85/1.8 is sharper than 85/1.2 II

<p><a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/502-canon_85f12ff" target="_blank">http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/502-canon_85f12ff</a><br /> <br /> Compare this with the 85/1.8.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/419-canon_85_18_5d" target="_blank">http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/419-canon_85_18_5d</a><br /> <br /> Happy shooting,<br /> Yakim. </p>

<p><br /></p>

<p>The Photozone tests clearly reveal that (the copy they tested of) the 85/1.2 L II has better centre sharpness and worse corner sharpness, so I don't think your broad sweeping claim is quite right, Yakim.</p>

<p>I grant that the results are surprising, but for portraiture, the use to which the 85/1.2 is most put, centre sharpness is paramount.</p>

<p>But, the reviewer does not grant his 'coveted' "Highly Recommended" award. So...?</p>

<p>Just a quick look at F4 told me it's not more sharp in the center. But it is quite a bit sharper on the edges.</p>

<p>However the 1.2 is better at 1.2...</p>

<p>The result is a little bit surprising but the 1.8 is very popular and with reason.<br /> (Some say the 100/2 is even better but a quick look told me those are more the same than different.)</p>

<p>What surprised me even more is that on 15MP the 85/1.8 tested higher at the MTF chart than the 100L macro...<br>

(Bokeh of the Macro looked better though.)</p>

<p>I have both. The 1.8 is great, especially for the price, but the 1.2 is a spectacular lens wide open.</p>

<p>I don't put that much faith into MTF charts, or online sample photos but from these charts alone the 85/1.2 L is vastly superior to the 85/1.8 at the centre where it counts. I have no idea why Yakim made this statement. From experience I have had with 85/1.8 and 85/1.4 lenses I suspect that in reality you will see an extremely significant difference between the Canon EF 85/1.2 L and Canon EF 85/1.8.</p>

<p>I've owned both 85s and 1.8 cannot even come close to capabilities of 1.2. Sharp, unbelievable bokeh and great in low-light situations. For me this lens is all about bokeh. 1.8 cannot come even close in that regard. For its purpose this lens is as sharp as it can be. At all apertures.</p>

<p>I am a frequent citer of Photozone.de, and find the site very useful. But as Mark rightly points out, the tests are of <em>individual</em> lenses, not a scientific test of a random sample of each lens. I don't know of any lens tests done by anyone (other than the manufacturer, for whom it is carefully guarded proprietary information) that are not single sample tests.</p>

<p>In any case, it's certainly much easier to make an 85mm f/1.8 lens, than it is to make a 85mm f//1.2 lens. A super-fast lens like the 85mm is by no means a one-trick pony, but it is absolutely astonishing that it is not. Those of us who love and use f/1.2 lenses (as me with my old Nikkor) use them <em>because of the f/1.2</em>, not because they are the sharpest around. When they come so close to being all-around performers, we can only stand in awe of the power of modern lens design(ers).</p>

<p><em>The Photozone tests clearly reveal that (the copy they tested of) the 85/1.2 L II has better centre sharpness and worse corner sharpness, so I don't think your broad sweeping claim is quite right, Yakim.</em></p>

<p>That's odd because the-digital-picture.com ISO chart samples suggest they're pretty close in the center, with the f/1.2L II doing a bit better there, as well as slightly better at the edges. Sample or test variation perhaps.</p>

<p>I'm going to irritate people by saying this, but...</p>

<p>Every time this comparison comes up there are people claiming that there is a "world of difference" between the f/1.8 and the f/1.2L. But there are plenty of sample and test images online, and I can't see a meaningful difference between them. Bokeh and blur are pretty much identical at common apertures. Sharpness and contrast are so close that post processing will eclipse any differences. The only real optical difference is that the L lens opens to 1.2, and at 1.2 it naturally has more background blur and less DoF. While the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.8 is evident when comparing photos side by side, I would hardly call it a "world of difference." It is nothing like comparing a fast prime and a slow zoom, for example.</p>

