Canon 85mm f1.2 L or 85mm F1.8?

<p>Hi<br>

I have recently purchased a Canon 5D MK II and want to invest in a new portrait lens.<br>

I have the available funds to purchase the Canon 85mm f1.8 lens but before I do, I wondered if anyone had any insight into whether the Canon 85mm f1.2 would actually be worth taking the time to save towards? And apart from the 'L' quality build of the f1.2 lens is there is a huge difference between the two optically? <br>

It would take me a few months to save for the 85L lens, whereas I can buy the 85 f1.8 immediately. I currently own the Canon 50mm f1.8 lens and Canon 100mm f2.8 macro. Would the 85mm f1.8 be pointless considering the two lenses I already have?<br>

The lens would be used primarily for actor portraiture and live concert photography.<br>

Any advice on the purchase would be greatly appreciated!<br>

E x</p>

<p>Hi Eliza,<br>

the Canon 5D Mk II is an excellent camera. So, I suggest that you go for an excellent lens, taking into consideration the basic "thumb rule": From a given budget you should spend more on the lens than on a camera since your pictures are only as good (as you are as a photographer and) as the glass you use.<br>

Here is a link of a website where you find excellent reviews and hints and suggestions:<br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.2-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.2-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a><br>

Cheers, Stephan </p>

<p>Thank you Stephan! That is much appreciated. I will be heeding your advice and saving!<br>

Eliza x</p>

<p>If you can afford it, go for the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM. Learn to stay dead steady at f/1.2. Because, the depth of field will be literally millimetres.</p>

<p>The attached photo was taken with a Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II. Unfortunately, the uploaded photo is of low resolution. But, her eyes are crystal sharp.</p><div></div>

<p>I'm no Canon expert, but answers like "Lens A is the best, so get Lens A" are possibly in my view misleading. For all i've read, the Canon 85mm f/1.8 is extremely good too, and ít won't disgrace your body. So, the best lens at serving what purpose - that's the question really.<br>

I'd begin by asking yourself a few questions:</p>

<ul>

<li>Do you make money shooting portraits? Do you need the build quality of the expensive one, and can you justify the investment as it will pay itself back over time?</li>

<li>Are you going to shoot a lot at f/1.4-f/2, or more around f/2.8-f/5.6?</li>

<li>Do you feel the f/1.2 lens is worth the extra money <em>to you</em>? That is, do you feel it represents enough value for the amount of times you will use it?</li>

<li>And whether you'd need a lens at all: both lenses are very close to a 100mm indeed, does the macrolens disappoint as portrait lens?</li>

</ul>

<p>Not disputing here the 85 f/1.2 is an excellent lens, as said, I have zero experience with it. But it is a very specialised, large and expensive lens; it commands its price only if you need its specific qualities. Else, you might be better off spending a whole lot less.</p>

<p>The 1.8 is indeed a superb little lens and autofocuses noticably faster than the 1.2.</p>

<p>I do a lot of travel photography, so for me compactness of my kit is important, which is why I chose the 1.8; the 1.2 wheighs more than twice as much. I generally prefer the handling of smaller, lighter cameras/lens combinations. They also tend to draw much less attention.</p>

<p>As Wouter said, you have to ask yourself what you're going to use the lens for and what matters to you.</p>

<p>Since I am shooting this sort of thing with a Nikkor 105mm f/2.5, not to mention other old MF short teles, I don't have a pony in this race.</p>

<p>Consider what Wouter and Martin say, though.<br>

I do have an f/1.2 lens in another focal length and as I have repeatedly emphasized, these 'fast' lenses are wonderful special tools.<br>

If you need the f/1.2 then there is no substitute, but if low light and shallow DOF are not necessary, often a 'slower' aperture lens will do as well or sometimes better. Low-light capability is increasingly irrelevant with what is happening to usable ISOs these days, anyhow.</p>

<p>Compare the technical analyses for the two EF 85mm versions at http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff .</p>

<p>1.2 is ridicuolusly big, heavy and slow AF lens. I used both 1.8 and 1.2, I would choose 1.8 as it is more practical design with beautiful bokeh and excellent image quality!</p>

<p>I don't have a dog in this fight either, since I use neither of these lenses. However, I agree with Wouter that the common "Lens A is the best, so get Lens A" advice can be badly misleading. One reason is that the pros and cons depend on your use, as several people said. the other is that there are opportunity costs. At B&H, the prices are 389 and 2079! That $1690 difference can buy you a lot of other equipment. <br>

There are plenty of reviews, but you might find this helpful: <strong>http://tinyurl.com/3p6hg48</strong></p>

>>> I have the available funds to purchase the Canon 85mm f1.8 lens...

 

Winner winner, chicken dinner! There's your answer. Dollars to donuts you'll be pleased as punch with that

lens and not miss a thing with respect to the other choice.

