# Addicted to dof



## alexturton (Mar 6, 2013)

Hi all. 

I have the canon 50mm 1.4 an the canon 85mm 1.8 using on my 5d3. 

I'm constantly on a quest for shallower dof. I do a lot of street photography. 


My hesitations on upgrading to the L lenses are (other than cost):

Will I actually see a noticeable difference in dof?
The 50mmL has a pronounced focus shift narrower than f2. 
The 85mm 1.2. is slower af than the 1.8

My question is will I see much difference between 1.4 and 1.2 @ 50mm and 1.8 and 1.2 at 85mm?
Also, does anyone know if the sigma 85 is any good? And similarly is it worth going from 85mm 1.8 to 85mm 1.4?


----------



## AmbientLight (Mar 6, 2013)

Yes, you will most definitely see a difference. I don't own the non-L variants, but I have tried to use both 50mm L and 85mm L for street photography and I tend to shoot at late hours, so I usually only use f1.2 to f1.8 apertures. Using the faster L primes not only provides you with even better bokeh, but it also allows you to freeze motion, which may become blurred using a slower lens. This is of course only pushing a boundary, but it does make a difference.

There is a significant advantage using a 1D-X or 1Ds Mark III, because of the more powerful battery driving AF motors faster, but that's the only thing to improve compared to using a 5D Mark III.

Many on this forum complain about high cost of particular lenses. I would rather not touch this subject here.


----------



## Tov (Mar 6, 2013)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx
You'll also will find the Canon 1.2 there.


----------



## dmills (Mar 6, 2013)

http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=49

There's another one that compares the 1.8 to the 1.2.

You're looking at roughly 1 stop of light difference between the two as well (The difference between f4 and f2.8 )


----------



## elflord (Mar 6, 2013)

alexturton said:


> Hi all.
> 
> I have the canon 50mm 1.4 an the canon 85mm 1.8 using on my 5d3.
> 
> ...



Yes, the Sigma is pretty good. Myself and several other forum members are satisfied owners. Take a look at the review on thedigitalpicture where it spanks the Zeiss and the Canon f/1.8 -- it's second in image quality (and a close second) only to the 85mm f/1.2. AF speed on the sigma is quite reasonable.


----------



## PavelR (Mar 6, 2013)

I've upgraded C 85/1.8 (purple fringing and inconsistent AF) to S 85/1.4 - all is better now - IQ, AF speed and consistency.
(My body is 1DIV.)


----------



## infared (Mar 6, 2013)

"Yes, the Sigma is pretty good. Myself and several other forum members are satisfied owners. Take a look at the review on thedigitalpicture where it spanks the Zeiss and the Canon f/1.8 -- it's second in image quality (and a close second) only to the 85mm f/1.2. AF speed on the sigma is quite reasonable."

I have all L glass and Zeiss...But I chose the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 as well..it performs perfectly for my needs...I am always pleased with the sharpness and the bokeh. I think you as a night-time street shooter would enjoy the Sigma..the focus speed is very good as is the bokeh..it is also mechanically refreshing to the two lesser Canon offerings, (did I really just say that about a Sigma product?! ).also..the cost..right now it can be had for $450 with rebate. Sigma is upping the ante ..their new 35mm 1.4 outperforms the big guns for much less money...I like to see more of this!
I skipped the 50mm L..to go for REAL shallow DOF..
I would not regard my 85mm f/1.2 as a street-shooting lens, though...but oh if you have the money and the patience for the slow focus and infinitesimal, shimmering DOF ...it can leave you speechless! This lens is pushing the limits of physics..and has tons of fringing...but LR cleans it up nicely.. Maybe try renting one and see for yourself...but try to move past the obvious difficulties of using this beast...it has great rewards for the patient explorers!!!
The beast also delivers incredible results @f1.4-2.0 and beyond, stunning actually.....it's slow on the focus though...in some cases, maybe better off with the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 or perhaps a Canon 135mm F/2L...alas..it's all a compromise!


----------



## wayno (Mar 6, 2013)

Alex - the Sigma 85 is excellent and definitely AFs faster than the 85L. While there is a marginal difference in look between 1.2 and 1.4, I find 1.4 looks natural (just) whereas 1.2 can sometimes look a little odd (even creepy visually). Just my opinion though. Both the 1.4 and 1.2 require a degree of patience - the Sigma a bit less so.


----------



## K-amps (Mar 6, 2013)

The 85L has more OOF Blur at the same apertures compared to other lenses.... this is key for you.

