Christmas Lens pictures (35 f1.4 & 85 f1.8)

I just got two new lenses "for Christmas"; so while I was visiting relatives at Christmas, I gave the lenses (and the relatives) a workout. I normally would be using the 24-70 for this type of family pictures, so I tried to use it, the 135 f2 and the 17-40 in similar situations to get a feeling for what each did best.

This is not a lens test; it's more of a photographer test; but it's interesting to see how well the 24-70 & 17-40 hold up to these good prime lenses.

Pictures are FULL SIZE, medium fine, JPG's and have not been sharpened or edited in any way. (straight out of camera set on 0).

Warning Medium large files (1.5mb) This picture is the first in the series that follows: (click to load)

http://www.pbase.com/image/24560048

I welcome comments.
--
Duke

dukefleming said:

I just got two new lenses "for Christmas"; so while I was visiting
relatives at Christmas, I gave the lenses (and the relatives) a
workout. I normally would be using the 24-70 for this type of
family pictures, so I tried to use it, the 135 f2 and the 17-40 in
similar situations to get a feeling for what each did best.

This is not a lens test; it's more of a photographer test; but
it's interesting to see how well the 24-70 & 17-40 hold up to these
good prime lenses.

Pictures are FULL SIZE, medium fine, JPG's and have not been
sharpened or edited in any way. (straight out of camera set on 0).

Warning Medium large files (1.5mb) This picture is the first in
the series that follows: (click to load)

http://www.pbase.com/image/24560048

I welcome comments.
--
Duke

Click to expand...

--
Duke

...just wanted to say those exact two lenses are the ones I really want, to complete my lens bag, for indoor and concert photograhy. I'll probably buy the 85 soon as I have a lead on a good used one, but the 35 will have to wait...

Lucky you, you must have been good this year! ;-)

-Anders

dukefleming said:

I just got two new lenses "for Christmas"; so while I was visiting
relatives at Christmas, I gave the lenses (and the relatives) a
workout. I normally would be using the 24-70 for this type of
family pictures, so I tried to use it, the 135 f2 and the 17-40 in
similar situations to get a feeling for what each did best.

This is not a lens test; it's more of a photographer test; but
it's interesting to see how well the 24-70 & 17-40 hold up to these
good prime lenses.

Pictures are FULL SIZE, medium fine, JPG's and have not been
sharpened or edited in any way. (straight out of camera set on 0).

Warning Medium large files (1.5mb) This picture is the first in
the series that follows: (click to load)

http://www.pbase.com/image/24560048

I welcome comments.
--
Duke

Click to expand...

...and it looks quite good to me! I noticed you have stopped the 35 down several notches, have you tried any shots near or at wide open, and the same for the 85? I will most likely use these lenses at the limit with very poor light, and I wonder how useful that is. I understand the DOF will be very shallow, but that's what I'll face.

ALso, to get a feel for the angle of the 35, do you remember approximately how far from the table you were standing for the Christmas_2003_0011 photo?

Thanks,
Anders

dukefleming said:

dukefleming said:

I just got two new lenses "for Christmas"; so while I was visiting
relatives at Christmas, I gave the lenses (and the relatives) a
workout. I normally would be using the 24-70 for this type of
family pictures, so I tried to use it, the 135 f2 and the 17-40 in
similar situations to get a feeling for what each did best.

This is not a lens test; it's more of a photographer test; but
it's interesting to see how well the 24-70 & 17-40 hold up to these
good prime lenses.

Pictures are FULL SIZE, medium fine, JPG's and have not been
sharpened or edited in any way. (straight out of camera set on 0).

Warning Medium large files (1.5mb) This picture is the first in
the series that follows: (click to load)

http://www.pbase.com/image/24560048

I welcome comments.
--
Duke

Click to expand...

--
Duke

Click to expand...

I did have some at f1.4 but I didn't put them on. (Mainly because of composition and lighting). I'll look to see what I can find. I was really concerned that it be good at f2 and it was.

I had this one at f1.8. http://www.pbase.com/image/24560350

For the shot with the table I was standing about arm's length from the nearest person.