<p>Just to throw the cat among the pigeons here, let me say this... if the 85mm f1.2 and the 85mm f1.8 were available at exactly the same price, I would choose the f1.8 all day long without a single second thought.</p><p>I have used both extensively and own the f1.8. The f1.2 version is considerably slower focusing, a large bulky lens and extremely specialized in it's purpose. Unless you're shooting it wide open there is no advantage over the f1.8 (and for many shots that "advantage" is a liability), and it's disadvantages don't go away at any aperture. </p><p>At f1.2 on a tight 3/4 angle headshot you are talking about literally a few eyelashes in focus - if you stop down to get a bit more DOF, you should be using the f1.8 lens for its focusing speed. Also, it's worth noting that the depth of field on an f1.8 85mm is also extremely shallow (both have nice bokeh),</p><p>The f1.2 version is simply not a general purpose 85mm lens - like the 50mm f1.2L it's a specialized lens, optimized for wide open shooting and suffers compromises for that ability.</p><p> </p>

<p>Just to re-focus some of the great comments here: you mentioned shooting concerts. Make sure that the really slow auto focus of the 1.2L would meet your needs. This isn't really an 'action' lens. It's great for artistic found object shots and portrait shots, but I would recommend getting one in your hands (possibly renting/borrowing) to see if it actually works for the full range of what you want it for.</p>

<p>Both the 1.8 and the 1.2L are great lenses and have a lot of fans broken down along lines of how they use the lens.</p>

<p>The 1.2 version is very nice, but the 1.8 is great as well. With primes, image quality is generally very good and easy to achieve for the lens engineers. IMO, the L lenses really shine when you get into the realm of zooms; the IQ differences are bigger and the AF (especially for long lenses) is better. But for primes, the non-L versions are sufficient for 99% of photographers, and image quality is still superb.</p>

<p>I sprang for the 85MM 1.2 and have no regrets. We only live once. It is the cream-of-the-crop portrait lens.</p>

<p><em><strong>It's all about wide open bokeh (or nearly wide open) and super shallow DOF.</strong></em></p>

<p>Check out the bokeh on some of these portraits:<br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/ericsorensen/duckpond2008">http://www.pbase.com/ericsorensen/duckpond2008</a></p>

<p>Here's one of mine:<br>

<a href="../photo/11948713"></a><a href="../photo/11948713&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/11948713&size=lg</a><br>

and another:<br>

<a href="../photo/10799237&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10799237&size=lg</a></p>

<p>You will lose a significant portion of shots you make wide open due to the paper this DOF at 1.2. However, if portraits are your thing, it's worth every penny.</p>

<p>This is a decision YOU have to make. You can look up interactive charts for blur (sharpness), chromatic aberration, and distortion for both lenses, either on full frame or crop bodies, at <a href="http://www.slrgear.com">www.slrgear.com</a>. Here are the links:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/354/cat/all">http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/354/cat/all</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/154/cat/all">http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/154/cat/all</a></p>

<p>(Click on a graph to launch an interactive applet that will allow you to examine lens performance at different apertures.)</p>

<p>Be warned that they might not have tested the best copy of the 1.8. FAIW, I have the 100/2, which is considered sort of a "sister lens" to the 85/1.8. It doesn't seem to have the edge sharpness issues reflected in the slrgear.com charts for the 85. (They haven't tested the 100.) I suppose if I were doing a whole lot of portraiture, the 1.2 would be attractive. However, I can't afford that sort of lens for the little use it would get. I'm quite happy with my 100/2 and have found it the equal of the better known Nikkor 105/2.5, which I've adapted to my Canon mount. But again, this is YOUR decision. If you have the money and the desire, the 85/1.2 might be your lens.</p>

<p>Hey, you could always buy an 85/1.8 used, and save your money for a while. Then if you want to upgrade, sell the 1.8 for about what you paid, add your saved money to it, and buy the 1.2. And if you feel you can live with the 1.8, use your saved money for something else. Meanwhile, you'll at least have an 85mm lens to use. :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>if portraits are your thing, it's worth every penny.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Portraits are my thing, but I don't see why that lens is worth every penny. Not everyone wants to do cookie-cutter blurred background portraits. This one just got published in a magazine...</p>

<p><img src="http://spirer.com/images/storeman.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /><br /> <em>The Proprietor, Copyright 2009 Jeff Spirer</em></p>

<p>Wouldn't have worked, like most of my portraits, with a blurred background, so the maximum aperture was completely irrelevant. I shoot studio portraits at f11 usually, so it wouldn't matter for that, either. Doesn't require a 1.2 lens, I am sure of that.</p>

<p>FWIW, I have the 85/1.8 but rarely use it, preferring shorter focal lengths for portraits, and when I do use a longer focal length, usually pull out a 70-200.</p>

<p>For concert photography and actor head shots the 1.2 offers zero over the 1.8, in fact it is worse in low light to focus and actor head shots are normally done with a 100 mm macro (or medium format equivalent) at f8 for sharpness and clarity, agents, casting people and directors do not want to see artistic shallow dof, they want head shots!</p>

<p>There is no doubt the 1.2 is a "better" lens, but for your specific uses Eliza, it is not the best tool for the job, get the 1.8 if you feel you need an 85 mm.</p>

<p>Personally I'd use your macro for the head shots/portraits and get a more suitable lens for the live concert work, probably much wider, the 35 f1.4 fits better with your current lenses and is a superb performer as well as being much cheaper than the 85 f1.2.</p>

