85L - why did you sell yours?

Might sell my 85L II for 200 f/2L, even I only use 85L on weekend.

85L II, let amateur piss pro off by talking how good their bokeh, but nothing else

I have used the 85L II once. The only thing that felt special about it was the bokeh at f1.2. But getting the focus where you want it, is not a piece of cake.

jdizzle wrote in post #13412035
Alex, just spend the darn 2k and buy it already! You won't be disappointed in this lens. You've seen the samples in the archive and the photographers that know how to use this lens.

This is the trick - but please do not get me wrong and do not get offended.
I went through the thread and the reason I started thread on this is because I saw that either people do not use the lens properly (only 0.01 of an inch is sharp and in focus) or they just pick the F/1.2 only because they can and never think how to approach the scene properly.

Most of the photographs in the thread rather say something negative about the lens vs positive.

Go to check out 70-200 II and 50L threads, more jokers there

Ferrari_Alex wrote in post #13412080
This is the trick - but please do not get me wrong and do not get offended.
I went through the thread and the reason I started thread on this is because I saw that either people do not use the lens properly (only 0.01 of an inch is sharp and in focus) or they just pick the F/1.2 only because they can and never think how to approach the scene properly.

Most of the photographs in the thread rather say something negative about the lens vs positive.

Heh....that's my opinion as well. About half the time there is a thread about the 85L, somebody feels obligated to post a tightly framed portrait at f/1.2 with 90% of the subject all smeared to hell.

And then they say 'Get the 85L 'cause it goes to f/1.2 beeeeeyotch!'

Ferrari_Alex wrote in post #13412080
This is the trick - but please do not get me wrong and do not get offended.
I went through the thread and the reason I started thread on this is because I saw that either people do not use the lens properly (only 0.01 of an inch is sharp and in focus) or they just pick the F/1.2 only because they can and never think how to approach the scene properly.

Most of the photographs in the thread rather say something negative about the lens vs positive.

Well, that's a preference of one user to the next. You know about distance to subject when using a lens wide open. I've seen people post flower shots at f 1.2 and people think that's cool but, whatever, right? The biggest pet peeve of mine with this lens is shooting one eye and the other one is OOF. The only negative I have with this lens is it's slow focus. On a 5Dc/5D II it's veeeeery slow to focus! Especially, in the outer points. If you can live with that, this lens is for you. The reason why I love my 85 L MK II is that it rocks on the 1Ds III with it's AF. 1D AF has the edge with this lens if you want it focus quicker. My 2 cents.

I understand what you mean and you are trying to say that there is no objective truth. Maybe...but maybe not. There are some rules in design, some rules in composition and it is pretty much logically explained why you do something and you do not do something else.

When you go through the 85L images thread and you approach photographs from their artistic qualities, you will see that this is the "I do F/1.2 because I can" while not thinking about the composition, the message and etc

So yes, if we are talking about the bokeh - the lens is great!
That was never my question, though....

jdizzle wrote in post #13412131
Well, that's a preference of one user to the next. You know about distance to subject when using a lens wide open. I've seen people post flower shots at f 1.2 and people think that's cool but, whatever, right? The biggest pet peeve of mine with this lens is shooting one eye and the other one is OOF. The only negative I have with this lens is it's slow focus. On a 5Dc/5D II it's veeeeery slow to focus! Especially, in the outer points. If you can live with that, this lens is for you. The reason why I love my 85 L MK II is that it rocks on the 1Ds III with it's AF. 1D AF has the edge with this lens if you want it focus quicker. My 2 cents.

Ferrari_Alex wrote in post #13412266
I understand what you mean and you are trying to say that there is no objective truth. Maybe...but maybe not. There are some rules in design, some rules in composition and it is pretty much logically explained why you do something and you do not do something else.

When you go through the 85L images thread and you approach photographs from their artistic qualities, you will see that this is the "I do F/1.2 because I can" while not thinking about the composition, the message and etc

So yes, if we are talking about the bokeh - the lens is great!
That was never my question, though....

Right. I could forget to remove the lens cap and try to spin it as art, but the truth is that all black frames are artistically poor. Inadequate DOF is also artistically poor and (I suspect) a result of the 'gee whiz' factor of a fast prime.

The problem is that anybody with 2 grand to spend can easily reproduce your 'style' of blurry subjects if they want to.

