Sudden obsession with Canon FD 85mm 1.2L....owners please comment

[gabriel_gerena]

<p>Among the many lenses in my head right now, suddenly this 85mm 1.2L (expensive as it is) came up and got my attention big time.<br />Now, I do own a very nice portrait lens on the FD 100mm F2 and even the 200mm F2.8 but there is something about that 85mm 1.2L!<br>

Owners..is that super thing DOF something you get "tired" off soon or do you keep enjoying that (plus the benefits of the low light advantages at 1.2?<br>

I will need to make some sales to get it so that is something to consider too.<br>

Thanks!</p>

 

[User_4754088]

<p>Hi Gabriel,</p>

<p>I gotta say, the 85mm f1.2 L is just a special lens. It's been my favorite FD system lens for well over twenty years. Back in the early 1990's when I was doing fashion work in New York, and money was tight, I tried to get by with the 100mm f2.0 (also a really good lens), but it just couldn't compare to the 85.</p>

<p>Maybe it's romance, I'm not sure, I just know the 85 is one of the real gems of the FD line. If you have a chance to own one, I'd jump at it.</p>

<p>Now my experience with the lens is strictly with film, and I'm not sure how it works with digital, but the creamy film bokeh, the shallow DOF, it just works magically with that lens.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

-Tim</p>

[gabriel_gerena]

<p>I guess that is my main problem. I will need to sell the 100mm F2 to get that one at the very least but I agree, while the 100mm is stunning on its own, there is something about the 85mm :)<br />Well, I guess it will be wiser for me to wait for my wife to start working soon then with more $$ I can get the 85mm 1.2 and see if I can let go the 100mm after that or keep both.<br>

Aside from that the 50mm 1.2L and the 80-200mm F4L are both in my list as well. :) FD lenses are so adictive :D </p>

[rick_janes]

The only real limitation is one's imagination! Keep both if you can...

[User_502260]

<p>When Kodachrome 25 and Velvia 50 were used to enable someone to make larger prints from 35mm film, a lens as fast as f/1.2 and as long as 85mm was useful for low light use. As faster films were improved the low light capability of an 85/1.2 became less important. The emphasis then went to very shallow depth of field for photos taken at closer distances. In some ways this gave the effect, especially for portraits, of larger formats where lenses had longer focal lengths and more shallow depth of field. Selective focus can be a useful effect but it is not really suitable for every shot you take. I use 85mm and 105mm amd 135mm and even 200mm lenses for portraits but I do not use them all the time as close as they will focus and also wide open. If I did, very little of each photo would be in focus. There is little distance in focal length between an 85 and a 100. Your 100/2 New FD, if it is good condition, should give you all the quality and selective focus you can use. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>To pile on further to what Jeff says.</p>

<p>I have, and still use, a lovely Nikkor-S 55mm f/1.2. Back in the days of GAF 500 as the world's fastest color slide film, I used it all the time for low light. Later, when I changed to Canon EOS APS-C cameras, the Nikkor (on an adapter of course) still served me well - especially in that short-telephoto category. Aside from some cave photography, I have rarely mounted it on my 35mm sensor cameras, however.</p>

<p>However, an f/1.2 lens is kind of a two-trick pony. As Jeff says, it was great for low light when films were slow. It is also nice for shallow depth of field applications. <br /> But the former is no longer necessary with incredible ISOs, and the latter is "not really suitable for every shot". I look at the FD and EOS f/1.2 lenses sometimes with a twinge of nostalgia, but I put my money into other kinds of expensive lenses these days.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if you really, really "want it", then there will be ways to rationalize the choice. ;)</p>

[gabriel_gerena]

<p>hahah such a true statement "On the other hand, if you really, really "want it", then there will be ways to rationalize the choice."<br /><br />I must try to be practical about it. Prioritize my needs first then when money is not so tight I can go for it and sell it if I dont really love it afterwards. :)<br>

</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I confess it. I bought a new computer because I "wanted it" - not because I needed it. It's OK to want things if it doesn't hurt yourself or anybody else. :)</p>

<p>In the immortal words of Jessica Simpson<br>

"I solely don' know what that means, but I want it" (

)</p>

[SCL]

<p>It's always been appealing to me, but having used both Canon's f/0.95 and Leica's f/1.0 Noctilux, the DOF was always too narrow for me to feel confident in my focusing capabilities, so I took a pass on the FD 85 f/1.2, and am quite content with the 100 f/2.</p>

[Alex_Es]

I love this lens for night photography. ISOs today are super fast but nights are still dark. If you get this lens do so.