A lot of these were shot with high ISO (and slow shutter), so they are a little grainy, but I think when they get FM and sharpened they will be fine. I didn't want to post doctored images for comparisons. What the pictures showed me was that a good lens won't need much sharpening.

Duke

FretNoMore said:

ALso, to get a feel for the angle of the 35, do you remember
approximately how far from the table you were standing for the
Christmas_2003_0011 photo?

Thanks,
Anders

dukefleming said:

dukefleming said:

I just got two new lenses "for Christmas"; so while I was visiting
relatives at Christmas, I gave the lenses (and the relatives) a
workout. I normally would be using the 24-70 for this type of
family pictures, so I tried to use it, the 135 f2 and the 17-40 in
similar situations to get a feeling for what each did best.

This is not a lens test; it's more of a photographer test; but
it's interesting to see how well the 24-70 & 17-40 hold up to these
good prime lenses.

Pictures are FULL SIZE, medium fine, JPG's and have not been
sharpened or edited in any way. (straight out of camera set on 0).

Warning Medium large files (1.5mb) This picture is the first in
the series that follows: (click to load)

http://www.pbase.com/image/24560048

I welcome comments.
--
Duke

Click to expand...

--
Duke

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Duke

Hi, Jack, I would also be interested to see some f/1.4 shots. Thanks.

FretNoMore said:

Lucky you, you must have been good this year! ;-)

-Anders

dukefleming said:

I just got two new lenses "for Christmas"; so while I was visiting
relatives at Christmas, I gave the lenses (and the relatives) a
workout. I normally would be using the 24-70 for this type of
family pictures, so I tried to use it, the 135 f2 and the 17-40 in
similar situations to get a feeling for what each did best.

This is not a lens test; it's more of a photographer test; but
it's interesting to see how well the 24-70 & 17-40 hold up to these
good prime lenses.

Pictures are FULL SIZE, medium fine, JPG's and have not been
sharpened or edited in any way. (straight out of camera set on 0).

Warning Medium large files (1.5mb) This picture is the first in
the series that follows: (click to load)

http://www.pbase.com/image/24560048

I welcome comments.
--
Duke

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

http://www.pbase.com/image/24560524

was at f2 and the picture after it was f2.5.

Duke

FretNoMore said:

ALso, to get a feel for the angle of the 35, do you remember
approximately how far from the table you were standing for the
Christmas_2003_0011 photo?

Thanks,
Anders

dukefleming said:

dukefleming said:

I just got two new lenses "for Christmas"; so while I was visiting
relatives at Christmas, I gave the lenses (and the relatives) a
workout. I normally would be using the 24-70 for this type of
family pictures, so I tried to use it, the 135 f2 and the 17-40 in
similar situations to get a feeling for what each did best.

This is not a lens test; it's more of a photographer test; but
it's interesting to see how well the 24-70 & 17-40 hold up to these
good prime lenses.

Pictures are FULL SIZE, medium fine, JPG's and have not been
sharpened or edited in any way. (straight out of camera set on 0).

Warning Medium large files (1.5mb) This picture is the first in
the series that follows: (click to load)

http://www.pbase.com/image/24560048

I welcome comments.
--
Duke

Click to expand...

--
Duke

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Duke

Here is one at f1.4. My thought when I took it was, that at f1.4, the table legs would blur out more. Not the greatest picture, but it wasn't the fault of the lens. It's also hard to focus on the eyes of a dog that has hair in his eyes.

Duke

Ben C said:

FretNoMore said:

Lucky you, you must have been good this year! ;-)

-Anders

dukefleming said:

I just got two new lenses "for Christmas"; so while I was visiting
relatives at Christmas, I gave the lenses (and the relatives) a
workout. I normally would be using the 24-70 for this type of
family pictures, so I tried to use it, the 135 f2 and the 17-40 in
similar situations to get a feeling for what each did best.

This is not a lens test; it's more of a photographer test; but
it's interesting to see how well the 24-70 & 17-40 hold up to these
good prime lenses.

Pictures are FULL SIZE, medium fine, JPG's and have not been
sharpened or edited in any way. (straight out of camera set on 0).

