For owners of both 85 1.2 and 85 1.8

[Lunatique]

This is a post specifically for owners that have both 85 1.2 and 85 1.8 currently, at the same time, both available.

I've looked at the DOF charts for the lenses, looked at hundreds of sample pictures online, asked questions about them..etc, but I need just one final thing to decide whether or not to spring for the ridiculously expensive 85 1.2.

Can one of you please do a small test for me? Just shoot a person (prefereably an adult), a half body shot, with both lenses wide open, in the same position (and should have enough clutter/stuff in the background so that the bokeh can be tested effectively). I want to see just how much more "magical" the shallow DOF on the 1.2 is compared to the 1.8. I mean, this is the real taste test--no amount of DOF charts or information can beat this test--these pictures will be worth more than a thousand words. Or, could this be done with just the 85 1.2 shooting at 1.2 and then 1.8? Would the 1.8 on the 85 1.2 look identical to the 1.8 on 85 1.8?

Another test would be to shoot from a higher angle pointing down at someone's head, so that only the eyes will be in focus, while the rest of the face dissolves into a blur. From the samples I've seen, the 1.8 cannot touch the 1.2 for something like that, but I'd love to see a real direct comparison to know for sure.

[drisley]

I only have the f1.8, and the dof is so shallow, I rarely use it wide open.
The background blur is amazingly creamy, and I can easily shoot someone's eyes and have the rest of the face dissolve into a blur.
In fact, it's happened to me on more than one occassion when I didnt want it to, even at f2.8 (although to a lesser extent).

I didnt have anybody around but my ceramic fish. It's only about 7" long.
This was taken with the 85mm at f1.8 with focus on the eye.
As you can see, not only is the body blurred, but so is the mouth.

http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/rebel/fish.jpg

[Pekka]

Here you have couple of full size shots (still life), were taken with 1.2 (actually ISO 1600 tests), RAW, converted with C1 (auto WB), soft sharpen 200/0, noise reduction 2/4. Neat Image Pro preset I use is designed to lower the noise but not remove it, to something like ISO 800 level without artifacts.

http://photography-on-the.net/1DmarkII/markIIfiles/1600/HV8O5107-1.jpg
After Neat image:
http://photography-on-the.net/1DmarkII/markIIfiles/1600/HV8O5107-1_neat.jpg


http://photography-on-the.net/1DmarkII/markIIfiles/1600/HV8O5118.jpg
After Neat Image:
http://photography-on-the.net/1DmarkII/markIIfiles/1600/HV8O5118_neat.jpg

Those show the sharpness with 1.2, which is quite good.

The aperture question for portraits is not so simple. Is 1.2 really needed? With such shallow apertures your distance and angle mean a lot. Here is for example aperture 1.6 shot, taken a bit further away. As you can see face is quite nicely in focus (tip of nose is not), and so is upper body:

http://www.photography-on-the.net/1DmarkII/markIIfiles/85_12/HV8O1791-1.jpg

and here is aperture 1.6 taken quite close, in slanted angle (edge of glass, nose and left eye (from viewer perspective) are in focus, upper body totally blurred because head is coming forward:

http://www.photography-on-the.net/1DmarkII/markIIfiles/85_12/HV8O3722.jpg

This shot with 1.8 looks very much more blurred than above - the DoF passes though eyes and misses tip of nose and lower lip and chin, but they are not fully blurred, neither is the right shoulder:

http://www.photography-on-the.net/1DmarkII/markIIfiles/85_12/HV8O2769-1.jpg

And finally 1.2 shot where focus is actually on glasses, lips and forehead and the rest is pretty much out of focus:

http://www.photography-on-the.net/1DmarkII/markIIfiles/85_12/_V8O0262.jpg

The effect is much more pronounced when you view bigger. This btw makes 1.2 very good for nice background blur tool for smaller prints (like newspaper or www).

All above shots are "un-posed" portraits, and this is the big strong point of having very fast lens: you can get very fast shutter speeds and totally get rid of surroundings (and use background artistically as a color and shade backdrop). The first photo is taken in cafe, the second by kitchen table with one 60 watt lamp and strong backlight, the two last were taken in concert hall.

One warning though: focusing with 1.2 or even with 1.8 is extremely hard - with any camera. I often get focus on tip of eyelashes and it means eyes are out of focus! People move. It needs lots of practice. You must know where plane of focus is - slight angle means one eye is totally out of focus. You must learn to focus quickly and then prepare to move back and forth after focusing like you had macro rail system, following the subject. If you focus far away with 1.2 you may have to resort to manual focus correction as a small AF glitch will make you miss the target. This is why I do not really recommend 1.2 for 1.6 crop cameras - you simply can not see focus point properly and none of the consumer models have high-precision AF points.

