85mm f/1.2 or 85mm f/1.8 on a 5D

[will king]

I want a really fast lens. I've heard a lot of great things about the 85mm

f/1.2. I don't think I'll be shooting too much at f/1.2 because of the super

shallow DOF, but is it still worth buying or should the less expensive 1.8

suffice? In other words, if I shot the same subject in the same conditions with

both lenses at f/1.8, will I be able to tell the difference?

[bdp]

What exactly will you be using it for? For weddings, if you can afford it, get the 1.2.

[will king]

Yes, weddings and portraits. Why not the f/1.8? I don't mind spending the money on the f/1.2 but I also have to look at the cost vs value. If images look exactly the same taken at the same aperture, I can't see the value. So I want to know if there will be a significant difference in image quality between the two with the same variables.

[alan_chan4]

Perhaps size & weight would be a consideration too. You can torture your body much longer with lighter and smaller equipment during the wedding.

[anson_ko]

THis is the one of the comparison between 1.2 vs 1.8:

 

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm

[erik_ingvoldstad]

May I humbly suggest you do a search. This question has been adressed about a gazillion

times on photo.net.

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DXb1" >Discussion

1</a>, <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00A5nR&tag="

>Discussion 2</a> and <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=000Yt0" >Discussion 3</a> for some of the input already given.

 

Also, see:

<a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm" >Castleman's

comparison</a>.

 

I guess the short answer is "if you don't need 1.2, get the 1.8, it's a great lens". Personally

I have the 1.2, specifically to shoot low light and to have the extremely shalow DOF. It's

not the easiest lens to use at 1.2 but I love the bokeh and the overall look of the images.

 

Cheers,

 

Erik

[fourfa]

"if I shot the same subject in the same conditions with both lenses at f/1.8, will I be able to tell the difference?"

 

yes, different and distinctive looks to both. which one do you like better, and is the difference worth $XXXX, that's up to you and your taste and your pocketbook. best thing to do is rent the 1.2 if you can't find one to borrow. It has a particular fingerprint that doesn't take long to see.

 

"Bargain" grade 1.2 mkI show up at KEH for $1000. Used mkII seems to be going for $1500-1600 lately.

[saurabh1]

From what I have read and seen f/1.2 gives you bokeh and pictures that no other lens can. <a href="http://alfieri.smugmug.com/gallery/2256513#137962197">Sample shots</a>. It is expensive but if you can spend get one.

[William Michael]

After doing the search here (good advice); looking at the comparisons posted on various webs (good advice) and then sifting the chaff from the wheat (better advice); and then holding both lenses and putting them on the end of my camera in the store (even better advice); I decided that the extra $s would be better spent on another lens so I got the F1.8.

 

The F1.8 I am happy with, on my scale of lenses (which is pretty tough) at F2.2 it is `excellent` for Available Light Portrait Work, and `acceptable` wide open.

 

(RE L versus non L, I made the same decision with the 50mmF1.4, however in regard to a 35mm lens, or there about, the 35mmF1.4L wins for me. This comment is to explain I am not necessarily anti L glass, but take each choice on a value for money / performance case.)

 

Each of us has their own prioritization of criteria for these questions.

 

WW

[sknowles]

Thanks for the responses. I bought the f1.2 II because they didn't have the f1.8 at the time,

but have thought about the f1.8 for general and street photography because the f1.2 is large

and obvious. I'm going back this week to check out the f1.8 lens.

[jimi_james]

85/1,8 is great! excellent quality. 1,2 lens is a marketing trick - huge, heavy, slow

autofocus. I used both, now only 1,8. HELMUT NEWTON used 1,8 version, he knew better.

HE used also 35/2 and 50/1,4.

[terry_smith2]

...with both lenses at 1.8, will I be able to tell the difference?

 

This is a false comparison that often pops up on here. The true comparison is with both lenses wide open, stopped down one stop, two stops and so on. Don't be fooled into thinking the apeture values must be the same for both lenses. Case in point; Someone on here a while back asked if the then-new 24-105 L at 50mm and f4 would be better than the 50/1.4 also at f4. To get the 50 to f4, you close it down three stops which puts it into it's sweet spot. The 24-105 is wide open at f4. You would have to stop the 24-105 down to f11 to get a similar level of performance.

[x]

This is one of those cases where if you have to ask the question which one to go for, you probably don't need the 85/1.2. The 85/1.8 gives great quality (sharpness, colour) even at f2. It is a fraction of the cost of the 85/1.2, much lighter and more discreet.

[will king]

Thanks all for your replies. Joe Richards, you make an excellent point. I hadn't thought about that.

[beauh44]

I don't have a 5D but a FF 1Ds II. I agree with William that the money saved could be spent on another lens. The 85/1.8 is an *excellent* lens at a great price.

 

With regards to bokeh - that's cool but I bet *very* few people - photographers included - could pass a blindfold test and tell you which lens made a given print. Non photographers probably wouldn't stand a chance.

 

If you find yourself pretty much always shooting in very low light, then I suppose one could justify the cost difference. But even then, f/1.8 is no slouch in the low-light department and high ISO values aren't as big a deal as they were in the film days - especially with products like NeatImage or Noise Ninja. Just my .02 cents. Good luck!

[will king]

Thanks Beau. I think I just might stick with the 1.8. The extra money could be spent on the 1D Mark III ;)

[oceanphysics]

<i>This is a false comparison that often pops up on here. The true comparison is with both lenses wide open, stopped down one stop, two stops and so on.</i>

<p>

It's not a false comparison. It's the only comparison that matters if one actually needs to <i>use</i> the lens, in which case one might actually have some requirement or preference as to aperture.

<p>

And there is in fact no principle of optics that says a lens is sharper when stopped down three stops. It's true for some lenses and utterly untrue for others.

[oceanphysics]

<a href="http://www.photodo.com/topic_132.html">Here</i> by the way is a test of the 85 f/1.2, indicating that maximum resolution is obtained at f/5.6, which is 4.5 stops from wide open. By contrast many <a href="http://www.photodo.com/topic_66.html">slower lenses</a>, especially telephotos, can be near maximum sharpness wide open.

 

In general super-fast lenses are particularly poor wide open, and benefit much more by stopping down than moderate-speed lenses. The sort of extrapolation from psuedo-facts you're doing is pure nonsense.

[oceanphysics]

Sorry, the second link should have been <a href="http://www.photodo.com/topic_66.html">here</a>.

[stanhenderson]

Hi, I completely agree with Erik's assessment of the low light powers of the 85mm 1.2 - I have the Canon Fd version for my F1 and it is far more versatile lens than people realize. "Portraits" are not only done under controlled circumstances with controlled lighting. I use it to do portraits at night under streetlamps, in bars and clubs, of bands playing, etc. The bokeh and short depth of field is something you master, and eventually can use to great effect. I am saving for an EOS body and I plan to by hook or crook buy the AF/MF 85mm 1.2 lens. The portrait lens is fairly unobtrusive with strangers, compared to a prodruding all-encompassing zoom with a hood. The 85mm "portrait" is what they used to call a short telephoto. At 1.2 you can just about see in the dark, even with 800 speed film. I zoom in and out with with my feet.