Canon 85 1.2L v 85 1.8

[mariah_smith]

I've read the reviews on these and it seems that I can get a sharp crisp image

from the 1.8 (with faster focus). But, the info's geared to portrait photog's

and I'm more interested in using it at weddings. It'll be on a 30d (and 40d

soon) and I'd really love to save that $1300.

 

Anybody think I should save up for the 1.2L in order to get super crisp images

or will the 1.8 provide enough sharpness and contrast?

[fxdonny]

Aren't we taking portrait pics at weddings? If crispness is what you're after, you might not see much differences between the 2. Also folks that spend $1,300 for a lens usually know what they're after, so if you're clueless, I'd suggest you get the $300 85mm 1.8 and go from there.

[robbie_caswell]

Yes both are brilliant. Do you need the extra stop? That is the real question.

 

If the answer is yes, then get the first version. It's an impressive lens, and it's impressively cheaper.

 

If you go into the classifieds at Digital Wedding Forum there was one listed for $900 about a month ago. Worth every penny!

[fxdonny]

Are you serious Rob? 85 1.2 L for $900 in very good condition won't even last for a day, let alone a month.

[viet_ngo]

Having shot both lenses, the 85 1.2's colors won hand down. The 1.8 struggle to get the same colors in pp while the 1.2 only need a slight tweak.

[mariah_smith]

Thanks FD...but I'm not clueless and if you've shot weddings and portraits you know that the environments are totally different and can require different things from lenses (ie...focus time). And the 1.2 goes for almost $2k, not $1300 but I appreciate your post with no help at all.

 

Thanks to the others for the info! Color's important to me so that's definitely something I'll consider.

[wedding-photography-denver]

Mariah,

 

if you can shell out the cash, the 1.2 is 'all that' compared to just about any other lens save the 200/1.8.

 

It does focus but very slowly in relation to the 1.8 (which I also have). they are not quite equal in terms of color or bokeh either, but then the 1.8 will out perform the 1.2 in low light (my experience).

 

I think FD was just giving a quick opinion, only it is hard to hear the inference on the web :-) .... I dare say he/she means no ill.

 

Best, D.

[mariah_smith]

Thanks David (even though I really wish it was the 1.8 that was all that :)

 

Low light and fast focus are really important to me. Do you think the 1.8 outperforms in low light because if it's focusing speed and/or images quality? aw man, this is gonna be a tough choice. I really appreciate the feedback.

 

And you're probably right about FD. I'm just so used to being defensive on this forum.

[annealmasy]

Mariah, the $300 85mm is significantly faster. The L lens is gorgeous -- GORGEOUS -- but

slow as molasses (even the newer one) and (IMO) totally useless for anything unposed, or

any severely low-light situation (I'd say nothing less than dusk-level ambient).

 

And I know you read it as a slam, but FD makes a really good point. If you're not feeling

some sort of obvious NEED for the 1.2, why spend the extra money? The color IS fantastic,

but you can post-produce some nice color from the 1.8 that would be completely wedding-

appropriate. :)

[fxdonny]

I'm sorry if misunderstood me Mariah. The 85mm is a very good lens indeed, and if you're not satisfied with it after using it, you can always drop the additional $1300 to get the L with minimal loss (when you sell the 1.8). Yes the 1.8 is noticably faster than the L. Color and contrast is a very subjective opinion, $1600 is not :)

[gina_marie1]

What is your primary use for it at weddings? Some use it for wedding portraits, some use if for detail shots, churches in low light. We tend to use our 85 1.8 more for candid & posed portraits at weddings and engagement shoots. It's fast to focus and though I haven't used the 1.2 L version, the 1.8 has very nice color and bokeh.

 

Another note is it can be tricky for some (like myself) to get used to such wide aperture, I like 2.8-1.8, but I recently rented the 50 1.4 and when focus was on, it was great..but I also missed shots due to such a narrow range of focus, can't imagine trying 1.2!

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste1664880652]

I use the 1.8 on my second camera at weddings, the shots from it wide open and without flash compromise a good 20% of the final proof album it's that good a lens. It's sharper than my 24-70L when both are wide open and aside from a bit of CA, I couldn't be happier. I've shot with the L and the sharpness and colour are amazing, didn't know my 5D could get that good! It's not a work lens for me though, not at that price, with that focusing speed, etc.

