Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Aperture versus Bokeh

I'm mulling over my lens purchase for this year, and I'm considering the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM for portraits.

I have a 70-200 2.8 II, and a 24-70 2.8 II. I also have a 100 2.8 Macro (non-L).

I love the 70-200 (which basically lives on my 70D), but the spaces I'm working in are often too tight to maximize the bokeh. The 100 gives nice results, but once again tight spaces interfere with using it. And, it seems to amplify imperfections on faces. My 24-70 is very nice (it is my walk-around-lens, and it pretty much lives on my 6D), but the zoom annoys me for portraits (I wish I could lock it at 70mm) and I think the bokeh can be improved (when compared to the 85).

I have, of course, seen many sample photographs of the EF 85mm f1.2L II USM at f/1.2. Since I imagine I'd seldom use f/1.2, I'm concerned about what changes occur to the bokeh with smaller apertures. Does the quality of the background blur at smaller apertures decrease in a way where increasing the distance between the subject and the background can't compensate for it? If so, what kind of distances between shooter and subject, and subject and background are we dealing with? By small, I mean f/5.6 or less for close portraits.

Hopefully what I'm asking makes sense.

The quality of the background blur is still very nice, even when using smaller apertures. At least that's the case with my 50L, but seems to be the rule for all fast lenses.
But if you want to use it at f5.6 I really don't see the point. Specially since you already have the 70-200 and your 100, and at f4 I don't think you could see much difference between the 3 lenses.
The best use for the 85 f1.2 is when you have enough dof to cover you subject, but small enough to separate it from the background before they both melt together, (which is a look I don't really hate). And thats why the 200f2 is so awesome, even when taking a full body portrait, it has enough dof to cover the whole person, but together with the compression it makes the background disappear. I'm pretty sure you can come very close to that look at 200@ f2.8 , the 135f2 is regarded as a mini 200f2 as well.

But the difference is only one f stop. Not more than 2 like in the 85mm. I think the 85@f1.2 would be great for half and full body shots, provided the background is not too close.

Take a look at the sample galleries and decide if thats the look you want.
Hope I was helpful. Good luck!

Thanks, Moncho.

I don't plan to use it at 5.6. I would use it between 1.2 and 5.6. 5.6 is just my max cutoff for it.

The problem with my 70-200 (which I prefer to use close to 200), and my 100, is that my studio space is very tight. I don't quite have as much room as I need for either of those lenses. My 70-200 is my lens of choice when I have the room for it. I don't think I'd have the room for the 135, and I don't have enough room for the 200 f2 (I'd just about give my eye teeth for that one!). That leaves me with the 85 or the 50, but I prefer the 85mm focal length.

I have found some aperture comparisons for the lens. By f/4.0 I'm dissatisfied in what I'm seeing. That would still give me 1.2 to 3.5 . . . which is hopefully enough to get both of someone's eyes and his/her nose in focus at a close distance.

I think I'll have to rent it and play with it first.

neacail wrote in post #17892051
I have found some aperture comparisons for the lens. By f/4.0 I'm dissatisfied in what I'm seeing. That would still give me 1.2 to 3.5 . . . which is hopefully enough to get both of someone's eyes and his/her nose in focus at a close distance.

f/3.5 is not normally going to give you enough DoF at close distances (<4') to focus on the eyes and guarantee the tip of the nose will be in focus, at least not with adult subjects. What did you see in smaller-aperture examples that you found dissatisfying?

Unless you are shooting wider than 2.8, the 85L wont do much that the 70-200 II wont do. Just use the zoom then.

absplastic wrote in post #17892308
f/3.5 is not normally going to give you enough DoF at close distances (<4') to focus on the eyes and guarantee the tip of the nose will be in focus, at least not with adult subjects. What did you see in smaller-aperture examples that you found dissatisfying?

I found that while the bokeh was still pleasing, background objects started to become quite easily identifyable. I'm not sure if increasing the distance between the subject and the background would improve this?

