Ok, you are not a portrait photographer.
What you are saying is, your comments had nothing to do with the TS's question on which lens to get, 85 1.2 or 135 2.0L, right?
85mmF1.2 or 135mmF2 for portraiture
- Thread starter YEOWMING
- Start date
- Status
What you are saying is, your comments had nothing to do with the TS's question on which lens to get, 85 1.2 or 135 2.0L, right?
Halfmoon
Senior Member
Ok.... I am OOT..... sorry TS....
I will not say that I am not a portrait guy.... I do portraits, but casual.... To me, my idea of portraits is in studio, with lightings..... and maybe for my uses, 85mm f1.8 & 50mm f1.4 will be enough on a 1.6fov..
jOhO
Senior Member
ok, understand, you don't feel it is necessary, since you are a causual portrait photographer, to get the best glass available for Canon, totally understand.
adamdewilde
Senior Member
You'll get many opinions, but honestly the 135L is a stronger lens all around if your shooting with full frame.
I've had both 85's and I think that for the price you can't go wrong with the 1.8, its a nice lens, but consider you'll have to stop it down to at least 2.0 before you shoot anything serious anyways.
Which begs the question, if you have full frame why not grab the 135L, it focuses instantly in comparison to both 85s which lack the AF speed needed for anything outside of studio portraits and non decisive candids... Well I mean you CAN do it, but the 135L does it better.
Not to mention the 135L is probably one of canons sharpest lenses.
Your style of shooting will ultimately be the deciding factor, aside from price, weight and body type.. If you like to get up close and personal with your subjects, have a crop body, and you need it specifically for portraits go for the 85... Else if you have full frame for sure get the 135L because it does portraits really well..
Adam
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WOW, just realized you said 85 1.2
Well then, hmmm, its a large beast, it focuses slow, but at 1.2 (if you have a good copy) you can get some REALLY nice shots..
My problem, I switch my lenses mid walk and have almost killed the back element, I've missed shots because of the AF speed(although I had the mk1), and the things gets damn heavy after a while of portrait shooting (6 hours, I have fun with my models).
These are really all lame points, and honestly the lens is a beauty, make sure though you don't settle for a copy thats slightly soft at 1.2 you want a tack sharp one..
Oh and there is a fair amount of CA, something you're not going to get with the 135L, but with portrait shooting you can learn how to avoid it..
I went back and fourth between the 1.8 and the 1.2 for a while (had both left one or the other in the bag for months at a time trying to figure which one to go with)... In the end I sold both and kept my 135L
Don't know if this helps,
Adam
P.S. 85L very nice on fullframe as well, but 135L is still my choice.
I've had both 85's and I think that for the price you can't go wrong with the 1.8, its a nice lens, but consider you'll have to stop it down to at least 2.0 before you shoot anything serious anyways.
Which begs the question, if you have full frame why not grab the 135L, it focuses instantly in comparison to both 85s which lack the AF speed needed for anything outside of studio portraits and non decisive candids... Well I mean you CAN do it, but the 135L does it better.
Not to mention the 135L is probably one of canons sharpest lenses.
Your style of shooting will ultimately be the deciding factor, aside from price, weight and body type.. If you like to get up close and personal with your subjects, have a crop body, and you need it specifically for portraits go for the 85... Else if you have full frame for sure get the 135L because it does portraits really well..
Adam
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WOW, just realized you said 85 1.2
Well then, hmmm, its a large beast, it focuses slow, but at 1.2 (if you have a good copy) you can get some REALLY nice shots..
My problem, I switch my lenses mid walk and have almost killed the back element, I've missed shots because of the AF speed(although I had the mk1), and the things gets damn heavy after a while of portrait shooting (6 hours, I have fun with my models).
These are really all lame points, and honestly the lens is a beauty, make sure though you don't settle for a copy thats slightly soft at 1.2 you want a tack sharp one..
Oh and there is a fair amount of CA, something you're not going to get with the 135L, but with portrait shooting you can learn how to avoid it..
I went back and fourth between the 1.8 and the 1.2 for a while (had both left one or the other in the bag for months at a time trying to figure which one to go with)... In the end I sold both and kept my 135L
Don't know if this helps,
Adam
P.S. 85L very nice on fullframe as well, but 135L is still my choice.
miniUltraman
Senior Member
Good detail analogy and thanks for sharing your experience :thumbsup: 135L poison just get stronger :sweat:
miniUltraman
Senior Member
er.. let's just say i'm using both at the moment.
