Ariel Bravy wrote:
It's a stellar shot, as are many of the others in this thread. Considering it was at f/2, are you saying that it wouldn't be as good if shot with the 85 1.8 @ f2?
Probably not! At f4 or f5.6 ... maybe, but not at f1.8 or f2.
Thank you all. I received my shipping confirmation for this lens from B&H this afternoon and have been wondering if I did the right thing. Now I know I did!!! And all the cat pictures convinced my wife as well! I can't wait for Friday to get here...
Geofn wrote:
Thank you all. I received my shipping confirmation for this lens from B&H this afternoon and have been wondering if I did the right thing. Now I know I did!!! And all the cat pictures convinced my wife as well! I can't wait for Friday to get here...
!!! Gotta remember that one...shoot a kitten and sell the wife!
WOW... there are just some unbelievable images here. It's threads like these that help get me away from the "brand wars" and "new technology" talk and make me want to get out and use my fantastic glass and make new memories!
John Power wrote:
What was your lighting on that Shane? Judging by the catchlights, it looks like one big SB camera left...
And having owned both the 1.2 and 1.8, the 1.2 is definitely worth the money when shooting between 1.2 and 1.8....
Large softbox camera left, umbrella fill slightly camera right, beauty dish with diffuser screen for hairlight rear camera right pointing somewhat forward.
i think there should be a ban on posts with pictures from the 85L, the 135L, and the 200f1.8L. It's really bad for my wallet. these are some amazing pictures though. I could never get these results with my 85mm f1.8.
Greg Feldman wrote:
Is the minimum focusing distance of this lens shorter than that of the f/1.8 version? Different between v1 and v2?
No, it's not shorter. It's a bit of a problem if you want to be really close up, but the solution is the EF-12 extension tube (I always carry it with the 85L because I never know when I'll need it).
As for the endless debate over whether or not the 85L is worth the extra compared to the non-L... at least from my POV the L outperforms the non-L in the f/1.8-2.5 range and obviously can't be touched below 1.8.
John Power wrote:
Just wondered, is the 85 1.2 worth the extra $1200 over the 1.8
It depends. If you have that money sitting around with not much else exciting to do with it, then definately. You can't really buy a house with that much, so may as well get the lens if you will have fun with it. As for a lot of the shots people are fawning over, they don't seem really great to me except for very nice bokeh and very small depth of field. A lot of them would probably be better with greater depth of field in my opinion. Some of these shots really are very nice though. Not trying to be disrepectful at all, and not saying I'd do any better, but just a reality check here.
halie wrote:
It depends. If you have that money sitting around with not much else exciting to do with it, then definately. You can't really buy a house with that much, so may as well get the lens if you will have fun with it. As for a lot of the shots people are fawning over, they don't seem really great to me except for very nice bokeh and very small depth of field. A lot of them would probably be better with greater depth of field in my opinion. Some of these shots really are very nice though. Not trying to be disrepectful at all, and not saying I'd do any better, but just a reality check here. ...Show more →
!!! Gotta remember that one...shoot a kitten and sell the wife! 