Warning Medium large files (1.5mb) This picture is the first in
the series that follows: (click to load)

http://www.pbase.com/image/24560048

I welcome comments.
--
Duke

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Duke

http://www.pbase.com/image/24582255

Duke

dukefleming said:

Duke

Ben C said:

FretNoMore said:

Lucky you, you must have been good this year! ;-)

-Anders

dukefleming said:

I just got two new lenses "for Christmas"; so while I was visiting
relatives at Christmas, I gave the lenses (and the relatives) a
workout. I normally would be using the 24-70 for this type of
family pictures, so I tried to use it, the 135 f2 and the 17-40 in
similar situations to get a feeling for what each did best.

This is not a lens test; it's more of a photographer test; but
it's interesting to see how well the 24-70 & 17-40 hold up to these
good prime lenses.

Pictures are FULL SIZE, medium fine, JPG's and have not been
sharpened or edited in any way. (straight out of camera set on 0).

Warning Medium large files (1.5mb) This picture is the first in
the series that follows: (click to load)

http://www.pbase.com/image/24560048

I welcome comments.
--
Duke

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Duke

Click to expand...

--
Duke

dukefleming said:

I just got two new lenses "for Christmas"; so while I was visiting
relatives at Christmas, I gave the lenses (and the relatives) a
workout. I normally would be using the 24-70 for this type of
family pictures, so I tried to use it, the 135 f2 and the 17-40 in
similar situations to get a feeling for what each did best.

This is not a lens test; it's more of a photographer test; but
it's interesting to see how well the 24-70 & 17-40 hold up to these
good prime lenses.

Pictures are FULL SIZE, medium fine, JPG's and have not been
sharpened or edited in any way. (straight out of camera set on 0).

Warning Medium large files (1.5mb) This picture is the first in
the series that follows: (click to load)

http://www.pbase.com/image/24560048

I welcome comments.
--
Duke

Click to expand...

--
Duke

dukefleming said:

I just got two new lenses "for Christmas"; so while I was visiting
relatives at Christmas, I gave the lenses (and the relatives) a
workout. I normally would be using the 24-70 for this type of
family pictures, so I tried to use it, the 135 f2 and the 17-40 in
similar situations to get a feeling for what each did best.

Click to expand...

I shot almost entirely with the 24-70L, and only brought out the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS for a few of the posed tight head and shoulder shots next to the tree. I shot 90% with 550EX bounced, with only a few I shot with available light

As far as your pics, I saw some with motion blurs from the subjects. It is hard for people to remain still for a 1/15 of a second shot. Meanwhile, I've found the WB was slightly off on a few shots. If you shot RAW, you should go back and get them better adjusted. The boy's face shot looks real nice, and I could live with shallow DOF for that type of shot. Lastly, make sure you show the relatives your shots and see their faces light up. I even burnt a couple CDs, so they can go Costco later to print their favorites.

--
Ray Chen

It's not about the equipments, but even the best photographer can't make a white wall interesting with a pinhole camera.

I know what you mean Ray. That is normally what I would have done. I got these lenses for something else, but couldn't resist the comparison. I still have trouble with primes after all these years of shooting with them. I usually get where I see the picture and then frame it with the zoom. Don't you think it was difficult to tell the difference or pick a better one between them?

There were no adjustments or editing to these pictures at all before posting. I think I can straighten out the light ok and they will look better when I remove some of the noise from shooting 800 & 1600. Were you talking about the motion in the first two shots. I was really just amazed that they were that sharp and they seemed to have a luminous quality. Maybe that was what Tasty Donuts was talking about with the f1.4.

I have a bunch more to go through and I will do just what you suggested. I'll burn CD's for all them and print some of of the better pictures. They have allways been such good subjects. They just go about their business and ignore me for the most part.

Thanks for taking the time to look at them.

Duke

Ray Chen said:

dukefleming said:

I just got two new lenses "for Christmas"; so while I was visiting
relatives at Christmas, I gave the lenses (and the relatives) a
workout. I normally would be using the 24-70 for this type of
family pictures, so I tried to use it, the 135 f2 and the 17-40 in
similar situations to get a feeling for what each did best.

Click to expand...

