Thanks for the video. Back in 1968, the 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor was the 2nd lens I purchased for my Nikon F 35mm SLR. The 35mm f/2 Nikkor was my 1st lens. I used both for reportage. I also used the 85 for head & shoulder portraits. In 2016, I finally upgraded my manual focus 85 to the 85mm f1.4 D AF Nikkor. The 85mm autofocus and the manual focus 135mm f/2 Zeiss are my two favorite portrait lenses. Both lenses have a 77mm filter thread. The 85mm is an important member of my favorite Nikkor lens kit (24/35/85/180).
I have the 24, 35, 50, and 85, but for some reason the 85 is the least used prime lens I have. This video has made me challenged myself to use the 85 more on my next wedding shoot! Awesome vid Mitch!
I prefer a 100mm 2.8 macro over an 85mm 2.0/1.8/1.4/1.2 - the macro gives me more flexibility (detail shots) and is usually sharper. The background blur of 2.8 is enough for me. I usually want the whole face in focus and not just the eyes...
Excellent reasons! While #3, lightweight and compact is ergonomically important for my back and shoulders, #4, think in focal lengths, has been most beneficial to my photography. Once I have a "known" focal length lens, I immediately know what background that focal length / field-of-view will include. From there, I can concentrate on the subject's position and my position relative to the subject. Since I'm already moving, it's easy to find many interesting views of the subject. The photographer who is using a zoom and has the mindset of "I don't need to zoom with my feet" will tend to be more stationary, seeing the subject and background from only one direction.
Love my XF56mm f1.2 and XF90mm f2. They are two fantastic lenses. I also use a Canon FD 135mm and a Pentax 50mm f1.7, both vintage manual focus lenses for some things. Fun stuff!!
Yes i agree with you.. even two primes lenses can cause me fatigue during shooting.. always ringing the question at the back of my mind said “what if i use this lens or that lens..” this just halt my creativity. Thus i sold all my primes and get the zoom lens. If i’m going to buy another prime it is going to be a one focal length.. 85mm is something i love when you want to be unobtrusive..😊
I used 85mm prime and love it. Great for discreet approach, low light outdoor, portrait, boring background or decent environment, street photography, night and random photography. 85mm is great for single object while 50mm and below is great for overall subject. It's ridiculous to carry 70-200mm in public, and 85 is just tugged nicely in normal backpack. Anyway up to you.
85mm and longer focal lengths are great for portraits of men who want to appear more broad and substantial in their portraits. For portraits of women, a 50mm or 70mm lens used at closer distances will be more flattering since most women want to appear petite and thin in their portraits. On the other hand, if you're shooting a portrait of a loud-mouthed feminist who is obsessed with power by all means shoot her from a long distance with a 200mm lens to broaden her out and make her appear more invincible.
85mm prime? I have been using my 85 f/1.2 for 16 years. However, focal length is a funny thing and it may surprise some photographers that the popular choices are related to which era that is referring to. Back in the film days, the rule of thumb for formal portrait is 50 for full length, 85 for 3/4, 105 for half and 135 for head and shoulder. Also, the best Nikon portrait lens was the 105 f/2.5 and 135 mm for Canon and they even had DC and SF versions. Fast forward to the infancy period of DSLR when lens design and manufacturing were getting better, the Canon 85 f/1.2 dominated and almost a must have for some wedding & portrait photographers. Also the rule of thumb during this period in describing the out of focus background was harsh for f/1.8, smooth for f/1.4 and creamy for f/1.2. But after the new generation of photographers got tired of seeing images taken with the 85 f/1.2 and wished to have another focal length that could be called their own, the 24/35 became the trendy choice for environmental portraits and compression wasn't that important to them. Of course, 85mm remained important for certain genres and/or other photographers. When Sigma released its 105 ART f/1.4, followed by Nikon's version, 85 f/1.2 had another competitor beside the 135mm and the legendary 200 f/2. Hence, do we need a 85mm lens today? My guess is that it will be a best seller for Nikonians once Nikon releases the Z 85 f/1.2 S, while Canonites may not depend on it as much as before. 🙂
You should show the aperture limitations of a zoom. Try a portrait with your 85 prime at f2.8 like a typical zoom would look, and then at f1.4. Also if you own a zoom, but finding yourself shooting only at one focal length instead of zooming, consider a prime at that focal length. I bought a 24mm and 85mm f1.4
85 is great, but not when in a normal room. 50 is much more versatile in this case. You still get some blur and you're not trying to hit a wall every time you need something more than a head. 35 is boring and has much less separation indoors. Outdoors 135 will give you even more separation than 85 keeping whole face sharp or at least both eyes. Focal plane in that case is not that thin so your subject ears will not be dissolved in background like in case of 85.
It's a personal thing for sure, but I was very surprised that I didn't like it at all. Most of the times I use a 50mm to give a more natural feel and some context and if I want to go back to the traditional setup I much more prefer the 135 and 200 for headshots. It's funny how that works for everyone and how it changes from time to time.
Your video is more about the advantage of fast telephoto primes than about the 85 specifically though. I have an 85/35 combo for street style; want a 135 for contextualisation of the event/advertisement portraits where one may want just that little extra compression of the background sometimes to redirect the attention. And a 200 for when the background is less critical and just a means to support the subject.
Hi Mitch! I would love to see a comparative video between the sigma 65 f2 and the sigma 85 f1.4 for portrait photography. There are a lot of coments about the 65 as an alternative to the 85, but no videos comparing them directly. I think it is a very interesting video! As a bonus, the new sigma 50mm f2 can be mentioned as well! There you have it! Hope you think about it! Love your work!
Agree that an 85 can be awesome. Loved it for 20+ years shooting Nikon film, then DDLR. Now I'm on Sony, which is super fast for accurate eye focus. I'm lucky with 15 Sony lenses to choose from. Oddly, I don't have an 85GM (deliberate choice). I'm waiting for a 2nd gen 85GM f1.4, which I will buy if it's as good (quite likely) as their other gen 2 optics (most of which I'm lucky to own). 135mm GM f1.8 from Sony is also a lovely lens that can really help a portrait pop. I don't use it now as much as I should, but the Sony 85mm f1.8 is a relative bargain and IMO well worth any Sony shooter investigating. It's sharp enough, uber compact, easy to use. I can afford any Sony lens, but probably won't sell this, even if I do buy a rumoured 2nd gen GM 85mm f1.4.
