Canon 85mm f/1.2L and mpix

[Nitro9]

Two questions,

Does anyone use the canon 85mm f/1.2L? How would this really compliment a 24-70 f/2.8L? Obviously the speed is much greater and would be awesome indoors. People say it's the best wide open? Is this not a lens you'd want to use outdoors with a higher f number? The reviews on it are great.

What I got from reading customer reviews:

Great sharpness and build quality. Great bokeh and DOF. The lens focuses very slowly, which in my opinion, is why it would be a complimentary lens to the 24-70L? Use the 85 prime for stills and the 24-70 as a walk around?

The lens looks so good I want to ask about it and what it would do to compliment my 24-70 I guess if that makes sense.

Second question. I was recommended a place called mpix to get prints made. Do they automatically take an image and adjust it to make sure the colors and brightness is accurate for their printers?

Thanks.

 

[musicaleCA]

The lens vignettes a bit wide open. Rule of thumb: no lens is at it's best wide-open. Look here.

 

[Nitro9]

That's what I would've thought (as usual). I would assume it would get a lot better around 1.6 and up. Have you used it? Use it often? How did you like it? I see your sig. shows you're using the 24-70 as well. Good lens to go with it or not so much?

 

[KmH]

Second question. I was recommended a place called mpix to get prints made. Do they automatically take an image and adjust it to make sure the colors and brightness is accurate for their printers?

Thanks.

Mpix will color correct only.

Look here for how Mpix recommends preparing your images for printing at their lab.

 

[musicaleCA]

That's what I would've thought (as usual). I would assume it would get a lot better around 1.6 and up. Have you used it? Use it often? How did you like it? I see your sig. shows you're using the 24-70 as well. Good lens to go with it or not so much?

I've never used the 85mm f/1.2L. It's not something I really need for what I'm doing currently (photojournalism mostly, so I want zoom). The 24-70 is a fantastic lens and I highly recommend it. Amazingly sharp for a zoom, good flare control (in part because of the reverse zoom and deep hood), and minimal distortion. Vignetting isn't an issue on crop cameras either. Only downside would be that it's heavy as a brick.

 

[Garbz]

If you don't know why you need the 85mm f/1.2 then you simply don't need it. It about as much to compliment your 24-70L as a dedicated macro does. It's a completely different type of lens with a completely different type of purpose. It's not a case of use one for stills and use another as a walkaround. That would be a colossal underutilisation of a fantastic lens.

Is it perfect? No but then no f/1.2 lens is. In fact people should just be happy that they can get any picture out of an f/1.2 lens. Its slow to focus when tracking high action sport, but even the slowest to focus lens I have seen was just fine as a walkaround.

Also on your assumption that it gets better at higher f/stops. If you intend to use this at higher f/stops then chances are you don't need this lens. It's like buying a macro and never zooming below 1:5.

 

[FidelCastrovich]

If you don't know why you need the 85mm f/1.2 then you simply don't need it...That would be a colossal underutilisation of a fantastic lens... If you intend to use this at higher f/stops then chances are you don't need this lens. It's like buying a macro and never zooming below 1:5.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

 

[camz]

Op I have the lens and mostly use it during wedding ceremonies where light is scarce. It's pretty decent(sharpness wise) wide open however I prefer the 85 1.8 if I have the option. The 85 1.2 is just great in shooting low light, I think it's the best portrait lens in the Canon line up for that purpose. Is it worth that much? considering the boken and the low light flexibility...to me only if you're shooting weddings in natural light portraits. If you can do with the 85 1.8 it's a great performer and the cost is 1/5 cheaper.

 

[Nitro9]

Ah, cool, maybe not needed then. Only reason I ask is because I can pick one up for $1610 at the moment and if it was indeed a great lens for multiple purposes, I'd pick it up.

I'll stick to using strictly the 24-70 for now then.
Thanks!

 

[FrankLamont]

If you're keen on portraiture, and want a better portraiture lens, this is it.

It's fantastic, but not necessary.

 

[Nitro9]

That's kind of what I was thinking. Use the 24-70 that I have for a walk around and take this lens out when taking pictures of pets/people.

What's the main difference between the 85mm and the 50mm L primes? The 50 is a cheaper by a little bit.

 

[musicaleCA]

Er...uh...this may be obvious, but...focal length.

50mm primes are cheaper because they're easy to make and require very few elements to produce fairly high image quality.

 

[FrankLamont]

Basically, this is Canon's 'definitive portraiture lens'.

Just check up some reviews to see how good the bokeh, etc. is...

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L II USM Lens Review

 

[Garbz]

Bear in mind that 85mm is the definitive portrait lens for full frame bodies too. On an APS body (Anything less than a 5D) you will either prefer a 50mm or need a lot of space to shoot anymore than a top half body shot. The 85mm is fantastic for headshots on APS.