how about I paid for US$400 for the 85 1.8. also use for 3 years, also taken 40k frames....
that amounts is US$0.001 a shot.......
This guy here just wanted to show how rich he is.
85mmF1.2 or 135mmF2 for portraiture
- Thread starter YEOWMING
- Start date
- Status
how about I paid for US$400 for the 85 1.8. also use for 3 years, also taken 40k frames....
that amounts is US$0.001 a shot.......
This guy here just wanted to show how rich he is.
how about I paid for US$400 for the 85 1.8. also use for 3 years, also taken 40k frames....
that amounts is US$0.001 a shot.......
This guy here just wanted to show how rich he is.
louisgce, go take a hike ...
there are many photographers here on CS and in the world who owns the 85 1.2L ... some are rich and some are not .... and they all have the lens for their own reasons ... and how does owning this one lens show that I am rich?
and btw, think of your logic first before you counter argue
how about I paid for US$400 for the 85 1.8. also use for 3 years, also taken 40k frames....
that amounts is US$0.001 a shot.......
This guy here just wanted to show how rich he is.
wooa....u are rich......paid US$400 for the 1.8.....can easily get for S$580 from Oracle......this is no online game of putting others down man........or rather boy....
Another thoughtful review of 85mm f/1.2L:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/85mm-f12.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/85mm-f12.htm
Aiyo.. no need to argue lah, sure never ending one..
Actually a phrase in kenrockwell article sums it up nicely on who should get the 85L:
"You people know who you are. If you have to ask, then this lens isn't for you."
If you already own the 85f1.8 and feels that this lens did everything you need for you and are perfectly happy with it, then good, just stick to it.
If you like what the 85f1.8 does in terms of image quality and have a strong desire to get more in that area, so much so that you are willing to sacrifice some money, focusing speed and compactness for it, then you will know that you want it very much.
One may feel that a $3k 85L is not a good value compare to a $600 85f1.8, but at the same time there are also people who think that since you can get a 80-200 f4.5-5.6 at $200, it makes no sense to pay triple the price to get a 85mm prime lens.
No point to argue which camp is right or wrong, making smarter financial decision or not.. everyone value things differently.
Actually a phrase in kenrockwell article sums it up nicely on who should get the 85L:
"You people know who you are. If you have to ask, then this lens isn't for you."
If you already own the 85f1.8 and feels that this lens did everything you need for you and are perfectly happy with it, then good, just stick to it.
If you like what the 85f1.8 does in terms of image quality and have a strong desire to get more in that area, so much so that you are willing to sacrifice some money, focusing speed and compactness for it, then you will know that you want it very much.
One may feel that a $3k 85L is not a good value compare to a $600 85f1.8, but at the same time there are also people who think that since you can get a 80-200 f4.5-5.6 at $200, it makes no sense to pay triple the price to get a 85mm prime lens.
No point to argue which camp is right or wrong, making smarter financial decision or not.. everyone value things differently.
miniUltraman
Senior Member
Aiyo.. no need to argue lah, sure never ending one..
Actually a phrase in kenrockwell article sums it up nicely on who should get the 85L:
"You people know who you are. If you have to ask, then this lens isn't for you."
If you already own the 85f1.8 and feels that this lens did everything you need for you and are perfectly happy with it, then good, just stick to it.
If you like what the 85f1.8 does in terms of image quality and have a strong desire to get more in that area, so much so that you are willing to sacrifice some money, focusing speed and compactness for it, then you will know that you want it very much.
One may feel that a $3k 85L is not a good value compare to a $600 85f1.8, but at the same time there are also people who think that since you can get a 80-200 f4.5-5.6 at $200, it makes no sense to pay triple the price to get a 85mm prime lens.
No point to argue which camp is right or wrong, making smarter financial decision or not.. everyone value things differently.
agree agree :thumbsup: it is always good to dream so your dream is alive... I will dream of a cheaper 135L first :lovegrin:
maybe I can use 85L to shoot @ f1.2 & f1.8 side by side to see the diff bokeh...but it might be diff with the normal 85mm lens characteristic afterall...
Actually that 85L lens is mean for portrait and lowlight work...
Not neccessary exclusively just portrait and lowlight work....the usage can be for thousands of subjects or situation...all in the hands of the photographer...
how about I paid for US$400 for the 85 1.8. also use for 3 years, also taken 40k frames....
that amounts is US$0.001 a shot.......
This guy here just wanted to show how rich he is.
So are you happy with your 85 f/1.8? If you are, good. No need to start on the personal attacks.
of course la...even my 300mm can be use for portrait...:bsmilie:
the 300 2.8L is a damn good portrait lens ... damn heavy though
but the compression and the creamy background is fantastic
miniUltraman
Senior Member
the 300 2.8L is a damn good portrait lens ... damn heavy though
I use 300f4L for portrait too.. good enough :bsmilie:
adamdewilde
Senior Member
Using the 300 for portraits is a bit silly guys... I've seen it done, and frankly when you can't direct your model, you've got problems. 
Besides he's asking about the 135L vs 85L
And The original fact remains, do you have a crop body or not?
Both are good, the 85L has strong points, and takes nice photos esp in avail. light, but the 135L does the indoor sports WAY better...
I've wrote to much on this forum. Time for poster to make a choice.
And if you have to ask, its probably because you have common sense, nothing more nothing less...
ADam
Besides he's asking about the 135L vs 85L
And The original fact remains, do you have a crop body or not?
Both are good, the 85L has strong points, and takes nice photos esp in avail. light, but the 135L does the indoor sports WAY better...
I've wrote to much on this forum. Time for poster to make a choice.
And if you have to ask, its probably because you have common sense, nothing more nothing less...
ADam
My point is 85L can be used for other things beside potraits....not that it is the only lens for potrait, in any case, 300L is perhaps suitable for candid potraits where you do not need to direct your model...otherwise you would need a bull-horn if you shoot....!
That is what PA is for ... to pass instruction to the model beside holding the reflectors ...
Actually, the last time I shot a model with a 300 2.8L, model had a head full of beautiful wavy hair, perfect to hide a bluetooth headset. With that and a small handphone in her pocket, it was a breeze ... bull horn not needed.
Yatlapball
Senior Member
Wah. How far away is the model? 
I guess there's always a way around things....sign language might work too...hahaha
adamdewilde
Senior Member
vernonleow
Member
Actually I was looking for a good condition used one but cannot find any! I think you mean a lot of people regret buying and end up using little of it because no one seems to be selling it.
Someone suggested getting the 135 f2.8 SF which is very sharp with the SF turned off but I'm keen on the 135L lens because it is a mangeable size and works well with the 1.4x extender. Think the AF is way faster than the 85L. I love my 85L but sometimes the AF is just not fast enough in tricky situations. And the MKll is only a little faster.
To the TS, it's makes a big difference what body you are using and plan to use in the future.
- Status
Similar threads
