# Prime v Zoom Bokeh



## Andrew Davies Photography (May 5, 2014)

Still trying to decide on whether or not to purchase new lens for portraits or use an existing lens so decided to take the two of them out and compare their bokeh's both at same focal length and f stop and at their best bokeh respective settings.

Lenses used Canon 70-200 F4L
Canon 85mm 1.8

As mentioned this is not a perfect wall chart experiment and i have not messed around with the shots apart from crop to get real life results.

What are your opinions ??

http://www.andrew-davies.com/prime%20v%20zoom%20bokeh%20test.htm


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 5, 2014)

The bokeh of the 85mm is a little softer, but that's not the most obvious difference. When you compare the two lenses in F4, the 85mm is sharper, and we all know it would be so, because the zoom is at its maximum aperture and 85mm was stoped down to the sweet spot. 
The second comparison shows the weakness of 85mm, which is the chromatic aberration, and lack of contrast between 1.8 and 2.5. In this aspect, the zoom takes advantage 200mm F4. 

I've said this in another thread but Canon 100mm F2 has much less chromatic aberration and better contrast than 85mm, even when wide open.


----------



## gabriele (May 5, 2014)

I suggest to retry the comparison also at f/2.8 because it's quite interesting.
You can use the ghost image function on magic lantern to be sure to perfectly overlay the pictures (showing you the previous picture you shot) and be sure to focus exactly on the same point using liveview and 10x enlargement.
Also notice that focal lenght among lenses is not always perfect as stated (eg. a 85mm may be actually a 83 o 86 or anything close to 85mm), for example the Samyang 14mm is quite wider compared to the Canon equivalent even if they both state they're 14mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 5, 2014)

I see you've regressed to using a zoom lens, after claiming you've outgrown them. How sad. :


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (May 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I see you've regressed to using a zoom lens, after claiming you've outgrown them. How sad. :



I guess if you could read you would have read that i have always used and owned zooms aswell.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 5, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I see you've regressed to using a zoom lens, after claiming you've outgrown them. How sad. :
> ...



You're right, you did mention that you use a zoom lens. That was in the same thread where you suggested people who do so are too lazy to use primes, or are willing to sacrifice the image quality you attribute to primes over zooms. How wonderfully hypocritical of you.

Maybe you should read some of your own words a little more carefully, or better yet, think before posting. If you can.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (May 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Which is precisely why i am testing my last remaining zoom against primes i wish to buy to find out which one will better it and provide the focal length i require. Is that too hard for you to understand ?


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 5, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Which is precisely why i am testing my last remaining zoom against primes i wish to buy to find out which one will better it and provide the focal length i require. Is that too hard for you to understand ?



Prime you wish to buy? According to your other thread, you already own the 85 1.8 (see quote below).
This is too hard for me to understand.
BTW, you must be lucky to have people still trying to give *you* good advice. I have seen zooms trashed in general, the 85 1.2 trashed in the other thread, and recently the 70-200mm II and shots using it undermined (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20817.0). 
I really have to applaud the patience of the CR members. 



Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Hi. Recently purchased the 85 1.8 for portraits and weddings to go along with my other primes , and have to say a little dissapointed with its performance especially at 1.8/2 where i was expecting greater things, it also has the worst CA i have seen on any lens wide open especially on reflective surfaces or indoors
> 
> I am considering the 135 to go with my 24 and 35 primes and still have the 24-105 and 70-200 with my assistant so those bases cover , the quality of the 35 is that good that i believe it can fill much of the gap left between 35-135 just by cropping, anyone else gone this route or have any advice ? Or anyone got the 85 1.8 and think i may just have a dud ?
> 
> www.andrew-davies.com


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Is that too hard for you to understand ?



I understand you perfectly. Most wedding photographers with whom I am acquainted are quite decent people, but my own field has plenty of rude hypocrites, so I find them easy to recognize.


----------



## kennephoto (May 6, 2014)

Keep the 85 it's far sharper in your test shots than the 70-200. Look at the wood post sharper, given the dof is different still more detail. Plus you said you liked primes better for weddings. You can always fix CA in post btw and if I recall the 5d mark iii does correct CA for canon lenses.


----------



## cellomaster27 (May 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Is that too hard for you to understand ?
> ...



+1. Hahahaha! This post title had a stench already before I even started to read the posts. Almost sounds like a relative of Ken Rockwell. Can't take Andrew Davies photography without a good laugh. Ignorance is shameful bliss.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (May 6, 2014)

kennephoto said:


> Keep the 85 it's far sharper in your test shots than the 70-200. Look at the wood post sharper, given the dof is different still more detail. Plus you said you liked primes better for weddings. You can always fix CA in post btw and if I recall the 5d mark iii does correct CA for canon lenses.



