The shoot took place at my now firmly cemented default location: Griffith Park; with make-up and styling starting at 3:30pm, taking about an hour before we got shooting, with last shot about 30 mins after sunset. I started with the 85mm 1.8 prime... but quickly swapped it out for the 24-70mm 2.8 and never put it back on. I'm finding that while I love-love-love my 85mm... I just can't really use it for anything other than traditional portraits-- and I'm not doing as many of those as I first thought I would when I bought the lens. I need the breathing room that a 35mm or 50mm focal length provides when composing a frame.
In the beginning, I was hell-bent on owning the coveted Canon 85mm f/1.2L.... at a fetching $1,970; the legend of this lens made me want to buy it blind... I'm so glad I did not. For anyone torn between the 1.2 and the 1.8-- forget all the talk about the slower AF and back-focusing issues with the 1.2... you only need to say to yourself..."When am I ever going to need to be at an aperture of 1.2?" The answer will be nearly never; 1.8 is a perfectly adequate aperture to get that legendary thin, creamy DOF. If it's worth the nearly $2k so you have the option of having a subject's eyes in focus, but the tips of the eyelashes begin to get blurry, I have two things to say: 1) What kind of photography are you really doing? and 2) Can I borrow $5 grand, cause you clearly are doing OK at the bank. I'll pay you back, I swear.
Listen, I'm not saying 85mm isn't a useable focal-length, quite the contrary... I'm merely saying for less than $400, you can have an extremely comparable alternative, that even is widely commentated on being sharper than the 1.2, anyway. Sure, the L-series touts being weather-sealed and sturdy and tough... but unless you're a journalist in the Middle East running from an RPG attack, your 85mm 1.8 is going to survive just fine in your camera bag. In fact, if you were a journalist in Afghanistan you WOULD want the option of being at a 1.2, in order just to get an exposure in low-light, because a flash is going to get you a sniper-bullet right between the eyes.
But I digress... back to April's shoot...
I brought in a 22" white reflector disc for a few of the back-lit shots, but other than that, no flash or fill were used otherwise. Her mom was on set the whole time, too... which was actually great because I put her to work watching my equipment or holding the reflector when needed. I just wish her dad and sisters came, because I would've had stuff for them to do, as well!
Special mega thanks to the wonderful killer-combo MUA & hairstylist, Tasha Brown... who honestly and literally, is way way waaaaaaay above my paygrade to be slumming it with me. Guess it helps to have a mega-successful TV producer girlfriend who can hook you up! Tasha was such a bright happy light on set and so freaking good, it pains me that I'll never be as good at anything, as she is with make-up. She also jumped in with a lot of coaching and suggestions for the models when shooting, and man, was that appreciated; it was so great to have a second pair of eyes, catching smaller things you don't notice in the moment, but become glaring, rendering a photo unusable later... such as an out of place chunk of hair, awkward hand gesture, or a section of clothing puffing out. Thank you thank you thank you Tasha!
just because you cant buy a 85mm u kept on condemning. Professionals earn well enough to appreciate such luxury. think critically, just my 2cents
ReplyDeleteCan't buy? When did I say I couldn't buy? I said I'd rather spend my money on a very good equivalent for a lens/fixed focal length I don't use that much anyway.
ReplyDeleteAnd any real professional will tell you its hardly your glass, nor camera, that makes a great photograph, much less a "professional" photographer.
you gotta be in the industry to really know what are your needs. I believe the optics in the 1.8 aren't HQ enough as the 1.2. Wedding photographers are paid in luxury amount of investment. try using a 85mm 1.8 and show your client.
ReplyDeleteYes, we get it. You like your 85 1.2. I'm happy for you. As in life, each photographer is an individual, special little snowflake; and they have to find what works for them.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if you think a bride is going to be able to tell the difference between 1.2 and 1.8, you're crazy. "Do I look pretty and thin" is the ONLY thing a wedding client-- who, let's face it, IS the bride-- cares about.
And guess what, my 70mm-200mm 2.8/L is spectacular for wedding portraits. I know, because I've shot 4 weddings, and doing a fifth next weekend. Gotta pay the bills.
A 50mm prime is much better for weddings. Again, I know because I rent one every time I have a gig. That, combined with the aforementioned 70-200 and my 24-70 is more than fine, it's a bad-ass arsenal. I've been paid quite well for all wedding gigs I've done and have yet to hear a complaint about the quality of my pictures, much less due to my lens choices.
There's no way you're shooting below a 2.0 anyway for a wedding. You're gonna be at 8 or bigger 95% of the time and for that special bride-by-the-window shot, 2.0 is fine, which you can get in the 1.8 and have it look very nice.
I happen to know for a fact-- as stated directly by him-- that photographer Kelser Tran (www.kelsertran.com) shoots all his studio stuff on a "paltry" 50mm 1.4. Not the 1.2/L. And oh my god, I can just TELL the inferior lens quality has effected his pictures to the point they're rendered indecorous by clients. For shame. He's such an amateur.
Listen pal-- I don't care where, how, or what people spend their money on. My entire point is, if you're building up your lens collection, the 85 1.2 is a gem... a luxury lens that-- IN MY EXPERIENCE-- is not a fixed focal length I use enough in what I'M trying to do to need to own it, when I can be directing my money towards other lenses I'd use first or more... such as the 35mm 1.4, which is next on my list.
The 1.8 is made for average use. And that's what I use it for. Obviously the 1.2 build quality is different, the way it handles flare and of course is a bit more useful in low-light, and the leafs in the shutter are rounder for smoother bokeh. But most "clients" won't be able to tell the difference and someone who wouldn't use it that much would be happy with the less expensive version.
I'm not trying to speak for all photographers. If I were, I'd have to tell everyone to buy every lens, ever. I am speaking to MY readers about MY experience and MY opinions. How fucking dare you condescend me about "what a real professional needs".
Start your own blog.
this is my personal message since you adjust the comment base on approval.
ReplyDeletegood luck.
coward hope you succeed in your "Blogging" wow how amaze. not even a member of WPPI wanna talk shit with me? good luck just good luck haha
ReplyDelete