I shot almost entirely with the 24-70L, and only brought out the
70-200mm f/2.8L IS for a few of the posed tight head and shoulder
shots next to the tree. I shot 90% with 550EX bounced, with only a
few I shot with available light

As far as your pics, I saw some with motion blurs from the
subjects. It is hard for people to remain still for a 1/15 of a
second shot. Meanwhile, I've found the WB was slightly off on a
few shots. If you shot RAW, you should go back and get them better
adjusted. The boy's face shot looks real nice, and I could live
with shallow DOF for that type of shot. Lastly, make sure you show
the relatives your shots and see their faces light up. I even
burnt a couple CDs, so they can go Costco later to print their
favorites.

--
Ray Chen

It's not about the equipments, but even the best photographer can't
make a white wall interesting with a pinhole camera.

Click to expand...

--
Duke

Thanks!

I think it's good to get that kind of detail in low light, and at f1.4. OK, it's not super sharp but I recognize the look from my 50/1.4. I'd try to stop down to at least 1.8 or 2 if possible to have a better chance of not missing a shot, and that helps with the detail. Depending on subject it's not always a bad thing to have this softening, like a portrait in low light can get a soft dreamy look. Maybe you have slightly more DOF with the 35 because of the wider angle, the blur looks similar to the 50. I hope I can afford this lens soon...

-Anders

dukefleming said:

Duke

dukefleming said:

Duke

Ben C said:

FretNoMore said:

Lucky you, you must have been good this year! ;-)

-Anders

dukefleming said:

I just got two new lenses "for Christmas"; so while I was visiting
relatives at Christmas, I gave the lenses (and the relatives) a
workout. I normally would be using the 24-70 for this type of
family pictures, so I tried to use it, the 135 f2 and the 17-40 in
similar situations to get a feeling for what each did best.

This is not a lens test; it's more of a photographer test; but
it's interesting to see how well the 24-70 & 17-40 hold up to these
good prime lenses.

Pictures are FULL SIZE, medium fine, JPG's and have not been
sharpened or edited in any way. (straight out of camera set on 0).

Warning Medium large files (1.5mb) This picture is the first in
the series that follows: (click to load)

http://www.pbase.com/image/24560048

I welcome comments.
--
Duke

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Duke

Click to expand...

--
Duke

Click to expand...

That probably wasn't the best example. That's why I originally left it out. The dog had a dark patch around his eyes which are covered with hair. It doesn't have any life in it. I'll try to get something better at 1.4 this week.

Thanks for asking. This is one prime lens I'm sure I'll use a lot, aside from sports. I had the 35 f2 and had trouble with it focusing in low light as other have. It also was not that sharp til f2.8

Duke

FretNoMore said:

I think it's good to get that kind of detail in low light, and at
f1.4. OK, it's not super sharp but I recognize the look from my
50/1.4. I'd try to stop down to at least 1.8 or 2 if possible to
have a better chance of not missing a shot, and that helps with the
detail. Depending on subject it's not always a bad thing to have
this softening, like a portrait in low light can get a soft dreamy
look. Maybe you have slightly more DOF with the 35 because of the
wider angle, the blur looks similar to the 50. I hope I can afford
this lens soon...

-Anders

dukefleming said:

Duke

dukefleming said:

Duke

Ben C said:

FretNoMore said:

Lucky you, you must have been good this year! ;-)

-Anders

dukefleming said:

I just got two new lenses "for Christmas"; so while I was visiting
relatives at Christmas, I gave the lenses (and the relatives) a
workout. I normally would be using the 24-70 for this type of
family pictures, so I tried to use it, the 135 f2 and the 17-40 in
similar situations to get a feeling for what each did best.

This is not a lens test; it's more of a photographer test; but
it's interesting to see how well the 24-70 & 17-40 hold up to these
good prime lenses.

Pictures are FULL SIZE, medium fine, JPG's and have not been
sharpened or edited in any way. (straight out of camera set on 0).

Warning Medium large files (1.5mb) This picture is the first in
the series that follows: (click to load)

http://www.pbase.com/image/24560048

I welcome comments.
--
Duke

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Duke

Click to expand...