<p>And if you really want that level of background blur, the 135 f/2 will achieve it for half the price and give you more subject DoF at the same time, a plus since f/1.2 is very hard to work with. (Note that DoF is controlled by aperture fraction, while background blur is controlled by aperture diameter for the lens and aperture chosen.)</p>

<p>People lust after the 85L, yet I can't help but conclude that they do so because it has an L in its name, or because they've already dropped $2k on one lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think your broad sweeping claim is quite right, Yakim.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I share your view. Nevertheless, even if we accept the notion that most 85/1.2 II are sharper than most 85/1.8, it tells us something about Canon's QC in their top-of-the-line lenses. I find it dissappointing. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Happy shooting,<br /> Yakim. <br>

<br /></p>

<p><strong>Daniel Lee Taylor said:</strong><br /> <strong><br /></strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>People lust after the 85L, yet I can't help but conclude that they do so because it has an L in its name, or because they've already dropped $2k on one lens.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wrong assuption (at least for me). I purchased the 85/1.2 II based on it's class leading bokeh and centre sharpness wide open. <strong>Period!</strong></p>

<p>My other lenses are a combination of L and non-L's which are deemed to be the sharpest in their class.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p><em>Wrong assuption (at least for me). I purchased the 85/1.2 II based on it's class leading bokeh and centre sharpness wide open. <strong>Period!</strong></em></p>

<p>Which, as I just got done pointing out, is identical to the 85 f/1.8 in numerous comparison samples available for anyone to review across the web. (Sigh...)</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Which, as I just got done pointing out, is identical to the 85 f/1.8 in numerous comparison samples available for anyone to review across the web. (Sigh...)</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you would read Yakim's link carefully, the bokeh of the 85/1.8 contains purple fringing. My copy of the 85/1.2 II doesn't. Unless you own one, how can you comment realistically? (Sigh...moving on...)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't put that much faith into MTF charts, or online sample photos but from these charts alone the 85/1.2 L is vastly superior to the 85/1.8 at the centre where it counts. I have no idea why Yakim made this statement.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yakim made this statement because:</p>

<ul>

<li>He does not think that the 85/1.2 L is vastly superior to the 85/1.8 at the centre. In fact, the difference is marginal at best, at least according to this test. </li>

<li>He does not think that the centre where it counts. </li>

</ul>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

<p><em>If you would read Yakim's link carefully, the bokeh of the 85/1.8 contains purple fringing. My copy of the 85/1.2 II doesn't. (Sigh...)</em></p>

<p>Apparently <strong>you</strong> need to read those links more carefully. LoCA (green and purple fringing in OOF areas) is <strong>more pronounced by a significant margin</strong> in the 85 f/1.2L II samples at f/2 and f/2.8 than in the 85 f/1.8 samples at f/1.8 and f/2.8. It's plainly obvious which performs better by this measure, and it's not the L.</p>

<p>In that section of the 85 f/1.2L II review they had this to say:</p>

<p><em>Bokeh fringing at large aperture is a problem which is often not well corrected even by the very best lenses and the EF 85mm f/1.2 L II is no exception to the rule. If you have a look at the provided sample crops below you should be able to spot a purple halo in front of the focus zone and a green one beyond. The effect is clearly visible from f/1.2 till f/2.8. </em></p>

<p>They zoomed in on the silver balls to show the LoCA purple fringing in the f/1.8 review. But comparing the whole scene image from both reviews, the L lens shows <strong>worse bokeh fringing</strong> just like it does in the mouse over samples. Though not magnified in the f/1.2L II review, it's obvious the silver balls have worse purple fringing. In both reviews they zoomed in on the statue which is closer to the plane of focus. Note that there is clearly LoCA purple fringing of the statue nose in the f/1.2L II shot, but <strong>none</strong> in the f/1.8 shot.</p>

<p>In all fairness, as they point out all fast primes suffer from fringing of OOF highlights. But the f/1.8 obviously performs better than the L lens by this measure.</p>

