# Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?



## YuengLinger (Apr 29, 2014)

I've spent time carefully looking through online sample images of the two Canon f/1.2's, the 50mm and the 85mm. Consistently, the shots from the 85mm significantly outshine those from the 50mm in terms of sharpness and contrast. In many cases, colors seem better rendered by the 85mm also.

I own and love the 85mm 1.2, and I feel I'm just starting to hit my stride and understand its wide-open capabilities. 

But, even before the latest Sigma anticipation, I've been craving something with a bit more room that allows me to step physically closer to subjects. I've heard negative and positive things about the 50mm 1.2, but that is true about most lenses.

So, I found as many 50mm 1.2 online images as I could, and what I'm seeing is a consistent lack of sharp center focus.

What is really going on? Is it a problem with the lens or the photographers? Are the 85mm 1.2 images on, say, pixel-peeper, being taken by better photographers (because the lens costs more, and, with its several quirks, appeals to more experienced photographers)?

Is the 85mm 1.2 really that much better than the 50mm 1.2? Because, from what I'm seeing in an overwhelming number of samples, the 50mm seems quite soft even dead center. With portraits, I want the option of having sharp eyes without having to apply too much sharpening in post, and I can do this with my 85mm even at 1.2.

Thanks in advance for any insights.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 29, 2014)

If you have been looking at images taken at f1.2 then I guess it is because the 85 is significantly sharper than the 50 at this aperture:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Clearly the 85 is a much more expensive lens, but the 50 is hardly cheap. I presume on the 85 focal length it was possible to achieve excellent bokeh with more chromatic aberration correction than on a 50 focal length.


----------



## Menace (Apr 29, 2014)

I have both - if I had to choose between them, I'll take the 85L every time


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 29, 2014)

Thanks, Sporgon, for the link. This is a resource I've overlooked many times--now I see how useful the comparisons are.

The focus charts do line up with what I've been finding. I can see many instances of post sharpening being applied heavily to the 50mm 1.2 images, resulting in some crispy artifacts.

This 100% puts me back in waiting mode for more Sigma reviews and sample images.


----------



## TheAshleyJones (Apr 29, 2014)

I have both. Utterly love the 85, but the 50 goes almost unused. I am going to look at the new Sigma when it's available.

I had and loved the Canon 50 F/1.4 and had great hopes for the F/1.2 but it is so much less everything than the 85.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 29, 2014)

TheAshleyJones said:


> I have both. Utterly love the 85, but the 50 goes almost unused. I am going to look at the new Sigma when it's available.
> 
> I had and loved the Canon 50 F/1.4 and had great hopes for the F/1.2 but it is so much less everything than the 85.



I think the 85/1.2 can be regarded as a (££ substantial ) upgrade to the 85/1.8. However the 50/1.2 isn't intended to be an 'upgrade' to the 50/1.4, at least not in a general use sense. I know a few photographers who purchased them in '06 and ended up howling. It's a specific lens for a specific type of image. If it wasnt I'd have purchased one years ago as 50mm is my staple diet lens.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 29, 2014)

One thing telling, an excellent portrait/wedding photographer in our area, can easily afford any gear. She uses the ef 50mm 1.4 for some fill-in shots of guests and details at weddings. I asked her why she didn't go with the L version as she did with every other lens (including the 85mm), and she said she had tried it and decided it just wasn't reliable enough for what she was doing with a 50mm.

She mainly uses the 24-70mm f/2.8 II, the 85mm f/1.2,II and the 70-200mm /f2.8 IS II. And you should see how she holds a lens between her knees when swapping out! Changes lenses faster than anybody I've ever seen.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 29, 2014)

Menace said:


> I have both - if I had to choose between them, I'll take the 85L every time



+1


----------



## sdsr (Apr 29, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> But, even before the latest Sigma anticipation, I've been craving something with a bit more room that allows me to step physically closer to subjects. I've heard negative and positive things about the 50mm 1.2, but that is true about most lenses.



This doesn't answer your question, but: What sort of subjects are you trying to get closer to, and what sort of effect are you after? Depending on the answer, you might want to consider a 100L (macro) or 135L. Even when not using it as a macro lens, the former allows a remarkable combination of proximity, sharpness and out-of-focus blurring, for instance.


----------



## kaihp (Apr 29, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> she said she had tried it and decided it just wasn't reliable enough for what she was doing with a 50mm.



