Arka,
Would you mind posting one or two 100% crop of sharp 85f1.2 images taken with AF? I believe that 85f1.2 can be quite capable but the sharpness of my copy is not even close to my 70-200f4 or f2.8, anddefinitely not to my 135f2. I like to see how sharp other 85f1.2 can produce. TIA.

Re: Focusing with AF then MF'ing the 85 1.2...

My 135 2.0L has the same "electro-manual" focusing...and when I'm in that mode (shooting bands or horses) I set for AF, but, use CF4=1 (set * button to AF, set trigger to AE lock) and use the AF as "AF Approximate"...

Hit * to get "in the neighborhood" then to the rest of my work for that moment MF.

Does that work for the 85?

Also, what about the 1dMkII and the 85 _doesn't_ work? My next cam is probably a Mk1, and I really like the 85 from the one time I rented it (and used it on a film-rebel, what a waste!)....

Thank in advance for your experiences...

G.

Greg,
Are you sure that your 135f2 is with electronic MF? I just tried my 135f2L and the MF works even when my camera is powered off, which means it is mechanical MF.

Anyway, I have no problem with the 85f1.2 MF with my 3 day old Mkll. With my current CFn settings, as long as the camera is powered on and the shutter is pressed halfway down, with or without AF lock, the MF ring is fully functional.

DavidP wrote:
[
The lens can't be THAT slow, as many sports photographers love to use it.


After browsing the sports forum for a while, the most popular sports lens are 70-200/2.8 IS, 135/2, 200/2.8, Sigma 120-300/2.8 or their variants. The slow AF plus razor thin DoF just isn't a good combo for good sports photography.

Wiseman wrote:
DavidP wrote:
[
The lens can't be THAT slow, as many sports photographers love to use it.


After browsing the sports forum for a while, the most popular sports lens are 70-200/2.8 IS, 135/2, 200/2.8, Sigma 120-300/2.8 or their variants. The slow AF plus razor thin DoF just isn't a good combo for good sports photography.

But have you ever tried using one for sports? You'd be surprised at what the lens is capable of, reports of slow AF aside.

Arka C.

Ooops, I just checked the lens off the cam, and it is some weird "electric over manual" mechanism....you can focus manually, but the ring keeps going as if it were a digital encoder...fas-kin-a-ting...those magic engineering elves...what will they think of next...

G.

lordarka wrote:


But have you ever tried using one for sports? You'd be surprised at what the lens is capable of, reports of slow AF aside.

Arka C.

No, I never used it.

I was responding to his claim that there are "many" sports photographers use 85/1.2.

I did use a slow AF lens as in 100-300/5.6L to shoot indoor volleyball. It was ok actually because volleyball players only move around in limited space. Plus, f/5.6 gives me a big margin of error. I suspect you can also do it with 85/1.2 for indoor basketball but you will see more out-of-focus shots due to small DoF

For indoor basketball though, I don't think it will work because players run around the court. f/1.2 and slow AF give you too little margin of error to be useful. And if you stop down to increase your margin of error, then why don't you use 85/1.8 instead?

Try start a thread in sports forum and see what the real sports photographers think. I think some experts opinion is needed.

Check out some of Steve Mitchell's basketball shots with the 85/1.2

slau wrote:
Are you sure that your 135f2 is with electronic MF? I just tried my 135f2L and the MF works even when my camera is powered off, which means it is mechanical MF.


The 135/2 focuses "normally".

The only lenses I'm aware of with the electronic MF are the 200/1.8, 85/1.2, and 50/1.0

I think maybe the 500/4.5 is, too, but I'm not positive.

And possibly some of the non-IS super-telephoto lenses like the 300/2.8?

DavidP wrote:
Check out some of Steve Mitchell's basketball shots with the 85/1.2

Are you sure he shot at f/1.2 in majority of his pictures?

I really doubt that you can shoot baskerball with the 85f1.2 wide open.

lordarka wrote:
I've been happy with the level of detail I get with the Mark II, but of course, you can't crop as much. I don't think it's so much a matter of getting what you pay for, but rather, a matter of two cameras for different needs.

As for the 85mm f/1.2/1D Mark II combo, I've been using it extensively, and it works very well for a lot of things. For fashion/glamour, it's a great combo as long as you can keep your cropping as close to 'in camera' as possible. I have only a little experience with the 1Ds, so I won't go to far out on a limb, but I think the combo (Mark II + 85mm) delivers a respectable level of detail if you pay close attention to your composition. As for speed, the AF is more accurate, but not faster. DavidP's suggestion of MF'ing and then AF'ing is a good one, and it really helps. I use the 85mm for stage work quite often, and I have found the AF to be quite adequate.

Arka C.
Arka, I agree with you 100%. If you make sure you don't need to crop, the 85/MkII works fine. One surprise for me has been how good the 50/1.8 is on this camera. Of course, on the 1Ds, the 135/2 and the 85 1.2 deliver an amazing combination of softness and luminosity.

Edmund

Wiseman wrote:
DavidP wrote:
Check out some of Steve Mitchell's basketball shots with the 85/1.2

Are you sure he shot at f/1.2 in majority of his pictures?


That wasn't the issue, though. The issue was whether the 85/1.2 had fast enough AF to be used in sports. Clearly, it does.

DavidP wrote:

That wasn't the issue, though. The issue was whether the 85/1.2 had fast enough AF to be used in sports. Clearly, it does.


Actually, the issue is whether there are "many" sports photographers use 85/1.2.

By "Sport photography", you mean a lot of situation.
If you are chasing Kobe Bryant in close distance with something like 50/1.4 or 85/1.2, I don't think any camera can lock the AF ( correct me if I'm wrong. I have never used 1D or Mk2 )
Look at TV and watch closely what the Sports photographers are doing. Basically, they set the target area and wait until the critical moment happens there. By the way, this is also the correct shooting strategy in war. For instance, you do not chase after Ricky Handerson from the first base. You wait at the 2nd base and capture his sliding. With this technique, speed of AF become moot point.

Wiseman wrote:
Actually, the issue is whether there are "many" sports photographers use 85/1.2.

Depends on your definition of "many", I suppose. And the sport.

The lens doesn't make a lot of sense for baseball or football, I'd say. Mainly for basketball.



I'll further qualify: "Many" pro basketball photographers that don't rely on strobes use the 85/1.2

Once I find out just how many there are, I'll define "many" for ya.

Pondria wrote:
If you are chasing Kobe Bryant in close distance with something like 50/1.4 or 85/1.2, I don't think any camera can lock the AF ( correct me if I'm wrong. I have never used 1D or Mk2 )


Sorta, but not exactly.

In general, you'd pre-focus to about where you expect the play to happen, and then rely on AI-Servo to snap the focus closer to the correct focus plane.

That's why most people think the 85/1.2 is slow . . . . they try to start focusing from a focus distance that's too far away from the correct distance. You really need to get it close manually first, if you want reasonable speed.

Also, if you're very far off to start with, you probably can't even make out the subject when looking through the lens, so you won't even have the lens pointed at the right place to auto-focus. That REALLY makes it tought to focus quickly.

David, OK, that makes sense. And that's exactly what I would like to do with better body. With D30, the AF servo NEVER worked for me.

Pondria, the shot you posted is terrific, even more so considering the D30 you used!

DavidP wrote:The only lenses I'm aware of with the electronic MF are the 200/1.8, 85/1.2, and 50/1.0 And possibly some of the non-IS super-telephoto lenses like the 300/2.8?

Correct. I used the 300/2.8 (MK1) quite a lot and it also has drive by wire, and will focus manually just like the 85/1.2.

- Stan