:thumbsup: upz to you, bro.. so are you using 5D?
jOhO
Senior Member
well.. i got both.. so.. both have it's merits.. ;p
jOhO
Senior Member
ya.. 5d.. not too sure if i wanna go the mark3... i think it's a little expensive for what i need, or rather what i don't need. (like 10 fps ... shoot movie ar?) ;p
the apparent 1 stop of noise advantage over even the 5d is a very alluring factor, not to mention pro body ruggedness and af speed.
then again i'm also still with nikon.. so *anytime now* the d3 is coming.
haiz i think i better stop talking about equipment lar.. sibeh sian one, honestly. :bsmilie:
miniUltraman
Senior Member
Halfmoon
Senior Member
Yap..... Think that you finally got my point....
And also, I think I enjoy having fun with flashes than the lens... my 50mm 1.8 is ordinary, but it is already pretty nice to me... and at least, the OOF is there, and make the subject outstanding.... color might not be the best, no doubt, but it is already a sharp lens, and I do love it a lot... I find flashes more challenging and interesting.... the effect is totally different...
adamdewilde
Senior Member
With your skills.. no need pro body la :thumbsup: FF is the way to go
I dissagree, I think jOhO from what I've seen on your site, your style is in dire need of a 1D3 I can tell by the way you shoot that the ISO clarity of the 1D3 would vastly improve your pictures, and ultimately your website would get stronger, thus hopefully your client base would get larger.
Its not just the ISO problem that I seen in your pictures, because you don't go high enough with your ISO due to the camera getting to nasty, you find yourself shooting with speeds that aren't ideal and the ambient light leaks in to much and you find that you have to really process them in photoshop. Which then takes more time leading to less money per hour spent on each project.. I love your angles and composition and crops, but the shadow and highlight details are usually non-existant because you have to hide the sensors limits.
I dont' know if its worth the cost, but definitly your style is suffering from not having this camera, and an artist shouldn't suffer.
About the 1.3x crop, I'm sure you can handle it, from what I gather you've been doing weddings for 5yrs right, so I'm sure you've used a 1.6 crop and even a 1.3 crop, so you know what to expect when not having FF..
The 5D is nice, and I shoot with it, but after seeing the 1D3 ISO images, I can't stop but think I could actually make use of my 1.2s, 1.4s, and ambient light if I just had ISO 1600 without the noise..
Adam
P.S. You know I'm just trying to drag someone into buying the 1D3, cus it'll make me feel better if I can take a few people down with me
adamdewilde
Senior Member
Yap..... Think that you finally got my point....
And also, I think I enjoy having fun with flashes than the lens... my 50mm 1.8 is ordinary, but it is already pretty nice to me... and at least, the OOF is there, and make the subject outstanding.... color might not be the best, no doubt, but it is already a sharp lens, and I do love it a lot... I find flashes more challenging and interesting.... the effect is totally different...
From owning all these lenses, I could think of a few things that would make the 1.2's worth getting over the 1.4 and 1.8 versions (and this pertains to studios for the one person who said he was a studio only photographer).
1) The spectrial highlights in the out of focus areas look very unpleasing to the eye. This is true with every aspect of photography and with almost all aperatures on the lenses.
Meaning, with the 50 1.4 there is a halo effect in the little balls, where its bright in the centre it blends to dark then gets bright again for a ring around the light. With the 85 1.8 it does that to the extreme.. With the 50 1.8 it makes them a funny little non-orgainic shape (hexagon or what have you).
2) When shooting night photography, or anything where there is a really bright light source being captured on the sensor, if you shoot with high aperatures 5.6 and above, you'll get these star patterns, the most pleasing come from the 50 1.2 and 85 1.2, the 24L and 35L 1.4's also offer decently pleasing star patterns, the other lenses less so as you go down the list, the 50 1.8 being the least pleasing.
3) Sharpness wide open, if thats why you buy primes so you can get the artistic thin DOF then whats the point if your not going to get sharp images with thin DOF. The 50 1.2 has focusing issues right now, the 85 1.2 focuses slow, but if you get a good copy is sharp.. I've had a good copy of the 50 1.4, 1.8 and 85 1.8, they're good but you usually have to bump them all up to about 2.0 before you'd use them in a portrait setting..