It should be noted that the f/1.2L has a focus-shift when shooting in f/1.4 to f/4 range. This is a deliberate design choice, but it can really catch people out.

See this excellent explanation by Neuro.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 29, 2014)

They are similar but different beasts. The 85L is quite a bit sharper wide open, but it's big & heavy, focuses slowly, and is sometimes too tight for indoor use. The 50L is small, relatively light, focuses faster (not 2.8 zoom fast, but pretty quick) and allows you to include more of the background. Both lenses have great contrast, color, and bokeh, and both give a unique look.

I own both and will choose the 85L every time for headshots and head & shoulders shots. If I'm in a studio or larger area, I'll use the 85 for 3/4 and full-length shots as well.

I take the 50L when I want to shoot more than one person, or when I'm going someplace that may or may not have enough room for the 85. I also like to use it when I plan to include the background (i.e. at night with defocused lights in the background or if the model is in an interesting setting like architecture or trees). It's also better when time is of the essence or the subjects are moving (kids & pets) because of the AF speed. I also like to take it with me as a general lens as I can shoot wide open or stopped down, and the 50mm focal length is more versatile than the 85 when it comes to other subjects. When I travel but don't want to bring the 24-70, the 50L is usually the lens I choose.


----------



## kbmelb (Apr 29, 2014)

The 85 1.2 is sharper than 50 1.2 but I find the 50 to sharp enough to consider sharp. Way sharper than my 24-702.8 I.

I have always had great results with with the 50L. My copy was manufactured in 2010 which is after the debatable possible production change. I also AFMA to outer points, not the center, as I NEVER use the center point.

I have noticed slightly better results on my PRO bodies (1DsII and 1DsIII) than on my 5DmkII. The 5DIII might be on par with the 1DsIII


----------



## gary samples (Apr 29, 2014)

I have the 85 1.2 and love love it
and I also have the 24/70 II 2.8 With those two you will have it going on LOL


----------



## East Wind Photography (Apr 29, 2014)

gary samples said:


> I have the 85 1.2 and love love it
> and I also have the 24/70 II 2.8 With those two you will have it going on LOL



I was not very happy with several copies of the 24/70 II 2.8. I found it very soft at 70mm and the AFMA was not linear across the focus distance which made it extremely difficult to get consistent focus with. I've seen this issue with some fixed lenses like the 24 F1.4 II but it's a bigger problem on a zoom.

I returned them all and kept my 24/70 I 2.8...which has it's own issues but so far so good.

I've never used the 50 1.2 but the 85 1.2L II gets the most use out of all of my lenses. 600 F4 is #2.


----------



## gary samples (Apr 29, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> gary samples said:
> 
> 
> > I have the 85 1.2 and love love it
> ...


 I seen a small number say that but mine is so sharp it will cut your eyes it looks almost 3D THE 85 1.2 & THE 24/70 II Will never be sold l I Die with them they are that good !


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 29, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> One thing telling, an excellent portrait/wedding photographer in our area, can easily afford any gear. She uses the ef 50mm 1.4 for some fill-in shots of guests and details at weddings. I asked her why she didn't go with the L version as she did with every other lens (including the 85mm), and she said she had tried it and decided it just wasn't reliable enough for what she was doing with a 50mm.
> 
> She mainly uses the 24-70mm f/2.8 II, the 85mm f/1.2,II and the 70-200mm /f2.8 IS II. And you should see how she holds a lens between her knees when swapping out! Changes lenses faster than anybody I've ever seen.



I wonder how often she has her sensor cleaned. Admittedly wide aperture images (shot indoors with darker backgrounds) don't show dust spots very easily, which is probably why she's not very cautious about changing lenses so much. But I wouldn't want to buy anything she sells used, after she's done with it. You can't change lenses "fast" without putting excessive wear on the mounts. It's far better to just use more than one camera body, so you can leave lenses in place and switch between them. She should do this, especially since you say she can afford to purchase whatever she needs.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 29, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > One thing telling, an excellent portrait/wedding photographer in our area, can easily afford any gear. She uses the ef 50mm 1.4 for some fill-in shots of guests and details at weddings. I asked her why she didn't go with the L version as she did with every other lens (including the 85mm), and she said she had tried it and decided it just wasn't reliable enough for what she was doing with a 50mm.
> ...


