Why 85 mm lens

Vipmediastar_JZ

I wanted to buy walkie talkies but haven't while using 200-300mm ranges.
I'll just add on say That I like to shoot 1.4-2.8 for myself and the client I usually deliver 5.6-f8 for the same session.

WestEndFoto

There is a 16 year old Singaporean wedding photographer with a contrary view about wide apertures.

vtc2002

It is exciting to see a young photographer explore an area like wide apertures and to break out with his own style. However, I spent some time going through his Flickr photos and while some of them are remarkable, there are a equal number or if not more that are not and in my opinion is the result of shooting at wide aperture for the image that he was trying to capture. For example the Yamuna + Dumitrel Album some of the more intimate moments that he captured either the Bride or the Groom is not in focus that I would think the couple would want both to be in focus and tack sharp. There are examples in other Albums were the bride is in focus but the flowers she is holding and gazing at are out of focus or vice versa. It may be his style and the bride and groom may be happy with the results but it seems awkward to me. The Bride and the flowers are the subject of the image and both should be in focus or at least that how I see it perhaps I am wrong. It would be good to hear from the more seasoned wedding photographers. It is obvious that he is talented but I am not sure if I see the point of shooting everything at 2.8 or lower for all of the wedding. There are times when a smaller aperture is needed and should be used. Just my 2 cents worth and not trying to bash him but pointing this out as it relates to this discussion.
I am with @Vipmediastar_JZ.

PeachBlack

Well, there are a couple of things that can be said about shooting wide open: first, it's risky. Not only are you more likely to miss focus, but the focus point can shift, and the camera just plain misses sometimes. There's very little room for error. That's why when I am pressed for time and absolutely have to get the shot, I'm down to at least ƒ4. Second, don't be a robot. Know when its use is appropriate and when it's not. Your most valuable tool as a photographer is your brain: use it. What do you want in the shot? What do you want it to look like? If you're not sure and you want to play it safe, close it down a little.

vtc2002

@PeachBlack Excellent points. Second point is spot on!

donaldejose

I am not a wedding photographer but I noticed the same thing in looking at his website. When shooting portraits I find f4 is about right most of the time and f5.6 or f8 for a group when you want to insure that more than just one face is in focus. F1.4 and f2 are great sometimes but no one should think they should use them all the time. However, this is the "traditional" point of view. I don't want to criticize a young photographer. If his young clients think the images he gets from always shooting wide open are "cool" then so be it. More power to him for having a style to sell.

PeachBlack

On the other hand, I think a lot of old-school photographers are kind of afraid of ƒ1.4. This is partly because their experience tells them that it's dangerous, even though improvements in AF and lenses means that it's MUCH easier these days to get usable shots when shooting wide open.

donaldejose

Absolutely correct, I am afraid of f1.4 and your work is an inspiration to me.

vtc2002

I wouldn't say I am afraid of 1.4 but I do have respect for it. I agree that there are times to use it and equipment has advanced to make it easier. I agree @donaldejose about not being critical of his work. If it works for him and his clients are happy good for him. It will be interesting to see what he is shooting in 10 years.
I have taken my camera and one prime lens out to shoot when I feel like I am not being creative. I'm trying to wrap my brain around shooting a wedding or event at 2.8 or less. Probably shouldn't do that as it makes my head hurt.
Perhaps Nikon should start making primes with one f stop. That should cut production cost.☺

WestEndFoto

vtc2002 said:

I wouldn't say I am afraid of 1.4 but I do have respect for it. I agree that there are times to use it and equipment has advanced to make it easier. I agree @donaldejose about not being critical of his work. If it works for him and his clients are happy good for him. It will be interesting to see what he is shooting in 10 years.

I have taken my camera and one prime lens out to shoot when I feel like I am not being creative. I'm trying to wrap my brain around shooting a wedding or event at 2.8 or less. Probably shouldn't do that as it makes my head hurt.

