Is the 85mm 1.2LII worth it?

[christian_balslev_van_rand]

Hi, I am seriously considering getting the 85 1.2L, but I'm scared to death of

the price tag. I love doing portraits, and I may be trying to go semi-pro

within a year or two, with portraits, concert and band photography. I've got

the 70-200 2.8L (non IS) which is really great, but the thing is just too darn

heavy, so it stays in my bag a lot. So I am probably selling it, and those

funds may go towards a 85 1.2LII. I already have the 24-70 2.8L, as well as the

50mm 1.4. My question is, is this lens worth it, over the 85 1.8? I use a 1D

mark III, so I've got a top notch camera, and would like a top notch lens to go

with it. Also, is the AF of the older version 85 1.2 really that slow? I

suppose you could get some great deals on the old version used. But if it

really is that slow maybe it's not worth it after all? Looking forwrard to your

insights.

[evan_goulet]

Have you read Phillip Greenspun's reviews of the <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/85L/">85 f/1.2</a> and the <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/85-1.8">85 f/1.8</a>?

[hjoseph7]

I heard that lens is simply AWESOME to say the least. If I had the money I would definately get it. That's if.

[shadowcatcher]

No, get a 135mm L f2.

[tommyinca]

My 2 cents, If you love doing portrait, you owe it to yourself to get one. 85/1.8 is great but its still no 85/1.2. It is that much sharper then the 1.8 version? No. Does it product better portrait, Yes. IMO, the f1.2 is a better packaged together for portrait as a package.

[colinsouthern]

"My question is, is this lens worth it"

 

Every last cent :)

[sknowles]

If money is not an issue and you need the extra brightness in the viewfinder and additional

aperture, then definitely yes. But before you buy one, go check one out. It's huge (72mm

filter), especially on the camera (balance). If you don't need it, the f1.8 is a excellent choice

for many uses. I have both. I got and use the f1.8 lens most of the time, eg. street, nature,

landscape, studio photography, after buying a f1.2 lens, which I now use in the winter and

for events where the extra aperture is handy. I agree for portrait work the f1.2 lens would be

worth the money, but first check both out. Good luck.

[mark_schafer1]

The lens is fantastic, but...if you just need a 85mm lens, get the 1.8 and shoot it till the

cows come home (or even after that). Use the rest of the money to get your backup (Raid)

and color calibrations going. Still money left, advertise yourself and make money with your

equipment. Like this you have a solid foundation and a great lens. And after you made

your first couple of grand revisit the idea of the 1.2. Did you use the 1.8 as much as

anticipated, do you need the extra weight, does your camera hand hurt after hours of

shooting with a 24-70 ?

(For full disclosure i use the L series 35-50-85 and love it, but it's expensive and when i

need a second set i have a hard time finding them in Rental in NY and LA. Could i do my

job with the regular lenses, of course, did a client ever asked what lens i use, of course

not.) Getting your business o a credible level and then your name out out weights any

"dream lens" drift, it all comes in time (or inherit, make a great deal, play Lotto, you

choose), my very best, Mark

[zml]

Rent the 1.8 and the 1.2 versions and compare results. Chances are you can do 99.9% of 85 mm work with the 1.8... (I am aware that there is that thing called ego but try to be objective.)

[Ian Taylor]

The look of that thing @ f1.2 justifies the cost IMO.

[m_barbu1]

I'm not so sure that 85mm at f/1.2 is ideal for portraits, but I'm not a fan of blurry parts of a face. However, as a lens that performs well in low-light, it's worth every penny.

[anson_ko]

If you need AF speed, go for the 1.8. 1.2 AF speed is too slow even the 85 1.2 II. If you shoot static object in very low light, 1.2 is the one you wanna get. There are so many reviews comparing all the 85mm lenses online.

[jim_a]

>>If money is not an issue and you need the extra brightness in the viewfinder

 

Actually you will not see any brightness difference in the viewfinder. I think 2.8 is the maximum brightness in the viewfinder. Anything below that does not increase brightness.

 

I could not agree more with Michael's advice. The money to rent these lenses is well spent.