Take a look at this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

The 4th pic down of his daughter holding a iron fence... hover over the different F values and you will see that F2, the EF85L has almost as much blur as the Sigma does at F1.4. And we know Sigma is better than the EF 85 F/1.8... You will have 2-3 virtual apertures left with the 85L (or should I say levels) to blur out the background more.

It is a very sharp lens even wide open. You will lose some AF speed but then are you also addicted to AF speed? 

I would own one if I made money off this hobby...


----------



## infared (Mar 6, 2013)

K-amps said:


> The 85L has more OOF Blur at the same apertures compared to other lenses.... this is key for you.
> 
> Take a look at this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx
> 
> ...



So....K-amps...why is the Canon so much more "bokehlicious" at a given aperture, focal length and distance with similar (?) aperture blades? I recently read somewhere that there is another factor ( a revelation actually...that I was unaware of), affecting Bokeh....but I can' seem to recall what it was ??? My memory fails me at times...
Nice article reference BTW!...I missed that one.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 6, 2013)

infared said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > The 85L has more OOF Blur at the same apertures compared to other lenses.... this is key for you.
> ...



Blur quality isn't necessarily a function of the shallowness of the DOF. Generally, the shape of the aperture plays a major role. The better the iris approximates a circle, the rounder the out-of-focus spots tend to be. Hard lines in OOF can look jarring, which is why for example the OOF areas look 'better' with a 50mm/1.2 (8 blades) than with a 50mm/1.8 (5 blades), even with the former stopped down to match depth of field.

There are some exotic lenses with as many as 20 blades.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 6, 2013)

As an owner of 50mm f1.4 and 50L, Yes - there is a huge different btw f1.4 Vs L.

The 50L required AFMA. I did it through Focal. I calibrated my 50L at f1.2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, and f8. I recorded the AFMA values on a small paper and taped to lens hood. That way, I can use my 50L from f1.2 to f8 without worry about focus shift.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 6, 2013)

infared said:


> why is the Canon so much more "bokehlicious" at a given aperture, focal length and distance with similar (?) aperture blades?



Lens design is all about tradeoffs. For example, the 50/1.2L could have been made sharper - instead, Canon designed with lens with intentionally undercorrected spherical aberration which is part of the reason for the 'creamy' bokeh for which the lens is known.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > why is the Canon so much more "bokehlicious" at a given aperture, focal length and distance with similar (?) aperture blades?
> ...



Yup, both 50L and 85L were same year releases and probably developed in parallel...both share a lot of design and spec strengths and compromises. Some residual SA is an intentional design feature...thats what gives you that dreamy look...and frequently also gives you that directional swirling bokeh in the corners.


----------



## K-amps (Mar 6, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



True, but the 50L is not as sharp wide open as the 85L is. The 85L is amazingly sharp... not many people realize this since the DoF is so narrow that they may not have AF point spread to take advantange of it, but most pros know this. The 50L as Neuro IS a compromise, the 85L is not in this case. 

As pointed out the Shape of the Iris (Circular/rounded) and the presence of certain spherical elements does contribute to the 85L's bokelisciousness... it is definitely one of the best EF lenses in Bokeh (and Qty of blur).


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 6, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> In a full manual lens, it should be easy enough to offer circular "aperture" at all apertures.
> -h



what role if any, circular apertures play *wide open* (i.e) at f1.2 in 85mm is debatable.

Circular blades or more numerous blades may have more of an impact in OOF as you stop down...specifically in rendering more pleasing spectral highlights...think of those geometric pentagons one sees with the nifty fifty... 

Wide open...say with 85L at f1.2 or 135L at f2... Blade curvature shape may not be a major contributor. 135L has just regular blades. As one stops down yes it is useful...But both these lenses are used most often wide open. 

On the other hand, intentional SA may have a lot to do with why 85L "holds" the bokeh longer at relatively the same level even as you stop down to some extent while the competitors start to show harsher and harsher bokeh...of course as you hit ~ f2.2 or ~f2.8 this advantage is lessened... But One doesn't buy an 85L to use it at f4.0  

The trick is not to let the SA affect the sharpness, or find a balance... and this is where the canon designers did an excellent job with the 85... it is a sharp lens.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 6, 2013)

alexturton said:


> Hi all.
> 
> I have the canon 50mm 1.4 an the canon 85mm 1.8 using on my 5d3.
> 
> ...



http://ramonlperez.tumblr.com/post/34906285033/fast-prime-shoot-out-pt-2-50mm-1-2l-review


----------



## Dantana (Mar 6, 2013)

I think it's kind of funny that the title for this post is "Addicted to DOF," when it's really a lack of DOF that everyone is talking about. Not saying anyone is wrong. It's just kind of funny how the term gets thrown around.