I agree that two (or more bodies is the way to go if you can afford it. Also, changing lenses quickly like that is just an accident waiting to happen. Her luck will run out eventually and that will be a costly mistake. Also, as you say, dust on the sensor at wide apertures isn't much of an issue, but dust on the lens will spoil the bokeh pretty quickly if there's enough of it and it's big enough. Not that most people would notice...


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 29, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Glad we can agree on something...  !! Joking...Yes and worst of all, is lens internal dust (you can't clean it). But as far as mount wear goes...I was especially troubled with the 1D4 body I rented back in 2012. It had scratches around the mount edges, where other people who had rented it, were in a hurry to change lenses, and apparently they think "1 series bodies are indestructible, lenses are pretty stout too". I cringe when people abuse gear...And again, I have no desire to ever buy a used camera or lens, from a rental facility!! I try to buy used gear (which is rare) that is either basically almost brand new, or from other people like me.


----------



## RunAndGun (Apr 29, 2014)

I don't have the EF 50 f/1.2 L, I have the CN-E 50 T1.3, which is based on the 50L. It is not a spectacular lens close up. It seems fine a working distances of at least several feet, but once you get into the MOD area, it gets soft/milky with the aperture wide open. I've also heard billions of complaints(ok, maybe I'm exaggerating a little) about Zeiss' 50mm(the still lens and cine version-CP.2) being a junker, too.

The 85 f/1.2 L II and CN-E 85 T1.3 are both awesome. I love the 85 L on my 5DIII.

I have yet to understand the almost obsession and reverence that people have with a 50mm lens. I do not own one for my still cams, and of the set of CN-E lenses that I own(14, 24, 50, 85 & 135), the 50 is the LEAST used focal length.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 29, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> I've spent time carefully looking through online sample images of the two Canon f/1.2's, the 50mm and the 85mm. Consistently, the shots from the 85mm significantly outshine those from the 50mm in terms of sharpness and contrast. In many cases, colors seem better rendered by the 85mm also.
> 
> I own and love the 85mm 1.2, and I feel I'm just starting to hit my stride and understand its wide-open capabilities.
> 
> ...



If sharpness is your thing then yes the 85IIL is a lot better. My copy is one of the sharpest lenses (wide open) I own...and a I own a few...I've yet to see a 50 f1.2 L which is as sharp as my other primes. But I've always like the images I've got from it...but it's not what I'd call really sharp.


----------



## David_in_Seattle (Apr 29, 2014)

I have both lenses and yes, my copy of the 50mm f1.2 L is a tad soft even at the center when shot wide open while my 85mm f1.2 II L is tack sharp.

35 & 50 mm are my favorite focal lengths to use for street photography, but I use the 35 more often because I don't have as many focusing issues compared to the 50. Though the 50 does give a very different, almost surreal "look" when shot wide open which I love.

On both my 1DX and 5Dmk3, the 50mm f1.2 is slow to adjust focus wide open on servo mode. I know it's a lot of glass to move within that lens, hence why I'm gonna rent and test out the Sigma 50 f1.4 to see if it does a better job.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 29, 2014)

To the OP, the answer to this is relatively simple, IMO.

The 85L is sharper, yes. But it requires the working distance of 85mm and a much more hefty/complex lens, plus has slow focus.

The 35L is sharper, yes. But the quality of bokeh is much lower than the 50L; I'd even rank the overall bokeh quality of the 35 f/2 IS higher than the aging 35L.

The 50L is sort of a lovely bridge between these two. It has bokeh reminiscent of the 85L II, while being more workable indoors and in tight spaces like the 35L due to the 50mm focal length. Not to mention it is much smaller, lighter, faster focusing, and has less moving parts than the 85L II.

If they cloned the 85L II at 50mm at some point, that would be great. But currently, for bokeh reminiscent of the 85L II at 50mm, the 50L is the only place you can get that. It offers the flexibility of 50mm with beauty similar to the 85L II's bokeh. As no lens is perfect, the tradeoff is reduced sharpness. But for that bokeh, that is often a tradeoff worth making when 85mm simply won't work (or is not flexible enough).

As an aside, the MFD of the 50L makes for some cool effects not quite replicable on the 85L II. And, the 50L is weatherproofed with a filter!


----------



## Menace (Apr 29, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Changing lenses too quickly is asking for trouble - having two bodies helps.