The 85mm is having issues which it was in this shot of front and back focussing which having spent some time calibrating is not getting any better and even on tripod shutter release etc will take the same shot with different focuses. At one stage i had it racked out to -20 MFA just to get it on focus. I do primarily use primes for weddings but have not yet decided on the prime to go for the longer work , 135 F2 is very tempting but may be to long for indoors. The 5D3 does correct for lenses but its not able to make much of the terrible PF on the 85mm ! 

thanks
Andrew


----------



## Menace (May 6, 2014)

Hello Andrew,

Do let us know which lens you end up keeping.

Thanks


----------



## wsheldon (May 6, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> The 85mm is having issues which it was in this shot of front and back focussing which having spent some time calibrating is not getting any better and even on tripod shutter release etc will take the same shot with different focuses. At one stage i had it racked out to -20 MFA just to get it on focus. I do primarily use primes for weddings but have not yet decided on the prime to go for the longer work , 135 F2 is very tempting but may be to long for indoors. The 5D3 does correct for lenses but its not able to make much of the terrible PF on the 85mm !
> 
> thanks
> Andrew



I agree about the PF issue on the 85, and no in-camera corrections will fix longitudinal CA (just lateral, which the 85 doesn't have a problem with). Lightroom does a good job with it's new fringe corrections, but you have to optimize each image individually which really slows down your workflow. I imagine that would kill a wedding photog, with all those white high-contrast edges.

The 135L is wonderful and has MUCH less (almost no) PF/GF issues wide open in my experience, but it is pretty long indoors. Pretty much limits you to head/shoulders unless you're in a big venue. I'm thinking about selling my 85 and just using my 100 macro since I get so annoyed with the PF at <2.8 anyway.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (May 6, 2014)

wsheldon said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The 85mm is having issues which it was in this shot of front and back focussing which having spent some time calibrating is not getting any better and even on tripod shutter release etc will take the same shot with different focuses. At one stage i had it racked out to -20 MFA just to get it on focus. I do primarily use primes for weddings but have not yet decided on the prime to go for the longer work , 135 F2 is very tempting but may be to long for indoors. The 5D3 does correct for lenses but its not able to make much of the terrible PF on the 85mm !
> ...



The one thing i dont get is how so many people rate it so highly yet at the same time people struggle to get any use out of it at 1.8-2.8 surely thats the whole point of the 85mm Prime ? Or are there just big QC issues with this lens in particular - maybe someone from Sigma worked for Canon at that time


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 6, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> wsheldon said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew Davies Photography said:
> ...


Let the options: 
Canon 85mm F1.8 - Not just your copy that has annoying purple fringing. 
Canon 100mm F2 - Much better contrast and PF when open, compared to 85mm. 
Sigma 85mm F1.4 - Has very ugly CA in bokeh (longitudinal CA). 
Canon 85mm F1.2 - Have a little longitudinal CA, but from F2 becomes barely noticeable. 

Looks like you'll have to go to the Canon L, or wait for a future Sigma Art.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (May 6, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > wsheldon said:
> ...



Thanks !

The Canon L is reputed to be slow focussing and given the Sigma problems with QC which by all accounts are still not solved with their latest 50mm Art i am put off going that route. 

The Canon 100mm is this really better glass ? does it have extra elements or anything that put it ahead of the 85mm as it seems to be from the same era ?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 6, 2014)

Canon 85mm F1.8 have 9 elements in 7 groups, while 100mm F2 have 8 elements in 6 groups, and the diameter of the front element also differs. So are two different optical designs. I'm not in my hands 85 and 100 at the same time to make a direct comparison.  But I have Canon 50mm F1.4 and 100mm F2, and did side by side comparison.  The result is that the sharpness, contrast and longitudinal CA shown with Canon 100mm F2 wide open, is comparable to 50mm f1.4 when stopped down to F2.2. : Maybe I was drawn to the 100mm F2 best of all time.  For best performance, the only options for truly usable images in F2, are the 85L and 135L. 8)


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 6, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> The Canon L is reputed to be slow focussing



It focuses as quickly as you can turn the ring. Unless you're too lazy and use autofocus


----------



## mackguyver (May 6, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The Canon L is reputed to be slow focussing
> ...


