Does anyone have real world comparisons of these 2 lenses side by side wide open? Yes I have looked at the charts, but I'd like to see images if anyone has them. Especially how much more light 1.2 lets in vs 1.8 in a real world comparison. Thanks.
Printable View
Does anyone have real world comparisons of these 2 lenses side by side wide open? Yes I have looked at the charts, but I'd like to see images if anyone has them. Especially how much more light 1.2 lets in vs 1.8 in a real world comparison. Thanks.
What do you mean exactly Cozen?
The lens is theoretically about 1.25? stop faster. Perhaps a little bit more. If you'd make a correctly exposed image with the 85mm 1.8 I assume that if you take the same image with the 85mm 1.2 you'd get a 1.25-stop over-exposed version?
But I can't image you want that kind of photo...or do you?
I could do something like that if you want, by photographing with my 50mm 1.4 on 1.4 and 2.2? It's about the same difference in exposure.
Or perhaps I'm misinterpreting your question?
Let me know, Jan
I can understand wanting real world pictures to compare how images from the two lenses, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cozen
Pictures won't show you that, will they? Unless it was a carefully controlled test (and not what I would call "real world")... are you looking for something done in manual mode to see how much darker the f/1.8 looks?
Really, you just need to know that F/1.2 lets in about 225% as much light as f/1.8. That is, your shutter speed will be 2 1/4 times as fast to get the same exposure.
(Assuming it is really f/1.2 vs f/1.8. Maybe they're a little off to make it exactly one stop difference, or 200% and twice as fast... I don't know about that)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
That's why I put a questionmark behind my 1.25 stop-calculation [:P] Didn't have a clue it would be that much....I figured: 1.4 would be a half-stop darker than 1.2 and a 2/3 stop lighter than 1.8, sum it up and I ended with my 1.25-stop guess. But I guess proper math won't let me sum it up like that??[:#]
http://the-digital-picture.com/Pictures/Picture.aspx?Picture=2006-04-29_19-21-38
http://the-digital-picture.com/Pictures/Picture.aspx?Picture=2004-04-17_11-09-19
Honestly, if you're looking for an 85 prime, you probably have a reason to get one. If so, that reason should lead you to the right lens. If not, your wallet should lead you to the right lens. They really are two totally different animals. If you don't know what you want/need, get the 85/1.8. It'll work very well for everything you ask it to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
Your reasoning seems sound to me, except that I think 1/2 + 2/3 is 1 1/6, not 1 1/4 :)
Anyhow, we came up with almost the same answer. 1 1/4 stop is about 238% more light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Ah yea crap you saw my faulty calculation...even a junior would have done a better job than me on that one [A]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Ah yea crap you saw my faulty calculation...even a junior would have done a better job than me on that one [A]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Can it really be 2.25x faster? Probably you came up with 225% by calculating the areas of the respective iris diaphragms (i.e.πr²). However, practically speaking shutter speed is set in minimum 1/3-stop increments, so I'd think f/1.2 vs. f/1.8 would simply be a full stop - meaning double the shutter speed for the 'same' exposure.
You're right - technically the exposure would be a little different(barring some physical correction in the lens/aperture relationship in the lens design). I wonder how it really works, and if the same scene metered with the 85mm f/1.8 @ f1.8 vs. the 85mm f/1.2L @ f/1.8 would give the same shutter speed, and if stopping the 85mm f/1.2L down from f/1.2 to f/1.8 for the same scene would halve the shutter speed? I suspect the answer to the both questions is yes. If 85mm f/1.2L really does let in 2.25x as much light, and the metered exposure is just one full stop different, then a shot at 85mm f/1.2 may be slightly overexposed? Then again, someone shooting with an 85mm f/1.2L would probably tweak the RAW image anyway?
But this is all a big (though fun) digression from the OP's question.
Cozen, there's a real-world difference of one stop between the lenses wide open - meaning, you can get a shot in half as much ambient light (for the same ISO and shutter speed). Wide open, the f/1.2 lens has ~30% thinner DoF than the 85mm (note the implication for low-light shots, as well - you get more light, but less of the subject in focus). The 85mm f/1.2L is a little sharper at f/1.8 than the 85mm f/1.8 @ f/1.8. Saturation and contrast are a little better with the L lens. The 'costs' you pay for that 2.25x amount of light and thinner DoF are: 2.5x the weight, slower AF, and 5x the cost.
Focused on one given spot with my 85 1.2 @ 1.2 = 1/125. Then bumped up to 1.8 = 1/60.
I'll let the brains figure out the decimals. I know it something over 1 stop. Obviously the 85 1.8 may expose differently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
Realizing the 1/125 and 1/60 may skew the numbers, I tried a scenario where 1.2 was 1/320 and then 1.8 turned out to be 1/160.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
Thanks, Keith. So at least for that lens, it's a 'complete' stop. 1/320→ 1/160 and 1/125→ 1/60 areboth one-stop changes in shutter speed. Each stop represents a rough (but not necessarily exact!) doubling/halving of the amount of light. The full-stop scale is 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/250, 1/500, 1/1000, etc. Underlined jumps are not exact divisions by 2. Your first example just happened to fall on one of those.