About Canon 85 1.2L I must say this: it is _the_ coolest lens for portrait and art photography. 1.8 version is surely quite sharp but the bokeh is smoother with the bigger one and it is sharper. Having 1.2 frees your mind, even if it is not needed daily.

[roanjohn]

WOW!!!!

Maybe when I have enough money and have all the "practical" dream lenses (i.e. 24-70, 70-200 IS) in my arsenal I will consider this lens. It is such a novelty item.................but still a WOW!!!

For now, the 85 f1.8 will do.



http://www.pbase.com/image/28551389.jpg

f1.8 at 1/640 sec, ISO 100.

Ro1

[Lunatique]

Thanks for the examples and the explanations!

I know the DOF is extremely shallow and hard to focus accurately, but shots like these by Fogarty are just magical to me:

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1184145

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1181613

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1181608

That kind of ethereal look is exactly why I would pay the ridiculous amount for the 1.2, unless someone can show me that the 1.8 can do the exact same thing just as well and just as beautiful.

[drisley]

All 3 of those links come up with a "page cannot be displayed" link for me.
If I could see them , I could try with my camera.

I am sure the f1.8 to f1.2 wouldnt make that much diff in DOF.

[Lamplight]

One warning though: focusing with 1.2 or even with 1.8 is extremely hard - with any camera. I often get focus on tip of eyelashes and it means eyes are out of focus!

I just recieved my 50mm 1.8 yesterday and found it rather difficult to focus on small flowers that grow together in bunches (like hydrangias sp?) at 1.8. I would end up focusing on the edge of a petal and the rest of the shot would be completely blurred! :lol: I'm starting to get the hang of it though, and so far I love this lens. :)

[Pekka]

One warning though: focusing with 1.2 or even with 1.8 is extremely hard - with any camera. I often get focus on tip of eyelashes and it means eyes are out of focus!

I just recieved my 50mm 1.8 yesterday and found it rather difficult to focus on small flowers that grow together in bunches (like hydrangias sp?) at 1.8. I would end up focusing on the edge of a petal and the rest of the shot would be completely blurred! :lol: I'm starting to get the hang of it though, and so far I love this lens. :)

If you have more than one important subject in image (which is btw generally not so good practice) you should try to line them up (by changing camera position) so that DoF plane passes through each. If you have trouble with this you will need to use smaller aperture (bigger number) or have longer distance to subjects. With 1.8 and 1 meter away DoF is about 1mm!

http://bobatkins.photo.net/photography/technical/dofcalc.html#calc

[Lamplight]

If you have more than one important subject in image (which is btw generally not so good practice) you should try to line them up (by changing camera position) so that DoF plane passes through each. If you have trouble with this you will need to use smaller aperture (bigger number) or have longer distance to subjects. With 1.8 and 1 meter away DoF is about 1mm!

http://bobatkins.photo.net/photography/technical/dofcalc.html#calc

Yeah, I quickly realized that I was not taking my picture properly. :lol: I later tried several other objects that were less intricate and the lens performed very well for me. :)

Oh, and thanks for the link. :)

[stuartf287]

The difference is more than 2/3 stop, I believe. Greater than the difference between f2.8 and f3.5.

[Lunatique]

All 3 of those links come up with a "page cannot be displayed" link for me.


It appears photosig.com has been down for more than 24 hours now. I'm sure it'll be back soon.

[Lunatique]

So I guess no one can do the test for me? :( Pretty please?? :oops:

[jjguest]

this is a head shot

http://www.pbase.com/image/27511485.jpg

[drisley]

So I guess no one can do the test for me? :( Pretty please?? :oops:

Yes, those type of DOF shots can be done with the 85mm F1.8.
My fish shot is much like the first photosig link (ie, eyes in focus, mouth blurred, rest of body blurred).

However, it takes more than just the lens. All those shots have very nice lighting and composition.

[WestFalcon]

Lunatique, I shoot a lot of portraits and I would not shoot them wide open. I normally shoot at F5.6 or higher. As Pekka said, the depth of field is so shallow that your focus may be only eyes and a portrait should have(in my opinion) the tip of the nose to the ears in focus. F1.2 gives you an extremely shallow depth of field and to me, not that useful on portraits. At infinity or longer distances, I could see a use for the 1.2. Another factor is the type of camera...10D, Mark II or what? 85mm with a 10D to me is a bit long for head and shoulder portraits but with a Mark II, the 1.3 factor would make it a bit better. How about trying a 50 mm f1.4, nice for portraits on a 10D and a reasonably priced lens.

[Lunatique]

I'll be using it on a 1.3x crop camera.

Yeah, I know the DOF is paper thin, but the kind of stuff I shoot don't really qualify as portraits anyway, they are more like fine arts stuff of people, so it's not like I have to please clients or customers and worry if someone's nose is out of focus. LOL!