Some of my favorite photos I have taken are with my 85mm. I shoot Canon and have the F1.8 model. I have to say that for the cost to over all quality I think it might be Canon's best lens. I once talked to a pro about the 85s and he told me he originally had the F1.2, but he sold got, got two of the F1.8 models, and then pockets the remaining 1000 dollars. That is a hell of an endorsement.
I'm mostly a nature/landscape photographer. However, for family and friends, I always use my 85mm f1.8. I too incorporate foreground/environment with the 85mm using my feet. Additionally, I carry my 35mm which I also use for astrophotography. Great content - subscribed.
Those were spot on descriptions and tips for using the 85mm. I related to what you said at the end regarding it not being a high volume lens but when used creates stunning results. Great video!
Great video that sums up the actual art of using the 85mm and not just the nerdy details. A lot here I'd picked up intuitively over the years, articulated well in 8 short minutes. How dare you, lol. Happy shooting! Also loved the 35mm companion video. These are the two lenses I carry in my bag :).
As always, enjoyable. Which is seldom when technical aspects and hardware are concerned. I agree, that shooting with prime lenses and using the legs as a zoom creates more artistic results. Since - like it or not - zoom lenses are merely "cropping the picture" without impacting the perspective.
Great description of working with any prime, pretty much. I love that a prime forces me to think more. It's always less convenient in the moment but boy does it pay in image quality and innovation.
Hi first time here. Thanks for great video and perspective. Have only used 28-75 until now and thinking about me 2 lense, and 85 is on top On that list. Really thx, really good point of views.
My favorite 85 is the discontinued early 2000s Zeiss 85 1.4 planar. Unlike a 70-200 that has 22 light reflecting/absorbing/bending elements, ie pieces of glass, the 85 has 6. Hold you eye glasses so you can see the shadow it casts on the floor... now picture 22 pieces of glass! Plus each element bends and unbends the light rays. In goes filet mignon, out comes hamburger. There is a reason for the terms zeiss pop and leica look. It is a virtual 3D rending, not flat images that come out of high element count lenses. The quality of bokeh of low element count lenses can be spectacular. My 7 element nikon 135 2.0 dc and it's little sister, the 105, 1995 lenses, have fantastic bokeh as do the zeiss glass. And someone had posted a photo from the new nikon 105 lens. It is the only time I literally got nauseous from bokeh in a photo. My nikon 180 2.8 prime has 8 elements not the 70-200 22. Oh, and it is only $300 used like new but still made after nearly 30 years as is the 135. Guess why.
Valid point! I often forget about aps-c sensors since I don’t use them. A 127mm equivalent is a little long but will still have beautiful bokeh. If you want more of an 85, probably better to use a 55mm on a crop sensor.
Definitely a great video for helping people appreciate the many roles a short telephoto like the 85mm can play. As for an equivalent field of view on other sensor sizes, maybe just a mention of the phenomenon and one example to help folks just starting out. No need to belabor it. Most of us who shoot with smaller sensors are pretty aware of the crop sensor field-of-view math. And newbies will easily get overwhelmed by too many examples: 1.5x for APS-C (unless of course it’s Canon, then 1.6x), 2x for Micro Four-thirds, 4.6x for Pentax Q7 and Q-S1 but 5.6x for the older Pentax Q10 and original Q. Just my $0.02 (0.018€) 😁worth. 📷
Very informative but you said something that might confuse beginners. You said that one of the factors of bokeh is the minimum aperture of your lens, when it is in fact, the maximum aperture of your lens. It is the minimum number on your lens, which is actually the maximum aperture. It is confusing in the beginning, but just wanted to point that out.
The obsarvation is fair but really pointless. I don't think anyone gets confused nowadays really. Most people now that a lower aperture value means more light and more bokeh. Even the smartphones are fighting for who has a lower aperture so in a nutshell people mostly know how aperture works thanks to the fighting spirit of major smartphone companies over who has a lower aperture.
@@danielbogos263 Just pointing out that for beginners, the terminology might be confusing. Im referring to beginning photographers who may think that low aperture and minimum aperture may mean the same thing.. If you dont think that anyone gets confused nowadays, I've come across many beginners that do get confused.
The information at 0:57 is incorrect! Fifty millimeter is closer to what human eye sees how come 50mm distorts facial features?? It is rather the 85mm that flattens the face more than what it is in reality!!
Interesting point, maybe the 85 makes things look better than reality! People actually have varying field of views so some see closer to 50, some see wider, really depends on the person.
Great video, except you are confusing bokeh with shallow depth of field. Shallow depth of field will blur out the background. Bokeh is the quality of the out of focus elements.
