| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/29/2007 12:20:21 AM · #1 |
I was browsing a photographer's site and really loved her work. She uses natural light 98% of the time. She mentions on her page that she favors the Canon 50mm 1.2L and the Canon 85mm 1.2L.
I most often use my 24-70 2.8L and often have it opened up all the way. I can see how an even faster lens would come in handy. HOWEVER, the DOF at 2.8 is quite often too shallow for portraits. I wonder how she can use 1.2 and have so much in focus.
Thanks in advance for explaining it...LOL
|
|
|
|
04/29/2007 12:24:28 AM · #2 |
Depends on how close you are to your subject, and where you set your focus. If they are further away from you, and you don't have to be at or near minimal focal distance, you can get a lot more in focus. Then it's just a matter of cropping. However, from experience with a 50mm F/1.7, getting in close and opening your aperature gives you extremely little DOF. You can use that for artistic vision, of course, but it's deadly difficult to get your focus dead on with children, animals, or anything that moves quickly.
The 85mm, of course, gives you the benefit of being farther away from your subject *anyway*, and gives you more room to work with DOF, since you won't have to be at or near minimal focal distance.
Message edited by author 2007-04-29 00:25:05. |
|
|
|
04/29/2007 12:29:16 AM · #3 |
So you think she probably crops her photos then? That would make more sense. I usually get in pretty close and don't crop often.
If you look at her children's photos, many of them are close ups. I guess she not necessarily has her lens wide open for them.
Maybe I should just try moving back some! |
|
|
|
04/29/2007 12:29:26 AM · #4 |
I browsed through her portfolio and there were only a few shots that looked like they were shot wide open.
edit: spelling
Message edited by author 2007-04-29 00:32:14. |
|
|
|
04/29/2007 12:31:58 AM · #5 |
| On the otherhand I have a friend who loves his 50/1.2, he uses a 4x and a 8x nd filter to be able to shoot wide open all the time :D |
|
|
|
04/29/2007 12:47:08 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by JRalston:
So you think she probably crops her photos then? That would make more sense. I usually get in pretty close and don't crop often.
If you look at her children's photos, many of them are close ups. I guess she not necessarily has her lens wide open for them.
Maybe I should just try moving back some! |
haha.. yah, I forgot to add the most important bit.. that I figured she probably doesn't shoot wide open for the most part. (lack of sharpness being another reason not to).
For child portraits, I love to stay between f/3.5 and f/5.6 myself.
P.S. (No, I don't actually think she does a lot of cropping, only that you *can* if you choose to shoot wide open, it is one way to get a deeper DOF.)
Message edited by author 2007-04-29 00:48:12. |
|
|
|
04/29/2007 01:31:04 AM · #7 |
Too shallow for portraits at 2.8? on a 1/6 crop camera that's the same as F4 on a FF/film body - so no, it's no too shallow, far from it!
Here is an 85 1.8 at 1.8 portrait - face, eyes are fine. Hair at the back of her neck is OOF, and the BG is quite not-distracting.
I've seen the 85 1.2 used for a very similar effect - get the ugly distracting background out of the way, out of the viewer's mind.
This one is also at 1.8 - the guitar neck and BG are OOF nicely - his face is sharp. Perfect. Could even be a bit shallower.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2007 01:40:57 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
haha.. yah, I forgot to add the most important bit.. that I figured she probably doesn't shoot wide open for the most part. (lack of sharpness being another reason not to).
For child portraits, I love to stay between f/3.5 and f/5.6 myself.
P.S. (No, I don't actually think she does a lot of cropping, only that you *can* if you choose to shoot wide open, it is one way to get a deeper DOF.) |
Get Canon L glass. Sharp wide open. Sharper stopped down of course, but wide open is plenty sharp. The 85 1.2 is a $1900 lens! It's sharp, trust me on that!
All three at 2.8, wide open, with a tamron lens (28-75) - modeling lights, no flash, and the baby was moving (not fast though).
I shoot wide open a lot, and with a quality lens sharpness is not an issue.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2007 01:44:47 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by Artyste:
haha.. yah, I forgot to add the most important bit.. that I figured she probably doesn't shoot wide open for the most part. (lack of sharpness being another reason not to).