At the week end I shot a wedding with 1Dx + 70-200 and 24-70 on 5DIII - which was great until I wanted to swap the 70-200 for the 85L. Even in the heat of the moment, it's worth taking a few extra seconds to change lenses especially the rear element of the 85L so far out! It would be so easy to damage it.


----------



## zlatko (Apr 30, 2014)

I love the 50/1.2L for its look. I usually stop down a bit, where it looks magnificent. Actually, it looks magnificent at all apertures. Even the slightly soft wide open look has a purpose.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 30, 2014)

Menace said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



I worry about you guys sometimes. I have lenses I must have changed thousands of times and there is no discernible wear. 

Fastest way to change a DSLR lens on Vimeo
http://www.jasminestarblog.com/index.cfm?postID=1697&

And if you have to worry about caps.
Canon: Quick Lens Change


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I worry about you guys sometimes. I have lenses I must have changed thousands of times and there is no discernible wear.



+1

'Excessive wear on the mounts'?? Even the plastic bayonet mounts on (relatively) low cost lenses are pretty durable, although they'll wear eventually. The metal bayonet mounts of bodies and most lenses will not wear appreciably even with many years of heavy use.


----------



## kaihp (Apr 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I worry about you guys sometimes. I have lenses I must have changed thousands of times and there is no discernible wear.
> ...



+1

Plus, the bayonets are replaceable.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I worry about you guys sometimes. I have lenses I must have changed thousands of times and there is no discernible wear.
> ...



Oh really? Ok, so lens mounts on Canon cameras and their lenses, are the only things in existence that do not wear when they come in contact with each other. That's nice to know. I'm glad people worry about me, I feel so loved.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 30, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Don't be so silly it has got nothing to do with loving, or not, you as a person, it is about erroneous information put out because of speculation, theory, irrationality, bad teaching etc.

The lenses are designed to go on and off. Mechanical wear is brought on by friction and the heat that causes, there is no heat generated in a 60° rotation and the friction is supplied via a spring specifically put there to do that job. Of course there is a microscopic amount of wear, but it is so minimal the lenses I have mounted thousands, if not tens of thousands of times show none and that is an empirical observation.

I remember when Canon moved the FD mount to the FDn mount, everybody said twisting the lens was a terrible idea and we'd get wear in no time, turns out that wasn't true either, and I do have fd lenses I have mounted tens of thousands of times.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



But you said you worried about me. Sorry just taking you at your word, I'll try to remember to not do that in the future.

It's good to know you have observed no wear after changing lenses thousands of times on the same body. I don't plan on doing that, myself, nor do I have the need to. And it's good to know that I can't trust my lying eyes, after seeing the wear I saw on the 1D4 I mentioned, that I rented. I feel more relaxed now, because I know that camera and lens mounts, are a good case where metal on metal contact, causes no wear. If the automakers could only learn this, we could drive our cars with no oil in the engine.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 30, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



_"You can lead a horse to water......."_​Whatever dude.​


----------



## Ripley (Apr 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Wait a second, did someone just compare camera lenses to car pistons?!?!


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 30, 2014)

Ripley said:


> Wait a second, did someone just compare camera lenses to car pistons?!?!



Yep, that is the kind of "reasoning" we have to try to dispel sometimes.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Ripley said:
> 
> 
> > Wait a second, did someone just compare camera lenses to car pistons?!?!
> ...



Not the best analogy maybe, but if you try to read what I said rather than trying to take one sentence out of context, you might understand. THERE IS METAL TO METAL CONTACT. Your reasoning is, there is not enough metal to metal contact to cause any "appreciable" wear. I say, there is certainly metal to metal contact that causes wear, when people rush to change lenses...as if they are changing wheels on an F1 racecar. Oops, there's another car analogy! My whole point was, the mount is far from indestructible, and care should be taken when changing lenses. If you are just wanting to argue, go ahead, but you have to admit, I have a point.

Hold on, let me post under another name to egg this on...oh wait, I'm above that. ;D


----------



## philmoz (Apr 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Ripley said:
> 
> 
> > Wait a second, did someone just compare camera lenses to car pistons?!?!
> ...



Well, they are a similar shape :

Phil.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 30, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Ripley said:
> ...



And you are speculating that opinion from your own fantastical mind. I am saying I, personally, have had at least half a dozen cameras that have had thousands and thousands of lens changes and neither the lenses nor mounts showed any wear. You are now changing the point from _"fast lens changes cause wear"_ to a more subtle and easier to "prove" _"metal to metal contact causes wear"_.