<p>It really is up to you. I was a big fan of the old FD 85 F1.2 but have not yet bought the EF version. There are many reasons for this but the main one is that the 85 F1.8 is so good - the others mainly being the slow AF on the 85 F1.2 - especially the mkI. It really depends on how you want to allocate your funds in my case i end up getting seduced by a lens like the 17 F4 TS and sticking with the 85 F1.8. In terms of portrait use - unless you are a big portrait shooter the 100 f2.8 (I have the IS version) produces superb results. With the 85 F1.8 you do get a slightly shallower DOF and it is smaller and lighter. If there are no other lenses you want apart from the 85 then save and get the F1.2. If you fell that a wide angle lens is also on the cards than perhaps you should settle for the F1.8 and save for that instead. If the 85 F1.8 was a poor lens then the decision would be easier but it is probably the best non L series lens Canon makes.</p>

<p>BTW, for concert shooting, there is no way to make a reasonable recommendation without knowing where you are shooting from. If you're on a media pass in the pit in a big hall, a 70-200/2.8 is standard, along with a 24-70 for some wider shots. If you're shooting in a smaller venue with stage access, wider lenses work well, I usually use a 24-70 and shoot as wide as 20mm. I have an article on this topic <a href="../learn/club-photography/photographing-bands-musicians/">here on photo.net.</a> I have changed equipment somewhat since the article was written, probably time for an update.</p>

<p>85mm on a 5D2 is such a nice focal length. I have often wondered what it would be like to use the 85L but the 85 f/1.8 is such a nice, sharp, fast, small - cheap lens - that I needed to put my money elsewhere. The 85LII shows over $2k on B&H, over $1600 more than the f1.8 version. For the difference you could pick up a 35L (which I am positive you will enjoy on your 5D2!) with a few $$$ left to upgrade your 50mm. Or you could consider a 135L and have enough money to trade up your 50mm and some $$$ left towards trading your 100mm macro up to the 'L' IS version. This doesn't even mention zoom options like a 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS), etc. The point is, picking up the 85L will be nice in one respect but might be rather limiting in many other respects with your current kit and budget. This seems to be a hard to lens to justify unless business and/or finances warrant it. Perhaps you should rent one for a day to be sure?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>85mm on a 5D2 is such a nice focal length.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Every focal length is "nice" if you know what you are doing.</p>

<p>should I buy a porsche or a toyota? If you're not sure what extra joy the porsche will give you, you shouldnt buy it either.<br>

The discussion of the two 85mm tends to be flawed....too many 1.8 owners with some kind of inferiority complex and too many 1.2 owners trying to rationalize spending a lot of money.<br>

My advice is that you should buy a lens only if you know that you need it. If you don't know that you will use the 1.2 wide open, simply wait and get the 1.8 instead. You can resell it later with little loss. I started with the 100mm 2.0 years ago, and enjoyed it a lot. After 5 years I switched to the 1.2, simply because it gives you a lot of new opportunities. I would say that 40% af the shots are taken 1.2-1.8.<br>

Canon has a lot of those "twin" lenses like the two 200mm's and two 300mm's, 70-200mm-'s etc. Start with the cheaper one and move up when youre shure what to gain.</p>

<p>I have both and use both. They are different tools, that's all. The $$$$ one is heavy and a bit slow to focus, but the results are <a href="http://www.iantaylor.ca/s.jpg">quite unique wide open</a>. And <a href=" /> I think the 1.8 version is one of the best deals in the Canon lineup. Light, fast to focus and makes for nice <a href=" type portraits</a>, (<a href=" ) among other things.<br /> Both are worth the money IMO.<br>

Been discussed <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=85+1.8+vs+1.2&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a">previously</a> btw.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I own the f1.8, and have borrowed the f1.2, and for my purposes, there is no benefit to spending the additional $ for a lens that focuses more slowly and which shows a difference in the results only when wide open. You can get plenty of creamy bokeh from the f1.8 at wide apertures, it's nice and sharp, and is light and compact. FWIW- I am a portrait photographer.</p>

<p>I think Jeff Spirer makes a very important point, illustrated with a photo I really dig! Current trends in photography tend to demand big-blurry-background photos, so to me that is a commercial product. I finally bought my 100/2 after being asked for the zillionth time, "can you make photos with the really blurry backgrounds?" (I aim to please.)</p>

<p>However, like Jeff, I don't particularly LIKE blurry-background portraits. They are entirely about the appearance of the subject and are frequently/usually devoid of any sort of context that says anything important about the subject. Jeff's candid portrait is the perfect illustration. Remember that the #1 thing people want to know about you when they meet you is, "What do you do?" The answers to that question are generally found in a person's environment, which is why I usually consider the environment an essential part of a portrait. So when I'm doing a portrait the way I want to do it, the 100/2 usually doesn't come out. The 70-200/4IS and 24-105/4IS are my most commonly used lenses.</p>

<p>I'm not saying there's no need for big-blurry-background photos. There obviously is, if that's what the customer wants -- or if that's what YOU want.</p>