----------



## Studio1930 (Mar 6, 2013)

Dantana said:


> I think it's kind of funny that the title for this post is "Addicted to DOF," when it's really a lack of DOF that everyone is talking about. Not saying anyone is wrong. It's just kind of funny how the term gets thrown around.



If we want to get technical, it is the adjective "shallow" that is missing. You can be addicted to DOF whether it is shallow or deep so the statement is not incorrect, it is just lacking a full description. 

Isn't a lack of DOF a blurry image and not an image with a shallow DOF?
:-X


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 6, 2013)

Studio1930 said:


> Isn't a lack of DOF a blurry image and not an image with a shallow DOF?
> :-X



Well the former is unintended and typically movement based while the latter is a creative choice...same difference between slipping a BluRay in the player, sipping a dry Martini with your feet up and watching a movie you love and being forced to watch "Oceans 11" on Delta Airlines with a guy eating garlic bread in the next seat 

Not the same now, is it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 6, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> being forced to watch "Oceans 11" on Delta Airlines with a guy eating garlic bread in the next seat



I presume you mean the recent one, not the Rat Pack version? But maybe the destination is a tropical island paradise...that might make the odor of garlic breath for a few hours more bearable.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > being forced to watch "Oceans 11" on Delta Airlines with a guy eating garlic bread in the next seat
> ...



Yes, the new one... The old version is enjoyable. No i was headed to NYC via Hoboken... Few years back, but all I had to look forward to was being mugged.


----------



## STEMI_RN (Mar 6, 2013)

I don't own any of these lenses, but I have been a frequent borrower. I just wanted to mention one thing that seems to have not yet been mentioned. 

What I really notice about the difference in the SHALLOW DOF of the 85 1.2L vs the 1.4 is the range at which you still notice the truly shallow DOF. With the 1.2 you can get a noticeably shallow DOF even at further distances which you may not see in a slower lens. I think this is why many wedding photogs consider the 85 1.2L the "Gold standard" for portrait lenses. You can get extraordinarily nice results from a distance which might otherwise not be possible with a wider, slower lens.


----------



## SteenerMe (Mar 6, 2013)

For street photography these lenses are too wide for a very shallow dof. Try using a fast, long zoom...


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 6, 2013)

SteenerMe said:


> For street photography these lenses are too wide for a very shallow dof. Try using a fast, long zoom...



One of the first lessons in street photography...within limits, don't draw attention to yourself. Smaller the gear the better. Long zooms are not ideal on that front.

Two, sometimes overly shallow DOF is counter productive in street shots. While in some cases you want to isolate your subject(s), in most cases you want wider fields with more DOF ...by that I mean not shallow DOF...sometimes I leave my fast primes at f5.6 or f8. Street work is not a studio portrait session...more often than not, you want context to the frame. That is provided by "more" DOF... more things in focus...not less.


----------



## Dantana (Mar 6, 2013)

Studio1930 said:


> Dantana said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's kind of funny that the title for this post is "Addicted to DOF," when it's really a lack of DOF that everyone is talking about. Not saying anyone is wrong. It's just kind of funny how the term gets thrown around.
> ...



I suppose you could look at it that way, though if someone told me (without me looking) that an image had more depth of field than another, I would take that to mean that it had deeper focus, a larger depth of field. 

Besides, blur is about motion, depth of field is about focus. 

Not that this has anything to do with the original post. Sorry about that.


----------



## 7enderbender (Mar 6, 2013)

Like others have said, yes, there is a difference between the 50 1.4 and 1.2. I've been a decade long user of the various iterations of the 1.4. The EF version unfortunately is not built like the old FD versions. That's why I even looked at the 1.2 at some point.

What converted me, however, is the contrast of the 50L - with the shallower DOF and ever so slightly nicer bokeh as a bonus. The thing just puts out amazing colors wide open. My 1.4 was actually sharper between 2.8 and 4 (or so). I sold it anyway since I simply stopped using it. It's a trade-off that's not for everyone obviously. Is it worth the additional cost? Probably not for most people. I never regretted the extra grand or whatever it came down to.


----------



## RGF (Mar 7, 2013)

alexturton said:


> Hi all.
> 
> I have the canon 50mm 1.4 an the canon 85mm 1.8 using on my 5d3.
> 
> ...



another way to shallow DOF is to have a very long lens - not exactly true since DOF for the same magnification is the same, regardless of the focal length.

Or you could go high magnification, e.g., macro.


----------