For child portraits, I love to stay between f/3.5 and f/5.6 myself.
P.S. (No, I don't actually think she does a lot of cropping, only that you *can* if you choose to shoot wide open, it is one way to get a deeper DOF.) |
Get Canon L glass. Sharp wide open. Sharper stopped down of course, but wide open is plenty sharp. The 85 1.2 is a $1900 lens! It's sharp, trust me on that!
All three at 2.8, wide open, with a tamron lens (28-75) - modeling lights, no flash, and the baby was moving (not fast though).
I shoot wide open a lot, and with a quality lens sharpness is not an issue. |
Oh for the love of... |
|
|
|
04/29/2007 02:06:14 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Get Canon L glass. Sharp wide open. Sharper stopped down of course, but wide open is plenty sharp. The 85 1.2 is a $1900 lens! It's sharp, trust me on that!
|
You forget that even the cheapest of kit lenses will look OK when resized to those dimensions.
Infact if we look at centre MTF measurements from photozone we see that two of the most highly spoken about L lenses return the following MTF scores...
Canon 85mm f1.2L wide open returns 1763
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS returns 1746 @ 70mm, 1821 @135mm and 1623 @ 200mm.
On the otherhand the cheaper 3rd party Tokina AF 50-135mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX wallops both of them wide open.
2025 @ 50mm, 2006 @ 85mm and 1848 @ 135mm.
Photozone numbers, (which are derived from Imatest software), show the wide open performance of both these L lenses are softer than the cheaper third party offering.
If wide open performance is important to your needs then there's better and cheaper choices than Canon L going around.
bazz. |
|
|
|
04/29/2007 02:43:19 AM · #11 |
Shot @ 1/90 & f1.4 with a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 -S. Manual Focus, 1974.
Pawn shop $20. With leather case, uv, and metal shade. : P
Numbers are nice, but it is the images that count. The camera has to be rock steady to get everything that a lens can offer. It is nice to have the option to open up when you want to put the attention on the eyes only. The wider apertures allow you to hand hold at lower light when you want to shoot on the move with a subject too, which is very nice for people pics in existing light.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2007 02:51:14 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
Shot @ 1/90 & f1.4 with a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 -S. Manual Focus, 1974.
Pawn shop $20. With leather case, uv, and metal shade. : P
Numbers are nice, but it is the images that count. The camera has to be rock steady to get everything that a lens can offer. It is nice to have the option to open up when you want to put the attention on the eyes only. The wider apertures allow you to hand hold at lower light when you want to shoot on the move with a subject too, which is very nice for people pics in existing light. |
I don't think anyone here was saying you *can't*.. only that it can be difficult. My 50mm f/1.7 is manual focus.. and let me tell you, at f/1.7 in ambient light, it can be a true pain in the ass to get what you *want* in focus, in focus. Not saying it's not possible, and different people will surely get different results, but if those eyes move a fraction of an inch.. whooops! :)
This was taken wide open, @ f/1.7. There are 3 or 4 photos on either side of it where different areas are in focus, but not the eyes. It can be very hit and miss :) |
|
|
|
04/29/2007 05:48:14 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
Numbers are nice, but it is the images that count. |
Yup its the resulting image thats the ultimate judge but MTF numbers are useful for providing scientific data for debunking hearsay.
It's a controlled method of describing the properties and performance of a lens rather than the internet myths that some people tend to keep regurgitating.
Apologies to the OP for taking this off topic.
bazz. |
|
|
|
04/29/2007 05:53:14 AM · #14 |
I have no issues with my threads wandering off-topic :)
Maybe I am just getting too close and that is giving me my way-to-shallow DOF issues with my 2.8. I am usually no more than 4ft away. Maybe I should pull out my 70-200mm 2.8L and practice staying farther away..LOL!
edit: typos
Message edited by author 2007-04-29 05:53:50.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2007 07:34:10 AM · #15 |
| I have read that the 85 f/1.2 does not focus as quickly as the 85/1.8. That, along with the shallow dof, makes the "take home rate" small. All that being said, I would still love to try it out. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/31/2025 07:04:11 PM EDT.
