Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L vs. Canon 85mm f/1.2 L

[Colin Southern]

Originally Posted by phuongnlh

Hi Colin,

Finally i fot my 70-200f2.8 IS ( i took the UW12) since i could not wait for UX.
This motor is same as my other 70-200f2.8 IS which i borred from friend: it sounds when focus, even not so noise
So i will do more photo and ask you for experience.

Regards,

Phuong

Hi Phuong,

Congratulations on the safe delivery of your new "baby"

I wouldn't give a 2nd thought to it being a UW12 - I doubt that there would have been any changes between a Dec 08 and a 09 model.

The noise you mention with be the IS unit (which you can switch off to verify that the sound goes away). It's completely normal (in fact, something would be seriously wrong if you DIDN'T hear any noise!).

Enjoy

[phuongnlh]

Thanks Colin,
Yes, It should not be a comparision betwen Dec 08 or 09 since it was branch news.
And my lovely 2nd child, a sweet daughter has been born on Jul 2nd 2009 also.
So I am a father and 3 women in my family

So i will find more the IS feature with normal noise ( I guess without IS this lens is too too heavy).

This is a photo i have shot this morning, a son of my friend.
http://www.xomnhiepanh.com/gallery.p...view&id=115121

Cheers,

Phuong

[Blazing fire]

I don't know if this has been raised, nethier am I certain this is true. I heard that the 85mm f/1.2 is terribly slow at AF and if you're thinking of manual focusing, it sucks. It uses some kind of indirect system to overide AF.

[Colin Southern]

Originally Posted by Blazing fire

I don't know if this has been raised, nethier am I certain this is true. I heard that the 85mm f/1.2 is terribly slow at AF and if you're thinking of manual focusing, it sucks. It uses some kind of indirect system to overide AF.

I worried about the focusing speed aspect too - but it turned out not to be as big a problem as others might have led me to believe.

If someone is going to stand at a skeet shoot range - yell PULL - and expect to focus on a small disk hurtling across the sky then they're going to be disappointed; but at the end of the day it's a high-end portrait lens - and for that the focusing speed is perfectly adequate. It's almost as if the focusing mechanism is "geared down" for greater precision; at F1.2 there is VERY little room for focusing error - and the elements appear to have to move a long way with this lens.

So yes - if the lens is doing a full seek then it might take a second - but if someone is taking a number of shots at much the same focus distance then things don't have to move very far and it focuses in the blink of an eye.

The FTM (Full Time Manual) focus IS electronic, which takes a little getting used to - then again - there's no way anyone would be able to correctly focus a lens like this at F1.2 if it were mechanically linked; it would be like trying to drive a car around an obstacle course using a stearing wheel that only moved 2 inches from lock to lock

[phuongnlh]

Hi Colin,
Since an overtime bonus came then i decided to get a 85 f1.2 also. It arrived last week ux08 . And you are absolutely right at the propose of lens usage. 85f1.2 is really sharp even i shot at f10 with ex580 to avoid mm dof, and some other via 1.2 is extremly mm dof. Only an eye is focused. Will do more and share with you for my exeperience. I am planning for other european round trip to visit my family then 16-35 will be collected end of this year when bonus is paid. Any advise for that pro landscape lens.
Cheers,
Phuong

[Colin Southern]

Originally Posted by phuongnlh

Hi Colin,
Since an overtime bonus came then i decided to get a 85 f1.2 also. It arrived last week ux08 . And you are absolutely right at the propose of lens usage. 85f1.2 is really sharp even i shot at f10 with ex580 to avoid mm dof, and some other via 1.2 is extremly mm dof. Only an eye is focused. Will do more and share with you for my exeperience. I am planning for other european round trip to visit my family then 16-35 will be collected end of this year when bonus is paid. Any advise for that pro landscape lens.
Cheers,
Phuong

Hi Phuong,

Sounds like your getting a great collection there

With regards to the 16-35; Great lens! Depending on what you want to do with it, if it's landscape, then you'll almost certainly benefit from some filters.