My background is landscape photography: where I'm used to trying to get everything in focus with pristine detail (my absolute favourite lens is my manual focus Zeiss 21mm). I typically only use wide apertures when I've got quantity of light issues. Background blur isn't something I normally think about: it is just something that happens. But, with my new focus on learning portrait work, I'm now trying totally different techniques. There is a gap in my understanding at this point.

Myboostedgst wrote in post #17892386
Unless you are shooting wider than 2.8, the 85L wont do much that the 70-200 II wont do. Just use the zoom then.

I'll rent the 85 and do direct comparisons with the 70-200. I can rent the original (not the II) for $25 a day, or $100 a week. That may help me decide.

neacail wrote in post #17892401
I found that while the bokeh was still pleasing, background objects started to become quite easily identifyable. I'm not sure if increasing the distance between the subject and the background would improve this?

In traditional studio portraiture, bokeh isn't usually a goal because normally the backdrop is plain. It's common to shoot studio portraits at f/5.6 - f/11 to get your subject in focus. Outdoors and in natural-light, non-studio environments are where I find myself shooting this lens wide open. Getting the most delicious bokeh often requires giving up the idea of having your subject fully in critical focus.

If you really "imagine you'd seldom use f/1.2", then you probably don't need to buy a $2000 f/1.2 lens, to be honest.

absplastic wrote in post #17892420
In traditional studio portraiture, bokeh isn't usually a goal because normally the backdrop is plain. It's common to shoot studio portraits at f/5.6 - f/11 to get your subject in focus. Outdoors and in natural-light, non-studio environments are where I find myself shooting this lens wide open. Getting the most delicious bokeh often requires giving up the idea of having your subject fully in critical focus.

If you really "imagine you'd seldom use f/1.2", then you probably don't need to buy a $2000 f/1.2 lens, to be honest.

But, in the studio, could a wide aperture and a nice bokeh not fuzz out tacky Digipro backgrounds enough that they may actually look like brick or boards? Or, less like a fabric background anyway. I suspect it would also do a good job of camouflaging other fake stuff (plastic plants, other scene props, etc.)?

I'm really going to need to play with the lens before a purchase.

Would you have enough distance in a studio to blur the background enough even with 1.2? I imagine studios being smaller areas, maybe large warehouse sizes studios would be large enough.

Myboostedgst wrote in post #17892442
Would you have enough distance in a studio to blur the background enough even with 1.2? I imagine studios being smaller areas, maybe large warehouse sizes studios would be large enough.

I do not know.

It is all hypothesis at this point.

Me neither.

I did a test to compare a few different lenses, but it was a slightly different thought than yours. I rented a 70-200 F4 IS and a 70-200 F2.8 IS II to compare side by side with my 135L. My thought was "is the IS II good enough to replace the 135L and be my only lens, or should I supplement my 135L with the F4". I was actually suprised with the results comparing side by side during the shoot and then post processing them side by side.

Myboostedgst wrote in post #17892442
Would you have enough distance in a studio to blur the background enough even with 1.2? I imagine studios being smaller areas, maybe large warehouse sizes studios would be large enough.

At f/1.2 you don't need much distance to completely obliterate the backdrop. This is a photo of my daughter's stuffed tiger on our kitchen table. My daughter is standing about 4 feet behind him, and she's nothing but a colorful shape. That mass of lights is our Xmas tree A faux brick backdrop a few feet behind someone would barely even read as bricks at f/1.2.

That is significantly more blur than I would have thought would be with that little distance. Would the size of the subject have any difference in this? If you had a human subject stand in the same position, and did a 3/4 shot of them, would it be just the same? I imagine it would, but for some irrational reason I don't believe it would.

Myboostedgst wrote in post #17892502
That is significantly more blur than I would have thought would be with that little distance. Would the size of the subject have any difference in this? If you had a human subject stand in the same position, and did a 3/4 shot of them, would it be just the same? I imagine it would, but for some irrational reason I don't believe it would.

Yes, the small subject is significant. With a person, you'd get similar blur doing a head and shoulders shot. For a 3/4 portrait, there would need to be more distance from camera to subject, so the background would be less blurred if subject to background distance was kept the same.