[walter_degroot]

<p>maby years ago when my only slr was a Miranda Sensorex ( match-pointrtr ttl)<br>

I bought a Spiratone 85mm f/1.7. not as fast as many you mentioned.<br>

I really like that lens., it is a YS mount so in a bind I could use it with a t adapter.<br>

but I found and bought a Pentax K ys adapter so it will work on modern cameras.<br>

I do not see how it could work on my FD mount casmeras as theyrequire tyhat second prong to set maximum aperture. the design of the lens - i do not think it is a retro-fous design but a straightforward long lens,. easier to be sharper and the tech at spiratone tested it and said it was rated exdcellent at all apertures.</p>

<p>I see they sell for a fortune on ebay. as well as the 18mm f.35></p>

[rick_janes]

Oft-repeated is that maxim about fast lenses being made redundant by today's high ISOs. I see it differently...fast lenses

allow work at lower ISOs, and lower ISOs are cleaner than high. Fast lenses allow the option of higher shutter speeds

which better stop action. That extra bit of light gathering is always present for one to use as an advantage.

[gabriel_gerena]

<p>I a agree Rick, I have never felt that faster lenses, when speaking exclusively about light fathering capabilities, are not as useful now due to better ISO technology on cameras. :)</p>

 

[Bill C1664885404]

While there's certainly truth to the pure technical aspects of light gathering vs. ISO...with today's large sensor digital

cameras, the context is what's important...it is no longer as necessary to fill up a lens inventory with ultra fast lens

because film and its inherent grain is no longer the medium.

The trade off to buying very high dollar "fast" lenses is much easier today

[User_4754088]

<p>Let's keep in mind that it's not just how fast or slow a lens is. Each lens has a signature, a particular way that <strong><em>lens design</em></strong> renders light passing through it. The way the 85 f1.2 L renders light is unique and can be something you love or hate, or are indifferent to. For me, I love the way that lens renders, particularly with film, and particularly with old Kodak EPP and AgfaPan 100. Unfortunately neither of those films are made anymore (at least not in their original formula), so I don't use my 85 as much, but even with Tri-X she still renders uniquely, compared to my Nikon 85 f1.4 and other 1.2 lenses I've used.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

-Tim</p>

[alan_swartz]

<p>There are many sides to every argument, and they've all been pretty well argued here. I'm probably just stirring up the same dust.</p>

<p>I must disclaim that I shoot FD lenses on film. I have both the 100/2 and the 85/1.2L. They are very different lenses, at least my copies, despite their similar focal lengths. I don't find the 100/2 to be as incredibly sharp as many say, and mine is particularly soft for a couple of stops on the open end. The 85, however, is like a scalpel, and it stays much sharper as it opens. I'll add that both lenses are in fine condition. I did once own a 100/2 that was pretty rough, and it was just not optically good, either.</p>

<p>My 85 also has higher contrast. Colors really pop. The 100 produces more muted images, as well as being slightly softer in focus.</p>

<p>But to me, if you discount any need for the speed of the 85/1.2, it comes down to creative potential. I see a lot of photography these days with no creative use of depth of field, a vast array of sameness. I have to wonder whether this stems from a generation of photographers using f/4 zooms, who simply have no means to achieve shallow field effects. Another contingent may shoot at wide apertures, but never really mastered the techniques, so their results aren't promising. Another contingent might be the "f/8 group"--"my lens is sharpest at f/8 and that's where I shoot. F/4 is not as sharp and f/11 begins to suffer from diffraction." They're the techies, who value the measurement of sharpness over the worth of the aperture control ring as an artistic device.</p>

<p>Shooting for shallow depth of field is fun, but the results don't come easily. Like anything else worthwhile, practice and experience make it happen. You can't open to f/1.2 for a portrait at 5 feet. Eyes will be sharp, but the nose will be a blur. Yet f/1.2 might be perfect for a night cityscape focused at infinity. You can't really just dismiss an f/1.2 lens as "too shallow to be practical." Subject matter and shooting distance--not to mention the photographer's thoughtfulness--have everything to do with it. I once loaned an FD camera and a couple of lenses to a young person who had never shot anything but a fixed-focus point and shoot. First roll had some closeups of flowers, but depth of field was too shallow and focus points were all wrong. Much disappointment: "I don't know where to focus!" Yes, now real learning begins.</p>

<p>I actually like focusing with the 85/1.2. You can't be ham-handed, but when the microprism stops scintillating, you're dead certain it's on the spot. And you'll soon know whether your SLR's mirror needs adjustment!</p>

<p>What would I do? I'd save a few dollars here and there, over time, and buy the 85, as long as my family was not having to sacrifice for it. Priorities, after all. Then if you don't see a difference, you might learn to see a difference, or you can resell it, because it seems to stay in demand.</p>

[Bill C1664885404]

<p>FYI, I was surprised at how many of these lenses are up for sale, just on EBay alone</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I still love this lens - my favorite FD lens. I have even shot it on Leica M (although focusing is tricky) and on EOS (with the Ed Mika adapter you can focus at portrait distances with care. Wide open it is not especially sharp on digital compared to modern lenses but on film it is fantastic. The thickness of the film seems to give some tolerance to field curvature etc... If you do shoot it on digital it is the edges where you have issues - that said I love the way this lens draws. I keep debating the EOS version but the AF does not work well on this lens. With the exception of Leica M and the Fuji GX680 180 F3.2 (about 80mm F1.2 equivalent) this is an amazing portrait lens. <br>

