mauriceramirez wrote:
Clients don't care about the bokeh or wde-open sharpness difference between an 85L and a 85 f1.8.
The Sigma 50 is a good lens at an inexpensive price as well. I like the 50 2.5 macro for the ability to do ring shots and details in one lens.
-m
Edited by mauriceramirez on Jul 03, 2008 at 11:32 AM GMT
I shoot for myself first as im my own worst critic it's only fair that i produce the best possible images that my gear and optics will allow i do this irrespective of whether my clients notice the difference or not.
In most cases they do notice it.
The 85L has a star quality about it that is so evident most of the compliments i get are of the reception images in low light with no flash most of which the client has no idea they were taken...This gem of a lens isnt just limited to portraits.
i have the canon 50mm f1.4 and use it often, wide open, indoors, without a flash. that is why i bought it. i will buy other primes for the same reason, though for different focal lengths. i know they are all great stopped down but their best advantage is they will get me a good shot in low light with no flash.
if i can get good shots at f2.8 or lower, i have nice L zooms to get me there.
I HATE pixel peeping and have never shot a test chart in my life, but I had to go through 3 copies to get a decent 50 1.4. You'll have to pry the copy I have now from my cold dead hands.
Agreed about the focus improving on a 1 series. Where I may miss a shot with it, it is usually when the subject to camera distance is changing - for reasonably static shots the focus can be pretty swift (and I have a mk1).
There also have been times where I've had 85L on one body and 24-70 on the other and the light has been sufficiently low that the 85L had a major advantage in focussing speed, with the 24-70 sometimes failing to find focus altogether.
Be aware that there are a small, but committed, band of naysayers when it comes to the 85L - these people rarely if ever have any experience with the lens.
One last thing - the look of the lens itself. Nothing says 'pro' like a massive front element. Yes, people will judge you on the quality of your work, but having amazing looking gear does help differentiate you from the increasing number of guests with low end DSLRs.
Lord Fluff wrote:
One last thing - the look of the lens itself. Nothing says 'pro' like a massive front element. Yes, people will judge you on the quality of your work, but having amazing looking gear does help differentiate you from the increasing number of guests with low end DSLRs.
I can totally agree with you. Everytime I bust out my 70-200 2.8 IS, there is ALWAYS someone asking about it. Nothing to do with the topic anyways, but now that you mention it, mind sharing 85L mounted on camera picture?
Never seen one and almost drewling for it! Even thought about selling the 70-200 for it. But it's a tough decision.
J. Consiglio wrote:
The 50 is an amazing lens, especially on a full frame. The 1.4 was THE portrait lens for the longest time, then came the 1.2. As much as I love to have the best, The 1.4 is more than sufficient, and like Maurice said, clients don't really care. At least about the difference between the 1.2 and 1.4. So, as long as you are happy, and it helps achieve your goal, that's what matters.
Also, as for the 85 1.2 vs. 1.8, rent them both first and see. The 1.8 is a little quicker, but the 1.2 is VERY impressive and a fine piece of glass. Either one should suffice. The 1.2 does have a unique look and has it's place, but I really think the 1.8 may be a better choice for the dark reception venue, at least. The 1.2 for some cool portraits when you have some time with the B&G.
Enjoy that lens and after you've mastered it, rent the 1.2 and see if it's worth the extra 1,000 or so. You might not be as impressed as you think. You have a great lens, now make it work!
These are just tools, and as nice as it is to have the best, put that extra 1,000 towards marketing and see which brings you more clients!
Jonathan, thank you for your insight. I agree in everything you say and especially on the extra $1,000 on marketing. Think I need to do some more of that now
