I have 3 lenses:
70-200mm 4L Canon
100mm 2.8L II Canon
24mm 1.8 Sigma

I love my 100mm but would love something a little wider. However, a photographer at one of the chapels I work at swears that the only lens you want to put down good money on is the 85mm 1.2...it looks like a beast of a lens. I wonder if I should trade in my 100mm for some cash and put some money down for an 85mm. Anyone else??

85mm f/1.2 II is my favorite lens. It's tack sharp at every aperture with great contrast and color rendition. But it's not a lens for everyone. I know quite a few people who bought this lens expecting it to deliver and who were extremely disappointed by it. This is probably one of the hardest lens to master (it was for me) because of its large aperture. But once you get to know it, you will not be disappointed. Some will complain that it's slow and it probably is, if you focus from MFD to infinity, but in real life that rarely happens. Because of its abilities I even close my eyes on excessive CA when shooting at large apertures. Nothing that could not be cured in post. So if budget allows and you are ready to spend some time learning then go for it.

Any of those friends looking to get rid of their 85mm??

Nikon 50mm F1.4 AIS. Great lens. Cheap Lens. Better built that Canons that cost many times its cost. IMHO, 85mm is too long to handhold very effectively and I am bored shooting on a tripod all of the time.

Dan

my favorite lens that I use is the 50 1.2L,

I probably use my ancient pre-AI Nikkor f2 35mm more than any other lens. I also like my Zeiss ZE 1.4 50mm but don't use it nearly as much as the 35. For wide angle I use another pre-AI Nikkor, the 24mm f2.8.

The one Canon lens I have is the f4 70-200. I got it mostly for shooting interviews, where I need to change focal length quickly between questions, but I've come to like that lens a lot. It has a great look, sharp throughout, and is light enough so I don't have to mount it by a yoke. I have the old Nikkor 105mm which was considered one of the best when it was new (like the 35, it has metal focus ring, no plastic), but I think the 70-200 actually looks as good in that range.

One thing I've done is get stepup rings for all my lenses. Every lens has a stepup ring to 77mm, and I got metal screw on 77mm lens caps for all of them. All my filters are 77mm.

Favorites:

Walk Around: 1980's vintage Takumar 28-80 zoom, F 3.5. In a shooting situation that might require multiple lens changes if fixed, and assuming decent lighting, this lens will do fine for those focal lengths.

Normal: 50mm F 1.4 SMC Pentax lens, vintage again about 1980s. Also have a vintage Nikon F 1.4 50mm

Portrait: 100 Series E Nikon F 2.8

Wide: 24mm Nikon

In between: 35mm F2.0 Nikon

Any of those friends looking to get rid of their 85mm??

LOL, no nobody else is selling it right now.

Just to quirk it up even further: My favorite lens is a vintage anamorphic Isco with a Zeiss f/1.4 backing. It's an expensive, fragile, and very difficult lens to shoot with, but its bouquet and (of course) the 2.39:1 aspect ratio, definitely make it worthwhile.

-- peer

My favorite is the EF 24mm f/1.4 L II.

Lomo superspeed 28mm f1.2

+1 for the SMC pentax normal lenses. I have the takumar SMC 1.4 and love the bokeh. It is has totally usable sharpness at 1.4 unlike a bunch of other normals that I've tried wide-open.

Just to quirk it up even further: My favorite lens is a vintage anamorphic Isco with a Zeiss f/1.4 backing. It's an expensive, fragile, and very difficult lens to shoot with, but its bouquet and (of course) the 2.39:1 aspect ratio, definitely make it worthwhile.

-- peer


That's really pretty damn cool. I've been keeping my eyes on Ebay for something like this but haven't found anything quite cheap enough to roll the dice on. Can you share any experiences/footage shot with it?


And to the others who have mentioned the takumar lenses... I've used a friend of mine's a couple times. It's spectacular glass and very affordable. I don't use them just because there aren't many to choose from and I need a pretty wide spread of matching lenses, hence all Nikon for me (besides my Lomo superspeed set), but yeah, great glass, sharper than my Nikon 1.4 at wide open!

