50L and 85L at F2.8 and F1.4

With the outstanding IQ of the 70-200ISII and 24-70ISII, question is can they replace fast primes? Two extra stops may be mandatory for what one shoots, but additionally, what do you give up in subject isolation?

These two images are the 50L at F2.8 then F1.4

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

85L
first is F2.8
second is F1.4

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

i can see the point of your test in general, but unsure why you'd do 1.4 instead of wide-open at 1.2 ...

Sure there is a diff in subject isolation when you compare them side by side, but what can't be seen clearly in your samples is the sharpness on the actual subject which I find more important then slightly more blur in oof area.

Personally I find f2.8 being the sweet spot for portrait....

I thought I'd keep it round numbers, like 2 stops
I also shot the 35L f1.4 later today.

Why you have that mannequin is a question for another day.

Fuce wrote in post #15403272
Why you have that mannequin is a question for another day.

One of the best photography investments ever ($175 delivered, NY to Seattle).

I took the top off the bottom so I could easily adjust the height for some lighting experiments I was doing over the weekend.

windpig wrote in post #15403324
One of the best photography investments ever ($175 delivered, NY to Seattle).

I took the top off the bottom so I could easily adjust the height for some lighting experiments I was doing over the weekend.

I wonder what you do with the lower part of the body.

set it in the corner

What do you think, I'm some sort of prevert, an Agalmatophiliac?
Don't answer that:p

windpig wrote in post #15403587
set it in the corner

What do you think, I'm some sort of prevert, an Agalmatophiliac?
Don't answer that:p

Wow, impressive vocab windpig! Thanks for the word of the day. Now to work on the pronunciation...

I wish I could take credit for finding the word, but a friend of mine dug it up to give me a bad time I think he's just jealous because his mankin as a button nose and isn't really good for working out lighting scenarios.

Back to the subject at hand, I would kinda like to see side by side 1.2/2.8. It's a little harder to compare scrolling up and down.

ne3ek wrote in post #15403783
Back to the subject at hand, I would kinda like to see side by side 1.2/2.8. It's a little harder to compare scrolling up and down.

The Digital Picture does some really nice roll-over comparison images. Check THIS link and scroll down to the shot of his daughter. Not quite the same sort of framing as windpig's examples, but still shows the difference between apertures.

Amusing thread
Few lenses I've tried seem sharp wide open. The 70-200 f/2.8 is the one exception and the 35mm f/1.4 L comes close. I like the look of the shots from the 85mm f/1.2, that's the other fast prime I'm thinking of getting next year.

I own both 24-70 F/2.8 II and 70-200 F/2.8 II and I agree they essentially replace everything else majority of the time. You pretty much can do 90% of whatever is thrown at you, with this duo of lenses, I am very happy with both. And something serious these guys get the call. The fast primes are for the other 10% of my shooting, more of creative type of shooting.