I have noticed this happens a lot on this forum, more so than others, people theorise about something, somebody with actual experience comes along and says your comments might be theoretically sound but your conclusions are off by a factor of, a lot. The theorist then goes on and on posting, giving meaningless comparisons, ever longer lists of calculations and percentages to "prove" their point, meanwhile the poster with actual experienced gets completely pissed off and either leaves the thread or annoys any readers by trying to defend their position which actually answered the point.

Take it or leave it Carl I am not your enemy, but on this point you are talking rubbish.


----------



## skullyspice (Apr 30, 2014)

so have we decided adding a few drops of motor oil will keep our lens mounts running smoother and extend their life?


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 30, 2014)

skullyspice said:


> so have we decided adding a few drops of motor oil will keep our lens mounts running smoother and extend their life?



just buy a nikon D600 its self lubricating... no need to add oil...


----------



## ahab1372 (Apr 30, 2014)

skullyspice said:


> so have we decided adding a few drops of motor oil will keep our lens mounts running smoother and extend their life?


Yes, but don't forget to send the camera and lenses in for an oil change every 3000 mount operations. 
Otherwise, there will be a few dozen atoms lost after some years.


----------



## kennephoto (Apr 30, 2014)

ahab1372 said:


> skullyspice said:
> 
> 
> > so have we decided adding a few drops of motor oil will keep our lens mounts running smoother and extend their life?
> ...



Now this is the reason I love this forum! You know if you use synthetic oil on your lens mounts you can go up to 10,000 lens mount operations! I move lenses like a crankshaft to a piston at 9,000 rpms but still no wear!


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 30, 2014)

ahab1372 said:


> skullyspice said:
> 
> 
> > so have we decided adding a few drops of motor oil will keep our lens mounts running smoother and extend their life?
> ...


And this is why Nikons will always be superior! They come from the factory with oil and have the wonderful feature where it gets on the sensor to tell you that you need some more.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 30, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> ahab1372 said:
> 
> 
> > skullyspice said:
> ...


i beat you to this joke


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 30, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Menace said:
> 
> 
> > I have both - if I had to choose between them, I'll take the 85L every time
> ...



+2

The 50's keeper rate is lower, but having owned the 50/1.4 and 50 1.8 mrk 1, I'm very happy with the 50/1.2. Keep in mind you are judging the 50/1.2 to the legendary 85/1.2.


----------



## J.R. (Apr 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I have noticed this happens a lot on this forum, more so than others, people theorise about something, somebody with actual experience comes along and says your comments might be theoretically sound but your conclusions are off by a factor of, a lot. The theorist then goes on and on posting, giving meaningless comparisons, ever longer lists of calculations and percentages to "prove" their point, meanwhile the poster with actual experienced gets completely pissed off and either leaves the thread or annoys any readers by trying to defend their position which actually answered the point.



One could be forgiven for believing that the above paragraph was written in the context of the Ancient Aliens program on The History Channel.


----------



## J.R. (Apr 30, 2014)

Daniel Flather said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Menace said:
> ...



+3 ... but then the 50L isn't designed for sharpness anyway - Personally, I bought it for the bokeh and it excels at that.


----------



## Menace (Apr 30, 2014)

Here is a link on CR for the 85L 1.2II

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=872.0


----------



## Etienne (Apr 30, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Ripley said:
> ...



If you really must worry about your lenses, worry about scratches, oxidation and discoloration, mould growth, wear and tear on the focus and zoom mechanisms. The lens mount is the least of all problems to worry about. Just dont carelessly ram it on the camera and you should be fine for 20 years.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 30, 2014)

Etienne said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I worry about those things too. And the 1D4 I rented, showed signs of people ramming the lens on the camera, and even missing the mount entirely. In the past, I've witnessed people just piling cameras/lenses mounted on tripods, on top of each other into the back of an SUV, as if they were garden shovels! They were in a hurry to get on the road, and nothing was more important than that, apparently. The clanking sound was the equivalent to a human being flogged. Maybe I am too sensitive to it, but I don't like the idea of people being careless, and not appreciating that what they have, cost something, and took a lot of effort to design and manufacture. And that someday, some poor soul will very likely be buying it, either from them, or someone else (at a yard sale even)...and will say "this one's seen some action! What a shame...". To some people, scratching a D700 and its lens, against 8 other cameras/lenses/tripods/heads (total retail had to be $10,000 +) does not even register, I guess. I just have no respect at all for people like that.