I would stretch that thought to say that f1.2 is usually an excuse for not positioning/framing your subject against a background that would aid the composition and interest of the subject. An image does not just contain a main subject. There is foreground and background, also.

bohdank wrote in post #13412302
I would stretch that thought to say that f1.2 is usually an excuse for not positioning/framing your subject against a background that would aid the composition and interest of the subject. An image does not just contain a main subject. There is foreground and background, also.

If you look at the iconic and well known portrait work of the past century, rarely are the subjects framed by a smear of color. Great portraits put people in meaningful or beautiful scenes. That said, sometimes you do need to blur a background for a shot. Just don't think buying a fast lens suddenly makes you a photographic genius.

I was guilty of this myself for a long time. I'd shoot at f/1.2 and when a relative would ask why the subject was blurry too I'd roll my eyes. Didn't they know super thin DOF was totally cool?

Now I realize that a smeared background at f/1.2 is no more artistic than Olan Mills shooting in front of a muslin at f/11. And at least Olan Mills could get the customer in focus.

Ferrari_Alex wrote in post #13412266
I understand what you mean and you are trying to say that there is no objective truth. Maybe...but maybe not. There are some rules in design, some rules in composition and it is pretty much logically explained why you do something and you do not do something else.

When you go through the 85L images thread and you approach photographs from their artistic qualities, you will see that this is the "I do F/1.2 because I can" while not thinking about the composition, the message and etc

So yes, if we are talking about the bokeh - the lens is great!
That was never my question, though....

I understand your post and to answer frankly, I would not sell this lens. I love it for what it does when I'm shooting a gig/wedding. It is truly one of my work horse lenses along with 24 TS-E MK II, 35 L, and 70-200 MK II. Most people who sell this lens know it has a good return to purchase other lenses/other gear. Also, other people find it too heavy, too slow to AF, replace it with a 85 1.8 (Jeffrey ), or not a fan of the FL. I remember one user on this forum that complained about soft images bcoz' that individual blamed it on the lens when in fact it was the user. So, there are numerous reasons why people would sell it.

JeffreyG wrote in post #13412379
If you look at the iconic and well known portrait work of the past century, rarely are the subjects framed by a smear of color. Great portraits put people in meaningful or beautiful scenes. That said, sometimes you do need to blur a background for a shot. Just don't think buying a fast lens suddenly makes you a photographic genius.

I was guilty of this myself for a long time. I'd shoot at f/1.2 and when a relative would ask why the subject was blurry too I'd roll my eyes. Didn't they know super thin DOF was totally cool?

Now I realize that a smeared background at f/1.2 is no more artistic than Olan Mills shooting in front of a muslin at f/11. And at least Olan Mills could get the customer in focus.

There is truth to that bcoz' when we purhcase a lens like this, we automatically want to shoot it wide open. I was guilty of this too until I got sick of using it at wide apertures. Normally, in a low lit room, I'm shooting this lens at f2 and down.

JeffreyG wrote in post #13409678
Waiting for these lenses to focus is like the difference between waiting on two women to get ready to go out for the evening (Mark I) and waiting on one woman to get ready to go out for the evening (Mark II).

Both take forever, but may be worth the wait.

Actually, I find that the 85LmkII is only slow going from MFD to infinity, or back. But if you're in the right 'range', the focus is very snappy. I've shot many fast-moving children with the 85, and I've never wished the AF was faster. What's more important to me than AF speed is the fact that the 85 hardly ever hunts for focus, even on a 5D2 which (apparently) is notorious for poor AF performance with fast primes. My Sigma 50 hunts much more than my 85L.

I couldn't imagine using a MF 85 to shoot what I do. For posed photos, sure. But for anything moving (especially kids, who can't sit still even for 2 seconds), I need AF.

bohdank wrote in post #13412302
I would stretch that thought to say that f1.2 is usually an excuse for not positioning/framing your subject against a background that would aid the composition and interest of the subject. An image does not just contain a main subject. There is foreground and background, also.

Using f/1.2 should be an artistic choice. There are loads of people out there (myself included) for whom shallow DoF is often part of what we're trying to achieve. Sergio Mottola, for instance, is a guy who uses his fast primes wide open or nearly wide open (mainly the 35L and 24L in Sergio's case, I believe), and achieves a very particular look with it.

If I'm shooting a standard family portrait, then I'm at f/5.6 or smaller. But for the look I'm trying to achieve, I'm often at < f/2.0. And I choose my backgrounds wisely, irrespective of f/stop.

JonK wrote in post #13402058
I haven't. I wouldn't.

This. It's by far one of my most used lenses.

I also have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, but never use it.