# 85mm f1/2L II and event photography?



## Ruined (Aug 21, 2014)

I have always been fond of the output of the 85L II.

But, I have never tried full time deployment for event photography. Has anyone used it for this purpose?

My concerns:
1) Slow autofocus might result in missed shots, such as wedding reception entrances (where people often run or do unexpected maneuvers). I have used my 50mm f/1.2L for this and it seems that this is about as slow as I would want for autofocus, but the 85L II is significantly slower than the 50L.
2) Fragile - the exposed rear element during lens changes, potential of damaging the lens motor (or so I have heard) when lens is placed face down with the barrel extended, and lack of weather sealing - I am wondering if this is the best fit for event photography which often is fast paced, hectic, and unpredictable.

Has anyone deployed this lens for event photography? I love using my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II but f/2.8 is not always fast enough and for portraits the bokeh of 85L II is unmatched. But the build of the 70-200 just seems so much more robust in more ways than one. 135L is an alternative but I do not like the bokeh at f/4 (which would be needed at times) and it is often too long of a focal length indoors. 85 1.8 same issue with bokeh at f/4... can't seem to find better alternative to 24l/50l/70-200 Thoughts?


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 21, 2014)

I don't do events much anymore, but those were always my concerns. The 85 only came out for portraits and the 24 & 50 were on my two bodies. Sometimes I'd have the 24-70 or 135 on one as well depending on the event. I think the biggest issue is the slow AF, which just isn't suited well for moving subjects.


----------



## Besisika (Aug 21, 2014)

Ruined said:


> Has anyone deployed this lens for event photography?


The answer is yes. I will have a personal assignment this week-end (Cosplay) and i will shoot it entirely with 85mm 1.2 at 2.0 and 4.0 (group).
I don't use it for fast moving subject, though. I use a 100mm L with a YN 622C trigger on top. 
I use 1DX so I can afford higher ISO than with a 6D. 70-200 would be perfect, but cannot afford it right now.


----------



## Ruined (Aug 21, 2014)

I do also have a 100L, but since it is the same aperture as 70-200 I usually just use the 70-200. 100L focus speed ain't bad if you use the focus limiter correctly, but ISO noise not obviously not as good in low light as the 50/85 f/1.2.


----------



## Dekaner (Aug 21, 2014)

I've used it and my hit rate is obviously lower due to the slower focus speed. It all depends on the event and how static you expect the people to be. That being said, when it did hit it was beautiful.


----------



## Vern (Aug 21, 2014)

I used this lens exclusively at my oldest son's wedding on a 1Dx. As I was just a back-up to the pro they hired, I could risk missing some shots - and of course I wanted to be a participant as well. I had the choice of my 70-200 2.8II, but I'm glad I went with the 85 b/c I shot mostly at f1.8 and really got some great shots. Since most were posed, the focus speed was not an issue and the 'look' provided by this lens won the day. Good thing I was back-up b/c the pro did not really deliver excellent shots. If I was on the hook as a pro, I would definitely have this lens on one body while I had the 24-70 2.8II or 70-200 2.8II on another. I don't think another lens would render bokeh as per below.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Aug 21, 2014)

The 85L is a beast at events. I have always leaned toward the 70-200 2.8L ii or event the 100L, but the 85L has yet to disappoint me. I dislocated a rib pretty badly and shot a wedding a few days later this June, since I wasn't able to move much we added a third photographer to their package. During the processional/ceremony/reception, I shot the 85L figuring that it may or may not focus, but I was playing backup to the backup so I thought I would give it a whirl. The 85L was outstanding and definitely the best choice due to the low lighting situation we were facing. Our setup was essentially;

85L on 5Diii
70-200 2.8L ii on 5Diii
100L on 5Dii

We all had a Canon 600ex-rt for fill lighting, but the winner was the 85L, typically shot ~2.0.

I hope that helps!
-Tabor

PS, I just thought of another wedding where we did the same setup only it was a daytime wedding. The 85 and big tele were neck and neck for the best shots at the event.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 21, 2014)

Maintain your distance and avoid going from infi~ to close up with this beauty.

