between Canon 50mm F1.2L and 85mm F1.2L

[inkista]

Hi, Colin! [waves]

Which would degrade a real-world image the most;

(a) An image taken with a zoom lens wide open, but at the correct focal length (say 70 or 200mm), or

(b) An image taken with a stopped-down prime, but at a totally inappropriate focal length (say 135mm)because it's all you had?

Actually, I think it depends on the assumption of delivery resolution. And how much sharpness might be offset by resolution. If you're only delivering 8x10s or photobooks, though, you could easily crop the prime shot, and it's doubtful anyone would see any difference. And that's assuming the prime framing is incredibly far off from the zoom's. I don't necessarily think prime framing would always be as far offbase as you clearly do.

How often is a 135mm going to be "totally inappropriate" in situations where you'd use a 70-200? 135mm is the center of the 70-200 range. And the subject matter I shoot generally allows me the freedom to run around to reframe. YMMV. Probably does, given your insistence on this.

But yes, I'm still happier to have the sharper and faster lens even with the framing and stabilization limits, simply because I could afford the 135 and I couldn't afford the 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM. The lens you have in the bag always trumps the one on a store shelf.

And cost no object, would I prefer having the 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II? Maybe. The fact that my hands were damaged and went through nine months of physical therapy to partially repair RSI damage and that big heavy lenses tend to HURT them means I might still be happier with my simple little 135L in the end. Individuals have individual needs and priorities and different definitions of "better."

[Colin Southern]

Hi Kathy,

Depends on my sensor and delivery resolution.

For sure, sometimes you can get away with it - but having the correct focal length is ALWAYS going to give you the most information to work with.

And I wouldn't exactly consider using 135mm "totally inappropriate" if the other lens I would have used was a 70-200. 135mm is the center of the 70-200 range. Add in the fact that sometimes you actually can run three or four steps forwards and backwards and maybe it's not THAT far off. My 135mm might not give me the perfect framing. But add in the ability to crop edges with the higher resolution sensors we've got today, and assuming a book-sized print delivery, I'm not sure having the. exact. focal. length. needed to frame the shot is as clearly superior in all instances as you say. But then, I'm probably shooting different subject matter than you. And, in the end, I'm a hobbyist shooter. I can shoot whatever I feel like on my own time. So, my goals and needs (and priorities) are different from yours.

I agree that often you can move - but also, often you can't. If I take 3 of 4 steps back in my studio to try and get a 3/4 length shot with my EF135mm F2.0L USM I endup passing through a lot of gib board + timber and then through a concrete wall into the next building And at the same time, taking 3 or 4 steps forward can leave a subject feeling uncomfortable because I'm too close and in their "space". Outdoors I could take you to places where even 1 step back puts you over a cliff.

I'm not saying it can't be done with primes (plural), but in real world shoots it slows you down and isn't what I'd call "best practice". And if I add up the costs of the EF85mm F1.2L USM and EF135mm F2.0L USM II (complete with 1.4x TC) (being the 3 items to broadly cover the range of a 70-200) then already I'm paying way more than I would for just the EF 70-200mm F:2.8L IS USM II. Probably a good real world example was just before christmas when the IS unit on my new EF70-200mm F2.8L IS USM II went ballistic, and I had to send the lens away. In the studio I was having to do a lot of swapping between the EF85mm F1.2L USM II and the EF135mm F2.0L USM - and outside I actually had far less keepers than normal due to camera shake due to the fact I didn't have another IS lens.

I'm just saying different people have different definitions of "real world images".

They probably do - for me, a "real world" print is anything from postcard size up to a couple of feet square - and I've done lots of them with even the old version of the 70-200. Primes like the EF85mm F1.2L USM do require less post-processing, but that's really about it; it's very seldom that I shoot less than F2.8 (or even F5.6 for that matter if people are involved) - and expanding on my comment above, the gain in sharpness from a prime can easily be negated several fold when a degree of camera shake kicks in due to not having IS. What a real world image ISN'T (by my definition, and hopefully a lot of others too) is 100% crops of "test targets" viewed at 100% on screen.

Yes, but how much longer have people been shooting quality sharp images with high-quality primes? I don't think Henri Cartier-Bresson was unduly crippled in his image quality by shooting with 50mm prime lenses.

Yes, but back in the 1930s they didn't have quality zoom lenses that we have now

I do get that for a professional photographer a 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II is a great versatile bread-and-butter lens. And that all these newbies insisting that they get better IQ with a prime drives you nuts. But I think budget is still a consideration. It's all fine and well to recommend a $2500 or $1600 f/2.8 L zoom. But a lot of people simply can't afford one and they can afford a $400 EF 85mm f/1.8 USM.

I agree, but in terms of zooms, it's not a case of "EF70-200 F2.8L IS USM II or nothing" - there are an aweful lot of cheaper zooms that are perfectly capable of producing stunning results EF24-105mm & EF 70-200 F4.0L USM being a couple that come to mind.

[inkista]

Crap. Slippage. Sorry. I didn't realize the first draft has posted. That's it. Back to bed. I hate colds.

[Colin Southern]

Crap. Slippage. Sorry. I didn't realize the first draft has posted. That's it. Back to bed. I hate colds.

Me too -- had a bug a couple of weeks ago that laid me on my back for about 4 days

Get well soon

[inkista]

Thanks, Colin. The timing was hilarious: I only saw your reply AFTER I'd deleted the "first draft" you replied to. Had I taken another five seconds, I'd have dumped the rewrite.

[Chesil]

Hi Paul,

I'm sorry, but I think this is a classic example of where the thin DoF just doesn't work; to my eye having the DoF taper off around the side of the head - and even the far eye - can be artistic and flattering, but here you have a plane of (over) sharpness running through one eye, down through the cheek, and through the teeth that - personally - I don't think flatters the subject at all. In contrast, I shot this at F2, and it still has slight issues with the DoF (and this was the best of a bad bunch in that regard).

Colin, clearly it's a matter of individual taste and we'll agree to differ.