Canon 85mm 1.2f with a T2i. Any opinions.

[NewAgeVisions]

I'm thinking of trying the Canon 85mm F1.2 with the T2i. Reason. Low light usage and 135mm factor with the smaller chip.

Used at night or in clubs or at concerts it's a nice tele and gets you closer with great low light usage.

Out you throw a filter on it if it's bright and still have a great lense. Walk inside to do a quick shoot. Take filter off and back to 1.2F.

Just wondered if anyone had tried using one as there standard go to lense?

Nice compliment is the 17-55mm 2.8F. But it's also nice to just carry one camera and lense. Although, a beefy lense. But, with the low light for inside avail light shooting sounds great. Toss a expandable reflector in your pocket and nice set up. Or use avail walls for the fill.

Anyway, just wanted to hear some chatter on it.

Thanks.

 

[Dao]

For me, I usually carry a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 with either a 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2.8 and a flash in my bag as walk around setup. So it is 2 lenses, 1 body and 1 flash setup.

However, the 17-50mm is usually on the camera.

 

[Robin Usagani]

but with 85 mm it might be hard for you taking pictures if the club is smaller or if you want to put more people in the frame.

 

[usayit]

but with 85 mm it might be hard for you taking pictures if the club is smaller or if you want to put more people in the frame.

that.. and the DOF is going to be shallow.

Really fast glass are more of a speciality item.... you shoot with them specifically to shoot with the wide aperture. In most cases, you are almost better off saving the $$$ and getting the 1.4 or 1.8 version. In the Leica world, people who have the Noctilux 50 f/1 usually also have another 50mm at their disposal. In generally, the more normal lenses will outperform the faster in almost all categories EXCEPT the faster aperture. Also noted, the shallow DOF will be working against you.

I'm almost inclined to put the money into one of those higher end bodies that are known for good HIGH ISO performance; 5DMI used or even the 5DMII


I used to shoot with the 85mm f/1.8 and it had never disappointed me. Generally paired with the 24mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.4.

 

[cfusionpm]

I've also heard that the AF is mediocre at best. And if it's anything like the garbage AF on the 50 1.2 that I played with, its almost unusable and totally incapable of quickly focusing on anything in dark environments.

 

[usayit]

And if it's anything like the garbage AF on the 50 1.2 that I played with,

and its actually an improvement over the '89 50mm f/1.

 

[NewAgeVisions]

I'm going with the MKII model.

Focus is faster then the old MKI, but not as fast as the 1.8.

On the DOF. For times I need it I'd throw a ND filter on it, as in during bright daylight outside. Which also helps protect the lens. If you move inside and there isn't enough light for you, pull off the filter. Always liked available light better then a pop of a flash. To me, Flash was always just for fill.

Only iffy thing I'm worried about is the distance of the 135mm because of the 1.6 of the smaller sensor.

One of the things I'm looking for is ability to NOT sell it. As, I know at some time I'll move up to a full size sensor.

I agree with spending more money on a camera to get better Iso. But, in 3 years you'll trade that camera in. Buying high end glass, you keep forever. Or, for a very long time....



One of the other nice things, at least for me, is I have a lot of high end filters in the 72mm size from my medium format lenses. Some were around $400.

Usayit, could you have spent the whole day shooting with just the 85? Was the camera you were using a aps size sensor?

Anyway, thanks for the thoughts.

 

[usayit]

If you move inside and there isn't enough light for you, pull off the filter. Always liked available light better then a pop of a flash. To me, Flash was always just for fill.
...
I agree with spending more money on a camera to get better Iso. But, in 3 years you'll trade that camera in.

As I mentioned, shooting with very fast glass isn't probably going to meet your expectations. People shoot with these lenses for the "effect" but not necessarily to get the faster shutter in low light. This was shot at f/1 on a 50mm (x1.6 camera)... Just to get you an idea of the shallow depth of field.

I never got the idea that you "had" to buy a new camera every so often. That is especially untrue now. If the current suites your needs... But yes, I agree glass usually outlives the camera in terms of investment. ASSUMING you made the right purchase to begin with.

Usayit, could you have spent the whole day shooting with just the 85? Was the camera you were using a aps size sensor?
Anyway, thanks for the thoughts.

I could but it totally depends on what you are shooting.... The 85mm is paired to a 1dMII (x1.3). In doors, it will be tight. I travelled with the following; 24, 50, 85, 135, and 300. Of course, I don't carry it all with me all the time.

