Archive 2005 · 85mm Bokeh
p.1 #185mm Bokeh
Canon's trendy lens for people and bokeh is the 85/1.2L USM. Also has a trendy price tag (high).
Contax/Zeiss has the famed 85/1.2 which is reported to be one of the finest lenses ever made (and I believe them), hence more richly valued than the Canon.
Contax/Zeiss also has the 85/1.4 for a very affordable price. Anybody have real life experience you would be willing to share?
Being able to hand hold a lens at wider apertures seems to be something I want to try. My Canon 70~200/2.8L USM is a great lens, but tripod is needed as it is a tank.
Thanks
Contax/Zeiss has the famed 85/1.2 which is reported to be one of the finest lenses ever made (and I believe them), hence more richly valued than the Canon.
Contax/Zeiss also has the 85/1.4 for a very affordable price. Anybody have real life experience you would be willing to share?
Being able to hand hold a lens at wider apertures seems to be something I want to try. My Canon 70~200/2.8L USM is a great lens, but tripod is needed as it is a tank.
Thanks
Oct 11, 2005 at 01:05 PM
p.1 #385mm Bokeh
John,
I used the Contax Zeiss 85/1.4 for a while last year. At f/1.4, it performs like a soft-focus portrait lens. To my eyes, bokeh was very pleasing. When stopped down, it is as sharp as any lens at the focal length. Size and weight are very comfortable, and the focus ring is big and smooth like other CZ lenses. However, CA/birefringence was a major problem for me. I had to stop down to f/4 for most of it to go away. I even shot some film with it to make sure it wasn't just a digital problem, and it was there too. It is an ideal lens for b+w, but I found it to be a major bummer for color prints. I should add that I mainly used it for available light shooting, and I imagine that results might be different when used with controlled lighting.
--Mark
I used the Contax Zeiss 85/1.4 for a while last year. At f/1.4, it performs like a soft-focus portrait lens. To my eyes, bokeh was very pleasing. When stopped down, it is as sharp as any lens at the focal length. Size and weight are very comfortable, and the focus ring is big and smooth like other CZ lenses. However, CA/birefringence was a major problem for me. I had to stop down to f/4 for most of it to go away. I even shot some film with it to make sure it wasn't just a digital problem, and it was there too. It is an ideal lens for b+w, but I found it to be a major bummer for color prints. I should add that I mainly used it for available light shooting, and I imagine that results might be different when used with controlled lighting.
--Mark
Oct 11, 2005 at 01:49 PM
p.1 #485mm Bokeh
Or this?
The first shot of the magazine cover was taken at about the minimum focusing distance. On the second shot, the bride was within only a couple of feet of the mantle, and the shot was taken at 1.4, and I was about 12 feet from the bride.
http://www.pretedesign.com/photogallery/albums/album29/IMG_4047.jpg
http://www.pretedesign.com/photogallery/albums/album31/IMG_4261.sized.jpg
The first shot of the magazine cover was taken at about the minimum focusing distance. On the second shot, the bride was within only a couple of feet of the mantle, and the shot was taken at 1.4, and I was about 12 feet from the bride.
http://www.pretedesign.com/photogallery/albums/album29/IMG_4047.jpg
http://www.pretedesign.com/photogallery/albums/album31/IMG_4261.sized.jpg
Oct 11, 2005 at 01:54 PM
p.1 #585mm Bokeh
Rent an 85/1.2L and check it out. The only danger is what will happen to your credit card bill. I'm going to buy one as soon as budget permits.
Oct 11, 2005 at 02:05 PM
mbohunsky
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.1 #685mm Bokeh
Did someone say bokeh?
85 f/1.8 @ 1.8
85 f/1.8 @ 1.8
Oct 11, 2005 at 02:12 PM
p.1 #785mm Bokeh
Here are a few from the 85 f/1.2L that I took earlier this year. I have been using some other lenses lately or this one stopped down for studio.