If you guys go to the gym and do rock climbing always double or triple check your safety gear. I saw a video on Twitter randomly of someone guy that was making a video filming himself and he forgot to check his own straps and fell like 30 feet. That video really messed with my head I felt so bad for him. There are other videos of people falling also some not as bad. I think rock climbing is not worth it really.
A 85mm prime isn’t necessarily cheaper than a 70-200 zoom. My Zeiss 85mm/1.4 is noticeably expensiver than many zoom, also when you take into consideration that Zeiss lenses are manual focus. There is no Nikon, Sony or Canon 85mm that can beat the image rendering of this Zeiss. Not even the Canon 1.2! Also the “bokeh king” is not even close to the Nikon AF-D 105mm D.C. ( Defocus Control). Zooming with your feet gives not the same perspective as zooming with a zoom lens!
Some of my favorite photos I have taken are with my 85mm. I shoot Canon and have the F1.8 model. I have to say that for the cost to over all quality I think it might be Canon's best lens. I once talked to a pro about the 85s and he told me he originally had the F1.2, but he sold got, got two of the F1.8 models, and then pockets the remaining 1000 dollars. That is a hell of an endorsement.
The Canon 85 f/1.8 is a great lens, glad you're enjoying it! That person sounds like a pro, always weighing the value of $$ vs glass hahaha
I cannot wait for the 135mm review. I agree with a lot of you said here regarding the 85mm.
I did a review here: ruclips.net/video/VLrlGiebSMc/видео.html
best vid to describe the 85 good job
Thanks so much!
I'm mostly a nature/landscape photographer. However, for family and friends, I always use my 85mm f1.8. I too incorporate foreground/environment with the 85mm using my feet. Additionally, I carry my 35mm which I also use for astrophotography. Great content - subscribed.
Well said! I appreciate the sub!
Those were spot on descriptions and tips for using the 85mm. I related to what you said at the end regarding it not being a high volume lens but when used creates stunning results. Great video!
Thanks so much for watching, if anyone has any questions or needs tips on which 85mm lens will be best for their camera, leave a comment below :)
Great video that sums up the actual art of using the 85mm and not just the nerdy details. A lot here I'd picked up intuitively over the years, articulated well in 8 short minutes. How dare you, lol. Happy shooting! Also loved the 35mm companion video. These are the two lenses I carry in my bag :).
Thanks for the kind words! Appreciate the feedback 🙏🏻
That was a wonderful video presentation. It really helped me understand the use of an 85 mm lens. Thank you very much. 😊
So glad I could help! Thanks for sharing 🙌🏻
As always, enjoyable. Which is seldom when technical aspects and hardware are concerned. I agree, that shooting with prime lenses and using the legs as a zoom creates more artistic results. Since - like it or not - zoom lenses are merely "cropping the picture" without impacting the perspective.
Thanks so much for the feedback!
Great description of working with any prime, pretty much. I love that a prime forces me to think more. It's always less convenient in the moment but boy does it pay in image quality and innovation.
great video, very helpful, thank you!
You're welcome! Thanks for the kind words!
Hi first time here. Thanks for great video and perspective. Have only used 28-75 until now and thinking about me 2 lense, and 85 is on top
On that list.
Really thx, really good point of views.
Glad it was helpful! If you have any questions just let me know :)
Hi from Denver! Love your videos!
Hey, thanks! Glad to have a local subscriber ✌🏻
I’m so close to buying this lens.
Nice! Depending on your camera system, there are often some great deals on the Amazon used section 👍🏻
Thank you ! Very helpful 👌 😊
Thanks for watching! ☺️
Sorry but the RF 85 1.2 cost much more than the RF 70-200 2.8
That is true! Canon doesn't have as many 85mm options but you could look at the Samyang 85mm f/1.4, its much cheaper :)
@@TheBergreensif you can find one😂
My favorite 85 is the discontinued early 2000s Zeiss 85 1.4 planar. Unlike a 70-200 that has 22 light reflecting/absorbing/bending elements, ie pieces of glass, the 85 has 6. Hold you eye glasses so you can see the shadow it casts on the floor... now picture 22 pieces of glass! Plus each element bends and unbends the light rays. In goes filet mignon, out comes hamburger. There is a reason for the terms zeiss pop and leica look. It is a virtual 3D rending, not flat images that come out of high element count lenses. The quality of bokeh of low element count lenses can be spectacular. My 7 element nikon 135 2.0 dc and it's little sister, the 105, 1995 lenses, have fantastic bokeh as do the zeiss glass. And someone had posted a photo from the new nikon 105 lens. It is the only time I literally got nauseous from bokeh in a photo. My nikon 180 2.8 prime has 8 elements not the 70-200 22. Oh, and it is only $300 used like new but still made after nearly 30 years as is the 135. Guess why.