--
Duke

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Duke

hi duke,

sorry, been MIA here the last few days... busy busy busy.

pics look good. that 35L is a great lens isn't it? your 85 looks superb as well. i was considering getting that to fill the gap between my 35L and 135L (50/1.8 doesn't see much use). how did you like it? was the focal length pretty handy vs. 50mm?

i shot almost exclusively with the 35L this past x-mas myself, with the 50/1.8 seeing a little use for baby shots. unfortunately, i shot almost everything at f/5.6 or higher to get maximum DOF (multiple people in the frame), but i really should have experimented with some wider apertures to get more sense of depth to some of them. even at f/2.8 with subject a few feet away, DOF is pretty good on a 35mm (at least a foot or two).

anyway, i thought 35mm worked out great except for a big family portrait, where my lack of anything wider necessitated moving some furniture around to get everyone in the picture.

your 24-70L looks really nice too. i might just have to pick that up some day. it's a pain changing lenses with little kids running around etc., and i'm not really feeling the need for the 17mm UWA zooms. the Tamron 17-35 was looking tempting, but rumors of bad bokeh are scaring me away. (i do know the 28-75 Di, while being a superb lens overall, doesn't have the hottest bokeh either.)

Tasty,

I was about to send out a search party. Glad you're back

There were two pictures of people working on a crossword puzzle, one with the 17-40 and one with the 35. I thought the 35 came out better despite the slow shutter.

Amazing about the big family picture. I had to do one also, and there were 16 people in this small living room. I moved furniture for it also (would have had to even for 17mm) and used the 35mm. I set it up and took trials with stand-ins. I had to print the picture for a scrapbook, on site with my printer and no computer . In spite of checking everything out ahead of time( I thought) there was a light reflection from a big mirror on the right hand wall that made a light spot on the wall directly above their heads. It looked like an apperance of the BVM. (-: The picture was very good otherwise.

I thought it was interesting that when I use the 24-70 zoom, the pictures come out at 35mm a lot.

I think I could easily skip 50 all together and use 85 instead. This is just my unsubstantiated opinion, but I think the 85 is a much better lens, quality wise. It also focuses better and faster. It is also just about as sharp as a 50 f1.4. You need one. You can try mine if you want. (or the 24-70, that's really what you need).

I'm really happy with both lenses. Thanks for your help and suggestions.

Duke

tasty donuts said:

hi duke,

sorry, been MIA here the last few days... busy busy busy.

pics look good. that 35L is a great lens isn't it? your 85 looks
superb as well. i was considering getting that to fill the gap
between my 35L and 135L (50/1.8 doesn't see much use). how did you
like it? was the focal length pretty handy vs. 50mm?

i shot almost exclusively with the 35L this past x-mas myself, with
the 50/1.8 seeing a little use for baby shots. unfortunately, i
shot almost everything at f/5.6 or higher to get maximum DOF
(multiple people in the frame), but i really should have
experimented with some wider apertures to get more sense of depth
to some of them. even at f/2.8 with subject a few feet away, DOF is
pretty good on a 35mm (at least a foot or two).

anyway, i thought 35mm worked out great except for a big family
portrait, where my lack of anything wider necessitated moving some
furniture around to get everyone in the picture.

your 24-70L looks really nice too. i might just have to pick that
up some day. it's a pain changing lenses with little kids running
around etc., and i'm not really feeling the need for the 17mm UWA
zooms. the Tamron 17-35 was looking tempting, but rumors of bad
bokeh are scaring me away. (i do know the 28-75 Di, while being a
superb lens overall, doesn't have the hottest bokeh either.)

Click to expand...

--
Duke

dukefleming said:

I just got two new lenses "for Christmas"; so while I was visiting
relatives at Christmas, I gave the lenses (and the relatives) a
workout. I normally would be using the 24-70 for this type of
family pictures, so I tried to use it, the 135 f2 and the 17-40 in
similar situations to get a feeling for what each did best.

This is not a lens test; it's more of a photographer test; but
it's interesting to see how well the 24-70 & 17-40 hold up to these
good prime lenses.

Pictures are FULL SIZE, medium fine, JPG's and have not been
sharpened or edited in any way. (straight out of camera set on 0).

Warning Medium large files (1.5mb) This picture is the first in
the series that follows: (click to load)

http://www.pbase.com/image/24560048

I welcome comments.

Click to expand...

You expected anything other than great results with Canon prime lenses?

