Canon 85mm f/1.8 image quality
Discussion
Help me!!
I bought the 85mm last week and after a shaky start, missing focus and generally error due to me, I've spent the last couple of days shooting with it and....
I can't really see the IQ to be any better than my 70-200 f/4 which has more consistent results for me.
Take these 2 shots for example.
1. 85mm at f/2.8. iso 100 and ss of 1/100 with flash fill.
IMG_9736 by nessiemac1, on Flickr
and
2. 70-200mm at 200mm at f/4. iso 100 and ss of 100 with flash fill
IMG_9543 by nessiemac1, on Flickr
Now, both of them are lovely photos that are very sharp even at 100% crop. So i am thinking why would i keep the 85mm and use it over the other lens?
I love my 70-200 and thought i would get even more love from the 85mm after all the great things i read about it so is it a case of more practice or am i comparing apples with oranges?
Trying to think when i would use the 85mm over the 70-200mm?
Hmmm..!
I bought the 85mm last week and after a shaky start, missing focus and generally error due to me, I've spent the last couple of days shooting with it and....
I can't really see the IQ to be any better than my 70-200 f/4 which has more consistent results for me.
Take these 2 shots for example.
1. 85mm at f/2.8. iso 100 and ss of 1/100 with flash fill.
IMG_9736 by nessiemac1, on Flickr
and
2. 70-200mm at 200mm at f/4. iso 100 and ss of 100 with flash fill
IMG_9543 by nessiemac1, on Flickr
Now, both of them are lovely photos that are very sharp even at 100% crop. So i am thinking why would i keep the 85mm and use it over the other lens?
I love my 70-200 and thought i would get even more love from the 85mm after all the great things i read about it so is it a case of more practice or am i comparing apples with oranges?
Trying to think when i would use the 85mm over the 70-200mm?
Hmmm..!
Well you are at f2.8 on the 85mm and it is darker. Could you have captured the same photo on that day at f4 without dropping the ss very low?
I like my 50mm 1.8, despite my new sigma 17-70 coverign that focal length plus a lot more. Its good for low light conditions, but also quite fun to use,forcing and challenging me to get composition right. It is also very small, which is nice sometimes when i'm dragging my 3 kids around (sometimes literally!)
I like my 50mm 1.8, despite my new sigma 17-70 coverign that focal length plus a lot more. Its good for low light conditions, but also quite fun to use,forcing and challenging me to get composition right. It is also very small, which is nice sometimes when i'm dragging my 3 kids around (sometimes literally!)
Edited by covmutley on Tuesday 11th March 11:48
Simpo Two said:
I don't get this 'IQ' thing. People think that it can just be turned up and up like volume.
What do you mean by that Simpo? 
I have looked at LOTS of examples of the 85mm and have been blown away by some of the pictures for sharpness, bokeh and overall wow. I know i am not going to pick the lens up and start shooting amazing stuff at f1.8 but how do i use the lens in a way to enable me to get something like the photos i have seen, especially at wide apertures which is the reason i bought it for?
covmutley said:
Well you are at f2.8 on the 85mm and it is darker. Could you have captured the same photo on that day at f4 without dropping the ss very low?
I like my 50mm 1.8, despite my new sigma 17-70 coverign that focal length plus a lot more. Its good for low light conditions, but also quite fun to use,forcing and challenging me to get composition right. It is also very small, which is nice sometimes when i'm dragging my 3 kids around (sometimes literally!)
I had a 50mm f1.8 a while back and used that from the off at f1.8 and it was a lovely thing and encouraged a different way to approach the photo. But i think i am expecting even more from the 85 when in reality it is maybe me that has found it tricky to use wide open!I like my 50mm 1.8, despite my new sigma 17-70 coverign that focal length plus a lot more. Its good for low light conditions, but also quite fun to use,forcing and challenging me to get composition right. It is also very small, which is nice sometimes when i'm dragging my 3 kids around (sometimes literally!)
Edited by covmutley on Tuesday 11th March 11:48
Im only a beginner, but to me the big difference with the 2nd photo is the bokeh and better lighting that makes it 'pop'. I think im right in saying that the bokeh is better because of the better light too.
Perhaps its simply the case that the lighting was just better and the lens can only work with the conditions you giev it?
Is it the IQ you like less, or just how pleasing the overall image is?
Perhaps its simply the case that the lighting was just better and the lens can only work with the conditions you giev it?
Is it the IQ you like less, or just how pleasing the overall image is?
nessiemac said:
Help me!!
I can't really see the IQ to be any better than my 70-200 f/4 which has more consistent results for me.
Trying to think when i would use the 85mm over the 70-200mm?
Hmmm..!
We are talking about 70-200 f4L, right? Then I don't see why you are expecting 85mm f1.8 to be better? I can't really see the IQ to be any better than my 70-200 f/4 which has more consistent results for me.
Trying to think when i would use the 85mm over the 70-200mm?
Hmmm..!
nessiemac said:
I have looked at LOTS of examples of the 85mm and have been blown away by some of the pictures for sharpness, bokeh and overall wow. I know i am not going to pick the lens up and start shooting amazing stuff at f1.8 but how do i use the lens in a way to enable me to get something like the photos i have seen, especially at wide apertures which is the reason i bought it for?
My comment was general rather than specific, but could the same person could have taken equally amazing photos using the 70-200? I don't know what photos you have seen or are trying to match.Simpo Two said:
My comment was general rather than specific, but could the same person could have taken equally amazing photos using the 70-200? I don't know what photos you have seen or are trying to match.
It's hard to describe really but along the lines of this one below that captured the lovely bokeh in the fore and background and still trying to keep the subject sharp. I know i couldn't achieve that depth with the 70-200.This was at F1.8 and was my best attempt at the weekend but took a lot of shots to get a half decent result and even this isn't that sharp on the daughter. But i do like it!