Interesting! Thanks for sharing!
Nice job but you forgot to mention the lens may be the wrong choice if used on crop-sensor cameras.
Valid point! I often forget about aps-c sensors since I don’t use them. A 127mm equivalent is a little long but will still have beautiful bokeh. If you want more of an 85, probably better to use a 55mm on a crop sensor.
Definitely a great video for helping people appreciate the many roles a short telephoto like the 85mm can play.
As for an equivalent field of view on other sensor sizes, maybe just a mention of the phenomenon and one example to help folks just starting out. No need to belabor it. Most of us who shoot with smaller sensors are pretty aware of the crop sensor field-of-view math. And newbies will easily get overwhelmed by too many examples: 1.5x for APS-C (unless of course it’s Canon, then 1.6x), 2x for Micro Four-thirds, 4.6x for Pentax Q7 and Q-S1 but 5.6x for the older Pentax Q10 and original Q. Just my $0.02 (0.018€) 😁worth. 📷
I use a Viltrox 85mm on my Fujifilm APS-C cameras. It is my preferred lens for portraits and cats.
Very informative but you said something that might confuse beginners. You said that one of the factors of bokeh is the minimum aperture of your lens, when it is in fact, the maximum aperture of your lens. It is the minimum number on your lens, which is actually the maximum aperture. It is confusing in the beginning, but just wanted to point that out.
Good point! Sometimes I misspeak about that! Always a bit confusing to explain the inverse relationship of size to number 🤣🤪
The obsarvation is fair but really pointless. I don't think anyone gets confused nowadays really. Most people now that a lower aperture value means more light and more bokeh. Even the smartphones are fighting for who has a lower aperture so in a nutshell people mostly know how aperture works thanks to the fighting spirit of major smartphone companies over who has a lower aperture.
@@danielbogos263 Just pointing out that for beginners, the terminology might be confusing. Im referring to beginning photographers who may think that low aperture and minimum aperture may mean the same thing.. If you dont think that anyone gets confused nowadays, I've come across many beginners that do get confused.
The information at 0:57 is incorrect! Fifty millimeter is closer to what human eye sees how come 50mm distorts facial features?? It is rather the 85mm that flattens the face more than what it is in reality!!
Interesting point, maybe the 85 makes things look better than reality! People actually have varying field of views so some see closer to 50, some see wider, really depends on the person.
Boka boka boka boka, porscha porscha porscha...bokE and porschE don't be afraid to say it.
85mm lives on my camera body. Love it!
Hahah, I’ll try 🤪 Thanks for watching!
Good advice...
Glad it was helpful! Thanks for your feedback!
🙏👍!
✌
Great video, except you are confusing bokeh with shallow depth of field.
Shallow depth of field will blur out the background.
Bokeh is the quality of the out of focus elements.
Thanks for the clarification, I’ll keep that in mind!
If you guys go to the gym and do rock climbing always double or triple check your safety gear. I saw a video on Twitter randomly of someone guy that was making a video filming himself and he forgot to check his own straps and fell like 30 feet.
That video really messed with my head I felt so bad for him. There are other videos of people falling also some not as bad.
I think rock climbing is not worth it really.
Thanks for the tip! We’ve seen lots of accidents over the years so I always appreciate the reminder to stay safe 🫡
Nowadays some (expensive) 70-200 lenses are just as good as a fixed 85 mm, or even better.
This is true. You usually get what you pay for when it comes to lenses :)
Did you compare the bokeh a 85 1.2 with 2.8 an a 70-200 2.8 on 85? Greets
@@rainerwunderlich8023 That is an interesting idea. The 85 1.2 has pretty epic bokeh, I'm pretty sure it would be a solid winner :)
lol fancy footwork 😂
✌😀
A 85mm prime isn’t necessarily cheaper than a 70-200 zoom.
My Zeiss 85mm/1.4 is noticeably expensiver than many zoom, also when you take into consideration that Zeiss lenses are manual focus.
There is no Nikon, Sony or Canon 85mm that can beat the image rendering of this Zeiss. Not even the Canon 1.2!
Also the “bokeh king” is not even close to the Nikon AF-D 105mm D.C. ( Defocus Control).
Zooming with your feet gives not the same perspective as zooming with a zoom lens!
The 105 sounds awesome!!
135 1.8 GM is the best lens from Sony has, 85 1.4 is good, but not even close the bokeh monster
I agree the 135 1.8 GM is the bokeh king, I just posted a review of the Samyang 135 f/1.8, nearly identical to the Sony but 1/3 the price!
As well as the Canon 135 2.0 - I love it! Greets
Hi what city are you guys in?
Fine art girl beyond photography.
Hi Terry, we are near Denver Colorado, where are you located? :)