which lens takes photos like these- 85 1.2?

[mrjames]

so I am slowly moving towards the idea of a 35mm 85mm 2 prime combo instead of zooms

and I happened to be considering pulling the trigger on the 85 1.8

and then I watched 'the secret life of walter mitty'

and some scenes stood out to me as being particularly beautiful, (see the attached screen grabs), from the looks of it they were probably shot with a slightly telephoto, but with some sense of magic- i'm certain that's down to lighting but the background blur is just so perfect it's making me reevaluate getting the 1.8, and should I instead save up more for the 1.2

I have owned a 1.8 before and although I didn't give it much time to grow on me I can't say I really liked it, favoring the 50mm 1.4, but now i'm looking to the 85 again, for low light tele shooting (concerts etc), portraits, and as part of a 2 lens prime kit

the 1.2 is obviously faster, but slower AF, heavier, bigger, more expensive- but if it delivers the magic that the 1.8 just can't muster, then it's a must buy for me. I know you can get shallow depth of field with the 70-200, but I think this is around the 70-100mm range, and a larger aperture- 200mm 2.8 just wouldn't look like this, but perhaps i'm wrong

so what do you think?

 

[Jayst84]

Apparently the film was shot with Hawk V-Lite lenses (on Kodak film, in a couple of Arricams). You can see the range of primes Hawk V-Lites comprises of here: http://www.vantagefilm.com/file/pdf/hawk_v_lite.pdf

Those shots look fairly compressed so I'd assume one of the longer lenses. You have to take into account the smaller frame size on the movie camera though.

 

[mrjames]

Apparently the film was shot with Hawk V-Lite lenses (on Kodak film, in a couple of Arricams). You can see the range of primes Hawk V-Lites comprises of here: http://www.vantagefilm.com/file/pdf/hawk_v_lite.pdf

Those shots look fairly compressed so I'd assume one of the longer lenses. You have to take into account the smaller frame size on the movie camera though.

true
and I know it's not going to be a like for like comparison as they're anamorphic lenses

looking at the hawk lenses, I guess it's one of the following:

Hawk® V-Lite80mm/t2.2
Hawk® V-Lite110mm/t3
Hawk® V-Lite140mm/t3.5



basically my real question is do I spend the extra on the 1.2, or compromise with the sigma 1.4

but seeing as none of those lenses are super fast I guess it could be done with the 1.8, just with a larger distance to background

 

[mrjames]

i'd guess at the 80mm shot wide open, or slightly closed- which is about 130mm equivalent FOV at f2.8- achievable with a 70-200 2.8 then

will make some tests shots and see how it looks

 

[Jayst84]

You can see the shape of the aperture blades in some of those, so you don't need to go super fast to get something similar. The 85 1.2 can turn backgrounds into completely unrecognisable blurs of colour - which clearly isn't the case here. I don't think you'd be getting similar compression from an 85 either.

I have the 85 1.2, and love it. But sometimes (usually while I'm waiting for it to focus) I wonder if I should've saved some cash and gone 1.4... It is very pretty though.

 

[mrjames]

You can see the shape of the aperture blades in some of those, so you don't need to go super fast to get something similar. The 85 1.2 can turn backgrounds into completely unrecognisable blurs of colour - which clearly isn't the case here. I don't think you'd be getting similar compression from an 85 either.

I have the 85 1.2, and love it. But sometimes (usually while I'm waiting for it to focus) I wonder if I should've saved some cash and gone 1.4... It is very pretty though.

i've looked at some comparison shots between the 1.2 and 1.4, and actually prefer how the 1.4 renders hard edges to light sources, the 1.2 is too creamy for my style
nothing to do with the fact it's half price

that being said my original intention for this lens was for a fast tele for getting an extra stop of shutter when shooting live music, so good/fast AF is a consideration- which is more the domain of the 135mm f2...or 85 1.8


if I can help it i'd rather shoot wider than tele- I think 85 would be as far as i'd go for framing shots like the ones posted above, the 135mm f2 would be more for things where I couldn't get as close as i'd like (for say a concert etc)
although with a camera upgrade from 5d2 having an extra stop of usable iso would reduce the need for f2 primes, except for aesthetic purposes...

 

[Pookeyhead]

You're neglecting lighting from this equation. It may be on location but there's a great deal of lighting going on here. Just using a similar length lens will not get these results.

 

[Jayst84]

You're neglecting lighting from this equation. It may be on location but there's a great deal of lighting going on here. Just using a similar length lens will not get these results.

Well, not really neglecting, as MrJames said in his opening post,

..but with some sense of magic- i'm certain that's down to lighting but the background blur is just so perfect it's making me reevaluate..

Also, the cinematographer has said in interview that all the exteriors in Walter Mitty were shot with natural light. Well controlled natural light, obviously - but apparently not a great deal of lighting.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Fair enough... in all honesty I'm speed reading while slurping coffee... feeding the cat and getting ready for work

Natural light it may be... but the army of people holding scrims and reflectors will be fairly impressive I'd imagine. That level of detail and tonal range doesn't happen naturally very often. So long as the OP is aware of that, all is well.

 

[Deleted member 66768]

A 70-200 2.8 could easily replicate that quality of bokeh. Understanding how the background will blur out when you are framing the shot will be key, highlights/shadow/colour within the frame. As for the 85mm, the Sigma 85 1.4 is an astonishing lens!

 

[Laudrup]

The 85 f/1.2 or f/1.8 or 135 f/2 would be able to recreate that look. The 85L isn't called the Magic Cannonball for nothing, it's a beautiful optic. It's big, slow to focus, heavy and expensive though and you could get an 85 f/1.8 and a 135 f/2 for the price of the 85 f/1.2. The Sigma 85 f/1.4 is a good option too and that's what I would get if it were me wanting to recreate that look but not break the bank.

 

[mrjames]

think i'm going to snap up a 135 f2
would be a useful lens for sure- if I need something around the 85 range I can just shoot with the 50mm and crop in a little

time and experience will tell me whether the 135 f2 is right for me or if I should have gone wider...

 

[woof woof]

think i'm going to snap up a 135 f2
would be a useful lens for sure- if I need something around the 85 range I can just shoot with the 50mm and crop in a little

time and experience will tell me whether the 135 f2 is right for me or if I should have gone wider...

Just a couple of comments...

You can crop a 50mm shot to get a tighter view but unless you're at the distance you'd have shot from with a 85mm lens you wont get the same perspective / look subject to background wise etc.

One thing I'm a bit of a fan of these days is manual legacy lenses and if you're not sure if a 85 or 135mm is for you you could either hire them first or pick up a legacy manual lens and an adapter and give the focal length a go for a while and see how you get on with it. I tried my manual focus Olympus Zuiko lenses on my 5D via an adapter that cost £5 and all seemed to work very well including a 135mm f3.5. You should be able to pick up a 135mm f2.8 or f3.5 quite cheaply, I think mine cost under £30 and at that price if you try one and don't like the focal length you can sell it on and you've lost next to nothing and if you like the focal length you can buy the expensive AF lens with a bit more confidence... or just keep the cheap manual lens