Agreed on all points you presented. I happy that you didn't say to toss all your other primes. I recently went to a "Asian lantern festival" at our local zoo with my Sony A7R3. I opted to take a 50mm f1.8 vintage lens thinking that it would be ideal for the walking path with the "lanterns" on either side and overhead. It was fine for some of the shots, but found myself constantly looking for places to "back up" from my subjects. Frankly a good 28 or so would have been better. In this case an 85 or my favorite Sony 90mm 2.8 macro would have been almost useless.
I loved my 35mm + 85mm combo, but I switched this month from Canon to Sony (I do 65% video and 35% photo) and the Sony ecosystem was more suited for my needs (at the moment 😅). So I had to buy a new set of lenses (still have my canon + lenses but I'm going to sell them) and bought a 24-70 2,8 GM II + 50mm 1.2 GM (love this lens!!🤩) and a 70-200 GM III 2,8. And my next lens will be the 24mm 1,4. I tend to prefer the 24mm +50mm + 70-200mm at the moment. But I know that was in love with the 85mm; I will see in the future if I miss it or not, but at least right now, I'm in love with the 50mm 1.2 for portrait, the bokeh is absolutely beautiful and the focal length is not too wide (35mm) or to narrow for me, and if I really need some range, I pick the 70-200. And I also love the 24mm 1,4 (I used to love my 35mm 1,4 but I think I prefer the 24mm, it can produces more unique pictures I think)
Great call. I started with Sony and won’t use anything else. There’s Apple people and there’s Android people. I’m Apple and will never go off that path.
For over 20 years I only used a Leica M4-2 with a 35mm and a 90mm. The 85/90's are terrific focal lenses and not backbreakers. However, I just wish that people would stop harping about how great 85mm lenses are at full apertures. The truth is that there are a lot of "misses" at full aperture. Perhaps one should reconsider stopping down a stop or two and really see how great these lenses are. You'll also end up spending a lot less time editing out-of-focus shots and having clients tell you that the shots are not sharp.
I always thought that just because you have a smaller aperture number, it doesn't mean you have to shoot at 1.8-1.4, but that you have the option in case you need those more intense dynamics... I only mention this because it seems like users sound as if sense they have a 1.4 that they must shoot at 1.4 indefinitely to maximize their purchase decision...
I only have 2 lenses... a prime and a zoom. I always TRY to treat my zoom lens as 2 prime lenses, as I try to always shoot with it zoomed all the way in OR out. Seldomly do I use something in the middle. Why? For the exact reasons discussed in this video... to try and boost creativity. I usually save the middle focal lengths for when I already have an image in mind and I need to control the perspective distortion. I'm just sharing this so that anyone that is struggling with creativity in their shooting, and they don't own a prime lens, can try to adjust their thinking approach when holding their camera. I know I was there when I first started shooting, and having just come back from a long hiatus, I am once again struggling with the creativity aspect of this great hobby.
I agree. Except, the Canon 70-200 is quite small and light, and it has a 2.8 max aperture which at 200 provides a lot separation and blur. But, you do need to be zoomed in pretty far. I do love my 85 1.2. It is magnificent. Might be my favorite lens.
35mm is my fav prime. Currently I owned a Tamron SP 35mm f1.4. At first I also want a 85mm and 105mm prime but decided to purchased a 70-200 f2.8 instead.
Zooms look cool and professional but i've never been able to get into them personally. If you have the time to slow down a bit primes are great, and you don't need many either. David Fincher shot The Game with basically just a 27mm and 85mm for close ups, House of Cards was mostly shot on 27/35mm I think. you really don't need many to get the job done even at a high level whether it be photo or video.
I'm here because I'm a 85mm maniac. I have one on every system I own. Canon, Fuji (56mm Sigma), Sony. And with adapters, a 85mm on full frame becomes a whole different beast on APS-C (like a 135mm on full frame)
I recently bought my first interchangeable lens camera which is a used Sony Nex 5 and my only lens was the Helios 44 which I found attached to my grandpa's zenit xp. So I was literally forced to shoot at 87mm focal length and it was fun.
I have EF 18 something, a 50 f 1,8 (??) a 85 f 1.8, a 100 mm macro, another 50 (plastic fantastic, that I hate) and a Sigma Art 24-105. For portraits on a FF...always the 85. :)
For me, who like to take portraits indoors, the more open the objective lens, the better for me. I have an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III. She is amazing. But with f/1.2 aperture, I can lower the ISO. So, I will sell my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III + EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III to buy an RF 85mm f/2.8L to use with my Canon EOS R. I believe that for my type of hobby photography, just having a Canon R + RF 85mm f/1.2 is enough.
I used to have 85/90mm Lenses, now my Lens set is, 14 1.8, 21 2.8, 24 1.4, 35 2.0, 55 1.8, 65 2.0 Macro, 110 2.5 Macro ad 135mm 1.8. I am working on getting my Lens gear more compact and lighter, so that the largest and heaviest Lenses will be swapped with more compact and lighter Lenses.
Similar to @Narsuitus, I got started my pro career in 1971 with the Nikkor 1.8/85 on the Nikon F/FTN, and I own the C-Version from 1973 until now;-)) With my D300 half-format digital I prefer the Micro-Nikkor 3.5/55mm - thanks to crop factor a 82.5mm image impression. @philosimot
Very very VERY well put together and Good vid. The very second I get hired for portrait work, I'd looooooves to pick up that Sigma 85mm you mentioned. Looks pretty beast, buddy. Haha For now, I'm literally stuck at content creation on this sleight of hand magic account at the 24mm range, with the Sigma 14-24mm Canon 24mm 1.4 version ii with a Cinebloom Filter 🥲.
expensive for Canon 1000USD but on Sony only for 600USD ugh... love that 85 Art Sigma 1.4 Can't afford only Viltrox 85mm 1.8 RF or the Manual Samyang 85mm RF 1. 4
Can I use the Sigma 85mm for action ? F.ex a person on a horse doing some jumps and riding around in circles ? Or is a prime a very bad lens to use for that ? I still have Tamron 70-180 and Sony 200-600. But will that prime work, or ? Im asking cause Im buying that Sigma 85mm in two days no matter what.