At present, my most used focal lengths come in pairs; 24mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/2.5 or 35mm f/2.5 and 75mm f/2.5. Sometimes, paired with a 12mm Heliar. (On a different system)

 

[table1349]

I'm thinking of trying the Canon 85mm F1.2 with the T2i. Reason. Low light usage and 135mm factor with the smaller chip.

Used at night or in clubs or at concerts it's a nice tele and gets you closer with great low light usage.

Out you throw a filter on it if it's bright and still have a great lense. Walk inside to do a quick shoot. Take filter off and back to 1.2F.

Just wondered if anyone had tried using one as there standard go to lense?

Nice compliment is the 17-55mm 2.8F. But it's also nice to just carry one camera and lense. Although, a beefy lense. But, with the low light for inside avail light shooting sounds great. Toss a expandable reflector in your pocket and nice set up. Or use avail walls for the fill.

Anyway, just wanted to hear some chatter on it.

Thanks.

This really isn't a club or concert lens. It's design lends itself to to studio/portrait work. The AF is terribly slow and on a Rebel series body it will be at it's worst for focus speed. You would be better of with the 85 f1.8.

I love the 1.2 for portrait work, but my 1.8 gets used far more than the 1.2.

 

[NewAgeVisions]

Hmmm.
When I use to shoot a lot I always liked a fast glass and used a dark nd filter to get the app where I wanted it.

Do you all always use a flash now?

To be honest i never was big on 35mm anything. Hated digital as everything I had seen the quality was horrible. Now with the 24's coming out I figured I'd pick up an 18mp and get ready for when a 50mp comes out as that was where Kodak engineers had placed quality of 35mm film at to match fine detail under enlargement.

Kind of shocked that people don't see the wonderfullness of fast glass anymore.

I guess available light shooting at dusk and dawn is not done much anymore. Everybody is also forgetting about what nd filters can do for you.

On that picture that was posted what would a nd4 filter of done to the depth of field?

 

[usayit]

Do you all always use a flash now?
.....
Kind of shocked that people don't see the wonderfullness of fast glass anymore.

I guess available light shooting at dusk and dawn is not done much anymore. Everybody is also forgetting about what nd filters can do for you.

You misunderstood... Fast glass, high ISO performance, ND filters, AF, etc.. are simply tools. Its a matter applying the appropriate combination of tools to accomplish a goal. There are plenty of people here that are very much interested and appreciate natural light + fast glass.

For the goals specified in the original post, a few people just don't think the 85mm f/1.2 is an appropriate tool for the job. That is the point... its not a rejection of the fast 85mm glass in general.

On that picture that was posted what would a nd4 filter of done to the depth of field?

How does ND filtering have anything to do with depth of field? DOF is a combination of aperture, focal length, and distance to subject (and format in terms of circle of confusion). Keeping all of those variables constant will result in the same DOF with or without filter.

I use an ND3 filter when I'm out in bright day light with the intention of shooting at f/1 and the resulting shutter (for an appropriate exposure) is beyond 1/8000 which is the limit of my camera. For normal shooting, I usually leave the 50 f/1 at home and take the 50 f/2.5. Shorter focus throw thus easier to focus, it is compact, and better image quality (in certain cases). Its a better tool for the job.

 

[Village Idiot]

I've been thinking about this, and price vs. performance isn't there for me with the 85 f/1.2. If I were the OP, I'd rather spend the cash on several more than capable primes, or an f/2.8 zoom and a prime or two. I'm using the 85 f/1.8 on a 5D MKII and see no reason to upgrade to the 85 f/1.2 with the current kit that I have. Truthfully, I need something around a 35mm-50mm prime for filming.

 

[NewAgeVisions]

How does ND filtering have anything to do with depth of field? DOF is a combination of aperture, focal length, and distance to subject (and format in terms of circle of confusion). Keeping all of those variables constant will result in the same DOF with or without filter.

I use an ND3 filter when I'm out in bright day light with the intention of shooting at f/1 and the resulting shutter (for an appropriate exposure) is beyond 1/8000 which is the limit of my camera. For normal shooting, I usually leave the 50 f/1 at home and take the 50 f/2.5. Shorter focus throw thus easier to focus, it is compact, and better image quality (in certain cases). Its a better tool for the job.

