Prime v Zoom Bokeh

[3kramd5]

The Canon L is reputed to be slow focussing

It focuses as quickly as you can turn the ring. Unless you're too lazy and use autofocus

It is very slow and the focus by wire manual AF isn't great, either, but not so slow as to be unusable. The trade off is exceptional image quality, and it is every bit as good as you've heard. If you don't need/want to shoot below f/2.8, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II makes a lot more sense from a practicality standpoint, but it's those f/1.2-2 shots that are amazing.

Sure, the quasi manual focus is a little strange. I was just offering worthless commentary about what I thought to be an odd disconnect (zoom lenses are for lazy people willing to sacrifice IQ for convenience, but autofocus evidently is not for lazy people willing to sacrifice accuracy for convenience).

 

[mackguyver]

The Canon L is reputed to be slow focussing

It focuses as quickly as you can turn the ring. Unless you're too lazy and use autofocus

It is very slow and the focus by wire manual AF isn't great, either, but not so slow as to be unusable. The trade off is exceptional image quality, and it is every bit as good as you've heard. If you don't need/want to shoot below f/2.8, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II makes a lot more sense from a practicality standpoint, but it's those f/1.2-2 shots that are amazing.

Sure, the quasi manual focus is a little strange. I was just offering worthless commentary about what I thought to be an odd disconnect (zoom lenses are for lazy people willing to sacrifice IQ for convenience, but autofocus evidently is not for lazy people willing to sacrifice accuracy for convenience).

I get the humor, but without a good viewfinder screen, manual focus at f/1.2 is pretty much impossible to do well or consistently.

 

[Menace]

The Canon L is reputed to be slow focussing

It focuses as quickly as you can turn the ring. Unless you're too lazy and use autofocus

It is very slow and the focus by wire manual AF isn't great, either, but not so slow as to be unusable. The trade off is exceptional image quality, and it is every bit as good as you've heard. If you don't need/want to shoot below f/2.8, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II makes a lot more sense from a practicality standpoint, but it's those f/1.2-2 shots that are amazing.

Sure, the quasi manual focus is a little strange. I was just offering worthless commentary about what I thought to be an odd disconnect (zoom lenses are for lazy people willing to sacrifice IQ for convenience, but autofocus evidently is not for lazy people willing to sacrifice accuracy for convenience).

I get the humor, but without a good viewfinder screen, manual focus at f/1.2 is pretty much impossible to do well or consistently.

Well said.

Bodies like 5DIII and 1Dx can nail auto focus on the 85 at f1.2 consistently.

 

[Sporgon]

The Canon L is reputed to be slow focussing

It focuses as quickly as you can turn the ring. Unless you're too lazy and use autofocus

It is very slow and the focus by wire manual AF isn't great, either, but not so slow as to be unusable. The trade off is exceptional image quality, and it is every bit as good as you've heard. If you don't need/want to shoot below f/2.8, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II makes a lot more sense from a practicality standpoint, but it's those f/1.2-2 shots that are amazing.

Sure, the quasi manual focus is a little strange. I was just offering worthless commentary about what I thought to be an odd disconnect (zoom lenses are for lazy people willing to sacrifice IQ for convenience, but autofocus evidently is not for lazy people willing to sacrifice accuracy for convenience).

I get the humor, but without a good viewfinder screen, manual focus at f/1.2 is pretty much impossible to do well or consistently.

Well said.

Bodies like 5DIII and 1Dx can nail auto focus on the 85 at f1.2 consistently.

Which is probably why the 5DIII design dispensed with the interchangeable screens.

 

[Loswr]

The Canon L is reputed to be slow focussing

It focuses as quickly as you can turn the ring. Unless you're too lazy and use autofocus

It is very slow and the focus by wire manual AF isn't great, either, but not so slow as to be unusable. The trade off is exceptional image quality, and it is every bit as good as you've heard. If you don't need/want to shoot below f/2.8, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II makes a lot more sense from a practicality standpoint, but it's those f/1.2-2 shots that are amazing.

Sure, the quasi manual focus is a little strange. I was just offering worthless commentary about what I thought to be an odd disconnect (zoom lenses are for lazy people willing to sacrifice IQ for convenience, but autofocus evidently is not for lazy people willing to sacrifice accuracy for convenience).

I get the humor, but without a good viewfinder screen, manual focus at f/1.2 is pretty much impossible to do well or consistently.

Well said.

Bodies like 5DIII and 1Dx can nail auto focus on the 85 at f1.2 consistently.

Which is probably why the 5DIII design dispensed with the interchangeable screens.

Maybe...but it's also nice to be able to actually see the true DoF through the VF, for compositional reasons.

 

[sagittariansrock]

The Canon L is reputed to be slow focussing

It focuses as quickly as you can turn the ring. Unless you're too lazy and use autofocus

It is very slow and the focus by wire manual AF isn't great, either, but not so slow as to be unusable. The trade off is exceptional image quality, and it is every bit as good as you've heard. If you don't need/want to shoot below f/2.8, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II makes a lot more sense from a practicality standpoint, but it's those f/1.2-2 shots that are amazing.

Sure, the quasi manual focus is a little strange. I was just offering worthless commentary about what I thought to be an odd disconnect (zoom lenses are for lazy people willing to sacrifice IQ for convenience, but autofocus evidently is not for lazy people willing to sacrifice accuracy for convenience).