Here is a couple of recent ones from the 85 f/1.2L in the studio (stopped down obviously)...
 |
||
| http://www.potts-family.net/kristen/kristen%2011-14-04%20(ha3j2871)_std.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://www.potts-family.net/rachel/rachel%2012-27-2004%20(ha3j4055)_std.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://www.potts-family.net/kristen/kristen%204-17-2005%20(ha3j5262)_std.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://www.potts-family.net/kristen/kristen%204-17-2005%20(ha3j5337)_std.jpg | ||
|
Here is a couple of recent ones from the 85 f/1.2L in the studio (stopped down obviously)...
|
||
| http://www.potts-family.net/kristen/bw%20lisa%20and%20kristen%207-30-2005%20(ha3j6501)_std.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://www.potts-family.net/rachel/bw%20lisa%20and%20rachel%208-7-2005%20(ha3j6569)_std.jpg | ||
|
Oct 11, 2005 at 02:28 PM
p.1 #885mm Bokeh
Siiiiiiigh! The battle of the 85's again. Siiiiiiigh!
I have the CZ 85/1.4 and Canon's 85/1.8. I'm spoilt by Canon's AF and AE technology, so I was underwhelmed by the CZ 85/1.4. Maybe later in the case of the CZ 85/1.4 but right now it's, after much research and advisement, Canon's 85/1.8 for me.
It's light (very handholdable), reasonably priced and the bokeh is excellent.
Edited by BeeMan458 on Oct 11, 2005 at 04:13 PM GMT
I have the CZ 85/1.4 and Canon's 85/1.8. I'm spoilt by Canon's AF and AE technology, so I was underwhelmed by the CZ 85/1.4. Maybe later in the case of the CZ 85/1.4 but right now it's, after much research and advisement, Canon's 85/1.8 for me.
It's light (very handholdable), reasonably priced and the bokeh is excellent.
Edited by BeeMan458 on Oct 11, 2005 at 04:13 PM GMT
Oct 11, 2005 at 05:57 PM
p.1 #985mm Bokeh
Wow, what a fantastic shot Beeman! That's the 1.8, not the 1.2L?
Oct 11, 2005 at 06:13 PM
p.1 #1085mm Bokeh
Thanks!
That's the 1.8
Nothing was done to the image in PS other then levels, USM and resized for the web.
That's the 1.8Nothing was done to the image in PS other then levels, USM and resized for the web.
Oct 11, 2005 at 06:17 PM
Oct 11, 2005 at 11:37 PM
Oct 11, 2005 at 11:38 PM
Oct 11, 2005 at 11:38 PM
Oct 11, 2005 at 11:40 PM
Oct 11, 2005 at 11:41 PM
p.1 #1985mm Bokeh
Lots of great examples. Everything being the same, I doubt most people can tell the difference in the bokeh between the Canon 1.8 and the 1.2L. Of course, the 1.2 wins with anything faster than f1.8.
Here are several with the f1.8 that have pleasing background bokeh:
Here are several with the f1.8 that have pleasing background bokeh:
|
||
| http://orion.pollstar.com/staff/ivan/barcelos/CRW_7615.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://orion.pollstar.com/staff/ivan/barcelos/CRW_7625.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://orion.pollstar.com/staff/ivan/helms/CRW_8182+83+84-Triptych.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://orion.pollstar.com/staff/ivan/helms/CRW_8185-h.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://orion.pollstar.com/staff/ivan/hartley/skylar/IMG_3602.jpg | ||
|
Oct 12, 2005 at 12:42 AM
p.1 #2085mm Bokeh
sorry, but the 1.8 just don't cut it - the creamy backgound is just so smooth on the 1.2L
someone with both, should shot with both and compare
Henrik
PS: I only have one and I am bias :-)
someone with both, should shot with both and compare
Henrik
PS: I only have one and I am bias :-)
Oct 12, 2005 at 05:10 AM