Canon 85 1.2L II - What a lens...

[benjiboy]

You mean Zeiss users are God?!???

No , I mean Canon.

 

[clayne]

You call the fact that myself and tens of thousands of pros that use and rely VERY HEAVILY on AF blind faith?!?

Why is it that I have shoot 100,000+ wedding pictures using AF and all of them are tack sharp? AF often works a heck of a lot faster then focusing manually, and it is very, very accurate especially on the later EOS 1 series bodies.

Has it occurred to you that some of us (and possibly more of us than you might think) don't really care what tens of thousands of pros use? Has it occurred to you generally base your arguments on "industry knowledge" and commodity photography?

You're on a site where the majority of people are going to be oriented towards or enamored with fine-art, documentary, or other non-sports, non-fast-paced, non-dime-a-dozen photography.

You use your computer to post your ill thoughtout responses, so then that means you're participating in "technology worship"? Of course not! That car you drive probably has several CPU chips so does driving it mean you worship that technology?

If the technology is there and it benefits the photographer, why not use it? To say that users of technology are "worshipers" is ill conceived to say the least.

The argument is that it only benefits for the lowest common denominator type of photography, get it?

Hey if you prefer manual focus, that is cool. But to suggest that users of AF are somehow wrong is irrational at best.

I don't think that's what was necessarily suggested. You got on here and pointed out how awesome AF was and how much more accurate/fast it was than the human operating the camera. I simply refuted it by pointing out that it's only faster in the best of situations and the second you need to change the focus point, the advantage is lost.

Going to argue that you never have to change your AF focus point now?

I think the reason you get so much gruff on this site is because it's not the medium you choose to use - it's that your general approach to cameras and photography, or at least the way you present it, resembles a technology driven approach - something that people on this site seek a reprieve from.

 

[SilverGlow]

Has it occurred to you that some of us (and possibly more of us than you might think) don't really care what tens of thousands of pros use? Has it occurred to you generally base your arguments on "industry knowledge" and commodity photography?

You're on a site where the majority of people are going to be oriented towards or enamored with fine-art, documentary, or other non-sports, non-fast-paced, non-dime-a-dozen photography.



The argument is that it only benefits for the lowest common denominator type of photography, get it?



I don't think that's what was necessarily suggested. You got on here and pointed out how awesome AF was and how much more accurate/fast it was than the human operating the camera. I simply refuted it by pointing out that it's only faster in the best of situations and the second you need to change the focus point, the advantage is lost.

Going to argue that you never have to change your AF focus point now?

I think the reason you get so much gruff on this site is because it's not the medium you choose to use - it's that your general approach to cameras and photography, or at least the way you present it, resembles a technology driven approach - something that people on this site seek a reprieve from.

I don't care if I get gruff or not.

AF is NOT for the lowest common denominator of shooting. And in fact, the exact opposite is true; that AF usage is for nearly all types of shooting. Get it?!?

Also, my arguments are not based on "industry knowledge" and commodity photography", as you say.

My arguments are based on first hand knowledge, AND reading about the camera workflow of many, many others.

I'm cool with others going full manual, and I don't knock that.

However when you bring up untrure issues for using AF, that are outright untruths, then I will speak to that. You write stupid things like "technology worship" that indicates unsound thinking, and incomplete reasoning at best.

Regardless of the tool we make pictures with, we need to learn THAT technology and to write that this bad is wrong.

Sure I manually pick and choose the best focus point for a given composition, but having mastered the camera workflow of my EOS SLR, I can do this very fast, and this allows the MORE ACCURATE focusing to be done by the high speed processor, and in a fast paced wedding, there is no faster more accurate way to focus, save for the extremely dark shots. Additionally, using a manually choosen focus point and AF benefits evaluative meter too; as it is tied to the choosen focus point.

Lastly, you continue to put words in my mouth, because IN FACT film is my choice in medium, not digital.

You jab digital. You jab automatic features on film bodies. You are just an unhappy person and you make yourself feel better by lashing with untruths.