[fotografz]

Canon excells at lenses over 50mm, and the 85/1.2 is a world class lens the likes of which

hasn't existed since the Zeiss 85/1.2 Anniversary lens was made for Contax cameras. It's

out of focus areas are unmatched for their smooth tonal transitions, it's color rendition

has snap unlike any EF lens, and unlike the New Canon 50/1.2L the in focus areas are as

sharp as a tack @ f/1.2

 

The newer MKII version is allegedly 30% (or less) faster focusing than the previous version,

but with this lens any increase in speed is welcome.

 

However, I do have to disagree that the lens cannot be used for anything but posed

work ... or can't be used in low light. You just have to practice at placing the most

sensitive cross type focusing point on the critical area. My P.Net portfolio is filled with

candid work done with both the first version and the MKII ... and I use it for every First

Dance ... which is both movement and low ambient light.

 

If you are using it as an available light lens (which I do frequently), the STE-2 is a nice

accessory focusing aid.

 

As the Canon cameras catch up with this lens by providing multiple cross type sensors in

the array, it'll come into it's own more and more ... so I see it as an investment that'll gain

more favor as time passes.

 

As far as the price is concerned, if you have to ask ....

[mariah_smith]

Yay...thanks a lot you guys! I don't have a need for the extra stop but I do have a need for less pp time so I was worried that I'd have to sharpen and color adjust a lot more with the 1.8. But, I absolutely hate slow focusing and would trade that for a little less bokeh and quality color.

 

I was thinking of using this for my candids lens at weddings (possible posed portraits but it might be a bit close on my 30d). My 17-55 works great but doesn't provide enough zoom for me. I think I'll give the 1.8 a try and FD's right..I can always sell it and upgrade if needed.

 

BTW - FD, I'm way too sensitive on this forum after reading the high number of slams. Sorry I misunderstood you and took it as a slam...every time I post I'm just waiting to have to defend myself..wow, I need to calm down :)

[rainer_t]

Since noone posted it so far ... you might eventually find this ...

 

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

 

... helpful.

[picturesque]

I have the 85mm f1.8, and don't find it lacking in color, sharpness or anything else. I'm sure the L version is even better, but for general wedding work, I'd give the non-L version a try first. Another thing--the focus abilities of the crop cameras isn't the same as the 1 series cameras. It might make a difference with the 1.2 aperture, and having to depend on the cross sensors. I didn't realize how much of a difference there was in my 20D focus flakiness until I got a 5D, and the 1 series cameras are, I'm sure, even better.

[conraderb]

mariah - the 85mm 1.8 is a great lens.

 

that said, the 85mm 1.2 is a _fantastic_ lens.

 

I used to consider them the same in terms of optical quality. now that I have used my 1.2 much more, that's not true.

 

the 1.8 is sharp and contrasty, but the 1.2 is very sharp and very contrasty.

 

for most purposes, the 1.8 is going to be better - faster, lighter, cheaper, smaller.

 

you can always sell it if you don't like it.

 

jumping into the 1.2 is a big budgetary crunch.

 

I still have my 1.8 for super fast action - it beats the 1.2 mark 1 that I own in terms of keeping up.

 

the 1.2, however, I LOVE at 1.8 and 2.0 - it gives me a beautifully blurred background, just enough DOF (I find that 1.2 is sometimes not right on focus), and wicked sharpness and contrast. Most of my work with the 85 1.2 needs no adjustment beside very minor exposure tweaks - it is ready to go out of camera.

[robbie_caswell]

The Digital Wedding Forum's classified section is open to the public and if you turn to page 12 you will see it listed. Whether it's still available or not, that is another question. I can inquire if you are not a memeber.

 

I paid $1100 for my Canon 85mm L MK I and shoot football with it each weekend.

 

Sports have been a great learning tool with this lens. Friday a QB scrambled down the line and I had to wait and wait until I could catch up and get the shot.

 

It takes alot of thought and patience.

 

For weddings it is a great tool if you can manage the Depth of field.

 

Ponderous is the description I would use to describe it autofocusing... and that's using a 1V body. With the 5D it was a iffy proposition at times, but that had as much to do with the capabilities of the 5D.

 

A 20D? Can't answer that question, but it's alot of glass to move!

 

I would advise going with the 85mm f/1.8 because I think it a better all around lense. It does alot for the money. You can put the remaining funds towards a 35mm f/1.4 which I think is the best all purpose lens that Canon makes.

[ken c oshkosh, wi]

Have to agree with Marc. This lens (1.2L II) is killer for unposed stuff and low light. That's the whole reason for getting it (aside from the awesome portraits and creamy OOF areas...)

[mariah_smith]

Thanks all...I ordered the 1.8 yesterday and am really excited (now I can get my Shootsac and 40D also)! :)

 

I really appreciate the feedback!