And of course you realize that if you mix a pile of pix together, nobody will be able to separate the 24-70 pix from the prime pix without a tour guide. Hehehe.

I'd never in a million years have been able to hand hold and get anything resembling a photo at some of those slower shutter speeds.

Isn't it nice to be able to shoot digitally with this kind of gear? Not so long ago this kind of fun would have been either impossible or beyond the price range of most of us.

--
Gary Coombs
My Profile contains my Equipment List
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/New
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/Test

A good photograph is knowing where to stand. -Ansel Adams

The 24-70 produces a picture with great saturated red colors, like the old Kodachrome. That's why I threw in a few easy ones for you like the Ohio State sweatshirt. I find that when I use the 24-70 it stops on 35 a lot. I don't know why, when I had the 35 on I frequently wanted something shorter or longer. (-: I should have listed which were the zoom. I can if you want.

Thanks for looking at them

Duke

Gary Coombs said:

dukefleming said:

I just got two new lenses "for Christmas"; so while I was visiting
relatives at Christmas, I gave the lenses (and the relatives) a
workout. I normally would be using the 24-70 for this type of
family pictures, so I tried to use it, the 135 f2 and the 17-40 in
similar situations to get a feeling for what each did best.

This is not a lens test; it's more of a photographer test; but
it's interesting to see how well the 24-70 & 17-40 hold up to these
good prime lenses.

Pictures are FULL SIZE, medium fine, JPG's and have not been
sharpened or edited in any way. (straight out of camera set on 0).

Warning Medium large files (1.5mb) This picture is the first in
the series that follows: (click to load)

http://www.pbase.com/image/24560048

I welcome comments.

Click to expand...

You expected anything other than great results with Canon prime
lenses?

And of course you realize that if you mix a pile of pix together,
nobody will be able to separate the 24-70 pix from the prime pix
without a tour guide. Hehehe.

I'd never in a million years have been able to hand hold and get
anything resembling a photo at some of those slower shutter speeds.

Isn't it nice to be able to shoot digitally with this kind of gear?
Not so long ago this kind of fun would have been either impossible
or beyond the price range of most of us.

--
Gary Coombs
My Profile contains my Equipment List
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/New
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/Test

A good photograph is knowing where to stand. -Ansel Adams

Click to expand...

--
Duke

i too have noticed the 24-70L has especially vivid colors, more vivid probably than the 35L. i'm not sure which is more neutral, they're just different - every lens has its trademark "signature" in color, contrast, resolution, etc. i personally think both lenses look great, i may actually prefer the zoom's color by a hair... perhaps it's that extra piece of UD glass in the middle? (the 35L has no UD glass.) can't beat the speed and sharpness of the prime tho... i just met up with a friend today who also bought a 35L (for his film EOS-1V) and we were comparing our copies of the lens. the test shots looked pretty much identical - really really good, even at f/1.4. i've never shot my 35L wide open in the field but i forgot how amazing the performance is... it really is better at f/1.4 than a lot of lenses at f/4! i should shoot at super-wide apertures more often. it's what i paid for after all, isn't it?

dukefleming said:

The 24-70 produces a picture with great saturated red colors, like
the old Kodachrome. That's why I threw in a few easy ones for you
like the Ohio State sweatshirt. I find that when I use the 24-70
it stops on 35 a lot. I don't know why, when I had the 35 on I
frequently wanted something shorter or longer. (-: I should have
listed which were the zoom. I can if you want.

Thanks for looking at them

Duke

Click to expand...

Yes, the two are different in the way they handle colors, but don't you really like the way the 35L looks at f2. It's also very good at 1.4, but I didn't quite do my best to show it. It also seems to be much easier to work with than the 135f2. Both the 35 and the 135 require some work and understanding to make them show their best.

Duke

tasty donuts said:

dukefleming said:

The 24-70 produces a picture with great saturated red colors, like
the old Kodachrome. That's why I threw in a few easy ones for you
like the Ohio State sweatshirt. I find that when I use the 24-70
it stops on 35 a lot. I don't know why, when I had the 35 on I
frequently wanted something shorter or longer. (-: I should have
listed which were the zoom. I can if you want.

Thanks for looking at them

Duke

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Duke