When are you going to learn that there is no need to belittle and jab other mediums nor certain features that others use with film bodies, in order to "elevate" film. Film don't need it. The awesomeness of film is self-evident and this is why film continues to stay relevent and sought out even in these days of advanced digital.

 

[Sim2]

Having been one who lived through the manual focus to AF mayhem, all this is rather dispiriting.

Shooting sports we used to take great pride (and a lot of experience) in being able to manally follow focus with 200mm 1.8s 400/2.8s and 600/4 or to be able to predict focus on fast stuff such as downhill ski-ing, F1 etc. AF was for wannabe chancers who hadn't put the time in to learn the craft. :rolleyes: Then we started to use it!

It is fair to say that the AF revolutionized the type of pictures we could get - like all technology; when used with some knowledge. We could get an F1 car sharp head-on but still get a mugshot muzzy as the focus point picked the nose rather than the eye!

AF is a brilliant tool that can produce really sharp pictures faster then the eye/hand can react in some situations, but careful manual focussing can also produce a sharp more accurate focus in some situations - I think 'tis horses for courses.

Perhaps this may be the technological equivalent of "should I pre-soak my b/w film?"

*awaits flak or the death of the thread*
Sim2.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Responding to Silverglow's rant:

First, you should decide who the "you" is you're responding to.

Since you continuously post about the superiority of AF, ect., it is only fair to point out that your arguments are arguably faulty and not shared by all.

It is also about the type of photographgy one is interested in: I have abosolutely no (zero) interest in shooting off 100,000 frames at an average of 6 fps or collecting the "frozen action" sport shots which seem to be all the rage now.

Other people also have "first hand knowledge", in my case that means having used all major (and many minor) camera brands, AF and not. And I definitely do not share your tastes, insights and choices.

As for your other comments, they speak for themselves....

 

[2F/2F]

Yes...what a lens!

...but so is the 85mm f/1.8. I don't know what went wrong with your copies, but I know three very satisfied 1.8 customers (myself and two friends). I never should have sold mine, and when I do get another 85 to replace it, it will be the same one. I purchased it specifically for shooting basketball from the baseline using an APS-H digital camera, and when I stopped doing that, and stopped shooting a lot of digital, I sold it.

...and no. I never used auto focus for fine focusing in basketball, because manual focus, quite simply, gave me way better results. I used AF for quick rough focusing (e.g. on breakouts, or "fast breaks" to use the proper BB term), then took over by hand.

I do find AF useful for motorsports (cars with ads are quite easy for servo AF to track, if you are not at too near an angle to the cars), but that is about it.

What we do not see is how many foul shots professionals shooting with AF and/or high frame rates take.

What we do see is sharp pictures taken by sharp photographers who do not rely on AF to make them sharp. They use it, but I guaran-bloody-tee you that the good ones do not rely on it. All AF has done is make pix more convenient for those who were already good, and make at least some sort of passable pix possible most of the time for those who were/are not all that good to begin with, where they were previously impossible (or at least improbable)...that is, as long as they spray enough shots.

 

[wclark5179]

SilverGlow Quote:

"Why is it that I have shoot 100,000+ wedding pictures using AF and all of them are tack sharp?"

Gosh, you must take in a lot of wedding gigs in-between your regular job. And all of them tack sharp! Wow!

Could you point me to some of them? I'm always wanting to learn, especially from an expert. Thanks.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

My Zeiss 85/1.4 arrived. I think I'm going to have to break down and finally buy an EOS mount film camera. This one unfortunately doesn't come in M42 mount. I haven't been shooting much 35mm B&W in recent years (mostly medium and large format), but I think this lens would look great on Tri-X.

 

[wclark5179]

Made some wonderful "headshots" Saturday morning with the Zeiss 85mm f1.4. Then at a wedding same day. Long day, but I love it!

Have a wonderful summer.

 

[2F/2F]

SilverGlow Quote:

"Why is it that I have shoot 100,000+ wedding pictures using AF and all of them are tack sharp?"

You may have shot 100,000 wedding pix. Lord knows that is what many of the digital folks do....but I guarantee you that they are not all sharp. I am sure all the ones you turned over to your clients are sharp.