IMG_9664 - Version 2 by nessiemac1, on Flickr
It looks a little flat and slightly blue to me but I think that's down to the light and processing. Hence in your disappointment I think there are other parameters at play rather than just the lens.
Certainly as DOF decreases towards 'fagpaper' it gets harder to nail focus, and can be too demanding for some AF systems. Pros not only have pro bodies (not sure what yours is) with the best gubbins inside but will have lenses and bodies calibrated together to minimise the chance of a miss.
I think you can improve your shot above with some selective contrast increases and some warming up. ETA Just putting it in PS and using Autolevels makes a good difference.
Certainly as DOF decreases towards 'fagpaper' it gets harder to nail focus, and can be too demanding for some AF systems. Pros not only have pro bodies (not sure what yours is) with the best gubbins inside but will have lenses and bodies calibrated together to minimise the chance of a miss.
I think you can improve your shot above with some selective contrast increases and some warming up. ETA Just putting it in PS and using Autolevels makes a good difference.
Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 11th March 14:39
Simpo Two said:
It looks a little flat and slightly blue to me but I think that's down to the light and processing. Hence in your disappointment I think there are other parameters at play rather than just the lens.
Certainly as DOF decreases towards 'fagpaper' it gets harder to nail focus, and can be too demanding for some AF systems. Pros not only have pro bodies (not sure what yours is) with the best gubbins inside but will have lenses and bodies calibrated together to minimise the chance of a miss.
I think you can improve your shot above with some selective contrast increases and some warming up. ETA Just putting it in PS and using Autolevels makes a good difference.
That's probably my processing thats giving the blue tinge i would imagine.Certainly as DOF decreases towards 'fagpaper' it gets harder to nail focus, and can be too demanding for some AF systems. Pros not only have pro bodies (not sure what yours is) with the best gubbins inside but will have lenses and bodies calibrated together to minimise the chance of a miss.
I think you can improve your shot above with some selective contrast increases and some warming up. ETA Just putting it in PS and using Autolevels makes a good difference.
Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 11th March 14:39
Currently using a Canon 7d.
Here is another one i'm quite happy with taken at F1.8 although again not as sharp as i would maybe like.
Jess. by nessiemac1, on Flickr
So lots of practice with the lens and i am always playing about with processing but it is all a bit bewildering really!!
We need to define 'sharp'. Do you mean the zone of focus is in front or behind the subject - in which case it's a simple focusing error - or that the lens is soft and cannot focus any sharper - in which case yep, that's a downside of fast lenses because like any lens they are not at their best wide open - or is it the digital 'sharpening' that one applies to a RAW file?
I think maybe you are over-analysing and need to enjoy taking photos more
I think maybe you are over-analysing and need to enjoy taking photos more
85 F1.8 is a sublime lens in a totally different class to 70-200 f4 'L'
I own both lenses - both take fab images, when used properly, 99% of users would be more than satisfied with the F4 70-200, but IMO each lens has a different purpose in life.
Its the special images that are possible from the Fast F1.8 85mm prime which simply can't be duplicated with the F4 70-200 fitted to your DSLR body that make the prime special to those users that appreciate these abilities, However I'd suggest 99.9% of the posters on this forum fit into the Must have/Prefer the 70-200 lens category - nothing wrong with that either, but maybe sometime in the future you'll apreciate the subtleties on what I've written here and add the 85mm F1.8 to your Camera Bag
I own both lenses - both take fab images, when used properly, 99% of users would be more than satisfied with the F4 70-200, but IMO each lens has a different purpose in life.
Its the special images that are possible from the Fast F1.8 85mm prime which simply can't be duplicated with the F4 70-200 fitted to your DSLR body that make the prime special to those users that appreciate these abilities, However I'd suggest 99.9% of the posters on this forum fit into the Must have/Prefer the 70-200 lens category - nothing wrong with that either, but maybe sometime in the future you'll apreciate the subtleties on what I've written here and add the 85mm F1.8 to your Camera Bag
OP.
The lighting/exposure conditions in your first two pictures are different. In the first image, the background is 'underexposed' relative to the foreground - suggesting you've set the fill-in flash too high. If the flash had been set lower and the general exposure increased, the background would pop in the same way as the second image. Personally, I don't like fill-in, it looks unnatural. In these circumstances a BIG warm white reflector would look less harsh and unnatural. Throwing too much technology at a picture doesn't always help.
In your third image, the framing is off and the image is suffering from flare. If the face is pointed towards the lhs of the frame, your daughter needs to be placed on the rhs of frame. Placing someone so they look towards the closest edge of the frame tends to make them look uncomfortable. Look up 'looking room' or 'headroom' to find out more. Flare sometimes happens when the camera is pointed towards a bright subject (in your case the background), it tends to reduce contrast. You can combat it with a UV filter and a lens hood - but it isn't always unattractive.
The lighting/exposure conditions in your first two pictures are different. In the first image, the background is 'underexposed' relative to the foreground - suggesting you've set the fill-in flash too high. If the flash had been set lower and the general exposure increased, the background would pop in the same way as the second image. Personally, I don't like fill-in, it looks unnatural. In these circumstances a BIG warm white reflector would look less harsh and unnatural. Throwing too much technology at a picture doesn't always help.
In your third image, the framing is off and the image is suffering from flare. If the face is pointed towards the lhs of the frame, your daughter needs to be placed on the rhs of frame. Placing someone so they look towards the closest edge of the frame tends to make them look uncomfortable. Look up 'looking room' or 'headroom' to find out more. Flare sometimes happens when the camera is pointed towards a bright subject (in your case the background), it tends to reduce contrast. You can combat it with a UV filter and a lens hood - but it isn't always unattractive.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff