mm f1.2 is a better option than the 135mm f2, if you can easily afford it. Of course, with the money spent on an 85mm f1.2 (at retail prices), you could get a 135mm f2 L AND an 85mm f1.4 EX Sigma, or a 135mm f2 L and a Canon 60 D body, thereby covering both focal lengths. Other than that, possible options would be to get the 135mm f2 L and a second 580 EX II flash, and have enough money left over to pay for a decent wide format printer and some frames for displaying your work, if that hasn't already been purchased.<br>

-<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/750234-REG/Canon_4895B002_PIXMA_iX6520_Inkjet_Business.html<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/475370-REG/Epson_C11C655001_Stylus_Photo_1400_Inkjet.html<br>

-<br>

Don't be afraid to try the Sigma 85mm f1.4 EX lens, because it is a very good lens, and a good value too. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/727169-USA/Sigma_320101_85mm_f_1_4_EX_DG.html</p>

[William Michael]

<p>The DoF <strong><em>is</em></strong> about the same, that's all I was commenting upon . . .<br>

I previously was not commenting upon opinions as to which is the “superior lens”, but, IMO, the 135/2 is the “superior lens” in respect of <strong>balance:</strong> especially for Available Light, Hand Held shooting, where slow Tv is required more often.<br>

IMO, the EF85F/1.8 is also better balanced than the EF85F/1.2L.<br>

Also, my opinion is the same regarding the comparative balance of the EF85/1.2L MkII and those other two lenses.<br>

Both of the 85/1.2L lenses are short and relatively heavy and whilst nice glass, balance (and weight and size) is certainly another of the factors one takes into account, when shooting AL, hand-held. <br>

WW</p>

 

[scottelly]

<p>I wasn't thinking about the balance William. I agree about the 135mm f2 L balance. I love the way that lens handles. The 85mm f1.2 L seems a little "stubby" or something. If I were you Michael, I would definitely consider the 135mm f2 L. It's actually not very costly, and it will be equivalent to a 200mm f2 on a 7 D or 60 D.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>To be clear:<br>

I am not suggesting to OP that he buy any lenses, or not buy lenses: but I was merely commenting upon various lens's attributes, in my conversation with Scott.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[michaeldaggett]

<p>I rented the 85 f/1.2 - it was nice. Perhaps on my to buy list soon. Though even on a full frame you need lots of room indoors :)<br>

I've got my business cards finally - I have a website, I've taken a few TFP shots. All in all I'm progressing slowly. My next step is to find a few models to shoot so that my portfolio on my website is full of pretty people :)<br>

Thanks for the support!</p>

[michaeldaggett]

<p>TFP Shoot - cc welcomed.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1016223</p>