I get the humor, but without a good viewfinder screen, manual focus at f/1.2 is pretty much impossible to do well or consistently.

Well said.

Bodies like 5DIII and 1Dx can nail auto focus on the 85 at f1.2 consistently.

Which is probably why the 5DIII design dispensed with the interchangeable screens.

I think it was the new LCD overlay system. AFAIK, you can't put an interchangeable screen on the 7D either.

 

[Loswr]

I think it was the new LCD overlay system. AFAIK, you can't put an interchangeable screen on the 7D either.

The 1D X has a transmissive LCD and interchangeable focus screens.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I think it was the new LCD overlay system. AFAIK, you can't put an interchangeable screen on the 7D either.

The 1D X has a transmissive LCD and interchangeable focus screens.

You went over this yourself and why 1D X has been able to overcome the issue (namely, RGB metering and larger mirror box). So, 1D X cannot be put in the same bracket

 

[Loswr]

I think it was the new LCD overlay system. AFAIK, you can't put an interchangeable screen on the 7D either.

The 1D X has a transmissive LCD and interchangeable focus screens.

You went over this yourself and why 1D X has been able to overcome the issue (namely, RGB metering and larger mirror box). So, 1D X cannot be put in the same bracket

Not that I recall. The RGB metering is why (I think) the 1D X can illuminate the AF points in AI Servo mode. The metering sensor doesn't impose any hardware limits on installing a focus screen (although the converse is true - the focus screen does affect metering, firmware can compensate, but Canon has chosen not to correct for the Ec-S screen). It's certainly possible to install a 3rd party screen in a 5DIII.

I don't see any technical reason the 5DIII couldn't have supported interchangeable (by the user in a supported manner) focus screens, should Canon have designed it that way. But they didn't.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I think it was the new LCD overlay system. AFAIK, you can't put an interchangeable screen on the 7D either.

The 1D X has a transmissive LCD and interchangeable focus screens.

You went over this yourself and why 1D X has been able to overcome the issue (namely, RGB metering and larger mirror box). So, 1D X cannot be put in the same bracket

Not that I recall. The RGB metering is why (I think) the 1D X can illuminate the AF points in AI Servo mode. The metering sensor doesn't impose any hardware limits on installing a focus screen (although the converse is true - the focus screen does affect metering, firmware can compensate, but Canon has chosen not to correct for the Ec-S screen). It's certainly possible to install a 3rd party screen in a 5DIII.

I don't see any technical reason the 5DIII couldn't have supported interchangeable (by the user in a supported manner) focus screens, should Canon have designed it that way. But they didn't.

Of course, you are right.
I need more sleep.

 

[Sporgon]

Maybe...but it's also nice to be able to actually see the true DoF through the VF, for compositional reasons.

Agreed, the greatest benefit of the 's' screen is real dof. I find the difference in ability to nail manual focus only marginally better than the standard screen.

I stick to what I said; maybe Canon underestimated the desire from 5D owners to see real dof, or maybe that desire isn't actually there across the broad user base, or maybe it was to add a 'crippling' differential to the 1Dx.

 

[mackguyver]

Maybe...but it's also nice to be able to actually see the true DoF through the VF, for compositional reasons.

Agreed, the greatest benefit of the 's' screen is real dof. I find the difference in ability to nail manual focus only marginally better than the standard screen.

I stick to what I said; maybe Canon underestimated the desire from 5D owners to see real dof, or maybe that desire isn't actually there across the broad user base, or maybe it was to add a 'crippling' differential to the 1Dx.

I MISS the EF-S screen in my 5DII (it's the only thing I dislike about the 5DIII) very much and unfortunately they don't make a super precision matte screen for the 1D X, either. Just split-prisms and grids My slowest lens is the 180L 3.5, so a "dim" viewfinder" doesn't bother me one bit.

 

[Loswr]

I MISS the EF-S screen in my 5DII (it's the only thing I dislike about the 5DIII) very much and unfortunately they don't make a super precision matte screen for the 1D X, either. Just split-prisms and grids My slowest lens is the 180L 3.5, so a "dim" viewfinder" doesn't bother me one bit.

Sure they do - the Ec-S screen is physically compatible with the 1D X. The only 'problem' is that most focus screens affect the metering (the Ec-S does), and Canon didn't write support for it into the 1D X firmware (although there's no reason they can't - they just chose not to). Since there's no focusing aid (split-prism, etc.) spot metering won't be specifically affected, and effects on metering should be global. The degree of effect will change with the max aperture of the lens, e.g. if you shoot in an autoexposure mode, an f/1.2 lens will result in more underexposure than an f/2 lens. Still, you should be able to work out the effects, and adjust your M-mode settings or apply EC (or AE microadjustment if one stop is enough compensation) to give a proper metered exposure (although the meter reading will still show as off) with the Ec-S installed. Note that I haven't done the above, but for the price of an Ec-S and a little time, maybe you will...

 

[mackguyver]

Note that I haven't done the above, but for the price of an Ec-S and a little time, maybe you will...

Hmm, I had forgotten about that one, and maybe I'll give it a try one of these days. Thanks.

 

[Menace]

Note that I haven't done the above, but for the price of an Ec-S and a little time, maybe you will...

Hmm, I had forgotten about that one, and maybe I'll give it a try one of these days. Thanks.

Let us know how you find the outcome.