I can give up my speedy 135L, not 85L II - not today


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 22, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Maintain your distance and avoid going from infi~ to close up with this beauty.
> 
> I can give up my speedy 135L, not 85L II - not today


This is the key also having it on a 1d body makes a big difference. As for lens changes during an event just don't do it
Typically I'll leave my 85 on one body and have either the 16-35 or 35 1.4 on another body depends on what is needed but generally I find indoor or night event 2 ff bodies with an 85 on one and 35 1.4 on the other a killer combo


----------



## benperrin (Aug 22, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> This is the key also having it on a 1d body makes a big difference. As for lens changes during an event just don't do it
> Typically I'll leave my 85 on one body and have either the 16-35 or 35 1.4 on another body depends on what is needed but generally I find indoor or night event 2 ff bodies with an 85 on one and 35 1.4 on the other a killer combo



I can second this statement. Putting the lens on a 1d3 really helped for me. When it's on my 5d2 it is infuriating how painfully slow this lens is. I'm sure it'd be great on a 5d3 though. I also second the part about having 2 bodies just in case. A black rapid double works really well in this case. YMMV.


----------



## hermster (Aug 22, 2014)

benperrin said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > This is the key also having it on a 1d body makes a big difference. As for lens changes during an event just don't do it
> ...



Actually it's quite slow on a 5dmk3 body also. Super lens on a 1dx body, which focuses (drives the 85/1.2 II Ultra Sonic Motor) much faster because of the 11.1v battery compared to 5d's 7.2volt battery. I did some really simple focussing on some stuff when i received my 1dx and in my test setup (switching between targets at near and far distant) it was like 1.3 seconds on 1dx compared to 2 seconds on 5dmk3.
Great lens anyway!


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 22, 2014)

First thought when I saw the title of the post, "Oxymoron!"

Reading through and seeing Vern't great detail shot with the couple blurred perfectly in the background, I'm thinking quite differently about my own 85mm 1.2. 

Good old CR.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 22, 2014)

I wouldn't worry too much about the rear element. It *is* very exposed, and I was worried to begin with, but I've never had a problem - just be a tiny bit more careful when slotting it into the mount.

I shot a friend's wedding reception partly with this, and it works well, but can be a bit long in confined situations, and obviously lacks the versatility of a zoom. Always produces beautiful shots though.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Aug 22, 2014)

Great topic!

Not only does the camera body make a difference, but personal taste for blur should be taken into account.

For example, Vern's lovely wedding shot above has too much blur for my taste. I'd rather have a little less blur and be able to identify my friends/relatives in their wedding pix. I think photographers may have gotten a bit carried away in seeking maximum blur. Do clients really want that? I think they are more concerned that we don't make them look fat. BTW, I'm not a wedding photographer, so my opinion should not be given a lot of weight. - pun intended 

Personally, on my 5D3, I prefer the 85 1.8 for its light weight and speedy autofocus. In my recent side by side test, the images were quite similar. But of course the 85 1.2 can create more blur if you shoot at 1.2.

All I need to do now is find a way to paint a red ring on my 1.8!


----------



## benperrin (Aug 22, 2014)

hermster said:


> Actually it's quite slow on a 5dmk3 body also. Super lens on a 1dx body, which focuses (drives the 85/1.2 II Ultra Sonic Motor) much faster because of the 11.1v battery compared to 5d's 7.2volt battery. I did some really simple focussing on some stuff when i received my 1dx and in my test setup (switching between targets at near and far distant) it was like 1.3 seconds on 1dx compared to 2 seconds on 5dmk3.
> Great lens anyway!



Nice to know! Never realised that was the case as I thought it had more to do with the autofocus system itself.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 22, 2014)

benperrin said:


> hermster said:
> 
> 
> > Actually it's quite slow on a 5dmk3 body also. Super lens on a 1dx body, which focuses (drives the 85/1.2 II Ultra Sonic Motor) much faster because of the 11.1v battery compared to 5d's 7.2volt battery. I did some really simple focussing on some stuff when i received my 1dx and in my test setup (switching between targets at near and far distant) it was like 1.3 seconds on 1dx compared to 2 seconds on 5dmk3.
> ...


It makes a difference on the 50L and the big whites as well, but to me, is most noticeable on the 85L.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 22, 2014)

drmikeinpdx said:


> Great topic!
> 
> Not only does the camera body make a difference, but personal taste for blur should be taken into account.
> 
> ...



That's a good point - I do find f/1.2 too blurred sometimes. But of course if you stop it down to f/1.8 the image quality will be better than the cheaper lens wide open. (It certainly fails on 'light weight' though!)


----------



## Vern (Aug 22, 2014)

drmikeinpdx said:


> Great topic!
> 
> Not only does the camera body make a difference, but personal taste for blur should be taken into account.
> 
> ...



