Studio58 wrote:
Ok I have owned the beast for a couple of weeks now but had limited shooting in that time. I have 7 weddings in March so may have a few more soon. In the interim, here is a couple I took this morning.
Very cute and natural looking images.
Mar 04, 2008 at 03:59 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
This thread is painful both in the beauty of the photos; and the angst of those looking in who cannot afford this lens, but it is on the priority list ...
Thanks all for sharing your work. I'm still playing around with the limits of the 50mm 1.8 and when I get that "rainmaker" case payoff, here I come!
I always enjoy looking at the images Lars takes. They are wonderful regardless what lens he is using.
One thing to note, the widest he shot here was F/2.4. Most of the images are at f/3.2 or so. Just goes to show that it isn't f/1.2 that makes this lens magic, it has that quality stopped down as well.
Unless you are shooting at larger than f/1.8 the DOF is much the same as with the 85 f/1.8 lens. At f/1.2 the DOF is about two thirds of what it would be at f/1.8. So is this lens really worth several times the price of the f/1.8 lens ?
If I'd ever used the f/1.2 I might not have to ask that question but I'm wary of spending lots of money on a lens that may not be appreciably better at "normal" apertures where some DOF is required.
Be aware of the heavy flaring and internal reflections when shooting strongly backlit subjects with this lens wide open. Wait. THERE ARE NONE! YEAH BABY, YEAH!
Be aware of the heavy flaring and internal reflections when shooting strongly backlit subjects with this lens wide open. Wait. THERE ARE NONE! YEAH BABY, YEAH!
Argh. When I saw this, I was immediately thinking "Sweden". A glance at your profile confirmed it. Glorious light...
Alan321 wrote:
Unless you are shooting at larger than f/1.8 the DOF is much the same as with the 85 f/1.8 lens. At f/1.2 the DOF is about two thirds of what it would be at f/1.8. So is this lens really worth several times the price of the f/1.8 lens ?
If I'd ever used the f/1.2 I might not have to ask that question but I'm wary of spending lots of money on a lens that may not be appreciably better at "normal" apertures where some DOF is required.
Please don't shoot me - it's a genuine question
- Alan
To me, it's not so much about the DOF but about how the blur looks. I used the 1.8, L and L/II (which I now own) and while I shoot my L/II mainly at f2, the look it gives me is so much smoother than the 1.8 ever did. Plus, it can be used at 1.2 if need be
Alan321 wrote:
Unless you are shooting at larger than f/1.8 the DOF is much the same as with the 85 f/1.8 lens. At f/1.2 the DOF is about two thirds of what it would be at f/1.8. So is this lens really worth several times the price of the f/1.8 lens ?
If I'd ever used the f/1.2 I might not have to ask that question but I'm wary of spending lots of money on a lens that may not be appreciably better at "normal" apertures where some DOF is required.
Please don't shoot me - it's a genuine question
- Alan
I never owned the 1.8 version, but I sincerely doubt the Canon 85s are even remotely equivalent at f1.8 or above. As has been demonstrated in this thread and many others, the 85L is something special. Bokeh, colours and sharpness is untouchable, at whatever aperture.
I have a little collection of L-glass, and despite the price, I actually think the 85L is Canon's secret "bargain" (I suspect it is quite costly to produce).
I'll be there this August, I hope...