Canon 85mm 1.2 or Sigma 85mm 1.4?

[neuroanatomist]

I will say this though. I was trying to blur the background as much as possible and at 1.2 I was nailing the focus on the eyes but the nose was completely lost. So I was actually shooting at 1.8 and 2.0 quite a bit.

On the 5DII or the 7D? Just curious.

[Alan]

I will say this though. I was trying to blur the background as much as possible and at 1.2 I was nailing the focus on the eyes but the nose was completely lost. So I was actually shooting at 1.8 and 2.0 quite a bit.


I still wouldn't suggest the 1.2 to someone who wasn't using it to make a living with it. I definitely wouldn't recommend it to a pro in my area either.[img]/emoticons/emotion-5.gif[/img]
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Okay, so the 1.2L is a fast lens, and I agree with the last statement about the value to the users, too. But, if you're stopping the lens down, I don't see the need for this lens. The 85 f/1.8 should be more than adequate. I, for one, would be irritated if the eyes were in focus and not the nose. Especially, when I looked at the price of the lens. This would be a definite minus for owning this lens, and I doubt it would get much use even in a professional's bag of goodies.

[Sean Setters]

I, for one, would be irritated if the eyes were in focus and not the nose. Especially, when I looked at the price of the lens. This would be a definite minus for owning this lens, and I doubt it would get much use even in a professional's bag of goodies.

You have to realize that depth of field depends on your distance to the subject. If you're using an 85mm f/1.2 on a 5D Mark II, at 13 feet, you'd have a little more than 6in of sharp DOF....and 6in is certainly enough to get the eyes and nose in focus (but probably not the ears). For a close up, however, you'd need to close the aperture down.

[Micktheexbiker]

Remember its poor light performance im after. Its not where you live its where i live. Depth of field/bokeh is one thing, but we seem to forget shutter speed. If i want sharp shots in poor light i want lots of light. I live in a pretty dull area. I dont do studio shots.





Mick

[Jon Ruyle]

If i want sharp shots in poor light i want lots of light.

I second that, whatever it means []

[Alan]

You have to realize that depth of field depends on your distance to the subject. If you're using an 85mm f/1.2 on a 5D Mark II, at 13 feet, you'd have a little more than 6in of sharp DOF....and 6in is certainly enough to get the eyes and nose in focus (but probably not the ears). For a close up, however, you'd need to close the aperture down.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Yep, I understand the issue of distance. But, even at 13 feet (more likely a studio situation), it would still make me upset that the ears weren't in focus. I've taken plenty of studio shots with the 85 f/1.8 (mostly stopped down) and have never been disappointed with the sharpness, color, contrast. I get the ears in focus, too. [] The price to achieve that is a fraction of the 1.2L, which wouldn't be necessary in a studio-lighting environment.


But, as Mike said, he's not interested in studio shots. Drab environment, poor lighting....I guess it's worth $1700 for that. [:^)]

[Keith B]

<div>

I will say this though. I was trying to blur the background as much as possible and at 1.2 I was nailing the focus on the eyes but the nose was completely lost. So I was actually shooting at 1.8 and 2.0 quite a bit.

On the 5DII or the 7D? Just curious.

</div>


I was shooting the 5DII solely yesterday. I have shot it on the 7D too.

Okay, so the 1.2L is a fast lens, and I agree with the last statement about the value to the users, too. But, if you're stopping the lens down, I don't see the need for this lens. The 85 f/1.8 should be more than adequate. I, for one, would be irritated if the eyes were in focus and not the nose. Especially, when I looked at the price of the lens. This would be a definite minus for owning this lens, and I doubt it would get much use even in a professional's bag of goodies.

I hate to open up this can of worms but even at f/2 the bokeh is unbelievable. Shooting head and shoulder shots at 1.2 is going to give you ridiculously shallow DOF but full length of thighs up shots are going to be out of this world.


I have seen some striking portraits where little is in focus. Style is not always about perfection.


Here is a shot at 1.2 (this is completely unedited and I may take it down shortly since I hate posting clients work).[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.81/_5F00_MG_5F00_9606sm.jpg[/img]


Here is one I shot on the 7d a couple weeks ago at 1.2[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.81/IMG_5F00_7611s.jpg[/img]

[Keith B]

Couple more just to show the range;


This was a throw away shot at f/1.2 just to see if we could blur out the girl in the seat. This may not be the effect you want all the time, but this is power.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.81/_5F00_MG_5F00_9601sm.jpg[/img]


here is f/2 shot


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.81/_5F00_MG_5F00_9519sm.jpg[/img]

[Garrett-Grimsley]

I'd be interested to see how the new Sigma 85 performs. Their 50 f/1.4 is a little iffy and is best used on crop bodies, hopefully this one will have better corners on full frame.


If this new 85 is any good I'll gladly add it next to my current 85 f/1.8, beats cashing out for the 1.2L.





Here's what it looks like if you haven't seen it already.

[ddt0725]

I hate to open up this can of worms but even at f/2 the bokeh is unbelievable. Shooting head and shoulder shots at 1.2 is going to give you ridiculously shallow DOF but full length of thighs up shots are going to be out of this world.

I want this lens sooo bad ...along withyour skill using it!!! These photos are awesome!

Denise