Thanks - I did also manage to focus a few shots on the subjects. The 1.8 is a very nice option and certainly much lighter than the 1.2 - although at 1.8, the IQ of the 1.2 is much better. Not sure if the bokeh at the same aperture would be equivalent either. I do shoot at 1.2, but the DOF is so shallow that getting more than one subject in the focal plane is a challenge.


----------



## risc32 (Aug 22, 2014)

as a photographer i've always been interested in the 1.2, but for now i run the 1.8. Sure I'd like to get my hands on one to play around with, but without the 1.8's AF speed it just wouldn't be able to fully replace the 1.8 in many conditions, and unlike most photogs i don't like collecting lenses. still, i can't say i'm totally pleased with the 1.8's AF accuracy( i can't recall anyone else saying that, so i don't know what to make of my findings, not that i would expect better of the 1.2) or purple fringing.

while i think that the ability to have defocused areas in photos is one of the main advantages of proper cameras. as has been stated i also think this OOF thing gets carried away sometimes. for me, as a wedding photographer, i would have deleted both of these posted shots. without hesitation.


----------



## cnardo (Aug 22, 2014)

I am curious to know why no mention of the 135 f/2L USM as a alternate lens is not referred to in this thread. Is the autofocus too slow or reach from 85 to 135 make it less attractive for wedding photographers?


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 22, 2014)

cnardo said:


> I am curious to know why no mention of the 135 f/2L USM as a alternate lens is not referred to in this thread. Is the autofocus too slow or reach from 85 to 135 make it less attractive for wedding photographers?


I used the 135 for events (but not weddings), but generally it's too long for a lot of applications. It's good in big rooms or outdoors from a distance, but I always found the 24 & 50 to be better suited, at least for my style.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 22, 2014)

Imagine doing a fast lens change with the 85 f1.2 

Could easily end up as :'(


----------



## cnardo (Aug 22, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> cnardo said:
> 
> 
> > I am curious to know why no mention of the 135 f/2L USM as a alternate lens is not referred to in this thread. Is the autofocus too slow or reach from 85 to 135 make it less attractive for wedding photographers?
> ...



Ok... understand the reach issue indoors... I've used the 135mm indoors only in big rooms or gyms (not smaller rooms and I have never done a wedding). On a separate issue, I have not been impressed with my Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens... I have found that the pictures appear to be flat/dull...do you folks think I need to go to the L f/1.2 to get comparable quality to my 135mm ???


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 22, 2014)

cnardo said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > cnardo said:
> ...


Yes, the 135 works well in large rooms - see shot below taken in a large warehouse-sized event/exhibition space @f/2, 1/160, ISO 3200 - but is a little long for general event use. 

On the other hand, the 50L is essentially a 50 f/1.4 with a tougher build, better AF motor, weather sealing, better flare resistance, with better resolution and contrast below f/2.8. The bokeh is a bit smoother and the colors a bit punchier, but they are far more alike than different, at least above f/2. If you're unhappy with the 50 f/1.4 below f/2 and plan to shoot at f/2 or below, it's probably worth the upgrade. If you don't like the f/1.4 from f/2 to 2.8, you're probably not going to find the 50L to be much better. To answer your question - yes, the 50L is more like the 135L in terms of color and contrast.


----------



## cnardo (Aug 22, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> cnardo said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Ok thanks for the advice. I may rent one (50mm f/1.2) just to try it out.


----------



## ryebread (Aug 22, 2014)

had this lens for years.
awesome lens.
specialty lens.
much more of a tool for portrait work.

anyone who says the 85L is great for events, haha! it'll work. but you won't get as many keepers.
and 85mm isn't great for groups 


50L is better for events, more versatile
24-70 2.8 ii is great for events!


----------



## Ruined (Aug 22, 2014)

I have 24L/50L/24-70 2.8/70-200 2.8 - was just looking for something Tele faster than 2.8
. Seems no ideal option, maybe if a 85 1.8 IS or 135L II is announced in Sep I'll go for thay


----------



## scyrene (Aug 22, 2014)

Ruined said:


> I have 24L/50L/24-70 2.8/70-200 2.8 - was just looking for something Tele faster than 2.8
> . Seems no ideal option, maybe if a 85 1.8 IS or 135L II is announced in Sep I'll go for thay



Don't forget the 100mm f/2!


----------



## zlatko (Aug 22, 2014)

The 85L is a wonderful lens and I used it for many events. But I also think it's too heavy for general event use. I just didn't enjoy carrying it!


----------