Peer:

Perhaps you explain this mania about shooting with old anamorphic lenses and DSLRs? I don't get it. Sure, if your work will ever be projected theatrically, it could be an interesting choice but how may DSLR users work is ever projected theatrically?

When seen as web video, DVD or Blu-ray, 2.39:1 seems to be an odd choice, you are seeing just a thin ribbon of image in a vast field of black, although I guess for web video, you could output a native, decently sized anamorphic web video that could look nice on a large computer screen? Enlighten me, is it just pure uber geek fascination about using something different or is there a really practical reason to shoot such a wide aspect ratio today? I feel as if I am missing out on something that all of you anamorphic guys must know about that I don't. Anamorphic lens flares? That can be done digitally in post so easily too.

Dan Brockett

Peer: Perhaps you explain this mania about shooting with old anamorphic lenses and DSLRs? I don't get it.

Dan, before I attempt writing a tome about my take on cinematograph in film making, can you please tell me which of the following aspect ratios you prefer:

In all fairness here, I don't think that's a fair test/example because the 4:3 frame above wouldn't be framed that way if it were shot in that format (e.g., the subject on the right wouldn't be cut off like that). That said, even if it were framed more reasonably, I'd probably still opt for the wider aspect ratio myself.

In all fairness here, I don't think that's a fair test/example because the 4:3 frame above wouldn't be framed that way if it were shot in that format (e.g., the subject on the right wouldn't be cut off like that).

Well then, what about this example:

And to the others who have mentioned the takumar lenses... I've used a friend of mine's a couple times. It's spectacular glass and very affordable. I don't use them just because there aren't many to choose from and I need a pretty wide spread of matching lenses, hence all Nikon for me (besides my Lomo superspeed set), but yeah, great glass, sharper than my Nikon 1.4 at wide open!

I've found that particular takumar SMC 50mm 1.4 matches pretty well with canon lenses. It is a little warmer than my 24-70mm canon zoom but only marginally, nothing that can't be corrected pretty easily in post, (or perhaps in camera, something I plan to look into). The important thing is that both lenses are on the warm side of the spectrum. Matching Takumars or Canons with lenses that have a cooler rendering of colours is not something that I would want to mess around with.

I own more lenses than you can shake a stick at, but one of my favorites is my Zeiss 35/1.4

Hi Peer:

I understand the choice from an aesthetic point of view, I just can't understand it from a practical point of view. Looking at 2:39 on a 16:9 set is akin to viewing 16:9 on a 4:3 set, it is a big compromise, you are wasting a ton of screen space. The only place it makes sense is for theatrical viewing and I am willing to bet that less that 1/10 of 1% of DSLR anamorphic shooters are having their work shown theatrically. Why would you want your work shown on the web and on TV sets as a tiny ribbon of content in a vast field of black?

It's a fascinating phenomena.

Dan

Looking at 2:39 on a 16:9 set is akin to viewing 16:9 on a 4:3 set, it is a big compromise, you are wasting a ton of screen space. The only place it makes sense is for theatrical viewing and I am willing to bet that less that 1/10 of 1% of DSLR anamorphic shooters are having their work shown theatrically.

Why would you need to show 2.39:1 only in theaters?! Because we are "wasting a ton of screen space"?! It's like saying 4:3 should only be watched on CRT's because otherwise "you are wasting a ton of screen space".

(Besides -- although we got a 54 inch set at home, I prefer watching 2.39:1 on my laptop in bed with headphones.)

-- peer

My favorite thus far has been the 50 1.2L. I've worked with the 85 1.2 and it is an amazing piece of glass- but feel that 50mm is a more usable range than 85mm (even on a full frame camera like the 5D). The 85 1.2 is my favorite talking-head/interview lens.

I'm about to invest in the 24 1.4L. I've heard a lot of good things about it. It seems like it would make an excellent glidecam lens- though I'd lose the ability to zoom if need be. For that reason the 16-35 may be better. I have the 24-70 and glide with that but when you zoom the lens breathes (moves) which throws off balance. The 16-35 doesn't do that. I don't know...I'm torn.

Well then, what about this example:

I like the middle one. But not as much as I like reading Peer's latest rant. LOL, we should hang out.