This is now way off the 50 f/1.2 topic, I apologize for my part in it!


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 30, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> If you have been looking at images taken at f1.2 then I guess it is because the 85 is significantly sharper than the 50 at this aperture:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> 
> Clearly the 85 is a much more expensive lens, but the 50 is hardly cheap. I presume on the 85 focal length it was possible to achieve excellent bokeh with more chromatic aberration correction than on a 50 focal length.



Here are another two excellent reviews worth checking:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/502-canon_85f12ff

I love my 85/1.2 much and I'd really love to upgrade my 50/1.2 - but such reviews make me really wonder wether this 50 would disappoint me. I do not expect those superfast lenses being as tack sharp as macros, but the 85 delivers this perfect balance between decent sharpness and creamy bokeh.


----------



## sparda79 (Apr 30, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



For your own sake, avoid watching DigitalRev's youtube videos at all cost.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 30, 2014)

I know it's off topic, but in recent times DSLRs have bayonet mounts made from machined brass alloy, plated with something like chrome or nickel. All these metals have 'self lubrication' properties so friction of 'metals rubbing together' is almost non existent, especially as the spring behind the tab provides friction.

In days gone by high quality cameras had mounts made from machined stainless steel. They were a tighter fit but much more expensive to produce. My 36 year old Nikon FM has a graphite-like micro smear to the mount surface but it is still as tight as the day it was new.

Modern mounts are not as tight, and this coupled with the types of metal used means you'll never wear it enough to cause practical issues. Careless / rushed handling is more likely to blur or damage the edge of the mounting 'tabs', but if this did happen mounts are about the most easy part of the camera to change.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 30, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> If you have been looking at images taken at f1.2 then I guess it is because the 85 is significantly sharper than the 50 at this aperture:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> 
> Clearly the 85 is a much more expensive lens, but the 50 is hardly cheap. I presume on the 85 focal length it was possible to achieve excellent bokeh with more chromatic aberration correction than on a 50 focal length.



There have been a lot of helpful replies to my original question, including Sporgon's link (which I've already thanked him for). This link did plenty to put me off, but Neuro's discussion of the focus shift issue also dissuades me--I was looking for something a little wider than the 85mm 1.2 and with less of a minimum focusing distance. 

Right now I can confidently work from three feet to my subject with the 85mm, but, if I'm understanding the focus shift problem, the "real" working distance with the 50mm when using AF is about four feet. While there might be times I used Live View for static subjects, I'd mostly be using this for creative portraits of paying customers and soon-to-be-delivered first child. ;D

Another little twist somebody added to this thread was a mention of the 50mm 1.2 being improved in and after 2010...Does that mean the link referred to in Sporgon's post is now out of date???


The "sub-thread" about changing lenses and gear handling in general is interesting. The photographer I mentioned (she holds one lens between her knees when swapping out) is among the higher end (price-wise) photographers in the southeastern US. She takes good care of her gear, but when she is working a wedding or commercial project, she is focused 100% on getting the job done superbly. (I believe she began her career as an army photographer in the Middle-East.) She does keep a second camera close by (usually held by her assistant), but she happens to be only 5' tall, and her style involves a lot of kneeling down and even laying on her belly or back, so having two cameras around her neck just wouldn't work.

I read some time ago in a Moose Peterson blog about metal particles being a component of sensor dust, and he recommends wiping the lens and body mount rings fairly often to reduce the amount of particles which get intot the camera.

As for myself, many fellow photographers laugh at me because I have to put my camera down and the lens I want to put on it down to change. I've simply never developed the confidence to swap lenses regularly while standing, though having a vest pocket does make it possible for me. I try to always keep the body facing down to reduce dust falling in (though I know dust swirls up a lot too); and I try to switch very fast.

I've lost shots at times because I was too worried about switching to the appropriate lens during the extreme pollen times we have in our area--especially on windy days.

In a way, this discussion of changing lenses is pertinent, because many of us seem to agree that both the 50mm and the 85mm are lenses for specific shots, not for the majority of work at an event. Having the confidence and competence to swap out quickly when needed is, in my opinion, one of the basic requirements of a topnotch photographer. Otherwise, why use a DSLR? I wish I could get faster and not be so worried about dust.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 30, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> Right now I can confidently work from three feet to my subject with the 85mm, but, if I'm understanding the focus shift problem, the "real" working distance with the 50mm when using AF is about four feet. While there might be times I used Live View for static subjects, I'd mostly be using this for creative portraits of paying customers and soon-to-be-delivered first child. ;D
> 
> Another little twist somebody added to this thread was a mention of the 50mm 1.2 being improved in and after 2010...Does that mean the link referred to in Sporgon's post is now out of date???


