10-09-2010, 01:51 AM
[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1286462501' post='3547']
Genotypewr:
I´ve been searching for such a comparison for a long time! Thanks a lot, indeed!!
Please could you tell me a few more things?
1) Is the depth of field visibly shallower with 1.2 (compared to f1.4) when shooting real life objects? Like lets say the whole person from 10 metres?
2) How about the focus speed - is the Nikon 85G/1.4 faster than Canon 85/1.2 ?
3) I know what this lenses are meant for, but still: How about the tracking capabilities? Can you keep in focus lets say walking person towards you at f1.4 ?
4) How about the manual focus - is the 85G focus ring easier to operate than the strange, "eletric" Canon focus ring?
5) I add my request to the line of the others ;-) - please could you show us the Canon vs. Nikon 85mm comparsion both shot at f1.4 ? I mean just the center a border area, that´s all...
[/quote]
Glad you found it useful <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
To answer your questions...
1. Depends on who's looking. If it's anyone interested in shallow DOF, yes, they will most probably notice it. But to any untraind eye, it wouldn't make a difference between 85 1.2 vs. 1.4 or vs. a 18-55 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
2 & 3. AF speed and tracking - While the 85L feels slower than most lenses, it's fast enough for tracking action like I have done here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewri.../capoeira/
I shoot a lot of action and I can't say I have missed a shot because of the 85L's AF.
4. Focus ring - To anyone who uses mostly the standard mechanical type focusing rings, the 85L's focus-by-wire focusing ring needs a bit of getting used to because it's very sensitive to touch. But some manufacturers like Olympus also have a lot of focus-by-wire lenses (e.g. ZD 150 f/2, etc.) and I guess their users won't find it all that odd. At the end of the day, it's not a problem because I enjoy manual focusing with the 85L a lot, but it just needs getting used to.
5. [email protected] vs. 1.4 - If you're wondering about sharpness, it's likely that the 85L will be sharper than the 85G in the corners (it already has less coma in the corners and is sharper in the center), but even with f/1.2 vs. f/1.4, you're not going to notice these differences when doing actual shots. The 85 1.2's special because all other 85s are f/1.4s (e.g. Carl Zeiss ZF/ZE, Nikon G, Nikon D, Sony ZA, Leica R, Contax, Pentax FA*, Sigma, Samyang/Bower/Vivitar). The image that a 85 1.2 creates at f/1.2 is a lot more important and will show on all images than any insignificant differences in IQ (at f/1.4) that you will not see even at 100% when doing photography anyway.
People also don't shoot anything they want sharp at f/1.2-f/1.4 anyway. There are no lenses under 200mm below that you can use below f/2 for frame-wide high-IQ shots.
The reason why I'm reluctant to do that test is because it serves no other purpose than incorrectly satisfying people's egos. Coming from Canon background, I'm tempted to do it too but I when you got a f/1.2 Bugatti, there's no need to race f/1.4 Skylines and Subarus to know your equipment's a winner <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
GTW
Genotypewr:
I´ve been searching for such a comparison for a long time! Thanks a lot, indeed!!
Please could you tell me a few more things?
1) Is the depth of field visibly shallower with 1.2 (compared to f1.4) when shooting real life objects? Like lets say the whole person from 10 metres?
2) How about the focus speed - is the Nikon 85G/1.4 faster than Canon 85/1.2 ?
3) I know what this lenses are meant for, but still: How about the tracking capabilities? Can you keep in focus lets say walking person towards you at f1.4 ?
4) How about the manual focus - is the 85G focus ring easier to operate than the strange, "eletric" Canon focus ring?
5) I add my request to the line of the others ;-) - please could you show us the Canon vs. Nikon 85mm comparsion both shot at f1.4 ? I mean just the center a border area, that´s all...
[/quote]
Glad you found it useful <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />To answer your questions...
1. Depends on who's looking. If it's anyone interested in shallow DOF, yes, they will most probably notice it. But to any untraind eye, it wouldn't make a difference between 85 1.2 vs. 1.4 or vs. a 18-55 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />2 & 3. AF speed and tracking - While the 85L feels slower than most lenses, it's fast enough for tracking action like I have done here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewri.../capoeira/
I shoot a lot of action and I can't say I have missed a shot because of the 85L's AF.
4. Focus ring - To anyone who uses mostly the standard mechanical type focusing rings, the 85L's focus-by-wire focusing ring needs a bit of getting used to because it's very sensitive to touch. But some manufacturers like Olympus also have a lot of focus-by-wire lenses (e.g. ZD 150 f/2, etc.) and I guess their users won't find it all that odd. At the end of the day, it's not a problem because I enjoy manual focusing with the 85L a lot, but it just needs getting used to.
5. [email protected] vs. 1.4 - If you're wondering about sharpness, it's likely that the 85L will be sharper than the 85G in the corners (it already has less coma in the corners and is sharper in the center), but even with f/1.2 vs. f/1.4, you're not going to notice these differences when doing actual shots. The 85 1.2's special because all other 85s are f/1.4s (e.g. Carl Zeiss ZF/ZE, Nikon G, Nikon D, Sony ZA, Leica R, Contax, Pentax FA*, Sigma, Samyang/Bower/Vivitar). The image that a 85 1.2 creates at f/1.2 is a lot more important and will show on all images than any insignificant differences in IQ (at f/1.4) that you will not see even at 100% when doing photography anyway.
People also don't shoot anything they want sharp at f/1.2-f/1.4 anyway. There are no lenses under 200mm below that you can use below f/2 for frame-wide high-IQ shots.
The reason why I'm reluctant to do that test is because it serves no other purpose than incorrectly satisfying people's egos. Coming from Canon background, I'm tempted to do it too but I when you got a f/1.2 Bugatti, there's no need to race f/1.4 Skylines and Subarus to know your equipment's a winner <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />GTW