<p>Thanks for proving my point above that people who testify that the 85 f/1.2L II lens is "so much better" than the 85 f/1.8 aren't speaking factually but are justifying the label and the cost.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Thanks for proving my point above that people who testify that the 85 f/1.2L II lens is "so much better" than the 85 f/1.8 aren't speaking factually but are justifying the label and the cost.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I <strong>repeat</strong>, my copy is different. Unless <strong>you own</strong> one, you cannot comment realistically and are only going by online posts.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Faster lens causes among others more reflections inside it. Sharpnes in portrait lens isn't most important feature.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>I <strong>repeat</strong>, my copy is different. Unless <strong>you own</strong> one, you cannot comment realistically and are only going by online posts.</em></p>

<p>Oh really? Canon designed a special version just for you? Because CA and LoCA are determined by the optical design of the lens. They don't disappear with minor adjustment like AF issues or softness due to a decentered element.</p>

<p>Quite frankly I've never noticed OOF fringing in my copy of the 85 f/1.8. But I rationally know that if photozone found it, then I could to if I looked for it with a test that had some harsh transitions in the OOF areas. I don't deny repeatable, scientific evidence to try and prove a point.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Oh really? Canon designed a special version just for you?</strong><br /> <strong><br /></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You really think so? Come on!</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>But I rationally know that if photozone found it, then I could to if I looked for it with a test that had some harsh transitions in the OOF areas. I don't deny repeatable, scientific evidence to try and prove a point.</strong><br /> <strong><br /></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's up to you to look for it. I know from all the hundreds of images taken with my 85/1.2 II, I see no evidence of fringing with bokeh. End of point.<strong> </strong></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Sharpnes in portrait lens isn't most important feature.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I respectfully disagree. I think that several features are important in a portrait lens and sharpness is definitely one of them. Reason is simple: In some areas (like the eyes) you generally want maximum sharpness as the viewer's eye is almost always automatically attracted to it. If other parts of the face (e.g. skin) are not as smooth you can always do a selective blur in PP. However, if a lens is not sharp enough for you and you need this extra sharpness, you can not add it later.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

<p>SLRGear says <a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/354/cat/10">85/1.2</a> @1.2 is sharper than <a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/154/cat/10">85/1.8</a> @1.8.Let alone at corresponding apertures.<br>

Apparently, those lenses are not in the same ball park.</p>

<p>would it not be true to say that an f1.2 is much better suited for low and subtle light photography. In such a case I would not really expect to see much color fringing at all. </p>

<p>I can only repeat what I said less forthrightly before-- <strong>the reason to buy an f/1.2 lens is the f/1.2</strong>! The fact that an f/1.2 lens like the 85mm is useful for regular photography at other f/stops is pure lagniappe, although extremely welcome.</p>

<p>If, like those of us in the film days of yore when the fastest slide film was ASA 500, you need to squeeze in every possible photon onto the film plane, these lenses are well worth it.</p>

<p>The bottom line in all of this is that the f/1.8 85mm lens is a very fine piece of glass. While there are some valid reasons for some photographers to choose the f/1.2 L 85mm over this lens, I'm suspicious that quite a few may do so "because it is an L" or "because it is better," when in reality the expense adds nothing to the quality of their photographs.</p>

<p>I often shoot subjects in which resolution matters quite a bit, and I usually shoot in a way that allows the capture of very high resolutions... and the f/1.8 lens has never disappointed me.</p>

<p>To those who remark the f/1.2 is much better for low light photography, there are a few things to think about there, too. First, with a somewhat long focal length such as 85mm you'll find yourself with some real focal challenges due to the extremely small depth of field at f/1.2. Second, if you are shooting hand held at f/1.2 a) this problem becomes even more acute and b) lens sharpness becomes less of an issue since you won't achieve maximum sharpness when hand-holding your camera anyway. Third, while I can imagine a few situations in which f/1.8 wouldn't be open enough and f/1.2 would, in far more cases this won't make the difference between getting the shot or not.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Sharpness is not the most important factor in a portrait. I make portraits for a living and not once has anyone said, "Oh that is so nice and sharp".</p>