My old, new toy!

[EdBray]

Well my Canon EF 85L Mk1 arrived this morning, took a few shots with it and love both the sharpness and the bokeh.

Took this one at f1.2 using a 12mm extension tube, lit with high speed flash bounced off the ceiling, amazing how limited the depth of field is at f1.2 and at below its minimum focus. Exif data should be intact.

 

[Paulmack]

nothing there mate?<--------- ignore that its there now!

 

[andrew748]

EdBray, i'm happy that you are feeling the F1.2 love

and i'm very happy that you just saved me a gazillion £££s, co's that DOF is a bit sucky.

does the bokeh remain sexalicious at higher F's?

 

[EdBray]

EdBray, i'm happy that you are feeling the F1.2 love

and i'm very happy that you just saved me a gazillion £££s, co's that DOF is a bit sucky.

does the bokeh remain sexalicious at higher F's?

Can't really say at the moment, I'm been too preoccupied with shooting at low f numbers. I think the lens is front focussing slightly, but may be that I have moved slightly after locking focus, I will take some shots tomorrow with it on a tripod.

You can see what I mean here:

 

[andrew748]

that bokeh is gorgeous, stuff the subject, i just want to swim in that beautiful blur

 

[onform]

How much did you get it for if you don't mind me asking?

 

[Philx1979]

Joop! nice aftershave must i add lol.

 

[EdBray]

How much did you get it for if you don't mind me asking?

£899, Nr mint, boxed complete.

Having both the 85L and the 135L as my portrait lenses leaves my 100 Macro (which was my main portrait lens) a little out of the picture. I just had to find a way of getting 1:1 or better from the lenses I already have. I get greater than 1:1 with my 50mm f1.4 but the working distance is a bit close, so I tried various combinations on the 85L, I ended up with a 1.4x EF Converter, 12mm, 20mm & 30mm tubes and then the 85L, this gives about 1:1.4

This shot was taken at f1.2 marked, but would have been in reality a close focussing 120mm f1.8 wide open:

These images are exactly how the coin appeared on the sensor and have not been in any way cropped. A 5p coin measures just short of 18mm.

This second shot was taken at a marked f2.8, but would have been in fact f4:

 

[onform]

I take it you didn't use a tripod..looks like motion blur on number two..

 

[EdBray]

I take it you didn't use a tripod..looks like motion blur on number two..

Nah! tripods are for whimps Only kidding you are correct though I did not use a tripod as I was using flash, I suspect, rather than motion blur it is more probable that I moved slightly after locking focus. DOF is very thin on this lens at normal focussing distances, at 1:1.4 its fagpaper thick

 

[EdBray]

Kirsty (my youngest) came out for tea this evening so I asked her to pose for a few shots for me. I had spent half an hour previously microadjusting the lens to give me a similar result to that that I was getting in liveview focussing manually with the 10x zoom on. The lens required +8 adjustment and now is sharper than a sharp thing even at f1.2

Here are two piccies of Kirsty, the first at f1.2 and the second at f5.6

f1.2

f5.6

 

[foodpoison]

Holy carp ed, that really is sharp!

 

[andrew748]

much better now you tweaked it

 

[HoppyUK]

I hope you are inviting comments!

I don't know how you can detect front focusing on the Joop pic. You're not square to the box.

The first macro pic has bad CA at max aperture, which doesn't quite go away when stopped down, and there is definite camera shake in the second. It's unmistakeable. Flash or not, a hand-held image at that magnification dances about like mad and the flash has not frozen it. It would be interesting to see how your 100 2.8 macro compares.

If only you could get that bokeh without the crazy depth of field at f/1.2. I seriously don't know how you can work with that level of DoF

 

[EdBray]

I hope you are inviting comments!

I wasn't Do I care? Comments are always welcome constructive ones preferred but hey ho, I've got broad shoulders (they go with my broad belly and fat head)

I don't know how you can detect front focusing on the Joop pic. You're not square to the box.

Agreed, but the DOF is so limited at f1.2 there is no way the front of the carpet covered board should be sharp. Vindicated in it requiring +8 micro adjustment.

The first macro pic has bad CA at max aperture, which doesn't quite go away when stopped down, and there is definite camera shake in the second. It's unmistakeable. Flash or not, a hand-held image at that magnification dances about like mad and the flash has not frozen it. It would be interesting to see how your 100 2.8 macro compares.

The CA can be a problem with this lens under normal use, it can be fixed in PP but I didn't bother with these as I just wanted to show the straight from camera shots. I suspect that the CA may be made worse by the use of the 1.4x converter, and its use may have to be reconsidered. Fair enough with the camera shake, I should have used a tripod.

If only you could get that bokeh without the crazy depth of field at f/1.2. I seriously don't know how you can work with that level of DoF

Well, since adjusting the lens, I would say of the dozen or so images I took this evening just using the AF, all but one was bang on where I had focussed, and the one that was slightly out had multiple depths within the focussing area (it was a gate lock) and it was only just out then.

I am really liking this lens, I find the blurry background up to f5.6 lovely and even at f8 and f11 the background does not become overly intrusive.

I am off to Paignton Zoo in the morning (weather permitting) so will see how it performs there. Nice thing with it is I can use low ISOs and still get a useable shutter speed with the wider apertures.

 

[HoppyUK]

I think you're right about the extender. As I know you know TCs don't go well with short lenses and low f/numbers. I don't think Canon lists this lens as compatible, which is why I mentioned how the 100 macro compared.