Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

85 vs 135 Prime

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by morgan_moore View Post
    sorry - .12 yep not very much

    I think that also on the canon 85 1.2 if I rembmember correctly

    quite lack lustre.
    I have three Canon 85mm’ s. The 85/1.8, 85/1.2 and CN-E 85/1.3(based heavily on the 1.2 still lens). The 1.8 is a really fun lens, because it’s small, light weight and focuses much closer (and faster) than the 1.2. It could actually be a pretty decent street photography lens.

    Comment


      #17
      I love close focus as much as the next man, but sometimes it seems like you either need it or you dont. If you're primarily shooting portraiture, do you really need to get that close? I'd argue not. But if you're shooting details and product, then yeah the sky's the limit. Plus he already has a 100 macro
      www.VideoAbe.com

      "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant." -Harvey

      Comment


        #18
        Considering I pull out the 85mm a lot, that's where I obviously put my money and for your purposes I think it would get in the rotation far more often. On the 70-200mm where do you most often land? Somewhere close to 70mm and somewhere else I'd imagine. For me 135mm sits in a bit of a dead zone anyway. On a 70-200, I am either at 200mm or around 150mm.
        w: Noel Evans TV

        e: noel@noelevans.tv
        p: +61 (0) 408 455 374

        Comment


          #19
          Run - I agree the 1.2 is pointlessly large and heavy and over priced - (canon) as is the nikon 85 1.4 which I owned for a bit

          1.2 lenses are for dentists

          Alapert - my personal experience is hitting the minimum a lot with these primes, my 85 cant do a 'good tight head' being a face with 1in of haircut and 2in below the jaw and neither canon the canon 1.2 to my memory.

          70-200 I always use at 200 unless I need to zoom out for reasons of space. 70-200 are 'royal visit' lenses

          "Plus he already has a 100 macro" then why waste money on something new?

          To be honest I get it. Ive been thinking about a 'new' medium tele as the macro can be a bit to factual and Id prefer a 2 .. afaik there is not an obvious solution apart from picking good subjects with the 100 - good subject? no one cares about the bokey or razor thin dof.

          ==

          edit

          there is another shot.. which is a medium at 1.2 with a bit of a dirty foreground. this almost looks like a tilt and sh_it lens.

          only the 85 can really do it.. so owning an 100m Id buy and 85 but rarely use it.

          I shot a lot of this with a hand whacked mamiya 85 MF lens for proper bad flare and DOF
          from about 19s https://vimeo.com/222334139/6c16957422

          of course one could consider and actual tilt and sh_it lens.. or an MF lens with a zorkendorfer adapter!
          Attached Files
          Last edited by morgan_moore; 10-06-2021, 09:02 PM.
          http://www.sammorganmoore.com View my feature Film

          Comment


            #20
            That stuff looks very pretty, Sam. I need to get my lens whacking technique down. Never mastered it or done it much. I do think that amateurs dancing in slow motion doesn't come off that well. I'm considering going all regular speed for wedding dancing for that reason.

            Took me a while to find the specs on your 85mm nikkor. .13 magnification. If that's not enough for you, then .12 certainly isn't. But the choker you're describing is a pretty tight shot. Obviously closer focus is always a nice option to have and I'd be lying if I said it wasn't always a consideration.

            Btw my 50 gm 1.2 is amazing at 1.2. Of course, it's a bit wider so the shallower DOF is quite nice because I don't feel like I'm getting too thin there, especially with wide shots. 85mm at 1.2? Quite possibly. But it could be useful for when the background is close or if you're doing a wider shot.

            but what sealed me on the lens was that it's built better than the other sony 50s. Better AF, prettier rendering, excellent wide open. Last I checked, I'm not a dentist. Wedding photogs are all about 85 1.2, but of course stills is different.

            I think 70-200s are great because you might have to cover a large distance to zoom With your feet to make that frame size change. But if he's talking interviews, it's moot
            www.VideoAbe.com

            "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant." -Harvey

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by morgan_moore View Post
              I think it is most important to consider minimum focus distance. It might not matter now (n close focus af land) but some of my 80-200 are very poor,
              This is actually a huge issue that no one talks about with the jump from S35mm to Full-Frame. On S35mm, you always had great close focus abilities on a 50mm (which is a focal length most of us use a lot). And that made a lot of insert-type shots easy (a mild telephoto lens + good close focus ability).

              Now (with full frame) we're having to use 85mm for the same shots, and the dodgy close-focus means, you have to drop in diopters regularly to get shots that used to be quick and easy.
              DREAMSMITHS | SHOWREEL | INSTAGRAM
              www.dreamsmiths.com.au

              Comment

              Working...
              X