My understanding is that the close focusing issue was improved, and my 2 copies haven't exhibited horrible issues that I've heard about. Here's a shot at minimum focus distance (at f/16, so not a great example) but the focus was fine. I think I hit the AF button two or three times to get it perfect, which is what you have to do at MFD, but that took all of 3 seconds.






With the 50mm focal length, you generally don't want to take portraits from closer than 3 or 4 feet anyways as it introduces enough perspective distortion to make noses look big and things like that. I typically use the 85 and 50 at roughly the same distances - usually 6-20 feet away depending on my framing.



YuengLinger said:


> I've lost shots at times because I was too worried about switching to the appropriate lens during the extreme pollen times we have in our area--especially on windy days.
> 
> In a way, this discussion of changing lenses is pertinent, because many of us seem to agree that both the 50mm and the 85mm are lenses for specific shots, not for the majority of work at an event. Having the confidence and competence to swap out quickly when needed is, in my opinion, one of the basic requirements of a topnotch photographer. Otherwise, why use a DSLR? I wish I could get faster and not be so worried about dust.


With the older SLRs like the 5D classic and somewhat with the 5DII, dust was an issue, particularly for landscape and macro shooters who typically shoot at f/11-16 or even f/22, but with the newer bodies, I think people are a little overly paranoid about changing lenses. Unless it's a really windy day, say 20+ mph winds or a really dusty environment like the beach, desert, or dry mud, I wouldn't get too caught up in things. If you point the body down and use yourself to block the wind, you can change lenses without much fear, even if it takes 1 minute or so. I live in a place with TONS of pollen and that's never been an issue. As you say, being able to change lenses IS the whole reason for an SLR, after all


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 30, 2014)

Thanks, mackguyver, for addressing both points head on, and especially for posting the image of the seashells.

With baby on the way, I just keep thinking that a stellar 50mm would be wonderful for those first years from birth through early grade school.

You are right about the distortion when getting too close, it is something that can make subjects wince a bit, but I was thinking also in terms of isolating features for shots that are part of an album or collage. Good to be reminded, though, about noses!

One thing I really hate doing is ordering an item to try out, then returning it. That's why I've been reaching out on the forum and closely following discussion of the new Sigma 50mm. I like so much I see in the 50mm 1.2 L, but if using anything other than the center point means losing sharpness around the eyes when it counts...

I will say that for f/1.2 on the 85mm, I've developed the habit of taking two or three shots at a time, both to improve the odds of beating any camera shake, and also to make sure I've hit the target with such sharp depth of field. So I might first (using the most accurate AF setting on the 5DIII) target the border of the iris, then maybe a lower eye lid, then back up to the catch-light in the pupil. I think I'm having good success with this so far, especially after careful AFMA. I am pressing the shutter button all three times--not just rapid firing.

Does using backbutton/AI servo really help on the 50mm 1.2?


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 30, 2014)

As Mack says, don't get hung up on lens changes causing dust issues. If you only shot primes and changed them a lot, assuming non extreme conditions, you'll have a lot less dust issues than the guy who's pumping his variable length zoom in and out !

Sure the later versions are 'weather sealed', but that doesn't stop microscopic dust getting past the brush seal on the barrel, and the eye piece on the camera. 

Lenses such as the 24-105, 24-70, 70-300, 100-400 will bring more dust into the camera than changing lenses ever will.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 30, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> As Mack says, don't get hung up on lens changes causing dust issues. If you only shot primes and changed them a lot, assuming non extreme conditions, you'll have a lot less dust issues than the guy who's pumping his variable length zoom in and out !



I always have dust on my sensors as I have an external zoom (70-300L), shoot outdoors a lot and change lenses all the time in a hurry. But it isn't a problem because ....
* LR5 has a much better healing brush
* a dust spec on a 20mp ff sensor (6d) is much smaller than on a 18mp crop sensor (60d)
* I'm rather good at cleaning the sensor by now


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 30, 2014)

I had a the 50L for a while and really enjoyed it, but it definitely has it's flaws. I traded it a few years ago for a Zeiss 50mm Makro and haven't regretted it for a second. Although I think I may pick up the Sigma if it's as good as everyone says it is.


