canon ef 85 f/1.2

is this a good and reasonable lens for wedding

It's big and bulky and not extremely sharp until stopped down and has very little DOF. With a digital body (since you've posted below) and its good performace at ISO 400ish maybe the cheaper but excellent 85/1.8 would be a better choice? With the 1.6 crop of the 10D the 85 might be a bit long (roughly like 135mm on a film body) ... depending on your shooting style you may find it more suited for the 1.3 crop of the 1D (slightly longer than a 100mm or 105mm on a film body).

 

One of the "L" zooms would perhaps be a better choice, like the 24-70/2.8? Unless you really need the extra speed ...

Besides, the lens AF speed is slow.

I have used the FD version of this lens and it is incredibly sharp. With that said, I found that if you want that sharpness, focus is very critical. Depth of field is shallow and the lens is heavy and slow to focus manually. I have heard similiar about the EF version.

 

At a wedding its best use would be for portraits. Put it on a tripod, stop down to f8 and focus carefully. The results will be impressive.

 

For any kind of action shots it is too slow to handle.

The 85/1.8 stopped down to f8's going to be nearly, if not as, sharp as the 85/1.2 stopped down to f8 so I personally wouldn't spend the money unless I were going to use it wide open or nearly so. Didn't know about the focus speed but it makes sense, the lens is a tank.

It's not slow in normal use - when you are moving focus on objects near the same location - only when changing focus from up close to far away and vice versa in one step. (And I rarely do that at weddings.)

 

You only really need it for extremely low light conditions. You should be able to avoid having to use it - just shoot at 800 or 1600 with the 85 1.8 or 100 2.0 and post process in Neat Image to remove the noise.

<P> As I see this, there is very little logic in buying a fast lens and only use it when stopped down. The <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/85mm.shtml">85/1.2</a> is a very good lens but so is it's little sister, the <a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm">85/1.8</a>. I have the 85/1.8 and can safely say that it is my favorite and most used lens. Fast AF, low price, very sharp wide open, low weight... damn I like it. I'd recommend you give it first a try. What do you know, it may be enough for you too.</P>

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>

See this: <a href='http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm'>http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm</a>

Personally, as long time user of tree competetive lenses:

85 f/1.2 L

100 f/2.0

135 f/2.0 L

... and 6 other L series od zooms that cover this or very close lenght:

24-70 f/2.8 L

28-70 f/2.8 L

70-200 f/2.8 L

70-200 f/2.8 L IS

35-350 L

and 100-400 L IS

The only lens I had NOT possibility to use for longer is 85mm f/1.8.

 

... if you need portrait lens or wedding lens go for Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L - this one is the master!!!

 

WHY? PERFECT Blur of background!!! Slow AF. Rather havy but acceptable... and very expensive... but it's image quality is unbeataable even by 135mm f/2.0 L (which by the way become to long with 1.6 factor)

It is a slow focuser. It is heavy. It is very exensive. And there is nothing else out there remotely like it! It simply generates incredible images. Even wide open.

 

Of course the 85/1.8 is no slouch if stopped down to f2.4 or higher. So if you don't want or need the creamy blurred background that f1.2 and f1.4 and even a lazer sharp f2 give you, then save your moeny and get the 1.8 lens. But I suspect the stunning wedding images you generate with the 1.2 will pay for the lens sevceral times over once you learn to use it effectively.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack

The 1.8 and the 1.2 are almost indistinguishable at medium apertures and longer focusing distances, possibly the 1.2 has the advantage in the extreme corners but you'd be hard pushed to see any difference.

 

I tried both, and finally chose the f1.2 based on the following,

 

-The 1.2 is a little sharper at closer distances (say 2.5 meters and below) at wider apertures, this gives it a small advantage as a portrait lens

 

-The 1.2 better controls coma, which turns points of light into butterfly or comet shapes, getting worse towards the edge of the frame. If you shoot on movie sets, theatrical stages, or in cities at night it's worthwhile, if you don't it's not.

 

The 1.2 is also heavy, expensive, bulky and slow to focus.

 

You pays your money and you makes your choice!

My 85/1.8 is VERY sharp at f/1.8 - comparable with 70-200/2.8@f/4-5.6.