Canon 5D Mark2..which lens do i get?

[ncarnick]

<p>I have the 85 f 1.2 but the older one. Despite it being by far the slowest focusing lens I have from Canon, it is easily my favorite lens. I can see why someone would want it for portrait work but I don't think it is the best choice for things that move much. Possibly the ii version of the 85 1.2 is a lot better in focusing speed so my comments on that aspect might be of little use to you. However, I question the logic of blowing that much of your budget on that lens when as a wedding photographer you will need a lot of flexibility during the event. <br>

I think the quality on my 70-200 f4L IS is amazingly good for a zoom lens. My 24-105F4L IS works as a pretty good video lens with the 5D mk ii. While I like that lens as a travel and video lens, the best reason you would have to buy it is the kit price with the 5D mk ii might be good. (The 24-105 replaced my 28-135IS which was pretty lame by Canon standards).<br>

In any event, the 85 1.2ii goes for $1,970 (USA version) on BH Photo. The Zeiss 85 1.4 (but manual focus) goes for $1,283 and the Canon 85 1.8 goes for $379. I bet all 3 are excellent. Zeiss was not an option when I bought mine (many years ago) and I think you should do some research between those 2 if you are done just portrait work with the lens. I assume the 1.8 is out of the running because you want the much smaller DOF. However, I have been told the 1.8 is a great lens and amazing for the money. <br>

Putting it into perspective the 85 f1.2L ii cost $200 or more than buying the 85 f 1.8 AND the 300 f4L combined. It is a $200 less than buying the 85 1.8 and 70-200 f2.8L IS combined. In any event, I would think you would want some reach to do the kiss shot with. I don't know that you can build a wedding kit without it although I imagine you could go rental for that lens depending on situation.</p>

 

[simone falbo]

<p>Certainly the 85 1.2 L !<br>

I've got a 5D MkII and tried both of all, they are fabulous but in my opinion the 85 beats the 50...<br>

The question is: what is the focal lenght you need?</p>

[William Michael]

<p > </p>

<p >Hi Norman. </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong ><em >"I have been told the [85mm]1.8 is a great lens and amazing for the money." </em></strong></p>

<p ><br />It is. Arguably the best VfM lens in the prosumer range.</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><em><strong>"I don't know that you can build a wedding kit without it [70 to 200F2.8L IS] although I imagine you could go rental for that lens depending on situation."</strong></em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >You can build a kit without it - one example in my post above - by leveraging a kit with two formats, APS-C Body and a 5D (or equiv.) Body. For my old studio I built four W&P location kits and they shared a 70m to 200 between them. I own a 70 to 200 myself and for Weddings I have only used it on a 5D - and I could have covered the same shots with my 85 or 135 using a 30D, 40D or 50D and some quick footwork - and the kicker is have a stop more to play with . . . which means one stop faster Tv - which is ALWAYS handy for that kiss shot you mention (Assuming the same ISO and the upper limit of acceptability is say ISO1600 on the xxD and also with ISO1600 on the 5D or 5DMkII) </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Notwithstanding these facts - your comparison of the cost of 85F/1.8 + 70 to 200F2.8LIS to buying the 85F/1.2L is most relevant and sound advice for someone wanting to build a kit with only $5,000 capital</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The 85F/1.8 at its limits can be seen here: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=925231">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=925231</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[ncarnick]

<p>Should anyone be interested in the 85 1.8 shots, the ones William linked to above are excellent. While I'm amazed at the bokeh on my 85 1.2, it is not an everyday lens (size, weight, slow focus (though granted, not really as bad of an issue as many complain about)). </p>

<p>Good luck in your choices and thanks for posting those photos William.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Thanks for the nice comment Norman. You encouraged me to add another photo from that swimming day - it shows the 85 at F/2.2 - I wrote an explanation with it.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>