My favorite prime is my 50mm 1.8 because it is my only prime

My favorite thus far has been the 50 1.2L. I've worked with the 85 1.2 and it is an amazing piece of glass- but feel that 50mm is a more usable range than 85mm (even on a full frame camera like the 5D). The 85 1.2 is my favorite talking-head/interview lens.

I'm about to invest in the 24 1.4L. I've heard a lot of good things about it. It seems like it would make an excellent glidecam lens- though I'd lose the ability to zoom if need be. For that reason the 16-35 may be better. I have the 24-70 and glide with that but when you zoom the lens breathes (moves) which throws off balance. The 16-35 doesn't do that. I don't know...I'm torn.The Canon 50mm F1.2L is my favourite prime lens & the 24mm F1.4L is my #2 lens. I too am tempted by the 16-35mm F2.8L especially for the 16mm ultra-wide view. However I didn't already own the 24mm then the extra two stops of aperture on that lens would make the choosing between the two very difficult.

Hi Peer:

I understand the choice from an aesthetic point of view, I just can't understand it from a practical point of view. Looking at 2:39 on a 16:9 set is akin to viewing 16:9 on a 4:3 set, it is a big compromise, you are wasting a ton of screen space. The only place it makes sense is for theatrical viewing and I am willing to bet that less that 1/10 of 1% of DSLR anamorphic shooters are having their work shown theatrically. Why would you want your work shown on the web and on TV sets as a tiny ribbon of content in a vast field of black?

It's a fascinating phenomena.

Dan

Dan, though Peer and I have disagreed before (and probably will again :) I'm one of those who would rather watch 2:39 on a 16:9 set. It's a pleasing format to the eye. If I could shoot anamorphic on my 5D (without spending a fortune or using bad adapters), I would.

Peer... stop teasing us an post a couple screen grabs from your anamorphic lens, please.

Dan, though Peer and I have disagreed before (and probably will again :)
Yea, I know -- but I'm sure we can find something to argue about again -- it gets too dull around here otherwise ;^)

I'm one of those who would rather watch 2:39 on a 16:9 set. It's a pleasing format to the eye. If I could shoot anamorphic on my 5D (without spending a fortune or using bad adapters), I would. Peer... stop teasing us an post a couple screen grabs from your anamorphic lens, please.
Since my anamorphic setup isn't very "gig friendly" (currently I'm doing some boring corporate stuff), I won't have any real footage ready to show till later. But for now (and just for you Dylan) I uploaded a super quick 2.39:1 test:
Anamorphic test -- 2.39:1 on Vimeo

-- peer

Thanks Peer
Very interesting, and tempting!

Thanks Peer
Very interesting, and tempting!

Sure. In fact, nowadays I consider 16:9 being the new 4:3 -- it has become the pedestrian aspect ratio while 2.39:1 is the pro & classy format. And trust me, this is not just me. Just a minute ago I was checking the news on CNN, and up came this 2.39:1 commercial -- so I checked out who made it and found that all their ads are 2.39:1 -- Vint Cerf - Father of the Internet (http://www.ericsson.com/campaign/20about2020/vint-cerf.html)

-- peer

Well then, what about this example:

The one on the bottom says 'lovely' to me :)

My favourite prime lens is Zeiss 50mm f1.4 ZE. Also old manual Nikkors getting use here.

I hate to nitpick your nitpicking but isn't it 2.35:1?

I hate to nitpick your nitpicking but isn't it 2.35:1?

2.35:1 is the scaled down 2.39:1 -- here you go:

I own more lenses than you can shake a stick at, but one of my favorites is my Zeiss 35/1.4

I own a few myself, including some L lenses, but next to my anamorphic lens, also my favorite prime is a Carl Zeiss -- an old 85mm f/1.4. Although I haven't had time to shoot much with it, I like it a lot. At full open, it has less than 10mm of DOF (at one yard) and it also has this classic old-lens bouquet. Here's a silly test/exercise shoot I did at f/1.4 to practice ff pulls:

Cat Sitting "Trouble" -- an Exercise of DOF & Follow Focus on Vimeo

-- peer