I believe your Sony A6600 has an APS-C sensor with a crop factor of 1.5. Therefore, a lens with a focal length of 85mm used on an APS-C sensor will be equivalent to a 127.5mm lens on a camera with a full frame sensor. If you are filling the frame of your A6600 camera with head-and-shoulder shots, chances are likely that your shooting distance from the subject is approximately 8' to 9'. Depending on the proportions of your subject, it is likely that this distance is causing your subject's face to appear rather 2-dimentional, broader and wider than you may like, and with the nose squashed and with the ears appearing enlarged and more prominent. Although the 135mm lens is widely touted as a suitable portrait lens on full-frame sensor cameras, the end result is equivalent to what you are seeing on your A6600 using an 85mm lens. Most women do not look attractive shot at a distance of 9' unless they are very thin and gaunt. For a typical healthy woman, a shooting distance of approximately 6' to 7' will yield results that are generally more flattering, and if the woman is heavy-set, do her a favor and shoot her at 5' with her nose off-axis 20-30°. A 35mm - 50mm lens used on your crop sensor Sony A6600 camera will help facilitate these more flattering shooting distances. On a camera with a full-frame sensor you generally do not want to be shooting at distances exceeding 7-1/2' for head-and-shoulder shots, unless you are attempting to make an anorexic model appear more healthy. If you make the move to a camera with a full-frame sensor you will shoot more flattering portraits of an average woman if you use a 50mm lens. Don't believe the hype touting the 85mm as a "portrait" lens, as the 85mm is mainly suitable as a portrait lens for women with a BMI lower than 18..... or for portraits of male subjects.
Are you happier with the broader faces the 105mm provides at the typical shooting distances used with 105mm lenses? If you have a girlfriend, take her portrait with a 105mm at 10' and a 50mm at 5', with nose off axis by 20°, and see which image of herself she prefers
As far as the comparison between the model shot with the 24mm lens and 85mm lens, the model's face captured at the distance used with the 24mm lens is superior. The face is oval and the shoulders are petite, although the model's face would be more flattering still if the image had been captured with an additional one foot in subject-lens distance, as her cheekbones and hair would be improved. The face in the image shot at the subject-lens distance used with the 85mm lens is broad and roundish, and certainly not as attractive as the face in the 24mm image. IMHO. The key factor that influences facial shape is the subject-lens distance. This distance is the factor that should be first and foremost in the photographer's mind and not the lens's focal length. Zoom lenses give the photographer the opportunity to select the proper and most flattering subject-lens distance FIRST, and then select the focal length (magnification factor) on the zoom lens to adjust the framing. If one places emphasis on the focal length first, then one is likely to adjust the subject-lens distance to accommodate the focal length for framing, which is completely ass-backward as the subject's appearance is more important than anything else...... not the focal length number. The focal length is essentially irrelevant as long as the subject looks their best, and the factor that will influence the subject's appearance most is DISTANCE, not focal length. With respect to the use of zoom lenses, most photographers using zoom lenses become very lazy and forget that DISTANCE (subject-lens distance) is the critical tool for flattering subjects. So just because one has a zoom lens does not mean they should not be physically adjusting their distance to the subject. This adjustment of the photographer's physical distance to the subject should take place BEFORE the photographer puts their hand on the zoom ring. Do NOT use the zoom ring or the focal length to dictate your distance to the subject. First, think about what will make your subject appear their best. Look closely at their face, and discuss with them what appeals to them. If a woman is self-conscious that they are anorexic and does not want to appear anorexic in their photos, then increase the subject-lens distance a bit..... and then adjust the zoom ring to accommodate and provide the framing (magnification) desired. Focal length should only be viewed in terms of a magnification factor to be used for framing purposes only. And if the lens on the camera is a prime lens and this lens is unable to provide the desired framing at the desired subject-lens distance, then shoot at the subject-lens distance that will flatter the subject, and then crop into the image in post-production to achieve tighter framing. Do not adjust the subject-lens distance to achieve the desired framing if doing so will compromise the appearance of the subject. And this is why it is always better to use prime lenses that have a focal length that is a bit wider than what one may want, rather than a lens that is a bit on the tele side. A wider lens can always offer the ability to shoot the subject loose at the most flattering distance with final framing taking place in post-production. But a longer lens does not offer the same flexibility for obvious reasons. So if you are trying to decide between an 85mm prime or a 50mm prime for portraits, the most sensible and flexible choice is the 50mm. If one has a 50mm prime and stands back an extra three feet, they are now shooting at the same subject-lens distance they would be shooting at if they had an 85mm lens on the camera. In other words, the 50mm lens will provide more flexibility than the 85mm lens to shoot at the most flattering subject-lens distance. And again, this distance (subject-lens distance) is the most critical factor for one to be able to adjust. As far as this critical distance is concerned, essentially a 50mm lens can turn into an 85mm lens, but an 85mm lens cannot turn into 50mm lens. If you do purchase an 85mm lens for portraits there will definitely be times when you will wish you could take the shot from a closer distance in order to take the pounds off the subject, but you will be unable to do so without making the in-camera crop/framing too tight. This situation is very very difficult to correct and address in post-production and is certainly a lot more time-consuming than simply capturing the image with a 50mm lens and cropping into the image in post.
@@joansmith7649 you say that the focal length has no effect on the subject’s appearance yet you recommend wider focal lengths because they allow you to shoot at a ‘distance that is more flattering’. It’s a huge contradiction because you’re changing the focal length to achieve a different result. I can’t believe you can’t see how crazy you sound 😂
Well dud! The whole point of a zoom lens is so that you don't have to move back and forth to a certain spot to get the shot you want. I get it and understand the benefits of a prime, but please, can we stop all the crap about zoom lenses making you lazy? I don't necessarily want to "zoom with my feet" all the time, hence the "ZOOM" lens. IJS
As I've mentioned in other posts, there is no such thing as "perspective distortion". The camera lens simply records the subject and perspective that is before it at any given subject-lens distance. The lens is not creating the perspective and it is not distorting the perspective. So the notion that one stands back to get a more "real life perspective" is faulty. If one shoots a portrait three feet away from the model, that is how the model actually looks in real life three feet away from the lens. The lens is not distorting or altering that appearance. Because most people are not studying another person's appearance while in a person's personal space (unless they are their significant other), the view of a model at 3' away may not be comfortable or familiar, but it is exactly how the model really does look at that close distance...... and there is nothing wrong with that.
