I absolutely love this lens. Of course I don't manually focus and I rarely use it wide open. But lord what it can do...
I absolutely love this lens. Of course I don't manually focus and I rarely use it wide open. But lord what it can do...
Ah, Kirk, you been around forums enough to know the answer.Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings
"Sports Photography" -> Takes pics of their kids soccer games
"Wildlife Photography" -> Goes on field trips with their kids to the zoo. And shoots the cat. This, of course, requires a minimum of 20 MP and lightening fast AF, similar in requirements to shooting children around the house.
"Architecture Photography" -> Takes pics of landmark buildings while on vacation. Or if they hard-core pro's, takes pics of houses for their wife, the real-estate agent.
Regarding the Architecture photographer with the 5D MKII, why doesn't he just use live view? works form me every time.
Regarding selling your L glass, don't. If the AF on the 85L is too slow for you, can you imagine slow it's like to focus, close down the lens, pull the darkslide, then take a shot? most likely by the time you open the shutter your subject has moved.
As Frank points out, there are many different formats that will achieve the same "look" you may or may not be after. What is most important is your shooting style and what you will use it for. Just keep in mind that a 4x5 or 8x10 view camera is a whole different animal than a DSLR...
If LF does not fit the bill and you want something faster, I might consider a 6x7 or 6x9 medium format camera as a bit of a compromise. A lot of them can be had for very cheap compared to the equipment you've been buying, so it wouldn't be a huge investment if you didn't like it. I have an RZ67 that I find amazingly easy to focus (without an improved focusing screen) that I can still get shallow DOF with if necessary. With a good scan the results would generally still be better than your DSLR, only through a new and different way of working.
That's why Canons own 85% of the pro market because Nikons are better. Yeah right.
Greg Lockrey
Wealth is a state of mind.
Money is just a tool.
Happiness is pedaling +25mph on a smooth road.
If you go look at something like DOFMaster, you'll discover (to compare extreme examples) that a 450mm f/11 lens on 8x10 has less depth of field and therefore more selective focus effect than the 85/1.2 on your 5D. Part of the reason is that on an 8x10, a full-face portrait is dang near in the macro range at about 1:2.
Others are right that focusing a 1.2 lens on a 5D is going to really challenge the camera. I find that the autofocus system rocks back and forth until it's within tolerance, and the edges of that tolerance are never at absolutely precise focus. Even at f/1.8, the depth of field covers the error, and my 85/1.8 does focus exactly even on my old 10D.
My own manual focus technique on my 5D is the same as with a view camera: I move the focus control back and forth to approximately the same blurriness on either side of focused, and the split the difference on the control. My pictures seem to be in focus.
Focusing large format isn't less challenging, however. And keeping the subject from moving is yet another challenge. The rangefinders on something like a Graphic wouldn't be any more accurate for any lens used wider than about f/5.6, and that's if everything is perfectly adjusted.
If you want to dip a toe partway, consider this: Find an older Pentax 645--those bodies are being thrown away for pennies these days. Then, find a Carl Zeiss Jena MC-Sonnar 180/2.8 in the Pentacon Six mount. Finally, get an adapter to mount Pentacon Six lenses on the Pentax ($35 on ebay right now). I see an old 645 with a Buy It Now price of $79 right now, and an insert is only $50. I saw a reasonably late multicoated CZJ Sonnar being sold by the very reputable "cupog" on ebay that was priced at $210 and went unsold for lack of a bid about a week ago. Find it and send him a message. For $374 you could have a world class medium-telephoto portrait lens mounted on a very good medium-format camera. No, it's not large format, but a lens like that for a battered old Speed Graphic will cost this much. At f/2.8, you'll get the 3D effect, and the Sonnar will give you outstanding underlying sharpness plus a beautiful soft rendering of the out-of-focus areas that the Canon lens can only approach.
Rick "then, you can adapt the Sonnar to your Canon and have even more fun" Denney
This thread is brilliant.
Architectural photographers who make money use Hasselblad digital.
Professional photographers who need to work fast on a budget use Canon 1D/5D or Nikon Dx series.
Large format enthusiasts with nothing better to do bitch Nikon vs Canon.
Canon L lenses are for superior quality and higher price tag. They are intended for pro's who want the highest standards. The same is said for Large Format and Medium Format lenses. There is a 'holy grail' lens for every bargain lens, but you won't necessarily see a better picture with it.
I recommend you find any 5x4 camera and try it, and then decide if you want the fuss of film. Once you decide yes, try everything you can until something fits.
Well, as of now, my 85L is on a 5D body. I have a 1n that I shoot with occasionally and the af is a little better. I have owned/used other 1 series bodies with the 85L and it just doesn't seem to fit me I guess. You have to through away so many just to get one that is sharp.
Nearly everytime I look through the viewfinder, or at least that is what they call it, it looks out of focus. I know, the diopeter. I hate that think. God, what an awful idea. It gets bumped all the time. Anyways, this lens is just not sharp to me. I have set it up on the tripod and fiddled with things and it shouldn't be this hard to take a picture, esp. with a camera that literally does everything for you. Hell, if I take it out of M, and stick it in on of the other modes that literally does take the picture for you, it is still back to the AF issue.
Oh, I forgot to mention, I only use the center AF point to focus, the others are pretty much useless. I focus and recompose.
I might go the route rdenney suggested. Go halfway in right now. I will be moving in a bit and it would be a little easier transporting a medium format camera versus a large. However, I am currently the high bidder on ebay on a camera right now. We shall see how that goes.
Oh, and as far as this 85L goes, I think I am done with it. This was like a therapy session for me.Haha. I'm going to see if someone wants it or wants a trade. I think im ready to say goodbye to her.
Shaun, I'm considering the same thing. I am disgusted at the picture quality of my 24-105mm f/4L, and am seriously considering selling it and going full prime.
But at the same time, I'm also disgusted at the sub-par results I get from digital, and the spray-and-pray mentality of shooting it forces upon me. Out of the top 10 images I've produced in the past ten years, I think 4 are MF film, 3 35mm film, 3 dSLR - and I've shot an order of a magnitude more frames with digital. My 30-year-old Mamiya C220 produces superior results than anything but stitched and exposure blended panoramas out of a dSLR.
It's gotten to the point that I'm seriously considering selling my dSLR bodies, and expanding my Mamiya C220 lens selection and/or acquiring a 4x5 film camera.
On why one would use AF for architecture: Live View AF is invaluable when shooting static subjects from tripod - much more accurate than MF with tiny dSLR viewfinders, and probably more accurate than "normal" AF as it uses sensor information.
If you focus and recompose at f/1.8, you're likely to throw the focus off. The reason for that is that the focus plane is a(n almost) flat disc, instead of a surface of a sphere. Here's a nice article explaining it better than I could.
So before throwing away the lens, maybe it's worthwhile to test whether the lens is sharp without recomposing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks