Thinking about an 85mm for portraits
Mar 28, 2020 14:04:21 #
Basil wrote:
Probably not (RE: 1.2) the more I think about it. I know the 1.8 is likely a great lens, but I'm now (after reading many great replies here) leaning towards the 85 1.4L IS. Probably more for the IS than anything else.
I'll sell you mine, if you want. When I changed from the f/1.8 to the f/1.4, I thought I'd be doing more event photography than reality unfolded. I had sold the f/1.8 in preparation when the f/1.4 went on presale.
Mar 28, 2020 14:29:33 #
ralf
Loc: NJ
Take the 1.4 as the 1.2 will require a lot of skill to actually use it effectively at 1.2 -- and how often would you use 1.2 in reality? As you said, the 1.4 is faster and has stabilization. For me, this is a no brainer -- take the 1.4.
Mar 28, 2020 14:33:39 #
smf85 wrote:
Me too, I took many portrait photos with it - during the 70's & 80's. Really nice for Kodachrome slides too. Liked it a lot (still do even though Ken Rockwell calls it the worst Nikon lens of all time).
I had one of the bad copies of the 43-86. I didn’t own it for long.
Mar 28, 2020 14:42:06 #
I use this lens on an EOS R and it is really good lens. I hope that Tamron will start releasing some high quality RF mounts. Sony has gotten a lot of great glass because they opened up there lens platform. If Canon would do this, they would sell more camera's IMO. Most enthusiasts are not going to spend 2-4k for a lens.
Mar 28, 2020 15:47:16 #
RichieC
Loc: Adirondacks
Well, if you want your portraits to be over the top, something different than what you can take with any lens, go for the bigger aperture. I have the Zeiss Milvus 85 on my D800, I shoot manual 98% of the time...I don't use the widest aperture often, the DOF at 1.4 is very short and it has no autofocus... but for the type of shooting I do, is all fine.
However no lens should be expected to deliver the best image possible at either extreme F-stop. Rather I go for the middle apertures, which is also same strategy for the sharpest images on any of my lenses. It is the light gathering and Bokeh at the more useable apertures, and the better build quality on the better lenses which the wider apertures demand that I am looking for. They are more money though.
Once you figure it out, it will kick your portraits over the top- give your self time with it before you have to use it- there is a curve. But I am betting you won't look back, you'll keep it forever, and put it on your newest body.
However no lens should be expected to deliver the best image possible at either extreme F-stop. Rather I go for the middle apertures, which is also same strategy for the sharpest images on any of my lenses. It is the light gathering and Bokeh at the more useable apertures, and the better build quality on the better lenses which the wider apertures demand that I am looking for. They are more money though.
Once you figure it out, it will kick your portraits over the top- give your self time with it before you have to use it- there is a curve. But I am betting you won't look back, you'll keep it forever, and put it on your newest body.
Mar 28, 2020 18:36:01 #
Basil wrote:
Probably not (RE: 1.2) the more I think about it. I know the 1.8 is likely a great lens, but I'm now (after reading many great replies here) leaning towards the 85 1.4L IS. Probably more for the IS than anything else.
A differing opinion: I am all for maximum shallow DOF for portraits and other things as well, and for that the 1.2 is your choice. IS is not particularly necessary for an 85mm lens. Nice, yes, but not as important as in a longer telephoto. Does the difference between f1.4 and I.2 make a difference? Most definitely yes, if you are looking at background defocus--IF that is important to you. It is not the difference between night and day, but it is there.
I have a bunch of short tele lenses, including some 85mm f1.4 and 1.5 lenses, but one lens, in particular, is my favorite for shooting portraits. It is an old Angenieux 35mm film projection lens, around 100mm f1.2. Of course it is manual focus, and not easy always to catch focus, but then the challenge, for me, is part of the art. Another notable lens for portraits is the Canon 50mm f0.95. It has a look that is notably different even from my 50mm f1.2 lenses. (Note: these old lenses have a particular quality of bokeh and character. The Canon 85mm is much smoother, but I am pointing out only the amount of subject/background separation.)
I'm posting two shots with the Angenieux and two shots with the Canon. To be clear, even an 85mm f1.8 will give you significant subject isolation, especially at portrait distances, and of course it is much cheaper and easier to handle. But the look of the 1.2 will be special, especially if you are shooting longer portraits or full body shots.
Model in the park during a portrait class
(Download)
Reunion of Italian mountaineers, Milan
(Download)
Reunion of Italian mountaineers, Milan
(Download)
Man with his parrot in a supermarket, Milan
(Download)
Sebastiano in a coffee bar, Milan
(Download)
Cimitero Monumentale, Milan
(Download)
Mar 28, 2020 19:00:12 #
Mar 28, 2020 19:19:13 #
dick ranez wrote:
They might- but the money is in the lenses.
Please use “Quote Reply” so we know which post you’re responding to.
Mar 28, 2020 19:55:50 #
If you intend to only use the 85mm on a tripod as in a studio then IS isn't going to do a thing for you. I'm hooked on my Canon 135mm 2.0 for portraits because of the increased background blur I can achieve with it.
Mar 28, 2020 20:10:59 #
Basil wrote:
With the Grand Daughter about to hit 8 months, I'm thinking of investing in an 85mm. I'm torn between the Canon 85 f1.2L and the Canon f1.4L IS. I've heard nothing but rave reviews about the 1.2, but then the 1.4 has IS. I've also read that the 1.4 version focuses much faster. Would be interested to hear your thoughts - especially anyone with experience with both lenses.
Just another thought, In considering the f1.2 please understand the learning curve that goes with using it before making the purchase.
Mar 28, 2020 21:20:29 #
usnret wrote:
If you intend to only use the 85mm on a tripod as in a studio then IS isn't going to do a thing for you. I'm hooked on my Canon 135mm 2.0 for portraits because of the increased background blur I can achieve with it.
No studio work at all. And I agree about the 135mm f2 - I have that lens and love it.
Mar 28, 2020 22:00:47 #
I have a 'dumb' Nikkor 43-86. I use it with my F. It works quite well and produces sharp images. Oddly, it won't mount on my digitals.
--Bob
--Bob
ELNikkor wrote:
85 is a great portrait length, but that fast of an... (show quote)
Mar 28, 2020 22:30:52 #
Basil wrote:
No studio work at all. And I agree about the 135mm f2 - I have that lens and love it.
Stepping aside from the main issue, I salute you Sir for the noble contributions you made to our country as an officer in the USAF.
Mar 29, 2020 00:58:20 #
usnret wrote:
Stepping aside from the main issue, I salute you Sir for the noble contributions you made to our country as an officer in the USAF.
Thank you. - I'm guessing from your user name you're retired Navy?
Mar 29, 2020 01:02:09 #
kymarto wrote:
I'm posting two shots with the Angenieux and two shots with the Canon. To be clear, even an 85mm f1.8 will give you significant subject isolation, especially at portrait distances, and of course it is much cheaper and easier to handle. But the look of the 1.2 will be special, especially if you are shooting longer portraits or full body shots.
I'm posting two shots with the Angenieux and two shots with the Canon. To be clear, even an 85mm f1.8 will give you significant subject isolation, especially at portrait distances, and of course it is much cheaper and easier to handle. But the look of the 1.2 will be special, especially if you are shooting longer portraits or full body shots.
How did you adapt that Angenieux to the Canon (or are you using some other camera with that?)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.