Yes there is such a thing as perspective distortion - how do you think humans can differentiate distance?! I never said the lens created the distortions - it’s the distance to the subject that creates distortions. Objects closer to the lens appear larger than objects further away - that’s what perspective means. You’re so caught up in trying to point out how other people are wrong that you totally miss the fact that I’m not even referring to lens distortion. Simply put - a telephoto lens puts you further away from the subject in order to capture a full body shot and fill the frame thus decreasing the relative difference in distances of body features. If you were to fill the frame with a full body shot on a 24mm you’re going to be much closer to your subject and the relative difference in distances between body features expressed as a ratio is going to be entirely different and objects closer the lens appear larger. That’s what perspective means.
@@MitchLally Humans differentiate and can appreciate differences in distance due to our binocular vision providing us the ability to create a 3D rendering of our environment in our mind. Without binocular vision, humans would have a very difficult time determining relative distances. We are certainly not determining relative differences in distance due to perspective "distortion". You say, "Objects closer to the lens appear larger than objects further away - that’s what perspective means." Actually, that's not what perspective means. I believe "perspective" is defined as the process of representing on a plane or curved surface the spatial relation of objects as they might appear to the eye, and the representation of parallel lines as converging in order to give the illusion of depth and distance. So perspective also involves how far around a geometric shape can one observe at different distances from the sphere, cylinder, or cone. The further away one is from these geometric objects, the further around the geometric object one can observe. You say, "Simply put - a telephoto lens puts you further away from the subject in order to capture a full body shot and fill the frame thus decreasing the relative difference in distances of body features." Yes this is true, but neither this fact nor the fact that a wider-angle lens puts one closer to the subject in order to capture a full body shot and fill the frame thus increasing the relative difference in distances of body features, constitutes "distortion" or an anomaly from real life observations. Instead, the lens is simply rendering what it sees in real life just as one's eye renders the scene in real life. Now some will voice their opinion that the face appears distorted if shot from two feet away, but distorted from what? Someone can certainly claim that they don't like how faces look from two feet away, but if the lens is accurately rendering the appearance of a person from two feet away, no one can claim that the resulting image is distorted because that is how faces actually look two feet away. So what constitutes the distortion? Certainly, mere differences in perspective do not constitute "distortion", but rather just predictable and observable differences in perspective. There is nothing to be gained by one's labeling a perspective they do not happen to like as being "distorted" when it is not distorted, and doing so only confuses the newbies.
The fact that you say "humans can't tell distance without binocular vision" is testament to how wrong you are. I have a friend who only has vision in one eye - he can still play rugby and catch a football :') explain that!
No one is confused - thousands of people found this video helpful and you can even see what I was explaining in the example photos. You are the only one confused here.
@@MitchLally There is a difference between one's having binocular vision and the ability to use one's binocular vision to triangulate objects in a 3-dimensional world, and one's ability to mentally adapt to the relative sizes of known objects relative to the known sizes of other objects. For example, your friend's ability to catch a football is predicated on his knowledge and mental conditioning of the size of a football relative to the size of the other objects in his visual field. As the size of the football increases relative to the other stationery objects, he has adaptive conditioning to perceive the football getting closer to him. However, with binocular vision one does not need mental conditioning or adaptation to perceive the distance of objects as our brains use triangulation of visual data to perceive the object in it's 3-dimensional world. If you doubt this, then please feel free to discuss this topic with your eye doctor.
my 35 and 85mm are favorite lens combos. they're just a really fun pair to have around.
Thanks for the video.
Back in 1968, the 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor was the 2nd lens I purchased for my Nikon F 35mm SLR. The 35mm f/2 Nikkor was my 1st lens. I used both for reportage. I also used the 85 for head & shoulder portraits.
In 2016, I finally upgraded my manual focus 85 to the 85mm f1.4 D AF Nikkor. The 85mm autofocus and the manual focus 135mm f/2 Zeiss are my two favorite portrait lenses. Both lenses have a 77mm filter thread.
The 85mm is an important member of my favorite Nikkor lens kit (24/35/85/180).
I love my Sigma 85 F1.4 on my Sony a7IV - this thing rocks at night. I went out one night while it was raining at dusk in Tokyo.... OH my
That'll be meee soon - so excited!!
The Sony A7 iv does not overheat?
I went with the 135mm instead…. Great googly moogly
I have the 24, 35, 50, and 85, but for some reason the 85 is the least used prime lens I have. This video has made me challenged myself to use the 85 more on my next wedding shoot! Awesome vid Mitch!
I have the 50 1.2 and wondering why I need an 85 lol
I prefer a 100mm 2.8 macro over an 85mm 2.0/1.8/1.4/1.2 - the macro gives me more flexibility (detail shots) and is usually sharper. The background blur of 2.8 is enough for me. I usually want the whole face in focus and not just the eyes...
Excellent reasons! While #3, lightweight and compact is ergonomically important for my back and shoulders, #4, think in focal lengths, has been most beneficial to my photography. Once I have a "known" focal length lens, I immediately know what background that focal length / field-of-view will include. From there, I can concentrate on the subject's position and my position relative to the subject. Since I'm already moving, it's easy to find many interesting views of the subject. The photographer who is using a zoom and has the mindset of "I don't need to zoom with my feet" will tend to be more stationary, seeing the subject and background from only one direction.
That ring shot 📸 💍
Love my XF56mm f1.2 and XF90mm f2. They are two fantastic lenses. I also use a Canon FD 135mm and a Pentax 50mm f1.7, both vintage manual focus lenses for some things. Fun stuff!!
Yes i agree with you.. even two primes lenses can cause me fatigue during shooting.. always ringing the question at the back of my mind said “what if i use this lens or that lens..” this just halt my creativity. Thus i sold all my primes and get the zoom lens. If i’m going to buy another prime it is going to be a one focal length.. 85mm is something i love when you want to be unobtrusive..😊
You are right about having too many options with the zoom lens, I tend to get over whelm which is the best lens to use. Thank you...
I used 85mm prime and love it. Great for discreet approach, low light outdoor, portrait, boring background or decent environment, street photography, night and random photography. 85mm is great for single object while 50mm and below is great for overall subject. It's ridiculous to carry 70-200mm in public, and 85 is just tugged nicely in normal backpack. Anyway up to you.
85mm and longer focal lengths are great for portraits of men who want to appear more broad and substantial in their portraits. For portraits of women, a 50mm or 70mm lens used at closer distances will be more flattering since most women want to appear petite and thin in their portraits. On the other hand, if you're shooting a portrait of a loud-mouthed feminist who is obsessed with power by all means shoot her from a long distance with a 200mm lens to broaden her out and make her appear more invincible.
