Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

[Pookie]

5D3 + 85L with Profoto B1 into 1 meter Octa...

Very nice

Thanks...

Another shoot this weekend, used the 200 f/2, 135L, 85L and 24-70 II... still 85 II wins the prize for utility and IQ.

 

[danski0224]

If the dog needs a stand in, let me know

Yes, the images are also nice.

 

[Click]

Another shoot this weekend, used the 200 f/2, 135L, 85L and 24-70 II... still 85 II wins the prize for utility and IQ.

Very nice pictures, Pookie. 8)

 

[Pookie]

If the dog needs a stand in, let me know

Yes, the images are also nice.

Thanks, that is Paco her rescue dog she adopted when he was 13. I'm sure she has no problems finding a stand-in

Another shoot this weekend, used the 200 f/2, 135L, 85L and 24-70 II... still 85 II wins the prize for utility and IQ.

Very nice pictures, Pookie. 8)

Thanks Click...

 

[Dylan777]

Great photos guys.

Although I have Zeiss Batis 85mm on pre-order, I simply do NOT see how it replaces my 85L II. Magical happens every time I mount this lens to my 1Dx.

@ f1.4

 

[gary samples]

5ds 85mm 1.2 @/2.5 just a very fast shot with window light she wasn't having it so I just got one shot

 

[Click]

Great photos guys.

Although I have Zeiss Batis 85mm on pre-order, I simply do NOT see how it replaces my 85L II. Magical happens every time I mount this lens to my 1Dx.

@ f1.4

So cute Lovely portrait.

 

[nc0b]

I have a question about technique/dept of field and aberrations of the 85mm f/1.2L II lens. I will use three recent shots by Gary Samples of his cute little model (daughter?) as examples. The one labeled "here's one more 1DX" has the prime focus on the blouse, or maybe a polka dot or two on the headband. The seriously out of focus white dots have terrible green CA, which I find quite distracting. The adorable one of her blowing a kiss has the eyes, eyelashes and eyebrows tack sharp, the mouth is modestly out of focus and the gloved hand has terrible purple CA. The last one shot with the 5DS shot at f/2.5 has fantastic eyelash resolution, but the mouth is out of the depth of field, and the ears are completely fuzzy.

I am not a pro, and only occasionally get to shoot outdoor portraiture. I lean towards more depth of field, with both the eyes and mouth/teeth sharp, allowing the ears to out of the depth of field, but not blurred. I have include two samples, none even shot with my 6D. The one with the blue tank top was shot with a lowly 40D, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II at 135mm, f/5, 1/400 @ ISO 400. The one with the red jacket vest was with a 60D, 70-200mm F/4 IS at 160mm, f/8, 1/500 @ ISO 200. There is no obvious CA with these zoom lenses, but even with the much narrower apertures, the background is blown out with non-distracting bokeh.

Beyond the CA issues, how many photographers prefer a paper thin depth of field? Certainly the eyes need to be sharp, but little else seems odd to me.

 

[Dylan777]

Great photos guys.

Although I have Zeiss Batis 85mm on pre-order, I simply do NOT see how it replaces my 85L II. Magical happens every time I mount this lens to my 1Dx.

@ f1.4

So cute Lovely portrait.

Thank you Click. Happy July 4th

 

[Dylan777]

5ds 85mm 1.2 @/2.5 just a very fast shot with window light she wasn't having it so I just got one shot

Adorable, Great shot Gary

 

[Dylan777]

@ f1.4 on a sunny day in California

 

[Dylan777]

My oldest, playing in the flowers

Adorable model. Really like your photo

 

[Click]

My oldest, playing in the flowers

Lovely shot.

 

[gary samples]

My oldest, playing in the flowers

wonderful shot

 

[Sporgon]

My oldest, playing in the flowers

wonderful shot

+1
Excellent

 

[eml58]

My oldest, playing in the flowers

That is a lovely Image, you should be justifiable proud of both the Image & the Young Lady.