I think you shoot on NEX so be aware it is very hard to focus wide open base on my experiences with Leica M, EOS and M4/3. At least on my bodies the focus peaking (on those that have it - even Leica) is not good enough and live view / EVF is not really sharp enough unless you subject is very still and you use a tripod. When I use the lens on digital I sway slightly forwards and backwards and focus bracket. When I get to my main PC I will post an image taken wide open with this lens. The other great lens (but a bit long for digital) which is not L series but should be is the 135 F2. By the way if you do get the 85 F1.2 try and get the lens hood - especially if you use it on digital. The front element captures a lot of light and reflections between the sensor and the rear element can cause a loss of contrast and IQ. This is especially true if the digital body is a smaller sensor as the light source may be out of the shot but still be seen by the lens.<br>

My comments seem negative but this is a fantastic lens - I have owned two (I dropped the first one!)</p>

[gabriel_gerena]

<p>Alan, Philip and really everyone here, thanks a lot for all the comments. Really a great community here! :)<br />I am going to start saving for it indeed. Worst case I can sell it back as it seems to be always a desired lens by many people. Just need to wait for the right seller and price to minimize loses if I sell it. <br />Yes I will be using a NEX-6 at least for now with the Lens Turbo2 speed booster.</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>I agree with Philip about the lens hood, really a necessity with this lens.</p>

<p>Sorry to hear folks haven't had as much luck with the lens on digital. Because on film it is truly lovely.</p>

[philip_wilson]

Tim. The lens works fine on digital but there are three challenges. First digital cameras are not as easy to focus manually as the old film

bodies. The viewfinders are designed for AF and even the optical ones are dimmer ( I would suggest my EOS 1 series bodies are about a

stop darker than the new F1). EVF and LCD approaches work well zoomed but I find they are not as accurate as I would like with very

shallow DOF like the 85 produces at f1.2. If you use a PC dies play and live view there is no focusing issue but this is a rather restrictive

set up.

 

Secondly I find that light leakage into the lens can cause a loss of contrast. I have spent some time trying to understand what happens

but this is what I have found. Shooting towards the sun you can get a situation where the sun is outside the field of view of the camera

but inside that of the lens - especially with smaller sensors. If you examine a digital lens it is coated with an anti reflective coating on the

film sensor side of the rear element. Film lenses like the FD ones do not have this coating. I suspect light comes in through the lens,

reflects off the sensor ( film is a lot less reflective) , then off the rear lens element and back onto the sensor causing a loss of contrast.

This is not a major issues and is only when the sun is writhing the viewing angle of the lens ( or another strong light source). It just takes

care to avoid the situation

 

The third issue is that I think the sensor ( especially full frame digital) is a lot more critical of the lens than film was. The film has a finite

depth whereas the sensor is a surface. Thus any minor issues with field curvature are not noticed on film but can be seen on digital. In

the real world this is usually not an issues as for most common shots the edges of an image taken at f1.2 will be well out of focus. If your

hobby is shooting test charts at F1.2 however then you will see lens imperfections on digital.

 

By the way Gabriel I think you will really enjoy the lens but to get the most from it buy a film body with the weight and feel to match the

lens. Leica excepted I find that modern bodies ( even to some extent EOS) lack the tactile qualities of the old film bodies. The best

handling FD body is the T90 (in my opinion) but the one with the best feel is the first F1 body although you do need to buy a battery

conversion for about $20. I still love to shoot the F1 with the 85 f1.2 just for the feel and the simplicity.

[User_4754088]

<p>Phillip, </p>

<p>This was my set up when I was shooting fashion in New York in the early 1990's (sans the hood). Loved the way it handled and felt in my hands. Of course, this was when you still could get the mercury batteries and so the camera metering was spot on.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.timcarrollphotography.com/Forums/F1n.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>And here is one of the shots from the above set up, with AgfaPan 100</p>

<p><img src="http://www.timcarrollphotography.com/Assets/images/Beauty/Ada.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Awesome portraits, Tim - of both the woman and the F-1 w/ 85/1.2 L!</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Tim I bought a couple of adapters from a guy in the Netherlands (he takes a mercury cell case and builds an adapter from it. Once installed the metering is spot on - I think with postage they cost about $40 for two. It was the guy who wrote this very impressive article on the subject</p>

<p>http://www.butkus.org/chinon/batt-adapt-us.pdf</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>Thanks Mark.</p>

<p>Philip, the Cris Adapters work very well for me with the F-1n. Unfortunately my F-1n body had an accident, and when it got stored (waiting to be sent out for repair) I stored it with a lens that I did not realize had fungus, long story short, F-1n optics got fungus and had to be disposed of. Still got the motor drive and someday I'll pick up another F-1n body. Biggest issue is finding a decent F-1n body that hasn't been "converted to 1.5 volt", a really common modification in the late 1990's and early 2000's, which screws the light meter circuit up.</p>

<p>But back to the OP topic, that 85 f1.2L is a spectacular lens, especially with film.</p>