Printable View
The bokeh is very different. I think the 200/2 would be closer.
These shots have similar framing.
7D 85 1.2 @1.2
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.81/IMG_5F00_7611s.jpg[/img]
7D 70-200 2.8 IS @ 200mm f/2.8
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.81/IMG_5F00_7512s.jpg[/img]
I really like the first (and I think the second would be better at 85mm f/1.2, because the background, while blurred, is still a bit distracting )
These shots have a relatively close background, so it is not surprising that the faster lens does a better job blurring it out. With a more distant background, I think it would be closer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddt0725
Have you heard of Zigmund Freud? He was not quite a photographer, though...
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Yeah the second shot was shot first actually. I changed lenses for that exact reason. The nice thing about 200mm, people don't always realize they are being shot, 85mm they know.
The night shot of the guy above show what 1.2 does with even more distance. The distance between subject and background will have to be increased for the bokeh of the 7-200 2.8 to be equivalent, with similar framing. Then that makes the comparison kind of irrelevant I think.
My newEF 85mm f/1.2<span style="color: red;"]LII USM was delivered direct from B&H at the end of last week. My first impressions were thatpictures don't do it justice, the lens is BIG. It's as big around as the 100-400mm, but only a little longer than the 85mm f/1.8. It's like holding a (very heavy!) softball. I'm reminded of Keith's comment - you can slip into a trance staring though all that glass!
The first chance I had to play with it was just sitting in my office. To me it feels very well balanced on my gripped 7D. Focusing on objects in my 12'x15' space was not terribly exciting. The AF speed seemed 'deliberate' (to be charitable) - but that may have been partly due to my impatience to shoot real subjects.
One random thing I do find interesting is that the transmissive LCD which displays the AF points in the VF is affected by the wide aperture. Even though the VF doesn't get any brighter as you go wider than f/2.2 (due to the etching to brighten up typical slow lenses), the AF points in the 7D's VF get progressively more 'washed out' by the additional light.
I did a few test shots of a contrived situation in my office - yep, the DoF is pretty thin, the bokeh is nice. At that point, I wasn't convinced the new lens was worth the $1,400 premium over the 85mm f/1.8.
Over the weekend, I had a chance to actually use the 85L, out in the real world and indoors in the evening. In the real world, the 85L is a fantastic lens! One thing I wanted to do was an informal head-to-head comparison with the 85mm f/1.8. After doing so, my belief that the 85mm f/1.8 is a great value stands strong. Having said that, the 85L is truly an amazing lens!!
Here's a comparison shot of water lily blossoms, with the focal point on the bloom in front. The crops below are ~1:3 pixels of the blossom that is vertical to the focal point (the right one of the pair). To me, the bokeh of the 85L at f/1.8 is smoother and softer than the 85mm f/1.8 and of course, f/1.2 is f/1.2.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4122/...aef2de35_b.jpg
As a side note, the 85L consistently metered 1/3 stop brighter than the 85mm f/1.8 across all apertures - not sure if this is a copy variation with one lens or the other, or if the 85L just sucks in 1/3 stop more light.
As for the concern that I had about the AF speed, well, I'm less concerned about that now. After shooting the above sequences (I took both lenses from wide open to f/8 in one stop increments with a couple of different subjects), I pulled my camera off the tripod and looked up as I heard the distinctive scraawww of a grackle flying by. I spun the mode dial to C3 (my BIF settings), raised the camera, found the bird, pressed AF-ON then the shutter release once it locked.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4082/...36a8616b_b.jpg
There's a fair bit of noise evident from ISO 2000, and the 1:1 crop is a bit brutal - obviously this isn't the focal length of choice for shooting birds. But for me, it made the point. The 85L may have 'slow' AF - and it is noticeably slower than the 85mm f/1.8 - but if it's fast enough to lock onto a small, relatively fast moving bird in flight, it's good enough for me.
Oh, cool. The bokeh comparison @ f/1.8 is dramatic.
I don't need that lens. But...
I want. I want. I want. [:)]
Congrats!
(BTW I *still* think you should go full frame, but no longer think you should get a 5DII. You require a 1DsIV, if it ever comes out)
Congrats on your new lens, John and thank you so much for posting your review of the lens and this this wonderful comparison!!
I'll second the "I want, I want, I want""!!
Denise
John, congratulations and thanks for the comparison!
I'm wondering though, how sharp is that 85mm at f1.2....compared to the 85mm 1.8 @ 1.8?
I'm really interested in that part. Not that I will ever buy the 85mm L, but I'm just curious.
Thanks and I agree with Jon...[:D]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
Sharp. Very sharp.
These are 100% crops of my daughter's eyelashes. One is from the 85mm f/1.2L II @ f/1.2, the other is from the 85mm f/1.8 @ f/1.8.
Which is which?
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4095/...8043f466_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4136/...59d1d77b_b.jpg
Here is a 100% crop of a f/5.6 shot. No sharpening was applied. These shots were the reason I said I have no desire for Medium Format.
This lens is ridiculously sharp at all f/stops (under the cameras DLA of course).
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.81/_5F00_MG_5F00_0915_5F00_800px.jpg[/img]