Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
The EF 85mm f1.2 L USM has slow AF.
Posts: 3,125
Threads: 34
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
21
08-10-2016, 09:15 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-10-2016, 09:16 AM by Rover.)
Quote:The EF 85mm f1.2 L USM has slow AF.
I think for most intents and purposes the Sigma 85/1.4 is fine. I wanted that lens for many years but never got around to buying it, and then, the Tamron 85/1.8 appeared. Maybe I'll get that one instead. Oddly enough the 85L was never appealing to me - it could be the sticker shock that has become a permanent turn-off (that said, I did splurge for the 24L... go figure).
Posts: 257
Threads: 14
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation:
1
Would EF 85mm f1.8 USM be considered "ultra fast"? Or EF 100mm USM f2? They seem like they would have enough isolation, Maybe I only say that because I haven't had the privilege of using anything faster.
Posts: 8,004
Threads: 1,851
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
49
I'd say ultra-fast means f/1.4 and faster.
I'd still agree that a 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2 is "often" fast enough.
Posts: 1,597
Threads: 22
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
8
Quote:I had the same problem with the 70-200/2.8L IS that I have, very often I was forced to shoot at wider apertures due to poor light, and ended up with not enough DOF for real life shots (especially theatre - thankfully I don't do that one anymore). Say, I had to use f/3.5-4 to eke out decent shutter speed, where f/6.3-8 would be a minimum requirement for getting more than a part of one actor's face in focus. And no, it was not always possible to get closer and use the 16-35 instead (apart from the fact that I'd be getting a very different perspective - disjointed, for a lack of a better word).
I have one f/1.4 lens but I'm mostly using it in very lousy light. Ironically enough, it's the least accurate of my lenses AF-wise in such conditions - it incurs a noticeably higher degree of OOF shots (including completely blurred ones) where the 16-35/4 just gets there (albeit with some struggle at times). The lens in question... 24/1.4 L II. By the way, if anyone has had the same experience as me, please tell me - I'm eager to know if something is wrong with my copy, or it's a common trait of this model... (but no, I'm not ready to put it on the chopping block - when it is in the right mood, it's making wonderful shots).
I own a 2 4 F/1.4L II - no problems with focusing, not on any body I used with it (40D, 5D, 5D II).
HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
Posts: 1,597
Threads: 22
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
8
Quote:Might be too late to join the discussion already, but I guess I can share my story. As for portrait lenses, I'm really a fan of the fast glass even if I don't use it at f1.2 or 1.4 all that often. I tried different lenses starting from the "reasonable" 1.8 primes, then eventually going for the pro f2.8 zooms, some macro 100mm in between, then migrating finally to fast primes ...and selling the other lenses to finance it  A rather expensive way to find out what I really like, granted, but it's just that with the fast lenses, usually at the top of the ladder, I found better drawing, colour, contrast. The wider aperture, wide-open bokeh and limited DOF was a bonus.
However, that is a subjective choice and yours might be different. It's not always a rule that a (new ) fast lens has to be better than the old - it all depends on your needs. For me the Canon 85L 1.2 is so much better then either the f1.8 or the macro 100L (slow AF), that I had to take the plunge
Back in my Nikon days I enjoyed a lot the 85mm 1.4D, a much nicer rendition at wide open till f4 then the newer 85 1.4G lens - but that is my own preference, for a classic look where the "center" is reasonably sharp and the outer part of the frame goes away in a nice blur Then maybe that's also why I'm so tempted to try the Fuji X, despite it's limitations, but drawn into it becouse of the colour and overall rendering of the image with the Fuji primes (35mm and 56mm). Well just my 2c
I completely agree with you on the fast Canon glass. It just renders way better at any aperture, for me anyway. Actually, all L glass I have used does so.
As to going with system cameras: you ought to try a Metabones Ultra Speed adapter with your Canon glass - you'll be amazed, I can assure you .
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
Posts: 257
Threads: 14
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation:
1
For a long time I've thought the only really compelling reason to get a MILC was to be able to use a speed booster and experience the thrill of ultra fast lenses. But the developement doesn't seem to be looking at this the same way. Now everyone wants to get excited about making FF MILC's. But (and I'm like Canon) what is the point of developing a camera that does the same thing as a much cheaper canon FF camera can do?
So as far as I know the Metabones don't do the edges that well, but actually I hope Canon sticks with APS-C for the sake of the speed booster...and their nifty little 28mm Macro!
Posts: 8,004
Threads: 1,851
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
49
08-13-2016, 02:10 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-13-2016, 02:16 AM by Klaus.)
Well, the point is that there is no mirror - thus no mirror slap, a more accurate AF, a more accurate exposure and immediate histogram feedback. Or in other words - what is the point of a DSLR (yes, brightcolors - you don't like EVFs)? DSLRs are a dated concept and we are currently living in the transition period.
If a MILC is too small ... well, just add a vertical grip.
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
Quote:If you need to decide between f/1.4 or f/1.8, I'd say the aperture alone should not be the decision to make, but mostly it's a useless discussion. Wide open lenses need more accuracy for focusing, but also deliver more light for the focusing unit. Even if you don't take pictures with a wide open lens, you benefit for the more simple definition of sharp areas.
And in turns of DoF, yet another useless discussion. DoF gives you no room of sharpness, it's room of increasing less blur, but maximum sharpness exists still only in a shallow area.
If you have a wide open lens, you can use more bokeh, if you have no wide open lens, forget nicely blurred background. That doesn't mean you don't get great portraits.
It is a misconception that for PD AF, bigger apertures "deliver more light to the focussing unit". If your PD AF point is a f5.6 point. an f4 lens gives the same amount of light to it as a f1,.4 lens. Think of the AF point as having its very own aperture, only seeing that very central part of the lens. If it is an extra sensitive f2.8 AF point, f2.8 gives it the same amount of light as f1.2.
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
Quote:Well, the point is that there is no mirror - thus no mirror slap, a more accurate AF, a more accurate exposure and immediate histogram feedback. Or in other words - what is the point of a DSLR (yes, brightcolors - you don't like EVFs)? DSLRs are a dated concept and we are currently living in the transition period.
If a MILC is too small ... well, just add a vertical grip.
Reall tests show that select DSLRs (Canon's 70D for instance) can focus more accurately with PD AF than mirrorless with CD AF. It does depend on the lens used (some lenses with PD AF are just inherently "crude").
The funny thing: many mirrorless cameras replaced a mirror slap with a more problematic shutter slap. The irony!
And yes, I do not like EVFs. With very good reason.
|