@@joansmith7649😮
85mm prime? I have been using my 85 f/1.2 for 16 years. However, focal length is a funny thing and it may surprise some photographers that the popular choices are related to which era that is referring to.
Back in the film days, the rule of thumb for formal portrait is 50 for full length, 85 for 3/4, 105 for half and 135 for head and shoulder. Also, the best Nikon portrait lens was the 105 f/2.5 and 135 mm for Canon and they even had DC and SF versions.
Fast forward to the infancy period of DSLR when lens design and manufacturing were getting better, the Canon 85 f/1.2 dominated and almost a must have for some wedding & portrait photographers. Also the rule of thumb during this period in describing the out of focus background was harsh for f/1.8, smooth for f/1.4 and creamy for f/1.2.
But after the new generation of photographers got tired of seeing images taken with the 85 f/1.2 and wished to have another focal length that could be called their own, the 24/35 became the trendy choice for environmental portraits and compression wasn't that important to them. Of course, 85mm remained important for certain genres and/or other photographers.
When Sigma released its 105 ART f/1.4, followed by Nikon's version, 85 f/1.2 had another competitor beside the 135mm and the legendary 200 f/2. Hence, do we need a 85mm lens today? My guess is that it will be a best seller for Nikonians once Nikon releases the Z 85 f/1.2 S, while Canonites may not depend on it as much as before. 🙂
That sigma 85 DG dn is just soo good, hard to take a bad shot with it, hands down fave lens for portraits/street.
recently picked up the 135 1.8 for my Sony A7IV as it looks simply amazing for portraits.
The shot at 1:25 is how I would like to use this lens. It stands out the most
You should show the aperture limitations of a zoom. Try a portrait with your 85 prime at f2.8 like a typical zoom would look, and then at f1.4. Also if you own a zoom, but finding yourself shooting only at one focal length instead of zooming, consider a prime at that focal length. I bought a 24mm and 85mm f1.4
85 is great, but not when in a normal room. 50 is much more versatile in this case. You still get some blur and you're not trying to hit a wall every time you need something more than a head. 35 is boring and has much less separation indoors. Outdoors 135 will give you even more separation than 85 keeping whole face sharp or at least both eyes. Focal plane in that case is not that thin so your subject ears will not be dissolved in background like in case of 85.
It's a personal thing for sure, but I was very surprised that I didn't like it at all. Most of the times I use a 50mm to give a more natural feel and some context and if I want to go back to the traditional setup I much more prefer the 135 and 200 for headshots.
It's funny how that works for everyone and how it changes from time to time.
Yup. Like I hate hate the 105 and 135 but luv 85mm
Your video is more about the advantage of fast telephoto primes than about the 85 specifically though.
I have an 85/35 combo for street style; want a 135 for contextualisation of the event/advertisement portraits where one may want just that little extra compression of the background sometimes to redirect the attention. And a 200 for when the background is less critical and just a means to support the subject.
Hi Mitch! I would love to see a comparative video between the sigma 65 f2 and the sigma 85 f1.4 for portrait photography. There are a lot of coments about the 65 as an alternative to the 85, but no videos comparing them directly. I think it is a very interesting video! As a bonus, the new sigma 50mm f2 can be mentioned as well! There you have it! Hope you think about it! Love your work!
35 / 85 is always my fave story telling combo
Same!
My go tos for portraits. I actually only own 1 zoom and it collects dust 95% of the time.
Agree that an 85 can be awesome. Loved it for 20+ years shooting Nikon film, then DDLR. Now I'm on Sony, which is super fast for accurate eye focus. I'm lucky with 15 Sony lenses to choose from. Oddly, I don't have an 85GM (deliberate choice). I'm waiting for a 2nd gen 85GM f1.4, which I will buy if it's as good (quite likely) as their other gen 2 optics (most of which I'm lucky to own).
135mm GM f1.8 from Sony is also a lovely lens that can really help a portrait pop.
I don't use it now as much as I should, but the Sony 85mm f1.8 is a relative bargain and IMO well worth any Sony shooter investigating. It's sharp enough, uber compact, easy to use. I can afford any Sony lens, but probably won't sell this, even if I do buy a rumoured 2nd gen GM 85mm f1.4.
Agreed on all points you presented. I happy that you didn't say to toss all your other primes. I recently went to a "Asian lantern festival" at our local zoo with my Sony A7R3. I opted to take a 50mm f1.8 vintage lens thinking that it would be ideal for the walking path with the "lanterns" on either side and overhead. It was fine for some of the shots, but found myself constantly looking for places to "back up" from my subjects. Frankly a good 28 or so would have been better. In this case an 85 or my favorite Sony 90mm 2.8 macro would have been almost useless.
I guess the only downside is carrying multiple lenses can be a pain - the best lens for the job is usually the one you left at home :')
Finally seeing that Sigma Art 85 1.4 DG DN in your Hands, One Of My Fave Lens haha!.. cant wait to see more photos from it Bro! Love The Vid!
Currently using a 50mm 1.2 on a crop sensor camera. Doing the math (50 x 1.6 = 80) puts me real close and the results are awesome.
Same here
I have a Sony 50 mm lens on my A6400 (crop sensor)
In this case it’s *1.5 so 75 mm
I loved my 35mm + 85mm combo, but I switched this month from Canon to Sony (I do 65% video and 35% photo) and the Sony ecosystem was more suited for my needs (at the moment 😅). So I had to buy a new set of lenses (still have my canon + lenses but I'm going to sell them) and bought a 24-70 2,8 GM II + 50mm 1.2 GM (love this lens!!🤩) and a 70-200 GM III 2,8. And my next lens will be the 24mm 1,4. I tend to prefer the 24mm +50mm + 70-200mm at the moment. But I know that was in love with the 85mm; I will see in the future if I miss it or not, but at least right now, I'm in love with the 50mm 1.2 for portrait, the bokeh is absolutely beautiful and the focal length is not too wide (35mm) or to narrow for me, and if I really need some range, I pick the 70-200. And I also love the 24mm 1,4 (I used to love my 35mm 1,4 but I think I prefer the 24mm, it can produces more unique pictures I think)
I didn't know there was a 70-200 GM III yet!
@@Mr.Fresson 😅I meant "II"
@@jsleger3404 24mm+50mm vs. 35mm+85mm is always the question for me.
Great call. I started with Sony and won’t use anything else. There’s Apple people and there’s Android people. I’m Apple and will never go off that path.