Perhaps Nikon should start making primes with one f stop. That should cut production cost.☺

They did and I have one. The 1,000mm f/11.0.

WestEndFoto

I often love the look of shooting at f/1.4, but not in the studio. In the studio, I shoot at f/5.6. My thinking is that if I am truly shooting with a sharp lens, it is likely diffraction limited (meaning sharpest) at f/5.6 and at f/5.6 both eyes will be in focus regardless of the orientation of the head. Given my style, I am usually not that concerned about a shoulder being out of focus if both eyes are in focus. Now one can quibble over f/4.0 or f/5.6 or f/8.0, but if I stick to f/5.6 I can focus on composition. Of course, this does not preclude me from making a different artistic decision in a specific circumstance and I have shot portraits at f/11.0. And as an aside, I always focus on the closest eye even if the depth of field is infinite. That is just habit.

When not in the studio and not outside though, I often like shooting at f/1.4. However, I am usually deciding how blurry the background should be. For example, I might want a wash of bokeh where the nature of the background (say buildings) is completely obscured. Or I might want the buildings in background to be somewhat blurred and that objective might be to blur the buildings to the point where they are only recognizable because of their outline or only to deemphasize them. Even after going through this decision making process, however, I often end up at 1.4.

Of course, the depth of field is narrow and I am focusing on the closest eye. The challenge becomes when there is more than one person. If you shoot at f/1.4 you are lining up people very carefully and spontaneity is not an option. You will more likely end up with someone out of focus. As others have said, something like f/4.0 becomes more realistic.

[Deleted User]

If it were possible, it would be interesting to analyze our own shooting data, successful images to total, and then a distribution chart of apertures used. This might enlighten about real "need for (lens) speed" and roi/eval of choices.

Can one data dump from the d810? Something I should know.

Vipmediastar_JZ

Ill just add a random comment: I used to shoot at f16 and F22 until I joined this site and learned about diffraction.
Until I was able to afford 1.2-2.8 Glass I was doing mostly 5.6-f22. So I was able to appreciate and take advantage wide aperture once I understood what fast glass, bokeh, dof was all about. Self thought wasn't easy plus nobody around willing to teach. Thanks NRF

PeachBlack

You can analyze your lightroom catalog usings lightroomdashboard(dot)com ... you just drop and drag your catalog and it analyzes your habits.

vtc2002

@WestEndFoto That not a lens, it's a beast. Not sure what you would use if for but good luck lugging it around.

WestEndFoto

It is a bit of a toy, not very practical. However, it is remarkably sharp.

manhattanboy

Us Nikon shooters should not be afraid of 85 1.4. I was talking with a wedding photog last week that was shooting the Canon 85 1.2 on a 5Dm2. Now that is scary! LOL

Vipmediastar_JZ

PeachBlack said:

You can analyze your lightroom catalog usings lightroomdashboard(dot)com ... you just drop and drag your catalog and it analyzes your habits.

Awesome.

Ironheart

I always thought f-stops were for the number of people in the photo. 1 person, f/1.x 2 people f/2.x 4 people, f/4 11 people f/11...

Easiest rule of thumb I know

Vipmediastar_JZ

That does have some logic to it. F5.6 between 5 and 6. F16 wedding party. F22 High school team

nukuEX2

You need 85mm for the headshots and portraitures.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/28425344@N02/30399994555/in/datetaken-public/

PeachBlack

nukuEX2 said:

You need 85mm for the headshots and portraitures.

You most certainly do not NEED an 85mm lens for headshots and portraiture. That is an ARTISTIC decision. This was shot at 35mm and I think looks adequate.

rmp

After re-reading all the great comments in this thread, I broke down and ordered the Sigma 85/1.4. It should arrive next Wed. It just may become the replacement for a 24-70/2.8.

donaldejose

It is on my "to purchase" list when funds become available. Let us know how you like it.

rmp

Be careful what you ask for. :-)