If you use a ND filter, A ND4 for example, If you were using a f stop of F22 you would get to stop down 4 whole stops to F5.6. Opens the aperture back up into a usable range with all that glass that is just dragging light in.

For a ND9, If you can't make a F22, you get back into shooting area on the aperture scale.

I guess with being able to change the iso on the camera with just the push of a button, things have changed a little. With film, if you had 4 shots on 50iso film you didn't always want to just pull it and throw in a roll of 800 for outside shooting. So, you threw on a ND filter to get some shots. Or even used it for grain on Black and White.

Have fast glass, Use the ND filter to bring your apeture into the shooting range you want to get decent Bokey under bright light conditions.

Shooting at F64 and above might have been great for the 8x10's. But for anything with people in it I wanted to fuzz the background. So, put on the appropriate ND filter to open the aperture up.

So, if you were using a ND3 and getting to shoot at F1. If you pulled the ND3 off you could shoot at F2.8. With the other things like ISO and shutter speed being the same. Slow your shutter down and your back to F1.

I agree some lenses are not that opticaly pretty at differing F stops. But the 1.2F 85mm is supposed to be pretty outstanding glass through it's F stops.

Only issue I had was the 135mm. On a full frame sensor. I wouldn't hesitate.

But inside in a club, you might not want to go to the F1.2 because of the DOF it will give you. But, you can surely go to the F2 just like you could on the F1.8.

 

[usayit]

If you use a ND filter, A ND4 for example, If you were using a f stop of F22 you would get to stop down 4 whole stops to F5.6. Opens the aperture back up into a usable range with all that glass that is just dragging light in.

I think you are confusing yourself....

Your example is talking about reducing light to allow for a wider aperture... going from F22 to F5.6. This is opposite of your question. You asked how would the ND filter would impact the DOF of the photo I posted. My answer is NOTHING. I'm already shooting at full wide open aperture f/1... ND filter would simply reduce the amount of light entering which would require either a slowing of the shutter speed or a larger aperture opening to maintain proper exposure. The later is not possible because the lens is already at its widest setting F1 thus the only option is to reduce the shutter setting which is what I use ND filter in the first place. BUT counter to your question... reducing the shutter setting does nothing to the depth of field. Hence... the answer is that the depth of field would not be impacted by an ND filter for the photo posted.

Furthermore, the issue here is the lack of depth of field when shooting at wide open aperture in low light situations. What some of us is saying is that shooting at wide open aperture of f/1.2 at a focal length of 85mm will result in a DOF that is too shallow for what you are considering shooting. No ND filter will resolve this issue.

The exposure settings of F22 for any lens no matter what the max aperture of that particular lens is the same... your example is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not 85mm f/1.8 or 85 f/1.2 is necessary. If you need to reduce F22 to F5.6 (as per your example) no ND filter is required... simply increase the shutter setting.

 

[Derrel]

The 85/1.2 Mark I was known as a true slug in terms of focusing speed; the newer Mark II version is not that much better...same with the 50/1.2...ultra-speed lenses like that need to focus absolutely perfectly to make usable images at wider apertures and/or close ranges. I would never want to try and use an 85/1.2 or 50/1.2 on a Rebel body, with its small, squinty pentamirror viewfinder...plus the lens is really a dog in terms of focusing on moving subjects--the 85/1.2 was designed for portraiture and studio type work. I'd much ragther use my 85/1.8 EF lens...I demo'd the 85-Mark II and was decidedly very un-impressed by its focusing speed on the 1D Mark IIn and 1Ds Mark II,and I also tried it on my 5D...it's just a very slow, precise-focusing lens...it was never really designed to be a fast focusing "action" or "event" lens...you'd think that it would be, with its length and specification, but the 135 f/2-L blows it away in terms of focusiong speed....the 135/2-L just goes "dzzip", and it's locked on...it was designed as a sports/news/event/ "speed" lens..the 85/1.2 is, I think, designed as a marquee lens more than as a workhorse.

The 85/1.8 EF is not a slouch...at f/1.8 it's pretty fast aperture-wise, and it's a good optic for the money. I really do not see the utility value of the 85/1.2; Nikon's 85 1.4 AF-D is a significantly lighter, faster-focusing "speed" lens, even with screwdriver focusing, probably due to the fact that it uses a rear-element focusing system that moves only some very light rear elements. The 85/1.2 Mark I and II lenses are kind of oddball lenses in their own way...great paper credentials, but real-world, not nearly as impressive in many scenarios.