I just got the 85 1.4 Sigma for my Sony a7IV . Going to try her out this week
For over 20 years I only used a Leica M4-2 with a 35mm and a 90mm. The 85/90's are terrific focal lenses and not backbreakers. However, I just wish that people would stop harping about how great 85mm lenses are at full apertures. The truth is that there are a lot of "misses" at full aperture. Perhaps one should reconsider stopping down a stop or two and really see how great these lenses are. You'll also end up spending a lot less time editing out-of-focus shots and having clients tell you that the shots are not sharp.
Brilliant video, thank you! Can't wait to get an 85mm
all covered with a GFX GF 100 f2 and a Fuji XF 56 mm APD f1.2 - the Hf is roughly 86 mm field of view equivalent, and the XF is 84 mm equivalent
This video was so beautiful and inspiring 🥰. Thank you for your advice and perspective.
I always thought that just because you have a smaller aperture number, it doesn't mean you have to shoot at 1.8-1.4, but that you have the option in case you need those more intense dynamics... I only mention this because it seems like users sound as if sense they have a 1.4 that they must shoot at 1.4 indefinitely to maximize their purchase decision...
I only have 2 lenses... a prime and a zoom. I always TRY to treat my zoom lens as 2 prime lenses, as I try to always shoot with it zoomed all the way in OR out. Seldomly do I use something in the middle.
Why? For the exact reasons discussed in this video... to try and boost creativity. I usually save the middle focal lengths for when I already have an image in mind and I need to control the perspective distortion.
I'm just sharing this so that anyone that is struggling with creativity in their shooting, and they don't own a prime lens, can try to adjust their thinking approach when holding their camera. I know I was there when I first started shooting, and having just come back from a long hiatus, I am once again struggling with the creativity aspect of this great hobby.
I agree. Except, the Canon 70-200 is quite small and light, and it has a 2.8 max aperture which at 200 provides a lot separation and blur. But, you do need to be zoomed in pretty far. I do love my 85 1.2. It is magnificent. Might be my favorite lens.
It is my favourite too!
The Tamron 70-180 f2.8 is compact and it’s a real stunner. If I don’t need f1.x, it’s what I usually grab.
35mm is my fav prime. Currently I owned a Tamron SP 35mm f1.4.
At first I also want a 85mm and 105mm prime but decided to purchased a 70-200 f2.8 instead.
Zooms look cool and professional but i've never been able to get into them personally. If you have the time to slow down a bit primes are great, and you don't need many either. David Fincher shot The Game with basically just a 27mm and 85mm for close ups, House of Cards was mostly shot on 27/35mm I think. you really don't need many to get the job done even at a high level whether it be photo or video.
Perfect info, thanks a lot mate. Subscribed
I'm here because I'm a 85mm maniac. I have one on every system I own. Canon, Fuji (56mm Sigma), Sony. And with adapters, a 85mm on full frame becomes a whole different beast on APS-C (like a 135mm on full frame)
Best review and explanation I have seen. Thank you.
I recently bought my first interchangeable lens camera which is a used Sony Nex 5 and my only lens was the Helios 44 which I found attached to my grandpa's zenit xp. So I was literally forced to shoot at 87mm focal length and it was fun.
I have EF 18 something, a 50 f 1,8 (??) a 85 f 1.8, a 100 mm macro, another 50 (plastic fantastic, that I hate) and a Sigma Art 24-105. For portraits on a FF...always the 85. :)
Making me want to whip out the 85m more
I love my Canon 50mm f1.8 RF lens on a crop body Canon R7 which equivalent to 80mm
Just got my 85mm. Cant wait to use it! Now i have 24mm and the 85 🤘🏾😋
85MM is my favorite prime lens for a detailed shot.
I love my Sigma 85 1.4 DG DN, but I haven't used it much this year ;)
85 I love but I have not the most experience with 😅maybe I should practice more to be more comfortable 😊
For me, who like to take portraits indoors, the more open the objective lens, the better for me. I have an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III. She is amazing. But with f/1.2 aperture, I can lower the ISO. So, I will sell my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III + EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III to buy an RF 85mm f/2.8L to use with my Canon EOS R. I believe that for my type of hobby photography, just having a Canon R + RF 85mm f/1.2 is enough.
Hi, do you have any video where you explain how to edit portrait photos? Thanks for any help you can give me.
I hundred percent agree with you Mitch
The model at 2:00 looks significantly sharper in the 24mm zoomed in compared to the 85mm. Was that a lens issue or focus issue?
An older, crappier 85mm lens.
Would you recommend this lens to shoot portrets of animals, especially horses?
2:10 I have a Canon RF 85mm f1.2 and it's a beast compared to the RF 70-200 f2.8 😂
For me, I absolutely agree ......I often also use it in crop sensor mode to get 127 mm
Have considered photo stitching so you can get that extra crop zoom and edit photos for a wider shot.
I used to have 85/90mm Lenses, now my Lens set is, 14 1.8, 21 2.8, 24 1.4, 35 2.0, 55 1.8, 65 2.0 Macro, 110 2.5 Macro ad 135mm 1.8. I am working on getting my Lens gear more compact and lighter, so that the largest and heaviest Lenses will be swapped with more compact and lighter Lenses.
Yes, next video
Hi Mitch, what do you hear about the Tokina 85mm or Zeiss Batis 85mm lenses for Sony? Cheers!
Similar to @Narsuitus, I got started my pro career in 1971 with the Nikkor 1.8/85 on the Nikon F/FTN, and I own the C-Version from 1973 until now;-)) With my D300 half-format digital I prefer the Micro-Nikkor 3.5/55mm - thanks to crop factor a 82.5mm image impression. @philosimot
Very very VERY well put together and Good vid. The very second I get hired for portrait work, I'd looooooves to pick up that Sigma 85mm you mentioned. Looks pretty beast, buddy. Haha For now, I'm literally stuck at content creation on this sleight of hand magic account at the 24mm range, with the Sigma 14-24mm Canon 24mm 1.4 version ii with a Cinebloom Filter 🥲.
What is your opinion on a crop sensor camera?
expensive for Canon 1000USD but on Sony only for 600USD ugh... love that 85 Art Sigma 1.4 Can't afford only Viltrox 85mm 1.8 RF or the Manual Samyang 85mm RF 1. 4
Loved this one!
If I get 50 or 80 prime, which focal length would you recommend?
Can I use the Sigma 85mm for action ? F.ex a person on a horse doing some jumps and riding around in circles ?
Or is a prime a very bad lens to use for that ? I still have Tamron 70-180 and Sony 200-600. But will that prime work, or ?
