Quite a mixed compot, I must say. In one way at times dilicious - while other times, rather a "meh" kind of feeling. Plus on top, the choice of my motives doesn't justify how much or little the Canon FD 85/1.2 L is useful or not. Because when it comes to flowers, leafs and plants - well, those can be done with plenty of other lenses - especially those who have a shorter min focus distance.

A department that the Canon FD 85/1.2 L hardly can win, because it focus only to 0.9 meter. Which isn't very close, really. The Tamron SP 45mm f 1.8 VC on the other hand allows you to focus down to 28 cm.

You don't really see that a photo was taken with 45mm or 85 mm, or it looks almost being the opposite: The wider lens looks more like a tele, and the tele lens looks "wider" in this type of photography of plants, flowers and leafs. It evens out in the final results.

Visually a paradox in a sort of way - but fully explainable.

Let me show with in photos

Canon 85 mm

is the longest of the three lenses that I been using here: and it has the furthest minimum focus distance with 90 cm. You simply can't get any closer. The corners show a discrete swirly appereance / distortion. Every of these three lenses show a different "bokeh character", is worth to notice. Yet, at the same time, the distance to the subjects also plays a major roll in how the bokeh is rendered / as well the distance of the background. THe Canon lens gives the motive a "wider" appereance comapred to the other two !

Kind of funny, isn't it ?

However, the bokeh details are in general of higher contrast, compared to the very soft details made with the Mitakon 65/1.4 lens, which is almost dreamy soft, like a haze. The Canon makes such blurry details somehow clearer, more defined (despite being out of focus)

Mitakon 65 mm

focuses a bit closer than the Canon 85mm lens. Focusing a bit closer down to 70 cm. Despite being a wider lens, it gives the impression of being more "tele" centric. Also: because the Mitakon is a true mediumformat lens, but the Canon only a fullframe lens - you can see that the Mitakon has a more evenly distributed bokeh compared to the Canon whose corners show swirly elongated features. Bokeh backgrounds with the Mitakon however appear hazy soft (when used at wide open aperture ƒ1.4) It is a relatively rare kind of bokeh in that regard. Sometimes it works wonders, and sometimes it all looks hazy. But it still has character comapred to the Tamron 45mm (and the Sigma 70/2.8 Macro).

Tamron 45 mm

Its unusual close focus of - 28-30 cm allows you to get really close. Normally such lenses stop at 45 to 50 cm It is factually almost twice as wide compared to the Canon 85mm lens. Despite that, the Tamron gives more of a "telephoto" feeling. Simply because of the unusual close focus distance. I believe that i didn't even go down all the way to 28-30 cm in the above photo; maybe it was around 35 cm.

The Tamron has the smoothest bokeh, on the verge of boring and featureless; Reminding me at times of digital / artificial "blur" being added in post processing. It can be almost too much of a "featureless background blur", in my opinion.

The Tamron doesn't distort the bokeh in the corners. The lens is unusual in the way that it actually covers the 70% larger sensor in the Fuji GFX system - despite being only a fullframe lens made for 24x36 sensors.

The lens is known known to be one of very few lenses, that are optically fine when used on the GFX camera system.