So I guess for the sake of "metering" you're gaining 1-stop but mathematically it's 1 1/6<sup>th</sup> stops? I'd imagine that it would be hard to determine if a picture was over exposed by 1/6<sup>th</sup> of a stop :-)
All this discussion about light, and the mathematics of it, and there still isn't a single image posted here. I, for one, would like to see one, or two, perhaps.
Where is this thread going?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Things do tend to get "technical" around here but I think the biggest reasonwhy there haven't been pictures posted yet is because Ican only think of (off the top of my head)3 forum members that are owners of the 85 f/1.2. Of those 3 only 1 is a "regular" contributor and that's Keith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Here's one, from Bryan, 85mm f/1.8 vs. 85mm f/1.2L:
http://media.the-digital-picture.com...-Objective.jpg
If you subscribe to the 'bigger is better' school of thought, 'nuf said... [:P]
Else, you might try pixel-peeper.com, and use the advanced search option to find images with each lens (on the body of your choice, if you like).
<div>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elberson
FWIW, I plan on ordering one before the end of the rebate. Since I also have the 85mm f/1.8, I'll be in a position to compare them - assuming I recall the existence of this thread amid the flurry of new-lens excitement...
</div>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; mso-themecolor: text1;"]It’s hypnotizing!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] Must look away, try to resist!<o:p></o:p>Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elberson
I don't have the 85 1.8 version so I can't post a comparison between the 2. The only other thing I've shot with the 1.2, besides the dog shots, was some random night stuff just to see what 1.2 was like.[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.81/_5F00_MG_5F00_5305sm.jpg[/img]
5DII, 85 1.2II 1/40 f/1.2 ISO 1600
I have a shoot tomorrow of a candle lighting ceremony that should really show what the 85 1.2 can do. I'll post some of those tomorrow night.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
John, you're a funny guy.....
I think....
Bigger is always better, by the way. At least, with glass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
The 85 1.2 really feels awesome in your hands. It is kind of weird looking on the 5DII but it feels pretty well balanced. Even though it isn't long and white, the huge clear beautiful front element will certainly cathch an eye or two.
The another reason I just bit the bullet on the 1.2 is that I was concerned with feel and construction of the 1.8. It's appearance conjures thoughts of my 50 1.4 and I never liked that lens. Besides any IQ issues, it just didn't feel right in my hands. It never felt balanced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
....balance (and an aperture wider than f/1.4) comes at quite a premium, though. :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
It had better be constructed well. It's one whopper of an expensive lens, that's for sure.
Do you notice DOF being a challenge with it? That's the one thing that others have noticed. I would think for portraits, at f/1.2, a nose could be in perfect focus, and an eye OOF.
<div>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
Yes. But is has been a dream of mine since I was a little boy.
</div>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I haven't shot real portrait type stuff yet. My GF and I aren't on speaking terms right now (has nothing to do with said lens). However I did snap a quick shot the first night I got the lens. Sunday I have a model to shoot and I plan on using this lens heavily for that. I'll post those too.
But with the dog shots I took and this one "portrait" shot, I haven't had any trouble with DOF it is shallow but I've had lots of practice with 1.4 lenses.
On this shot I think I split the difference between the eyes. She was watching TV, again. This was not intended to be a keeper.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.81/_5F00_MG_5F00_5265md.jpg[/img]
5DII 1/125 Av 1.2 ISO 1600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Well it's not a real clear question I have to admit...
If it is about how much light there is more with the f1.2 compared to the 1.8 with the same settings, he could just open a picture in lets say lightroom and adjust the exposure with 1.16 and see what happens.
If it must be real-life stuff it's just waiting for someone with the 85mm 1.2 to do this.
I could do the same thing with a 50mm 1.4 but I don't see the use of it [:P]
wow I didn't expect so many responses so fast. I guess as the original poster, my question wasn't that clear, but in a way that was good as it opened up a range of discussions.
I guess for myself, I'm looking for real world DOF/bokeh comparisons of the same shot, and the low light capability comparisons of 1.8 vs 1.2. However that can be compared in the real world =)
For what it's worth I'm using a 5DmkII body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
This is nice to know. That is a pretty big difference. A $1500 difference? Hard to say =P
Sorry. I thought we were looking for lens v. Lens and not f/stop v. f/stop.
1.2 @ 1/200
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.81/_5F00_MG_5F00_5434.JPG[/img]
1.8 @ 1/200
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.81/_5F00_MG_5F00_5435.JPG[/img]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cozen
Well, for most I'd say it is not worth it. But I think it depends on what you are using it for. I think if it is an issue between shooting at 800 or 1600, or even worse shooting at 3200 or 6400, and you are being paid for the job, the difference is worth it.
I wouldn't even say it comes down to portrait shooting. I have seen a lot of great shots from the 1.8. That said, you know all that great smooth buttery imagery you see in the Victoria Secrets catalogs and ads. They are shot by a guy named Russel James using 1Ds and the 85 1.2.
Clack, clack...SOOOLLLLLLLLDDDDDah!
thanks Keith, the image comparison is good to see. The DOF doesn't seem to be that huge a difference. The blur on the 1.2 does seem to be a little more, but nothing too noticeable. I guess the biggest difference is in low light, which I tend to shoot in a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cozen
No problem. I'm sure the bokeh will be different and make the DOF appear less shallow on the 85 1.8 though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
Is that the 1Ds orginal or a later model? Interesting they don't give him a hard time about resolution.
John.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
MK III. Sorry.