A friend is going to let me borrow an 85/1.2LII for a couple weeks. Looking forward to playing with it. Any strengths/weaknesses I should be wary of?
I think it will work better on the 1.6x 7D than on a FF...that actually makes it a 136mm/1.2 
This is a fun conversation that I have been part of and read many times. Believe me I get it. Discarded information unchanged focal length. End result: The picture that comes out of a 1.6x body with an 85mm lens on it is nearly (but not completely) indistinguishable from a picture taken by a FF body with a 136mm lens on it. From what I understand, the main remaining difference is DOF (where the 85/1.2 still has an edge over the 135/2). I was under the impression that your preference to the 135/2 was due to the focal length itself being more useful (I still might disagree, but I need to use the lens first). If that was your reasoning, my mention of using a crop-sensored body seems (to me) fairly reasonable.
That is a narrow DOF...
Both straight out of the camera.
Both straight out of the camera.
How is it? I was drooling over that when I was looking to unload this 85/1.2 II.
Nikon didn't announce the D7000 replacement at photokina that I suspected was coming this year. Instead we get the D600 which is a Full frame @ $2000. That is too expensive for me. I've got about $1000 saved and could go a little higher. The D7000 price right now is really tempting. I don't have any sports shooting this season as my son broke his ankle again in the same place. So we took him out of soccer to let it heal for longer before doing sports again. So I'll wait till around christmas for a replacement for my D40.
Well, I'm Linda screwEd because the two classes of camera bodies I need are falling by the wayside, namely the D3X+D300 or 1Ds III+7D. Cheap FX bodies are of no interest to me now. Unfortunately the 6D/D600 class is killing off the market for the 7D/D300 type of performance crop bodies needed for reach with long lenses, or just plain desirable as good solid bodies with high FPS and fast buffers. The D7000 was an exercise in frustration for me. After nearly three months at Nikon for crappy AF, The camera was repaired, but most lenses require MFA and are not completely consistent. The D800e is awhile different nightmare.
I just saw the 6D this morning. 4.5FPS? WTF? If it could keep up with the 7D I would be all over it.
Stereodude
Not really a
The 6D is a turd for the price. I hope Canon sells only a handful of them, has to drop their shorts on the price, and learns a lesson.
But, realistically speaking I don't see Canon learning a lesson even if they have to drop their shorts on the price due to poor sales.
But, realistically speaking I don't see Canon learning a lesson even if they have to drop their shorts on the price due to poor sales.
What does the D600 reach? The D800e only does 4FPS. I'd Rather pay 2X+ that to have 8FPS. At 4FPS the legs are too often out of whack.
Unfortunately they will probably come down in price a but and sell quite well.
Stereodude
Not really a
Well, at $1500 the 6D is a great camera. At $2100 Canon is out of their mind.
DD, There have been some serious compromises made for the impressive, corner-to-corner performance of the 24-70/2.8 II at large apertures. The main flaw is distortion, which ranges from high and semi-moustachy barrel at 24 to unacceptable pincushion at 70. Another thing I don't like is the reverse zoom, which extends at longer focal lengths. The hood is therefore the small type, similar to that of the 24-105 rather than "perfect" hood of the original 24-70.
Thanks for the info, Lunar. And thanks also for the concise post with flawless grammar and spelling!
It really depends on that fickle Android dude. Sometimes he corrects a few typos and other times he goes nuts.
Since you have the 17-55 IS, the best normal zoom choice for your 7D, the 24-70 II would be of limited value.
Since you have the 17-55 IS, the best normal zoom choice for your 7D, the 24-70 II would be of limited value.
Actually, I have the 17-40/4L (no IS). I also have the 10-22, 40/2.8 and the 50/1.4 in that range. The 85/1.2LII is certainly on it's way out, and the next lens up is the 100/2 then the 180 Macro before the Sigma 175-500 crap lens. I think even without anything between the 50 and the 100 I should be fine for now.
What was I thinking? You always do the unconventional and unexpected. :lol:
I love the 17-40/4, that lens is on the camera 90% of the time, and it is very easy to take good pictures with.
I'm beginning to research home studio lighting. I'm new to this and was looking for some pointers to what type of equipment I would need to research for this type of photography work? Things like type of lights, stands, accessories. Are there anything specific I need to know about with regards to synching the lighting kits with my Canon cameras? I'm starting by reading through this article at dpreview, but any others you might know of I'd be happy to read through to learn about this.
Stereodude
Not really a
Very tempting, but with a kid coming I think I would be killed.
How fast/accurate is the auto-focus on that? The 85/1.2 sucked.
It looks like a nice lens. What would you say is the primary usage of the 35/1.4? My first thought was studio/portrait work. Would you say this lens is preferred over and above the 85/1.2 L or the 50/1.2 L?
The 85/1.2 was great for studio work, the images were great. The downsides were that it weighed a ton and the autofocus was off by 5-10x the DoF @ 1.2 when it did eventually settle on what it thought was focus.
If I was doing studio work and had a larger external monitor to use liveview and focus manually it would be one of my favorites.
If I was doing studio work and had a larger external monitor to use liveview and focus manually it would be one of my favorites.
Normally it is for general reportage in low light, or environmental portratits. You are more likely to see a 24-70 of some sort in the studio (for those shooting 135 format) for the normal angles and a 70-200/2.8 as short tele, along with some good fast primes like an 85/1.4 and 135/2. Of course that is a cliche and many pro photographers have bags full of various lenses for specific purposes.
The damned APS-C (DX, EF-S, etc.) format complicates the situation by severely cropping the lenses and requiring shorter lenses that are not proportionally faster.
Although AF on the 85/1.2 is slow, it should be accurate. Something is wrong with the lens or more likely using it on the 7D is not a good idea.
7D should be plenty good for any of the "L" lenses, it's not like they have too many models to test.
In any case, I've unloaded the lens already.
In any case, I've unloaded the lens already.
Thanks for the info. I currently have the 24-70/2.8L that gets used most of the time for event work on my 5D mkII along with my 70-200/2.8L IS on my 1DmkIII. I some times switch out the 70-200 for my 135/2.0L but it's not that frequent. I was considering a wider prime for studio usage. My fiancée is starting up a photo business and I want a proper lens to use that has proper sharpness, contrast, and IQ in a lit environment.
Stereodude
Not really a
What type of studio is this, portrait, products, food, other? Who are the clients, what are they looking for, will there be reps on site, etc. The output expectations often drive the IQ requirements. Amateurs typically go overboard on lenses, but skip on cameras, lighting, backdrops, tethering and other setups that make a business run smoothly and efficiently.
This will be for portrait and products and then eventually other services. The clients are people, kids, babies, and pets. I would hope they are looking for having pictures taken of them in various settings. They will be on site to have their pictures done. Portraits, poses, etc. I'm working on the lighting and we have a backdrop setup already in place. I'm still using my two Canon cameras (1D MKIII, and 5D MKII).
Stereodude
Not really a
Stereodude
Not really a
Did I suggest he get a 24-105L for his application? No, I just asked if he had one.
I don't have the 24-105L. These are the ones I've collected over the past several years:
24-70/2.8L
70-200 IS/2.8L
135/2.0L
50/1.4
100/2.8 (macro)