However, looking at my own similar numbers, I can somewhat see what you are saying, though I think you are embellishing to lend your argument false validity nonetheless.

I never considered wedding photography till recently. I have shot approximately 50 (just shy, actually) weddings in the past five years, 80% as a second shooter. I average 200 - 300 shots per wedding, and use about 100 - 150 of them. (I deliberately shoot less when shooting digital because it is such a pain in the ass to work on the pix. My main boss usually shoots at least 2,500, and uses maybe 300 to 400.) I shoot with an almost totally candid approach, which is why my bosses hire me. They can't do that shit at all. They have no skills in that arena, but I first learned photography as an offshoot of journalistic writing, so that is the method of shooting I first developed. How did I learn to shoot weddings? I learned to shoot news and sporting events...then I took away the element of journalistic integrity. I am not trying to be a pro wedding shooter, but it does pay [half] the bills (sometimes), and I alsolutely love it and the pix I get from it. If people will pay me to be a specialist, doing something I love doing, what the hay?

Anyhow, I guess that means I have shot about 10,000 to 15,000 digital wedding pix since I started. When using digital at the weddings (i.e. most of the time), I use AF in one shot mode, center point only selected, and AF activation moved to the AE lock (*) button. I focus, then compose. That way it is exactly like manual focus, only motorized. There is nothing "automatic" about. Just the motorized movement of the glass in the lens, 100% under my command. Just like manual focus, plus a convenience, and sometimes speed, factor.

Most of my pix (maybe 85%) are sharp, because I usually do not take the shot if it is not. However, throwing caution to the wind is a necessary element of the style of shooting. I cannot always be held to proper technique restrictions before firing the shutter in those situations. Sometimes you must take a risk and just shoot the shot even if you are not squared away for it technically. Hence, trash based solely on technical critique tends to find its way onto the card.

So, if you are more technically finicky than I, and shoot in a different style under different conditions, in different types of crowds, I can understand your claim of 100% focusing success if you use your AF like I do, and if you are not counting accidental shutter releases or motion blur (or, like I said, if every single one of your shots is posed, still life, etc., in which case of course they are all in focus, because you'd have to be a real bozo for them not to be). However, if you have your AF on auto point selection, and/or AI servo mode, and/or with the AF command connected to the shutter button, and are shooting moving objects that are not concentrating on being photographed, then there is no way you even get much more than 50% of them sharp.

If I shot in a classical, formal, totally staged wedding style, not one of my pix would ever be out of focus, nor should anybody's. That is not so hard to claim...but if I did that, I sure as hell would only be shooting about 100 to 200 pix per wedding (and my work would be done in a couple of hours instead of a full day), and there is no way I could amass 100,000 pix unless I had shot for many, many, many years.

In any case, if all/most your shots are in focus, it is NOT because you are using auto focus, and nor are mine. It is because we are good focusers.

 

[SilverGlow]

2F/2F, 100,000+ images that were all sharp....of course there were those that were blurry but those were my fault and not the lens nor camera. It only takes 50 weddings to crank out 100,000 shots. And of those shots I don't post process every single one; I vet in a browser and choose for a total of around 300-500 out of 1,500 to 2,000 per wedding, including reception.

If you present the camera with a composition that shows enough light, and contrast, AF will work everytime. An F2.8 or faster aperture certainly helps too.

The number of photos where AF failed (not my fault): zero.

I never rely on the camera to automatically pick the focus point/s to use...and in fact I hate this feature and wish the camera forced us to manually pick and choose the appropriate FP....I alway manually choose...of all the auto features an SLR provides I hate the auto FP selection...

I get good results because I use Canon's best practices which they have published several times in the past.

I take Canon's white paper they published years ago, on how to use AF with their SLR & DSLR bodies as gospel, so I NEVER rely solely on the center focus point, nor do I lock focus and recompose. Bad habits. I think it is far more beneficial to use a camera workflow that was intended by the maker of the camera. Nikon and Canon (and others) provide us multi focus points, with some bodies providing 45 and others 55 so why would anyone want to risk critical focus by relying just on the center FP and recomposing? Bad habit and a recipe for critical focus problems and metering problems too. I suppose if one is always shooting at F8 and from afar recomposing is not so bad, but who does this?