4)I can' think of anything else right now, besides I have to go eat something, my post probably already doesn't make to much sense cus I'm hungry!
But don't get me wrong, the 50 1.8 boy I loved that little lens, and I got some good pictures with it, as well the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 they all take stunning pictures and for anyone to say that you'd get better shots from a 1.2 is lying, at this point in the game it really depends on what the photographer can do with the lens, they're all awesome lenses.
Me I'm not an awesome photographer, so I have limits with all the lenses and I can tell what I like and don't like with all of them (85L to heavy) but there are some photographers out there that shoot with 85 1.8s and you'd assume they're using digital backs thats how stunning there photos are..
So no one lens is better, its just what suits your style, and if your style is night photography, and fooling with light bursts (in your portrait shots) then naturally the 1.2s are just designed to handle this better...
Take care,
Adam
P.S. I write long posts so my girlfriend doesn't bug me to help her with packing up the house, I'm trying to look busy
jOhO
Senior Member
I dissagree, I think jOhO from what I've seen on your site, your style is in dire need of a 1D3 I can tell by the way you shoot that the ISO clarity of the 1D3 would vastly improve your pictures, and ultimately your website would get stronger, thus hopefully your client base would get larger.
Its not just the ISO problem that I seen in your pictures, because you don't go high enough with your ISO due to the camera getting to nasty, you find yourself shooting with speeds that aren't ideal and the ambient light leaks in to much and you find that you have to really process them in photoshop. Which then takes more time leading to less money per hour spent on each project.. I love your angles and composition and crops, but the shadow and highlight details are usually non-existant because you have to hide the sensors limits.
I dont' know if its worth the cost, but definitly your style is suffering from not having this camera, and an artist shouldn't suffer.
About the 1.3x crop, I'm sure you can handle it, from what I gather you've been doing weddings for 5yrs right, so I'm sure you've used a 1.6 crop and even a 1.3 crop, so you know what to expect when not having FF..
The 5D is nice, and I shoot with it, but after seeing the 1D3 ISO images, I can't stop but think I could actually make use of my 1.2s, 1.4s, and ambient light if I just had ISO 1600 without the noise..
Adam
P.S. You know I'm just trying to drag someone into buying the 1D3, cus it'll make me feel better if I can take a few people down with me
yo adam, thank you for ur analysis!
i've never really thought about equipment hampering my trade/style/skill, but i guess on the flip side, i do also think that equipment plays a part in making a good photograph, i mean, it's quite a rhetorical statement really.
no worries about the 1d3 pulling down effort, cos it is really a camera i will consider in the future, and as mentioned the only real thing i need to get used to is using a 1.3 crop. like what i've done with the 5D and canon's primes, i will borrow/rent the 1d3 when it becomes avaialable, before i buy it. i'm sure u're right, it just takes getting used to and it shouldn't be all that difficult.
my biggest complaint about canon has always been it's flash system. altho with iso1600 or even 3200 on the 1d3 being totally usable, sometimes u really do need that slight fill flash. just ever so slightly to fill in the shadows under the chin and nose from harsh down lights in ballrooms, for instance, and i still find that it's so much easier to do that on nikon's flash. maybe i still need time to learn about canon's flash system.
then again, i wonder, is there a flash that's WEAK enuff to just slightly fill the subject 1m away when u're on f1.4 and iso 3200?? (my fav lens in canon is the 35L hence the scenario)... ;p
ok we're really getting OT... eheh i just glanced at the thread title and i was like wahhhh wayyy off.. :bsmilie:
adamdewilde
Senior Member
yo adam, thank you for ur analysis!
i've never really thought about equipment hampering my trade/style/skill, but i guess on the flip side, i do also think that equipment plays a part in making a good photograph, i mean, it's quite a rhetorical statement really.
no worries about the 1d3 pulling down effort, cos it is really a camera i will consider in the future, and as mentioned the only real thing i need to get used to is using a 1.3 crop. like what i've done with the 5D and canon's primes, i will borrow/rent the 1d3 when it becomes avaialable, before i buy it. i'm sure u're right, it just takes getting used to and it shouldn't be all that difficult.