Im asking cause Im buying that Sigma 85mm in two days no matter what.
85 and 35 are my fav 🖤🤍
You’re a fantastic photographer. That is all I wanted to say.
Thank you so much Jason!
Did this with a 35mm a while back, and I learned how much I love 35mm lol
the number (aperture) is technically not lower but higher
35+85 combo is just perfect for me 😽
I think I, like so many other canon 50mm apsc users, have the best 80mm-ish lens for the money.
better than Sony 50mm f1.2 GM?
I have a 50 mm but an ASP-C camera, so it’s the equivalent of 75 mm
I don’t think I need a 75 mm for the time being
I have a crop camera can i use a full frame 85 mm on it ?
No lies told here. I recently got my canon 85mm 1.2 and I love i!
I cannot stop thinking about the duplicated "24MM 2.0" on the the list of "too many primes" on the first second of the video :)
You found it 😄
what about using a 100 mm instead of 85?
85mm is lovely. I have the giant sigma 85 though. 😅
Unless I’m shooting wildlife an 85mm is hanging off the front of my camera (even though I’m not a portrait shooter). Great vid Mitch.
70-200 is a glorious apparatus
24/85 vs 35/85 travel combo?
28/85?
Here I sit, trying to convince myself for months that I do not need to spend the money on an 85 and then you come around with this 😂😂
Fuck yeah, new Mitch shit
Appreciate the support
Yeah man of course
Lightweight
My Zeiss Planar 85/1.8 weights almost 800grams and is quite small. Not really lightweight 😉
85 is king of all Lens 🔥🔥🎯
Are you sure?
My Canon RF 85mm f1.2 isn't too bad...
Could you help me.. I have sony a6600 w sigma 85mm f1.4 and faces look squished fat
go for 35 or 24mm lens or zoom lens 24 to 70.
@@truthseeker6804 i got a second camera.
@@Mtropey which camera?
@@truthseeker6804 sony a7 iv w sigma 85mm f1.4 also sigma 50mm f1.4
I believe your Sony A6600 has an APS-C sensor with a crop factor of 1.5. Therefore, a lens with a focal length of 85mm used on an APS-C sensor will be equivalent to a 127.5mm lens on a camera with a full frame sensor. If you are filling the frame of your A6600 camera with head-and-shoulder shots, chances are likely that your shooting distance from the subject is approximately 8' to 9'. Depending on the proportions of your subject, it is likely that this distance is causing your subject's face to appear rather 2-dimentional, broader and wider than you may like, and with the nose squashed and with the ears appearing enlarged and more prominent. Although the 135mm lens is widely touted as a suitable portrait lens on full-frame sensor cameras, the end result is equivalent to what you are seeing on your A6600 using an 85mm lens.
Most women do not look attractive shot at a distance of 9' unless they are very thin and gaunt. For a typical healthy woman, a shooting distance of approximately 6' to 7' will yield results that are generally more flattering, and if the woman is heavy-set, do her a favor and shoot her at 5' with her nose off-axis 20-30°. A 35mm - 50mm lens used on your crop sensor Sony A6600 camera will help facilitate these more flattering shooting distances. On a camera with a full-frame sensor you generally do not want to be shooting at distances exceeding 7-1/2' for head-and-shoulder shots, unless you are attempting to make an anorexic model appear more healthy.
If you make the move to a camera with a full-frame sensor you will shoot more flattering portraits of an average woman if you use a 50mm lens. Don't believe the hype touting the 85mm as a "portrait" lens, as the 85mm is mainly suitable as a portrait lens for women with a BMI lower than 18..... or for portraits of male subjects.
I suck with the 85
Massive but cute
Mitch goin from canon to sony breaks my heart 🥺
I don't want people to follow me just because of the camera I use.
@@MitchLally agreed
85mm is my only lense and will be.
Are your subjects all males?
Love the style of your photography, just spamming, I meant it in a good way.
Having the 105mm 1.4E I don’t use 85mm anymore.
Are you happier with the broader faces the 105mm provides at the typical shooting distances used with 105mm lenses? If you have a girlfriend, take her portrait with a 105mm at 10' and a 50mm at 5', with nose off axis by 20°, and see which image of herself she prefers
Some good points, some a little questionable.
Здорово! Спасибо!
As far as the comparison between the model shot with the 24mm lens and 85mm lens, the model's face captured at the distance used with the 24mm lens is superior. The face is oval and the shoulders are petite, although the model's face would be more flattering still if the image had been captured with an additional one foot in subject-lens distance, as her cheekbones and hair would be improved. The face in the image shot at the subject-lens distance used with the 85mm lens is broad and roundish, and certainly not as attractive as the face in the 24mm image. IMHO.
The key factor that influences facial shape is the subject-lens distance. This distance is the factor that should be first and foremost in the photographer's mind and not the lens's focal length. Zoom lenses give the photographer the opportunity to select the proper and most flattering subject-lens distance FIRST, and then select the focal length (magnification factor) on the zoom lens to adjust the framing. If one places emphasis on the focal length first, then one is likely to adjust the subject-lens distance to accommodate the focal length for framing, which is completely ass-backward as the subject's appearance is more important than anything else...... not the focal length number. The focal length is essentially irrelevant as long as the subject looks their best, and the factor that will influence the subject's appearance most is DISTANCE, not focal length.
With respect to the use of zoom lenses, most photographers using zoom lenses become very lazy and forget that DISTANCE (subject-lens distance) is the critical tool for flattering subjects. So just because one has a zoom lens does not mean they should not be physically adjusting their distance to the subject. This adjustment of the photographer's physical distance to the subject should take place BEFORE the photographer puts their hand on the zoom ring. Do NOT use the zoom ring or the focal length to dictate your distance to the subject. First, think about what will make your subject appear their best. Look closely at their face, and discuss with them what appeals to them. If a woman is self-conscious that they are anorexic and does not want to appear anorexic in their photos, then increase the subject-lens distance a bit..... and then adjust the zoom ring to accommodate and provide the framing (magnification) desired.
Focal length should only be viewed in terms of a magnification factor to be used for framing purposes only. And if the lens on the camera is a prime lens and this lens is unable to provide the desired framing at the desired subject-lens distance, then shoot at the subject-lens distance that will flatter the subject, and then crop into the image in post-production to achieve tighter framing. Do not adjust the subject-lens distance to achieve the desired framing if doing so will compromise the appearance of the subject.