AF is fast and accurate, and repeatable when used as intended; at least on later model SLR's (Canon 1v, 3, and several Nikons F5 & F6, and others).

Using AF, a fast lens, E-TTL flashing logic, body in manual, one can snap away at a wedding with little thought to camera workflow, and most of their concern is there for composition, as it should be.

 

[clayne]

But one still *has to think about it*. The second you're scrolling the little focus wheel around (I have a 1v I know how it works) you're explicitly deciding how you want the composition to be. With manual you already have the feel for the comp in your head and twist until it becomes in focus. Yes there are times when one changes their mind but the AF model of focus point selection brings into too much thought into a process that should be about feel. That's why it sucks.

 

[SilverGlow]

SilverGlow Quote:

"Why is it that I have shoot 100,000+ wedding pictures using AF and all of them are tack sharp?"

Gosh, you must take in a lot of wedding gigs in-between your regular job. And all of them tack sharp! Wow!

Could you point me to some of them? I'm always wanting to learn, especially from an expert. Thanks.

Here is the "secret":

If you're shooting with a later model SLR that provides multi-focus points, then manually pick and choose the appropriate focus point every shot, and DO NOT recompose...the best place to place the choosen FP is on the eye of the closest subject. Just make sure your f-stop provides sufficient DOF.

That's it!

In short, use your SLR in the way the maker intended....this center FP only shooting is for those that have never taken the time to learn how to use their SLR and center only shooting can cause critical focus issues, AND metering errors.

 

[SilverGlow]

But one still *has to think about it*. The second you're scrolling the little focus wheel around (I have a 1v I know how it works) you're explicitly deciding how you want the composition to be. With manual you already have the feel for the comp in your head and twist until it becomes in focus. Yes there are times when one changes their mind but the AF model of focus point selection brings into too much thought into a process that should be about feel. That's why it sucks.

You forget that the machine is more accurate more times then the human eye.

And it is faster then you can twist the focus ring. MUCH faster in fact.

And in dark wedding venues, my F1.4 prime will allow my SLR to focus faster and more accurate then ANY human eye.

You deceive yourself continually. You refuse to admit that there are tens of thousands of wedding photogs the world over that rely on AF for ALL of their shots.

With practice and the application of best practices (for a given SLR model) manually picking and choosing the focus point is a no-brainer, and is done automatically by the skilled photographer. Just because it challenges you does not mean it challenges everyone else.

You will never admit this because it is not possible for you to be objective, fair, and true ;-) Your fancy awesome Canon EOS 1v is wasted to you, if you don't take advantage of it's multi-FP's and AF awesomeness.

 

[wclark5179]

Silverglow,

Thanks for your thoughts. Appreciate your advice.

Will try it!

Have a wonderful week.

P.S.

Do you have trouble with autofocus during receptions when it can be pretty dark?

Here are a few from Saturday's wedding:

http://picasaweb.google.com/wclark5179/MelissaTimSWeddingSamples#

 

[clayne]

You forget that the machine is more accurate more times then the human eye.

And it is faster then you can twist the focus ring. MUCH faster in fact.

You're not getting it. It's about feel. AF gets in the way of feel. Photography is about feeling - both on the part of the photographer and the subject.

The more technology requires one to think the more it gets in the way.

You deceive yourself continually. You refuse to admit that there are tens of thousands of wedding photogs the world over that rely on AF for ALL of their shots.

I really don't care about wedding photographers, honestly. However, I don't deceive myself continuously. I can demonstrate it with photographs, can you?

With practice and the application of best practices (for a given SLR model) manually picking and choosing the focus point is a no-brainer, and is done automatically by the skilled photographer. Just because it challenges you does not mean it challenges everyone else.

I don't even have to think about it with a manual focus lens. It's not even applied thought - it's a motor function. If you can't realize the benefit of that then you're beyond help.

