Soldato
EDIT: Just read from the last page that you're using it for portraits etc in which case my points are mainly void.
Last edited:
Got a 70-200 2.8 !
- Thread starter Raymond Lin
- Start date
I have the Canon 1.8 so if i buy the 1.2, i am buying for its bokeh quality, not it's speed. 
Soldato
I have the Canon 1.8 so if i buy the 1.2, i am buying for its bokeh quality, not it's speed.
The 1.8 is faster than the 1.2 to focus but yes the bokeh is going to be slightly more pleasing.
The 1.8 is faster than the 1.2 to focus but yes the bokeh is going to be slightly more pleasing.
More than slightly, it is something i am DYING for.
The 135L is lovely, but its too long.
85 would be perfect.....but its a LOT of money.
Caporegime
didnt want to start a new thread for this so hope you dont mind ...
i had always assumed that the f stop indicated how much light the lens could get in.
But i also understand that the lower the f stop, the narrower the focal length is.
Does the F stop on lenses effect the amount of light at all, or just partially ? (or neither? )
i had always assumed that the f stop indicated how much light the lens could get in.
But i also understand that the lower the f stop, the narrower the focal length is.
Does the F stop on lenses effect the amount of light at all, or just partially ? (or neither? )
Soldato
135L is a lens I'd love to play with and own, I've heard it's in a realm of its own, a bit like the 85mm 1.2 but different.
If light = water
Lens = water pipe
F stop = how wide you open that pipe
F/1 = 100%
so if the lens is 135mm then 135mm is the diameter, and F/2, divided by 2, and the lens is 67.5mm wide in its front element.
135L is a lens I'd love to play with and own, I've heard it's in a realm of its own, a bit like the 85mm 1.2 but different.
They are both part of the holy trinity, along with the 35L.
At the moment I have 2 of the holy trinity of the primes and zooms....
the colours look bob on to me on a calibrated screen?
Associate
i have one of the trinity, cant see me getting any others soon, the 85mm 1.8 i have on loan at the moment seems great ( i did have it before but sold it as was a bit strapped for cash). I dont know if the extra £1K is worth the better bokeh? Well not at the moment as i dont have a spare £1K. However the 35L is very tempting and a focal length i would pro0bably use more often.
I don't really think the 85L is all that, but that might be down to what I'm shooting with it and the conditions that I'm shooting in.
But the fact of the matter is that I don't really see that much different in the bokeh (hate that term...) between the 85L and 85/1.8 when shooting at the same apertures, and what difference there is certainly isn't worth £1,300.
I know a couple of commercial photographers who swear by the 85/1.8 and only hire in an 85L if the client is a demanding so-and-so and needs to see something big and shiny in order to prove they are getting their money's worth.
Associate
i know that the quality return in inversely propertional to the lens price when you get on to high end stuff. The 85mm range is a clear demonstation. I know Raymond wants the set and if he can afford it why not? For me though i agree with Glitch, too much money for very little return. I like my L lenses but i dotn like 'em that much.
Oh, I TOTALLY agree that the quality gained from the extra £1000 is not apparent in most situations. Especially with it comes to the 85mm, you also sacrifice AF speed and weight in return of that 1 stop. So you are not getting a lens that is better in every way, sharpness wise the 1.8 is L sharp too (in my opinion).
However, there is a quality that you get from a 1.2 that I have not seen from the 1.8 (apparently in a full body portrait at 1.2), it pops like nothing else. It is something that isn't skill based, it is just purely bought from the money spent. How much that is worth is relative, and I am sure most client won't notice on a conscious level.
Professionally speaking, I don't need the 1.2, I have both the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 and they both does everything I need. They are fast enough in AF, and light, and small to go in my pocket, cheap enough that if they break, I can afford to buy from on the day to replace if I need it urgently.
Personally speaking however, I like that pop you like from the 85/1.2. Hence I will get it, eventually. It would be one of the last lenses to get as it would be bought purely on a desire reason, not a practical one.
However, there is a quality that you get from a 1.2 that I have not seen from the 1.8 (apparently in a full body portrait at 1.2), it pops like nothing else. It is something that isn't skill based, it is just purely bought from the money spent. How much that is worth is relative, and I am sure most client won't notice on a conscious level.
Professionally speaking, I don't need the 1.2, I have both the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 and they both does everything I need. They are fast enough in AF, and light, and small to go in my pocket, cheap enough that if they break, I can afford to buy from on the day to replace if I need it urgently.
Personally speaking however, I like that pop you like from the 85/1.2. Hence I will get it, eventually. It would be one of the last lenses to get as it would be bought purely on a desire reason, not a practical one.
Last edited:
Forgetting the top-end Telephoto stuff, I have to say that the overwhelming majority of the L-series range are worth the money. The 24L, 35L, 50L and 135L are outstanding lenses and, in my opinion, worth the extra. But I cannot see the justification for the 85L over the 85/1.8 myself.
The obvious criticism would be to ask why I feel the 50L is worth the extra £923 over the 50/1.4. That's because I can really see the difference between the results from the two lenses and I know the images I get from the 50L are that much more 'powerful' than the 50/1.4 - plus I feel it handles like a lens worth in excess of £1k.
But having never really used the 85L in anger (if I need that focal range I'll use my 90mm TS-E and get creative with the DOF) I've never been able to see what the fuss was about. But with the type of photography that Raymond does and is intending to do, I can completely see why he wants that 85L.
But while said client might think the shot taken with the 85/1.8 was amazing, they'll be in raptures about the results from the 85L.
And I guess that's where the extra expense starts to earn its keep!
Last edited:
Associate
i am not saying that the money is not justified. Its sometimes hard to justify. OK i know Raymond would USE the lens and i would like to be able to use the lens.
Associate
no argument. In total agreement. Just saying i may not realise the potential of such lenses as i am not on raymonds level. If i do get there, the small changes that i see now may actually be a lot bigger and worth the cost.
I think i will need a new bag though, or a peli case for just the lenses (probably the way to go) or need some seriously rearranging and take out the 30D.
3 bodies, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 35, 50, 85, 135, 2 flashes, rocket blower, wireless triggers, sync cord, stofen, memory card wallet, ALL the hoods.
3 bodies, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 35, 50, 85, 135, 2 flashes, rocket blower, wireless triggers, sync cord, stofen, memory card wallet, ALL the hoods.