As some of you may remember, I tested the Canon 85mm F1.8 against the Canon 100mm F2.8 Macro a few weeks ago and concluded that the 85 would make a nice addition to my lens arsenal. Here is one of the shots I took with it -- in the rain, not sharpened.



Then, a few weeks later, I had the opportunity to go to some shows in Louisville and shoot the Canon 135mm F2.0L. Here's a shot from that series.



Those two experiences convinced me of a couple of things:
1. primes are both faster and sharper than zooms. Now, there's a brilliant flash of the obvious but because of the convenience of zooms, we tend to forget that basic truth. I love my zooms -- especially my Canon 70-200 F4L -- but sometimes it just doesn't fit the bill.

2. while the 135L is a great lens (unbelievable IQ even with a 1.4TC), it is too long for indoor candids at dog shows. I need something shorter and, if possible, something faster.

So, I finally decided on the 85mm F1.8. In addition to the bread 'n butter stuff of candids in the show ring, it's a great portrait lens both in the studio and outdoors. It's small, light, unobtrusive and both fast and sharp.

I had a birthday recently and folks were very kind to me so I've been monitoring the used market for this lens. Not easy because not many come into the market and, when they do, they get snapped up immediately. Plus, I didn't want to spend more than $300 for it. Yes, it's worth it but it's a guy thing.

So yesterday, while doing my usual twice a day monitoring of the KEH site, an 85mm 1.8 came up for $285. I bought it. It'll arrive on Monday.

I'll publish some images once I have a chance to shake it out fully. I find myself gravitating to more single-purpose lenses than I did 5 years ago. I don't mind switching lenses when I have the time to do it. Zooms are still extraordinarily important parts of my kit. But the 50 and the 85 will give me great portrait and low-light options.

Next on the lust list is that 135L followed by the 200mm F2.8L. And then I'll be done. Kinda. I'm still interested in testing the 400mm F5.6L. I seldom need that kind of reach but when you do . . . .

More later,

Jim

Nice purchase, Jim; it will serve you well!

Nice capture with that 85. Is it full frame or cropped?

Julie,
shot with my 30D, cropped sensor. I took over 2 dozen shots that morning and Rowdy just held his stack and let me toss milkbones. He's the best model ever.

The 85's shallow DOF lets you do some really nice subject isolation from backgrounds. Haven't really tried it with specular highlights but will do that once it arrives. What impressed me was that at 1.8, it's as sharp as most zooms at 5.6. Not bad for a non "L" lens.

The longer I shoot, the more I gravitate back into primes. You occasionally have to "zoom with your feet" but when you need absolutely the best IQ, they are unbeatable.

Jim

Jim;

I think you would really love the 400mm f5.6; it is a super sharp lens and a really fun lens. Great for candid shots at the dog park, it is light and very easy to hand-hold, and it will open another arena for you in photography-a bit of wildlife photography. It is awesome at at the beach shooting pelicans, gulls, etc. If you could swing it, I think this could be an awesome purchase. I only wish Nikon made something like it, once I switched to Nikon, I really miss that lens.

John,
what I want to test is the 200mm F2.8L + 1.4TC against the 400mm F5.6L just to see whether it's worth the investment. From both everything I've read and everything I've seen, the 400 is a really nice "affordable" super-telephoto. Whether or not I can justify it based on revenue potential is a key question because I won't be able to "sell" it to Linda for my wildlife adventures.

That one will test my creativity .

Jim

A 200 with the 1.4 is only a 280; not a valid comparison with the 400mm.

Part of what makes the 400mm so nice is its simplicity. Maybe it would not be the most useful lens for your ring work but it will put more fun back into your causal shooting.

Post some shots with specular highlights when you get the lens. I'd really be interested in seeing that. I have a 50mm 1.8 and I really struggle with using a prime instead of a zoom. I'm going to try some studio shots today with the 50mm and some new light modifiers that I got. I just got a Lumiquest Promax system and an Alzo hotshoe softbox.

I usually shot ring candids with my 70-200mm 2.8 IS. Do you think you get enough reach with the 85 for ring candids. I usually shoot head shot candids and not a lot of full body shots, but do shoot a lot of dogs in the group, too.

Julie,
based on my experiences in Louisville with the 135mm F2.0L, the 85 should be perfect for in-ring full body and moving shots indoors which is what I shoot primarily. I don't like doing headshots indoors under that type of lighting and at that high an ISO. If folks want headshots, I do them outside or somewhere I can bounce my flash for decent illumination.

No question that zooms spoil you when it comes to cropping. And the 70-200 F2.8 is an outstanding lens in its own right. But I compared the 85, 100 macro and 135 with my 70-200 F4L and the primes blow it away in terms of IQ. And that gives you more cropping room the same way more pixels do.

I'll share the shakedown images. Can't wait until tomorrow! And, yes, the look of the specular highlights is something I really want to check out. In the stuff I've shot, the creamy bokeh is very nice. But I want to see those dancing lights .

Jim

Well, the UPS truck pulled up to the studio at 4 sharp and dropped off my 85. At 4:15, I was shooting some test shots. This is not exactly an exhaustive shakeout but it has given me some information already.

First image is one I took of our cat, OJ, on the counter -- available light, hand-held at F1.8 and 1/60sec. Focal point is left eye. Here's the full-frame shot.



And here's a 100 percent crop.



Next, I went outside and took a few shots of Sundance. He is just so serious!! And it's ironic that in behavior, he is anything but . Here's a full-frame shot at F4.0.



And here's a 100 percent crop.



Next, I took a shot of my neighbor's house at F8.0 to see how sharp the lens is at what I would assume is optimum aperture. Here's the full-frame shot.



And here's a 100 percent crop.



And, finally, here are a couple of samples of the specular highlights, first at F2.0.



And again at F2.5.



Keep in mind that wide open, the specular highlights should be pretty much round because the diaphram is not closed down at all so using these two apertures shows what the OOF diaphram highlights look like.

My conclusions so far:
1. physically, the lens is very nice. Not quite an L but much nicer than most of the other "regular" Canon lenses I've owned and used. Plus, this lens was rated "Excellent" by KEH. It is spotless both in terms of the glass and the barrel. I can't imagine how much better a LN or LN- lens would be.

2. The lens is light, fast and pretty sharp even wide open.

3. Stopped down a couple of stops and it's very sharp. At F8.0, it's as sharp as anything I've used recently including the 135L. I'll do more to test that theory but just from what I've shot today, I'm very impressed.

Tomorrow, I'll set up some stuff in the studio and shoot it on a tripod and with studio strobes and we'll see just how well it does the things I bought it for -- portraits. But right now I can tell that this is a very nice piece of glass.

BTW, I was able to fit the lens hood of the 50 onto the 85 with a step-up ring so I don't have to buy the "custom" lens hood for the 85. That was pretty cool.

Jim