cogitech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.8 #12 · 85 f1.2L...show your shots | |
rscheffler wrote:
Spoken like a true FM photographer... As you should know shooting weddings, etc. the last thing clients look at in their photos is the "bokeh" and I would imagine the client pictured in that photo was very happy with the shoot. The 85 1.2 is not only about bokeh. While it is very good for that, it's also about achieving an extra stop faster shutter speed or managing with a reasonable shutter speed when f/1.8 won't suffice. And as mentioned already, it's a great lens when not used wide open and is razor sharp at f/1.6-2.2... which in comparison, the 85 1.8 is not (though is debatable whether a client will pick up on this, but then, it's the FM forums and we're talking shop). Post processing is an option and can definitely blend the differences, but you need to have the sharpness in the first place in order to enhance it even more... unless everything is being viewed at 600 pixels, then never mind.
Hey, I have the 85 1.8 as well and use it for its strengths: fast AF for low light action situations. The light weight is also a bonus. It's definitely a very, very nice lens. But if I have the choice, and know that I'll be working in available darkness, it's great to be able to fall back to f/1.2 if I need it. Say, like shooting available light during a wedding ceremony where I can get ISO 3200 1/250 f/1.2 instead of 1/125 @ f/1.8... all the better to avoid camera shake and subject movement.
I just happened across this profile over at the CPN site at Canon Europe:
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/btl/marco_di_lauro.do (view the images in the showcase)
I thought the photo essay was an excellent example of how fast prime lenses (as noted on page 2) can be used in the field (in this case in a very difficult environment) to give a look to these images subtly different from the usual. To the average viewer, they probably won't be able to say what it is, or define it as shallow depth of field effectively isolating the subject. But it's one more element when combined with the very effective color toning and other post production treatment makes these photos visually gripping. It's not to say you can't get similar results with non-L equivalents or 2.8 zooms, but usually with the L primes, there is something extra that the lens will give in return for the price premium. Greater light transmission, more robust build, higher IQ, etc... That on it's own won't make great photos, but give them to the right photographer....
Ron...Show more →
Very good points, Ron.
When shooting weddings, the client cares most about us getting the shots. Sometimes that means I can comfortably use a wide-angle, manual focus prime and other times I need stupidly fast and accurate AF tele. And everything in between. I use most of the lenses in my profile at weddings (it's a bit crazy). I know the 85/1.8 will get me the shot quickly and accurately, every time, when I need it. On the question of bokeh, I agree with you partly about wedding shots. However, there are times when good bokeh will be much more desirable/critical and it is these times that the photographer needs to take the time to ensure good bokeh. When she/he does this, it will not matter what lens is being used and, as you have seen, even a very expensive lens can produce lackluster results if there isn't enough forethought.
So, I maintain that I could have shot the shot (the one I originally commented on) with the 85/1.8, with better bokeh.
EDIT: Thanks for the link, BTW. It applies very much to my use of the 85/1.8 and several other lenses. Selective focus can dramatically change a photograph. I think people are even more sensitive to this these days, because the use of selective focus in motion video is so prevalent and we are accustomed to seeing it. Sometimes f3.5 or even 5.6 is enough, other times f1.2-f1.4 is necessary. It is so dependant on camera-to-subject and subject-to-background distance, after all.
Edited by cogitech on Feb 06, 2008 at 10:21 PM GMT
Edited on Feb 06, 2008 at 10:21 PM
|