my biggest complaint about canon has always been it's flash system. altho with iso1600 or even 3200 on the 1d3 being totally usable, sometimes u really do need that slight fill flash. just ever so slightly to fill in the shadows under the chin and nose from harsh down lights in ballrooms, for instance, and i still find that it's so much easier to do that on nikon's flash. maybe i still need time to learn about canon's flash system.
then again, i wonder, is there a flash that's WEAK enuff to just slightly fill the subject 1m away when u're on f1.4 and iso 3200?? (my fav lens in canon is the 35L hence the scenario)... ;p
ok we're really getting OT... eheh i just glanced at the thread title and i was like wahhhh wayyy off.. :bsmilie:
Nah I will get us back on topic in a second, and I agree about canon flashes, in some instances I just can't get it right. Maybe someone can teach us the ways of the speedlight..
Now to get us back on topic, since Canon flashes are as you say hard to use for certian situations, most people would want to shoot flashless if possible, and in which case the 85 1.2 makes a better contender then the 135L ;p (told you I could get us back on topic)..
Take care guys,
adam
P.S. I wanna rent one as well, see if the iso really benifits in real world situtations, like so many people have been saying..
Halfmoon
Senior Member
From owning all these lenses, I could think of a few things that would make the 1.2's worth getting over the 1.4 and 1.8 versions (and this pertains to studios for the one person who said he was a studio only photographer).
1) The spectrial highlights in the out of focus areas look very unpleasing to the eye. This is true with every aspect of photography and with almost all aperatures on the lenses.
Meaning, with the 50 1.4 there is a halo effect in the little balls, where its bright in the centre it blends to dark then gets bright again for a ring around the light. With the 85 1.8 it does that to the extreme.. With the 50 1.8 it makes them a funny little non-orgainic shape (hexagon or what have you).
2) When shooting night photography, or anything where there is a really bright light source being captured on the sensor, if you shoot with high aperatures 5.6 and above, you'll get these star patterns, the most pleasing come from the 50 1.2 and 85 1.2, the 24L and 35L 1.4's also offer decently pleasing star patterns, the other lenses less so as you go down the list, the 50 1.8 being the least pleasing.
3) Sharpness wide open, if thats why you buy primes so you can get the artistic thin DOF then whats the point if your not going to get sharp images with thin DOF. The 50 1.2 has focusing issues right now, the 85 1.2 focuses slow, but if you get a good copy is sharp.. I've had a good copy of the 50 1.4, 1.8 and 85 1.8, they're good but you usually have to bump them all up to about 2.0 before you'd use them in a portrait setting..
4)I can' think of anything else right now, besides I have to go eat something, my post probably already doesn't make to much sense cus I'm hungry!
But don't get me wrong, the 50 1.8 boy I loved that little lens, and I got some good pictures with it, as well the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 they all take stunning pictures and for anyone to say that you'd get better shots from a 1.2 is lying, at this point in the game it really depends on what the photographer can do with the lens, they're all awesome lenses.
Me I'm not an awesome photographer, so I have limits with all the lenses and I can tell what I like and don't like with all of them (85L to heavy) but there are some photographers out there that shoot with 85 1.8s and you'd assume they're using digital backs thats how stunning there photos are..
So no one lens is better, its just what suits your style, and if your style is night photography, and fooling with light bursts (in your portrait shots) then naturally the 1.2s are just designed to handle this better...
Take care,
Adam
P.S. I write long posts so my girlfriend doesn't bug me to help her with packing up the house, I'm trying to look busy
Thanks Adam for sharing... looking busy enough or not?? Need more questions????
For me, 85 1.8 is good enough.... for my use......
And also, a 50mm 1.4.....
Halfmoon
Senior Member
I also have quite a bit of challenges shooting with canon flashes.... the EX 420 give me a lot of challenge with dark exposure... and the EX 430 seems to be much better..... but still, new to the 430 and learning......
jOhO
Senior Member
wat sort of advise is that.. u should say buy both!!! :bsmilie:
adamdewilde
Senior Member
He uses a 50 1.4, 85 1.8, they work for him...
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=196496
He also shoots with a 135L so it might be of interest to some.. keeping the forum on topic.
- Status
Similar threads