Just let me know if you need some specific recommendations. I use Singh-Ray filters mostly - you can also read up on some of my stories using them on their blog if your interested.

[phuongnlh]

Hi Colin,

Just do some quick shots in this afternoon and evening. The 85f1.2 made me a lot of impression in portrait, It is true to call "king of static portrait". But it will take time to learn how to shot via 1.2 with several mm DOF.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/phuongn...47694/sizes/l/

Well, I will look at your advise on 16-35 with filter recomendation immediately and come back to you. Of course due to the limitation budget then it will be with me end of this year, maybe early .

It is not colleation propose, it is an idea to have all lens for all situation in our hobby photography that won't miss any moment.

But in general for those who prefer this tpoic, the 70-200 f2.8 IS is still versatile in walkaround situation and lovely lowepro toploader pro 75 aw.

Cheers and regards from Hanoi, Vietnam.

Phuong

[Colin Southern]

Hi Phuong,

Great to see that your getting some good results - keep it up Don't forget to enter some of them in our mini or monthly challenges that we have running!

[phuongnlh]

Hi Colin,

Surely but what do you mean the monthly or midi contribution.
Well, i start learning some New Zeland products already .

Cheers and nice weekend,

Phuong

[Jim B.]

Hi Phoung,
Welcome to CiC.If you check the Nature forum you will see mini-challenges.The monthly challenge is in the People forum.
Regards,
Jim

[I Simonius]

A bit late to the party but just thought I'd chime in with my eperiences: I had the 85 f1.2L mk2 :

if I were someone who took a lot of portraits then I would have kept this lens , but i don't. However those I took made it clear that no other lens has anything like the smooth bokeh of this lens. You don't need to be at f1.2 to get it either. The drawback is that is is a very slow focussing lens compared to all others but no others produce the same effect until you get to f5.6 or so when things even out. I also had the 85 1.8 and I still think you can tell the differences. Either way I would put it far ahead in terms of preference to the zooms mentioned ( but I always did prefer primes so Im abit biased)

having said that if I were to buy a portrait lens now it would be the 135L as it is as good IMO as the 85 in every respect except for the ultra-bokeh of the 1.2 lens but much easier to use and for me, a prefereable FL for portraits

[Colin Southern]

Originally Posted by I Simonius

The drawback is that is is a very slow focussing lens compared to all others

I thought about this a lot an came to the conclusion that it almost HAS to be - to get the precision required for accurate focusing at F1.2 (almost as if the AF is "geared down") - that's almost certainly why it doesn't have a manual FTM focus (we wouldn't be able to adjust it mechanically with enough precision).

[I Simonius]

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

I thought about this a lot an came to the conclusion that it almost HAS to be - to get the precision required for accurate focusing at F1.2 (almost as if the AF is "geared down") - that's almost certainly why it doesn't have a manual FTM focus (we wouldn't be able to adjust it mechanically with enough precision).

No argument from me there. The answer I found was to take lots of shots, not try to just get one right

[phuongnlh]

Yes, taking more shots while 70-200f2.8 IS is ready.

[Colin Southern]

Originally Posted by phuongnlh

Yes, taking more shots while 70-200f2.8 IS is ready.

Photo not showing here either I'm afraid - perhaps facebook don't allow direct linking?

[Alis]

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

Photo not showing here either I'm afraid - perhaps facebook don't allow direct linking?

You are right, I could see it only when I was logged in to Facebook. But Facebook provides another direct link that probably will work. It is provided under the pictures usually.

By the way, Colin, why are you not on Facebook? Your friend Joe McNally is! And a lot of other professional photographers, who promote their pictures on FB quite aggressively...

[Colin Southern]

Originally Posted by Alis

By the way, Colin, why are you not on Facebook?

I am

(and maaaaan I hate this 10 character per post minimim!)

[Alis]

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

(and maaaaan I hate this 10 character per post minimim!)

You could have just said " Yes, I am on Facebook"

[Colin Southern]

Originally Posted by Alis

You could have just said " Yes, I am on Facebook"

But that would have been bad English! (you didn't ask if I was on Facebook ... you aked why I wasn't )