[Ian Taylor]

<i>I'm not so sure that 85mm at f/1.2 is ideal for portraits</i>

<p>

 

f1.2 is awesome for portraits. The photographer just has to know how to use it. The pros I know who use this glass shoot at f1.2 all the time.

[angel_bocanegra]

Well, I have both and let me say that I have equal amount of good portrait shots with both. It is not the lens that makes good pictures its your sense of composition and lighting. Having an 85 1.2 L in a wedding reception is nice, because it makes you look better carrying the huge glass. The big difference for me is only the "L" which stands for luxury. If you drive a mercedes, maybe you should get it.

[jose_castro1]

i agree with anson. i used to have the 1.8 and it was fairly faster in terms of af. got the 1.2 II now and results (atleast for me) make the switch worth it despite the slower af speed. i'd rent it out if only i don't use it so often.

[chrisjb]

If you are into the bokeh thing, then the 1.2 is for you :)

[yakim_peled1]

>> My question is, is this lens worth it, over the 85 1.8?

 

 

Not for me. I had the 85/1.8 and found it to be sharp enough and with shallow enough DoF. I have several lenses (some of them L) and have no wish to own this one.

 

As you can understand (read Colin's reply), the term "worth it" is very subjective one. For example, is it worth it to buy a BMW 3 instead of the Mazda 3? For some it is, for some it isn't. And what do all these opinions mean to you? Absolutely nothing.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[christopher hartt dallas]

I "believe" in the lens. Shooting the 1.2 and 1.8 at the same aperture of 1.8; the 1.2 produces superior color, "creamier" skintones, smoother bokeh and overall better image quality IMO.

 

Comparing the 1.8 images side by side (RAW) from each of the two lenses (1Ds3 bodies), it's easy to tell the IQ difference in portraits. For other than portrait shooting, the differences become less pronounced but still evident.

[terry_smith2]

YEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

[chrisjb]

I`ll say one more thing, buggered if I`d take a good lens like the 85 1.2 to a concert, the 1.8 is cheaper to get knocked about and will work quicker. hmm, when you can`t decide between 2 things, get both :)

[rab_l]

One thing that never seems to be mentioned, yes,It is slower to focus because of the amount

of glass being moved, but it focuses more accurately, and it stays locked on better than any

of my other lenses [35/1.4, 50/1.4, 24/70], and this is in very low light levels. I can feel

guilty for weeks after big spends like this, but after using it for the first time I knew it was

absolutely worth the cost, but I do a lot of work without flash in very low light at 1.2 and 1.4.

As much as I don't like talking about bokeh, it has the most beautiful transition, it goes from

very sharp focus and then just melts away.

[andre_stull]

The 85 1.2 is awesome.. what's there to think about?

[anthony_thornborough1]

Agree with Chris JB and Robert Lawler.

 

I have both lenses - 85 f/1.8, and f/1.2LII - and I use the slower one when travelling further afield or when risk factors dictate using the cheaper optic. But they are both excellent, the f/1.8 being especially good for close-ups with an EF12ET extension tube for things such as jewellery on a woman's ear, face-painting on a child.(I have not used the ET on the LII because of the way the rear element protrudes, and a fear of scratching it when taking the said ET on and off).

 

My normal arrangement for the f/1.8 is to keep the 12ET on it, which I generally get better results (of the kind I seek) than with the f/2.8 Macro 100. But that's purely subjective.

 

There is definitely more 'sparkle' with the LII stopped down, and it gives you the edge when opened up, and it also balances very well indeed ~ it's heavy, but not the giant marble I imagined it would be: not tiring to use for prolonged periods, as it's so stubby compared with using a fast telezoom at a commensurate focal length. AF is a breeze (I never owned the Mk1 version) but slightly less 'snappy' than the f/1.8, but it never seems to 'hunt' the way the slower optic/faster (FTM) USM f/1.8 can do - the LII always seems on the mark.

 

I would recommend the 85 LII for those using both FF and 1.6X arrays, but as you've already got the top-end EOS 1 in a concert environment it's a non-brainer. It'll balance superbly and won't disappoint.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>The photographer just has to know how to use it.</i></p><p>I know how to use it. You need to read my post in it's entirety. I prefer my portraits to have the face completely in focus. A depth of field of 0.84 inches makes this prohibitive at f/1.2.</p>