 

[2F/2F]

"2F/2F, 100,000+ images that were all sharp....of course there were those that were blurry but those were my fault and not the lens nor camera. It only takes 50 weddings to crank out 100,000 shots. And of those shots I don't post process every single one; I vet in a browser and choose for a total of around 300-500 out of 1,500 to 2,000 per wedding, including reception."

You said all of your shots were sharp. Now you say otherwise. My point exactly: that NOT ALL of your shots are sharp.

It only takes YOU 50 weddings to crank out 100,000 shots. Not me. Not most. That is gluttonous and amateurish hack work.

Of course you do not process every single shot. Who does, with film or digital? (WTF is "post process?" Another digital nonsense word spoken by people who think they know what they are talking about.)

"If you present the camera with a composition that shows enough light, and contrast, AF will work everytime. An F2.8 or faster aperture certainly helps too."

I can't believe you really just said that! OF COURSE! My point exactly!! So, every pic you take at a wedding is a composition that shows enough light, and contrast??? Really? If this is the case, your pix must be some of the most pedestrian wedding work in existence. Maybe 20% of my pix shot at weddings have enough light or contrast...maybe. As I said, if you are shooting easy happy suny posey bright pictures, of course AF works every time. How could it not? How could manual focus not either?

"The number of photos where AF failed (not my fault): zero."

If so, that is because evidently you have time to take your time with everything, and shoot in rosy situations...situations in which AF is really of not all that much benefit anyhow.

"I never rely on the camera to automatically pick the focus point/s to use...and in fact I hate this feature and wish the camera forced us to manually pick and choose the appropriate FP....I alway manually choose...of all the auto features an SLR provides I hate the auto FP selection..."

Again...you seem to have time to pick a focusing point that best suits your composition. I do not. Evidently you also do all your work on a tripod, and/or shoot very static objects, which is the only way it makes sense to pick a focusing point after composing. I do not. If I am going to bother to bring and use a tripod, I sure as shit ain't gonna waste it on a digital camera. If I am bringing a tripod, it is to use big film (6x7) because the client specifically request a high degree of enlargement ability.

"I NEVER rely solely on the center focus point, nor do I lock focus and recompose. Bad habits."

What hogwash! Again with this line of crap from you that focus/compose is a "bad habit!" Give it up! You are wrong! What I do works way better for me than anything else. It is the same exact thing I do with manual focus cameras, except that I let the motor move the glass for me. It is the ONLY way to use AF that is 100% reliable for what I shoot. If I pick a focusing point, the shot is gone. That is how I shoot, and obviously not how you shoot. Quit arguing that what I do doesn't work for me, because it does...and damned bloody well, thanks very much.

"AF is fast and accurate, and repeatable when used as intended; at least on later model SLR's (Canon 1v, 3, and several Nikons F5 & F6, and others)."

Again, it all depends on what you are shooting...but this is bunk when applied to anything but posey posey pictures in strong enough light, with less of a time and "moment" (i.e. timing) stress than you get with most real-world pix. As for the "used as intended" comment, look: The camera has many settings so that you can tailor them to work for YOU...and what Canon "intends" doesn't mean anything to an in-control photographer. Canon gives you crap to use, and if you are good, you figure out what is there and how best to use it for your work. Instruction manuals are perhaps some of the worst ways to learn how to photography (right after learning it via word of mouth rules of thumb). They teach you one good thing: what tools the camera has that you can use. They do not teach you how to shoot properly. Your own informed and experienced way of implementing them is always better. (Take the incident meter instructions to always point the dome at the camera lens, for instance. BAD, except as general advice to someone who doesn't really "get it," and just wants quick, somewhat decent results without having to think.)

"Using AF, a fast lens, E-TTL flashing logic, body in manual, one can snap away at a wedding with little thought to camera workflow, and most of their concern is there for composition, as it should be."

One: I do not want to "snap away" at a wedding, and only hacks do. Two: No. You cannot "snap away" at a wedding with little thought to "camera work flow" (another made up digital word that means nothing) if you are constantly picking new focusing points! "Camera workflow" when hand held is: point camera, focus camera, pick shutter speed, pick f stop, in any order, no matter what methods you are using to do those things, with any camera, in any situation.

