Sandy (Test of the Canon 85mm f/1.8) - CC Requested

Austin Greene · Apr 9, 2014

I've been looking into picking up something with a bit wider aperture than my 70-200 f/4L IS, which just hasn't been cutting it at times in terms of DOF and limited space. A local let me borrow his Canon 85mm f/1.8, which has a great reputation for being a decent piece of glass at a cheap price (I'm at $500 max). I scheduled a quick impromptu shoot today and got to shooting. Overall, I liked the lens and the bokeh, but I'm unsure if it's what will fit my needs (discussed extensively in the Canon Lenses forum). I'll shoot it some more tomorrow in just ambient light and see where things go, it might be a tad long for me.

Anyways, I'd like to hear your thoughts. The model is a boxer and thus had quite a bit of acne and an oily face, so quite a bit of cloning had to be done. I did get lazy towards the end.

I'll post more as they get finished, but these are my two favorites. The 85mm has an interesting profile to it, both in bokeh and how it renders faces.

1. Not my favorite of the shoot, but it's something.

2. I like the extra stops and how they handle bokeh, I'm just not sure if the lens is wide enough. I'd like to do full-body shots without backing off 15 feet but still having the flexibility to do waist-ups without tons of distortion. Could have used a bit smaller aperture on this one. I don't normally do landscape portraits, but thought it worked well enough for testing purposes.

tirediron · Apr 9, 2014

The second one seems quite soft in the face.

Braineack · Apr 9, 2014

85mm is long, especially when on a crop, but that's part of why it produces such great bokeh.

D-B-J · Apr 9, 2014

They look good, but I think they need to be stopped down a tad--so little of her face is in focus. Now you have TOO much separation, haha.

Best,
Jake

Derrel · Apr 9, 2014

It might have seemed "a tad long", since you've lately been working with a Canon 70-200mm f/4 zoom lens...and with the 85/1.8 you were all of a sudden forced into ONE, single, tele-length lens...no zoom capability...that can feel restrictive, for sure. As far as the degree of subject/background separation you were able to achieve, the second shot, the her-under-a-tree shot--that background is pretty well defocused...

If you want to, for ****s and giggles, try taping the ole' 70-200's zoom ring to 85mm for a session or two...

Austin Greene · Apr 9, 2014

Thanks for all the great feedback folks

Derrel, I was thinking just the same, and I've brought my 70-200 with me to campus today along with the 85mm. I'll do some comparative shots to really see how they are stacking up against one another for my purposes, and Jake you are absolutely right in that I was a little over-zealous with using the wider aperture haha Like John pointed out, there is too much of her face that is beyond the focal plane in either direction. I'll try some shots today stopped down a bit more and see if the backgrounds still come out nice enough to justify the cost.

I do feel like in the short time I have with this borrowed lens, I won't quite get to see just what it's capable of. Just like how it took me some time to really get a handle on the 70-200. I suppose the only question for me now is whether it or a 35mm would best suit taking full-body shots, while still being able useable for close, waist-up shots without too much distortion. For shots with a lot of daylight, such as the second, the 85mm does have a pretty unique look which I like.

Times like these I wish I could afford a 24-70.

Derrel · Apr 9, 2014

One of the old-time Ernst Leitz company lens designers (Leica's old parent company was E. Leitz) used to say, "The only way to really get to know a lens is to shoot it for a year."

It takes some time to really "get to know" a lens design, and a new focal length prime lens is NOT a trivial thing to learn. If you're not used to shooting with a fixed focal length, it's not a one-day kind of transition...prime lenses force the user to adapt to THEIR angle of view and length. And what he meant by the one year issue is, I think, related to simply time and breadth of experience under different conditions. In the winter, light in many places is soft, and flat, low-contrast; in the bright-weather months, there are MANY,many opps to shoot right toward the sun, and thus if a lens flares badly, it's difficult to gauge that in say, December in Seattle, when you might not actually SEE the sun one day out of 31 (not kidding...).

I can tell you this: I've owned I think seven different 85mm lenses over 30 years. I like 85's...the Canon 85mm f/1.8 EF is a stable, simple, reliable 85mm lens design, and it is better than most 1970's and 1980's designs. It is a solid performer. Not "spectacular" bokeh-wise like Nikon's 85/1.4 AF-D, aka "The Cream Machine", nor as hyped as Canon's 85mm f/1.2-L, but it's a good, solid, reliable 85mm lens design.

Austin Greene · Apr 9, 2014

Derrel said:
One of the old-time Ernst Leitz company lens designers (Leica's old parent company was E. Leitz) used to say, "The only way to really get to know a lens is to shoot it for a year."

It takes some time to really "get to know" a lens design, and a new focal length prime lens is NOT a trivial thing to learn. If you're not used to shooting with a fixed focal length, it's not a one-day kind of transition...prime lenses force the user to adapt to THEIR angle of view and length. And what he meant by the one year issue is, I think, related to simply time and breadth of experience under different conditions. In the winter, light in many places is soft, and flat, low-contrast; in the bright-weather months, there are MANY,many opps to shoot right toward the sun, and thus if a lens flares badly, it's difficult to gauge that in say, December in Seattle, when you might not actually SEE the sun one day out of 31 (not kidding...).

I can tell you this: I've owned I think seven different 85mm lenses over 30 years. I like 85's...the Canon 85mm f/1.8 EF is a stable, simple, reliable 85mm lens design, and it is better than most 1970's and 1980's designs. It is a solid performer. Not "spectacular" bokeh-wise like Nikon's 85/1.4 AF-D, aka "The Cream Machine", nor as hyped as Canon's 85mm f/1.2-L, but it's a good, solid, reliable 85mm lens design.

Great insight, I've already read it through twice making sure I understood, and what you and Ernst said makes total sense. I definitely like shooting with a prime, I suppose it's just a matter of finding the one which matches my needs. The 85 seems solid in the waist-up and headshot departments, but how does it stack up for full-body? Do you see it being used often for full-body portraits, or is that more the realm of the 35mm?

I know in the short time I'll have this one copy, I will be the limiting factor, so all your help is really appreciated Derrel

Derrel · Apr 9, 2014

85mm is great for full-body if you like the way it renders the scene. On a 6D, if you stand 20 feet away, you'll have an 8.5 foot tall field of view, enough for the person, and some foot room and head space. You can find the data on one of the on-line lens field of view calculators. You might want more space, so you'd move back a few more feet. Some people prefer a "flatter" look, from using a longer lens; some people prefer more background SIZE magnification and more "compression" from a 135 or 200mm length.

At 20 feet, you can still direct a person, verbally, and yet you are well outside of their personal space, so they are free to act and pose within their own space, with you "outside" of their personal space, and in fact at 20 to 30 feet, you are outside of public distance. A lot of people say that you want to be 'close-in' when photographing people, but I think in many cases, that is not true, and that it's more-productive to be "outside, looking in". Yet not so far away that you need walkie-talkies to communicate with the subject.

What I like about 85mm primes is the SIZE of the LENS. Much less-threatening than a 70-200 f/2.8 for people who are shy or reserved or just not used to people poking a big lens in their face. I started with the 85mm f/2 shown on the far right; this lens is about the size of a 50mm f/1.4 lens. VERY compact, especially without a lens shade installed.