Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

85 vs 135 Prime

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

  • Grug
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ahalpert
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • morgan_moore
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Noel Evans
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ahalpert
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Run&Gun
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • morgan_moore
    replied
    sorry - .12 yep not very much

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

    quite lack lustre.

    Leave a comment:


  • ahalpert
    replied
    That's .12x for the 85gm, not 1.2

    Leave a comment:


  • morgan_moore
    replied
    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,

    im still thinking 100mm marcro

    a quick check
    FE 85mm F1.4 GM magnification is 1.2 (EDIT CORRECTION 0.12)
    70200 and 135 magnification is .25

    a big difference? i think so.

    my 24-105 kitlens focusses at about 2in - amazing.
    Last edited by morgan_moore; 10-06-2021, 10:51 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • cyvideo
    replied
    Originally posted by Grug View Post
    That said, since you already have a 70-200mm (which covers most telephoto needs anyway. I'd probably opt for the 85mm, becuase you'd use it more.
    +1. That said I would agree with the comment re the 85 if you already have the 70-200 in the arsenal.

    Chris Young

    Leave a comment:


  • Grug
    replied
    On full-frame sensors like the Fx6 and A7Siii I think both are pretty essential honestly. On S35mm, 85mm will get you far enough for a lot of things, but it doesn't give you a tonne of compression on the larger format (for when you need to squish objects together in your frame.

    That said, since you already have a 70-200mm (which covers most telephoto needs anyway. I'd probably opt for the 85mm, becuase you'd use it more.

    Leave a comment:


  • cyvideo
    replied
    Over the years my inclination has been to go the 85-90mm length for the following reasons. With 85mm primes, you’re still going to be close enough to your subject so that communication is easy. You’ll also find that this 85-90mm focal length will allow you to create a mixture of three-quarter length, head, and shoulder shots, and headshots more easily in limited spaces. It’s this versatility that makes 85mm primes lenses perfect for human portrait size images moving or still. On top of this flexibility, I also find that levels of compression also help create very flattering facial features, 135mm tends to flatten facial images too much for my liking. Apart from anything else in most cases given equivalent maximum apertures on both lengths, the 85-90mm lenses are usually smaller and lighter. Another if more minor consideration if using on a gimble.

    Chris Young

    Leave a comment:


  • Run&Gun
    replied
    Josh, if you land on going 135 and autofocus capabilities aren’t required, maybe sweet talk Charles and see what he wants for his 135, if he really wants to sell it. The Sigma Cine Primes are beautiful. If I was buying from scratch today, it would be a tough decision between the Canon CN-E Primes and the Sigma Cine Primes.

    Leave a comment:


  • morgan_moore
    replied
    I was thinking about this. Full frame right?

    135 holds you back, and is a little more formal or classic for an interview, 85 you will be in getting a little too close or intimate.

    too close? intimage? formal?

    so Id be doing a ceo with a 135
    and
    a love scene drama with an 85

    apart from I like a spanner in the works and do the ceo with the 85

    Its a funny spot.. I have 85/2 and 135/2.8 nikkors and 135/2 nikkor (beaten to shreds) and use none of them.

    With my manual primes a big thing is the (lack of) minimum focus distance of these lenses - I dont know the ones you are considering. but my primes dont go close enough.

    I have a 70mm 3.5 macro, which while a little short is a more favorite lens than my 85 or 135

    What to buy.. ? well Id be looking for close focus as a big prioriy and that might be a 100mm macro, which might do all work no picked up by a 70-200.

    Last edited by morgan_moore; 10-04-2021, 06:13 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ahalpert
    replied
    85 may not be that different from 50 in terms of frame size/reach, but I think that the perspective is noticeably different when you're framing closeups. Which makes 85 great for closeups from shorter distances and when you don't want the further flattening of an even longer lens

    Why not experiment by locking your 70-200 at either of those 2 focal lengths during an actual shoot and seeing what you can do with it? (Even if you end up zooming to a different focal length for the actual take.) I agree with what some have said about FOV trumping other considerations if you're often constrained for space or, conversely, need more reach.

    In terms of DOF, I often find that f/2.8 is sufficiently shallow for me with full-frame at 135mm+. Or even too shallow. Whereas at 85, 1.4 can be very useful, especially when the subject is close to a background surface.

    I sort of thought that the 24, 35, 50, 85 set was about typical coverage needs (like a 24-70 for walkaround).

    Supposedly Sony is coming out with a GM 85 1.2 at the end of next year or beginning of 2023. You could get the 135 now, which is supposed to have badass autofocus. And get the new 85 when it comes out

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X