----------



## CarlTN (May 1, 2014)

sparda79 said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



I like the videos I've seen from them. If something is done in a humorous context by people who can afford to ruin cameras, so be it. I just didn't like seeing people be so careless and unconscious of what they were doing.


----------



## CarlTN (May 1, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > If you have been looking at images taken at f1.2 then I guess it is because the 85 is significantly sharper than the 50 at this aperture:
> ...



Very good points, and well stated too, thank you. However, in my opinion, or at least for me...it's not an issue of "confidence". It's an issue of "consciousness". But I agree, if I was making $8k a week shooting weddings (during the wedding season), I would not give a second thought to switching lenses quickly, or doing whatever I needed to do, to get the job done. (I don't know if I could hold something between my knees, due to my anatomy, but I'm willing to try it sometime...haha. My thighs are not small, and it's not fat.) Unfortunately I do not make enough money from my photography, to take such an approach with my gear. Nor do I want to need to. And about pollen...well, that can get inside your lens, even if you don't take it off the camera (and even if it is weather sealed). I don't have the "confidence" to rip my lenses down and wipe the internal dust out on a regular basis, though I'm sure some on here not only do it regularly, but have done it hundreds of thousands of times, etc.

Also agree with the point about the metal fragments...but I suppose since the mount has a spring, that makes everything fine, there's no metal fragments. I can sleep better now.

If the reason to own an SLR, is to change lenses as much as possible...that's a race I don't feel the need to compete in. I change lenses when I need to, and try to avoid doing it outdoors. I am a neat freak that way. Others aren't, and that's fine. I don't miss shots too often doing this. Obviously it depends on how often you need a different lens. Again I would own more than one body, and work around that.


----------



## Ripley (May 2, 2014)

gary samples said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > gary samples said:
> ...



I don't have the 85L, but I have the 24-70 II and it's the best lens I've ever had. I'm thinking about getting the 85L or the 135L because I'm getting tired of lugging the 70-200 II to portrait shoots.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 3, 2014)

Hi, Ripley,
The sharpness and color rendition of the 135mm is, in my opinion, even better than the 85mm--but, as our "studio space" is so confined, the 135mm is an outdoor and larger venue lens for us. Since the 135mm focuses so extremely fast and has such a wide aperture, it is a great combination of super-flattering portrait lens and action stopper.

But for working intimately with subjects for a portrait that reflects mood and character, and for which the subject is posing, the 85mm somehow brings a contemporary and timeless feel that cannot be surpassed. The ability to go to a truly workable 1.2, and when at minimum focus distance get just the plane of a single eye perfectly in focus, while all else dissolves into a dreamy softness, was just too much for this photographer to resist.

I believe that you can't go wrong with either, provided you find the scenarios better suited to each.


----------



## CarlTN (May 3, 2014)

Ripley said:


> gary samples said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



But if your clients don't see a big white lens, will you be able to charge as much?


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 3, 2014)

Ripley said:


> gary samples said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



I got the 135L for the same reason (well, almost- I was also getting tired of lugging the 70-200 II whenever I needed a tele lens). 
And it works great.
135L worked better for me because I needed the extra reach as a tele, and it is much cheaper- which is a big bonus.


----------



## Ripley (May 4, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Ripley said:
> 
> 
> > gary samples said:
> ...



I've been going back and forth, but I'm leaning towards the 85L right now. Even though that means I'll have to be patient for a bit while I save up the difference. 

So for an event it would be the 24-70/70-200, but for a group/portrait shoot it would be the 24-70/85... seems like the right combinations to have it all without carrying too much.


----------



## mackguyver (May 5, 2014)

Ripley said:


> I've been going back and forth, but I'm leaning towards the 85L right now. Even though that means I'll have to be patient for a bit while I save up the difference.


You won't regret the 85L purchase, even if it means that you have to wait a bit longer to save up for it. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone regretting the 85


----------



## DRR (May 5, 2014)

My 85mm f/1.2L II almost never comes off the camera.


----------



## Menace (May 6, 2014)

DRR said:


> My 85mm f/1.2L II almost never comes off the camera.



+1

Its always on one of my bodies. The 2nd body would either have 70-200 or 24-70 etc


----------