It is very slow and the focus by wire manual AF isn't great, either, but not so slow as to be unusable. The trade off is exceptional image quality, and it is every bit as good as you've heard. If you don't need/want to shoot below f/2.8, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II makes a lot more sense from a practicality standpoint, but it's those f/1.2-2 shots that are amazing.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew Davies Photography said:
> ...



Sure, the quasi manual focus is a little strange. I was just offering worthless commentary about what I thought to be an odd disconnect (zoom lenses are for lazy people willing to sacrifice IQ for convenience, but autofocus evidently is not for lazy people willing to sacrifice accuracy for convenience).


----------



## mackguyver (May 6, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...


I get the humor, but without a good viewfinder screen, manual focus at f/1.2 is pretty much impossible to do well or consistently.


----------



## Menace (May 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Well said. 

Bodies like 5DIII and 1Dx can nail auto focus on the 85 at f1.2 consistently.


----------



## Sporgon (May 6, 2014)

Menace said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Which is probably why the 5DIII design dispensed with the interchangeable screens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Menace said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Maybe...but it's also nice to be able to actually see the true DoF through the VF, for compositional reasons.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 7, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Menace said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



I think it was the new LCD overlay system. AFAIK, you can't put an interchangeable screen on the 7D either.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 7, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I think it was the new LCD overlay system. AFAIK, you can't put an interchangeable screen on the 7D either.



The 1D X has a transmissive LCD and interchangeable focus screens.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I think it was the new LCD overlay system. AFAIK, you can't put an interchangeable screen on the 7D either.
> ...



You went over this yourself and why 1D X has been able to overcome the issue (namely, RGB metering and larger mirror box). So, 1D X cannot be put in the same bracket


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 7, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



Not that I recall. The RGB metering is why (I think) the 1D X can illuminate the AF points in AI Servo mode. The metering sensor doesn't impose any hardware limits on installing a focus screen (although the converse is true - the focus screen does affect metering, firmware can compensate, but Canon has chosen not to correct for the Ec-S screen). It's certainly possible to install a 3rd party screen in a 5DIII. 

I don't see any technical reason the 5DIII couldn't have supported interchangeable (by the user in a supported manner) focus screens, should Canon have designed it that way. But they didn't.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Of course, you are right. 
I need more sleep.


----------



## Sporgon (May 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maybe...but it's also nice to be able to actually see the true DoF through the VF, for compositional reasons.



Agreed, the greatest benefit of the 's' screen is real dof. I find the difference in ability to nail manual focus only marginally better than the standard screen. 

I stick to what I said; maybe Canon underestimated the desire from 5D owners to see real dof, or maybe that desire isn't actually there across the broad user base, or maybe it was to add a 'crippling' differential to the 1Dx.


----------



## mackguyver (May 8, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe...but it's also nice to be able to actually see the true DoF through the VF, for compositional reasons.
> ...


I MISS the EF-S screen in my 5DII (it's the only thing I dislike about the 5DIII) very much and unfortunately they don't make a super precision matte screen for the 1D X, either. Just split-prisms and grids  My slowest lens is the 180L 3.5, so a "dim" viewfinder" doesn't bother me one bit.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I MISS the EF-S screen in my 5DII (it's the only thing I dislike about the 5DIII) very much and unfortunately they don't make a super precision matte screen for the 1D X, either. Just split-prisms and grids  My slowest lens is the 180L 3.5, so a "dim" viewfinder" doesn't bother me one bit.



Sure they do - the Ec-S screen is physically compatible with the 1D X. The only 'problem' is that most focus screens affect the metering (the Ec-S does), and Canon didn't write support for it into the 1D X firmware (although there's no reason they can't - they just chose not to). Since there's no focusing aid (split-prism, etc.) spot metering won't be specifically affected, and effects on metering should be global. The degree of effect will change with the max aperture of the lens, e.g. if you shoot in an autoexposure mode, an f/1.2 lens will result in more underexposure than an f/2 lens. Still, you should be able to work out the effects, and adjust your M-mode settings or apply EC (or AE microadjustment if one stop is enough compensation) to give a proper metered exposure (although the meter reading will still show as off) with the Ec-S installed. Note that I haven't done the above, but for the price of an Ec-S and a little time, maybe _you_ will...


----------



## mackguyver (May 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Note that I haven't done the above, but for the price of an Ec-S and a little time, maybe _you_ will...


Hmm, I had forgotten about that one, and maybe I'll give it a try one of these days. Thanks.


----------



## Menace (May 9, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Note that I haven't done the above, but for the price of an Ec-S and a little time, maybe _you_ will...
> ...



Let us know how you find the outcome.


----------