 

[MonkeyB]

i agree - DoF should probably cover the entire subject. random out-of-focus subject bits are unpleasant to my eyes, but some people love the look.

at f1.2 with an 85mm you'd have to be 26 feet away from the focal point of the subject to get just 2 feet of depth in focus. on the other hand, i suppose there's some merit in isolating an on-axis face in a frame full of bubble blur...

i like pookie's shots. what i wonder is if the 70-200/2.8 can do the same thing? or is there really some sort of lens construction magic going on in the 85/1.2 that makes even its smaller aperture shots unique.

I have a question about technique/dept of field and aberrations of the 85mm f/1.2L II lens. I will use three recent shots by Gary Samples of his cute little model (daughter?) as examples. The one labeled "here's one more 1DX" has the prime focus on the blouse, or maybe a polka dot or two on the headband. The seriously out of focus white dots have terrible green CA, which I find quite distracting. The adorable one of her blowing a kiss has the eyes, eyelashes and eyebrows tack sharp, the mouth is modestly out of focus and the gloved hand has terrible purple CA. The last one shot with the 5DS shot at f/2.5 has fantastic eyelash resolution, but the mouth is out of the depth of field, and the ears are completely fuzzy.

I am not a pro, and only occasionally get to shoot outdoor portraiture. I lean towards more depth of field, with both the eyes and mouth/teeth sharp, allowing the ears to out of the depth of field, but not blurred. I have include two samples, none even shot with my 6D. The one with the blue tank top was shot with a lowly 40D, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II at 135mm, f/5, 1/400 @ ISO 400. The one with the red jacket vest was with a 60D, 70-200mm F/4 IS at 160mm, f/8, 1/500 @ ISO 200. There is no obvious CA with these zoom lenses, but even with the much narrower apertures, the background is blown out with non-distracting bokeh.

Beyond the CA issues, how many photographers prefer a paper thin depth of field? Certainly the eyes need to be sharp, but little else seems odd to me.

 

[Joellll]

A f/1.2 lens on the 5D3 makes shooting in low light such joy.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

My oldest, playing in the flowers

Lovely great shot

 

[gary samples]

i agree - DoF should probably cover the entire subject. random out-of-focus subject bits are unpleasant to my eyes, but some people love the look.

at f1.2 with an 85mm you'd have to be 26 feet away from the focal point of the subject to get just 2 feet of depth in focus. on the other hand, i suppose there's some merit in isolating an on-axis face in a frame full of bubble blur...

i like pookie's shots. what i wonder is if the 70-200/2.8 can do the same thing? or is there really some sort of lens construction magic going on in the 85/1.2 that makes even its smaller aperture shots unique.

I have a question about technique/dept of field and aberrations of the 85mm f/1.2L II lens. I will use three recent shots by Gary Samples of his cute little model (daughter?) as examples. The one labeled "here's one more 1DX" has the prime focus on the blouse, or maybe a polka dot or two on the headband. The seriously out of focus white dots have terrible green CA, which I find quite distracting. The adorable one of her blowing a kiss has the eyes, eyelashes and eyebrows tack sharp, the mouth is modestly out of focus and the gloved hand has terrible purple CA. The last one shot with the 5DS shot at f/2.5 has fantastic eyelash resolution, but the mouth is out of the depth of field, and the ears are completely fuzzy.

I am not a pro, and only occasionally get to shoot outdoor portraiture. I lean towards more depth of field, with both the eyes and mouth/teeth sharp, allowing the ears to out of the depth of field, but not blurred. I have include two samples, none even shot with my 6D. The one with the blue tank top was shot with a lowly 40D, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II at 135mm, f/5, 1/400 @ ISO 400. The one with the red jacket vest was with a 60D, 70-200mm F/4 IS at 160mm, f/8, 1/500 @ ISO 200. There is no obvious CA with these zoom lenses, but even with the much narrower apertures, the background is blown out with non-distracting bokeh.

Beyond the CA issues, how many photographers prefer a paper thin depth of field? Certainly the eyes need to be sharp, but little else seems odd to me.

? what seems odd to me is non-pro voicing a un schooled opinion : but again it wouldn't be canon rumors without it
two more to my Ignore list ;D