It seems to me like you really have never shot a wedding, or much of anything. If so, you would not be claiming the things you have. If you have, and are still claiming the things you are claiming, then you are always shooting in the rosiest and most ideal of situations.

Others of use live in the real world. Time to cut the crap and stories about yourself. It does not lend you any validity; just takes it away. I can tell for the pure crap you constantly spew that I could shoot you under the table any day, as could probably many people on these forums, though I will not speak for them, only myself. I don't say that kind of stuff to people, ever, unless they are really acting the arrogant, know-it-all fool...but Galldernitt it, a teenaged punk couch photographer like you needs a wake up call. You don't talk the kind of crap you talk unless you are a really damned smokin' photographer, an even then, you are a jerk who nobody likes when you talk it. Damnit. Enough from your punk ass! Get a job (or at least leave here and go to Photo dot net to join your brethren)!

 

[2F/2F]

"If you can't realize the benefit of that then you're beyond help."

Clayne, he proves in every thread that he is beyond help. The solution is to stop trying to help. Let him continue down his current path. Life will sort him out but quick once he starts actually living it.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Amen to that good one, 2F/2F.
But I'd still like to know what "post process" and "camera workflow" is. Sounds distinctly digital to me. If that's so, take it away. Far, far away. I've been in this business quite a few years and only "post-production" (or just "posting") is a common enough term.

And plleeeease, no more "awesomeness". Mangled English is not on.

 

[clayne]

You know SG, sometimes I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and a break at times - as you're trying atleast to use embrace film as a medium. It's just the posturing and technical bias you dwell on that drives people nuts. It's everything people hate about "digital people" - and the thought that the camera or equipment makes the shots when it couldn't be further from the truth.

Even the crappiest musical instrument in a talented musician's hands will sound like gold. Do-nothings will literally do nothing even with the best.

 

[SilverGlow]

You know SG, sometimes I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and a break at times - as you're trying atleast to use embrace film as a medium. It's just the posturing and technical bias you dwell on that drives people nuts. It's everything people hate about "digital people" - and the thought that the camera or equipment makes the shots when it couldn't be further from the truth.

Even the crappiest musical instrument in a talented musician's hands will sound like gold. Do-nothings will literally do nothing even with the best.

You continually twist my words, and misunderstand the most basic explanation I write.

Ansel Adams provided CAMERA WORKFLOW, and POST PROCESSING to his film endeavors 100+ years ago, yet you and your ilk think these words are a digital thing.

Your camera workflow skills have plateau'd years ago because you hate those that use their late model SLR's (FILM SLR's) in ways the makers intended aka best practices.

I love AF. I love multi-focus points. I love TTL flash logic. It works and it allows photographers more time to concentrate on the composition, and much less time on the camera workflow. This is a good thing, and the fact that you cannot accept this is telling, to be sure.

Your ramblings in this thread are self-evident that you have long ago stopped learning.

 

[Scott_Sheppard]

Ok...

Lets see some SMOKING HOT 85mm F1.2L images here... all this chat and not one photo.

LETS SEE SOMETHING !!

Thanks

Scott

 

[frobozz]

Hey, I posted a photo (admittedly from the older FD Aspherical version, but it's essentially the same lens - why mess with such a successful design?)

Duncan

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I might be able to post something when back in the UK in a week or so.

Why has this thread become about AF vs. MF?

 

[mtjade2007]

I have a Contax Zeiss 85mm 1.4 in like new condition. This thread makes me wonder if I have got a wrong lens. Well, I did not have a Canon back then so I could not possibly have any idea how good Canon 85mm 1.2 was. Although I have had the Contax RTS-2 for years I have always shot with a 85mm 2.8 Sonar instead of the 1.4. Now I must dig out my Contax RTS-2 again and load it with a roll of Ektar 100, mount the 85mm 1.4 Planar, go out, shoot and find out if it will do one half of what Canon 85mm 1.2 can do...