And this is why it is always better to use prime lenses that have a focal length that is a bit wider than what one may want, rather than a lens that is a bit on the tele side. A wider lens can always offer the ability to shoot the subject loose at the most flattering distance with final framing taking place in post-production. But a longer lens does not offer the same flexibility for obvious reasons.
So if you are trying to decide between an 85mm prime or a 50mm prime for portraits, the most sensible and flexible choice is the 50mm. If one has a 50mm prime and stands back an extra three feet, they are now shooting at the same subject-lens distance they would be shooting at if they had an 85mm lens on the camera. In other words, the 50mm lens will provide more flexibility than the 85mm lens to shoot at the most flattering subject-lens distance. And again, this distance (subject-lens distance) is the most critical factor for one to be able to adjust. As far as this critical distance is concerned, essentially a 50mm lens can turn into an 85mm lens, but an 85mm lens cannot turn into 50mm lens.
If you do purchase an 85mm lens for portraits there will definitely be times when you will wish you could take the shot from a closer distance in order to take the pounds off the subject, but you will be unable to do so without making the in-camera crop/framing too tight. This situation is very very difficult to correct and address in post-production and is certainly a lot more time-consuming than simply capturing the image with a 50mm lens and cropping into the image in post.
You contradicted yourself like 4 times in this comment. Aren’t you the same person arguing that perspective distortion doesn’t exist on another video?
@@MitchLally Where specifically did I contradict myself?
@@joansmith7649 you say that the focal length has no effect on the subject’s appearance yet you recommend wider focal lengths because they allow you to shoot at a ‘distance that is more flattering’. It’s a huge contradiction because you’re changing the focal length to achieve a different result. I can’t believe you can’t see how crazy you sound 😂
@@joansmith7649 please link me your photo gallery. I’d love to see how your superiority complex impacts the quality of your images.
@@joansmith7649 and try to explain your pov without a 5000 word essay this time.
Well dud! The whole point of a zoom lens is so that you don't have to move back and forth to a certain spot to get the shot you want. I get it and understand the benefits of a prime, but please, can we stop all the crap about zoom lenses making you lazy? I don't necessarily want to "zoom with my feet" all the time, hence the "ZOOM" lens. IJS
As I've mentioned in other posts, there is no such thing as "perspective distortion". The camera lens simply records the subject and perspective that is before it at any given subject-lens distance. The lens is not creating the perspective and it is not distorting the perspective. So the notion that one stands back to get a more "real life perspective" is faulty. If one shoots a portrait three feet away from the model, that is how the model actually looks in real life three feet away from the lens. The lens is not distorting or altering that appearance. Because most people are not studying another person's appearance while in a person's personal space (unless they are their significant other), the view of a model at 3' away may not be comfortable or familiar, but it is exactly how the model really does look at that close distance...... and there is nothing wrong with that.
Yes there is such a thing as perspective distortion - how do you think humans can differentiate distance?! I never said the lens created the distortions - it’s the distance to the subject that creates distortions. Objects closer to the lens appear larger than objects further away - that’s what perspective means. You’re so caught up in trying to point out how other people are wrong that you totally miss the fact that I’m not even referring to lens distortion. Simply put - a telephoto lens puts you further away from the subject in order to capture a full body shot and fill the frame thus decreasing the relative difference in distances of body features. If you were to fill the frame with a full body shot on a 24mm you’re going to be much closer to your subject and the relative difference in distances between body features expressed as a ratio is going to be entirely different and objects closer the lens appear larger. That’s what perspective means.
@@MitchLally Humans differentiate and can appreciate differences in distance due to our binocular vision providing us the ability to create a 3D rendering of our environment in our mind. Without binocular vision, humans would have a very difficult time determining relative distances. We are certainly not determining relative differences in distance due to perspective "distortion".
You say, "Objects closer to the lens appear larger than objects further away - that’s what perspective means." Actually, that's not what perspective means. I believe "perspective" is defined as the process of representing on a plane or curved surface the spatial relation of objects as they might appear to the eye, and the representation of parallel lines as converging in order to give the illusion of depth and distance.
So perspective also involves how far around a geometric shape can one observe at different distances from the sphere, cylinder, or cone. The further away one is from these geometric objects, the further around the geometric object one can observe.
You say, "Simply put - a telephoto lens puts you further away from the subject in order to capture a full body shot and fill the frame thus decreasing the relative difference in distances of body features." Yes this is true, but neither this fact nor the fact that a wider-angle lens puts one closer to the subject in order to capture a full body shot and fill the frame thus increasing the relative difference in distances of body features, constitutes "distortion" or an anomaly from real life observations.
Instead, the lens is simply rendering what it sees in real life just as one's eye renders the scene in real life. Now some will voice their opinion that the face appears distorted if shot from two feet away, but distorted from what? Someone can certainly claim that they don't like how faces look from two feet away, but if the lens is accurately rendering the appearance of a person from two feet away, no one can claim that the resulting image is distorted because that is how faces actually look two feet away. So what constitutes the distortion?
Certainly, mere differences in perspective do not constitute "distortion", but rather just predictable and observable differences in perspective. There is nothing to be gained by one's labeling a perspective they do not happen to like as being "distorted" when it is not distorted, and doing so only confuses the newbies.
The fact that you say "humans can't tell distance without binocular vision" is testament to how wrong you are. I have a friend who only has vision in one eye - he can still play rugby and catch a football :') explain that!
No one is confused - thousands of people found this video helpful and you can even see what I was explaining in the example photos. You are the only one confused here.
@@MitchLally There is a difference between one's having binocular vision and the ability to use one's binocular vision to triangulate objects in a 3-dimensional world, and one's ability to mentally adapt to the relative sizes of known objects relative to the known sizes of other objects.
For example, your friend's ability to catch a football is predicated on his knowledge and mental conditioning of the size of a football relative to the size of the other objects in his visual field. As the size of the football increases relative to the other stationery objects, he has adaptive conditioning to perceive the football getting closer to him. However, with binocular vision one does not need mental conditioning or adaptation to perceive the distance of objects as our brains use triangulation of visual data to perceive the object in it's 3-dimensional world. If you doubt this, then please feel free to discuss this topic with your eye doctor.
Sigma-$1199
Canon-$2500
Why??
More male models please!!
Especially if the lens will be 85mm or longer used at distances in excess of 8'.
The other benefit of an 85 is you can kill a drop bear with one.
That was point number 6 but it didn’t make the cut