[blatant bragging] I have it, it's HERE! Holy Trinity is complete!!!

Raymond Lin · 22 Mar 2011 at 14:43

It came this morning, no proper pics of it or from it (although i have taken some) but I'm not home yet so a iphone pic will have to do for now.

85L/1.2 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First impression.

A LOT OF GLASS
It weights more than the 24-70
The rear element is scary.............
Focus is slow, not a bit slow, but slow.

But it's the Keg!!!! Yay!!!

Raymond Lin · 22 Mar 2011 at 14:48

ScarySquirrel said:
Did you have the 85 1.8 before?

I do still have it, and keeping it

Raymond Lin · 22 Mar 2011 at 18:18

Derek W said:
oh dear god, chat roulette wont know whats hit them!

Lol, can even blur out my face

Schizophonic said:
Enjoy, I used the MKI and its a heavy lens but also slow. Can I ask how much you paid for it?

It is supposed go be 60% quicker but compare to the 24-70, 35, 85/1.8and 135, its slow. As they all focus internally where the 85 focus by moving the front element and that is a big ass piece of glass. The lens came to £1390....i could have got a new 27" iMac !

mcc49 said:
Gotta catch em all. Now go for the zoom trinity

Lol, just one short there, may be 1.5 qs my 16-35L is the mk1.

Raymond Lin · 22 Mar 2011 at 18:22

Johnny|lucidcomposure said:
You need to watch the rear element when attaching it to your camera body. Its VERY easily knocked which would be fatal!!

Tom the mark II improves the focus speed but believe me it was horrendously slow on the mark I. The mark II is so slow but the results make the value worth it!

I know, i actually took it off to check i haven't scratched it already, which i haven't lol. Phew.

I am trying to figure out a technique to mount it in the dark. Because the barrel of the lens is so wide, you can't actually see the red dot that lines up with the camera unless you are perpendicular to the lens so its very easy to put it on around the mount and start twisting...not knowing its not centre and then twisting the element on the metal mount!

Raymond Lin · 22 Mar 2011 at 19:14

Gaffer said:
Congrats, you're going to love it.

If the trinity is the 35-85-135, then what do you call the set of three than I'm trying to build: 200-400-800 ?

Andrew

Holy Grail?

Raymond Lin · 23 Mar 2011 at 19:28

Have I shot under 1.2? Nope.

Does it work under 1.2? I have no idea lol

Raymond Lin · 23 Mar 2011 at 21:57

adamau5 said:
i demand a picture of the rear element on view!

Not my pic (it's late and I am tired lol) but...

source : http://www.flickr.com/photos/plastereddragon/1564999399/

Raymond Lin · 24 Mar 2011 at 01:16

I have a feeling that i might end up taking both 85mm to a wedding and a mule to carry it all!

The 1.2 for the portraits and bridal prep with the 1.8 for candids.

I am concern that the 1.2 isn't quick enough for my liking for candids.

Raymond Lin · 24 Mar 2011 at 10:03

Hodders said:
So get the sigma Did you try one before getting the 1.2 ?

Nope and if I want speed I'd use my 1.8, the sigma didn't cross my mind really. I wanted the 1.2 for so long and if I got the sigma, that itch will still be there. Like I said, buy right, buy once.

Ive seen lots of samples and still yet impressed by it. Where as with the 1.2, someone once said "nothing else makes the subject pop like the 85/1.2" and it's true. Especially with full body shots, it's surreal 3D quality that I hadn't seen from another lens.

Raymond Lin · 24 Mar 2011 at 10:04

kae2 said:
Can't quite tell, but are the contacts in line with the glass's outer edge? Is it cut around the contacts? :O

The contacts sits above the glass.

Raymond Lin · 24 Mar 2011 at 21:30

The front element is practically the same size as the 135L but because it is much shorter, it looks ridiculous !

I am one UV filter short lol

Raymond Lin · 25 Mar 2011 at 18:08

Messiah Khan said:
You better bring this to Scotland Ray! That is one lens I would love, and can't wait to see more results.

Lol I will.

Can have a play if you like

Raymond Lin · 27 Mar 2011 at 23:50

OMG.....

You know people always say..."a lens is sharpest when stopped down a few stops" ???

I don't think it applies here, at least I wouldn't be happy if it applies to any of the L, in actual fact, I wouldn't be happy if it happens to any prime lens and this lens does not disappoint!

Taken today, f/1.2 (shot through the double glazed windows in Starbucks)

@ 100%

Raymond Lin · 28 Mar 2011 at 00:27

How about £10 + £1,400?

Raymond Lin · 28 Mar 2011 at 20:09

I was sitting where the girl on the right is sitting in this photo

The only way we can find out is if I go back and take a similar shot again without a filter and outside and hope for the same over cast sky.

But then how can you rule out that double glazed window completely ? You find people go on day and night about the bad side effects of using filters about degrading IQ, losing sharpness, adding CA. But you are saying a double glazed window that is made with a tolerance that is WAYYYY different than an optical glass has ZERO effect on IQ? One which I shot through at an angle.

I am so confused...

I am not saying the lens does not have CA, all lens has some levels of CA, just do not understand how you can put ALL that to the lens.

Raymond Lin · 28 Mar 2011 at 22:40

Gaffer said:
Ray, I'm sure we'll meet up one day. When we do, remind me to let you have a look through the 800 and see how poor the optical stability of the damned air is...

It doesn't take much warmth or much distance to ruin my day...

Andrew

I will and I can imagine how that can happen, you can see it with your naked eye when it gets to about 30c on the tarmac.

Raymond Lin · 28 Mar 2011 at 23:48

Ejizz said:
^^^
Heat Haze?

pretty much.

Raymond Lin · 29 Mar 2011 at 19:34

2Thumbs said:
Filters do amplify the problem though, which is why I personally don't use them.

Well, I am pro-Filters but to minimise any side effects, I go for the best bang for buck (proportionally to the cost of the lens).

For this one....

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-b-w-72mm-uv-haze-xs-pro-digital-filter/p1524243

Price of a 50mm lens lol