canon 85mm 1.8 or 85mm 1.2l

[nfl_gonda]

<p>want advice on canon 85mm 1.8 or 85mm 1.2L forgot aperture 1.2 or 1.8 we do not care this but we want image quality at every f stop that lens provide .<br>

is 1.2 provide better image quality for human portraiture at studio and outdoor over 85mm 1.8 or the price difference for just 1.2 and L glass.<br>

price no matter if lens worth it at every f stop but if it just for f 1.2 then why we purchase for one stop and pay about 5 times.</p>

[ds_meador]

<p>I have the 1.8. I'm fine with it. The 1.2 would have to be extremely better for me to think about paying that much more for it. The 1.8 supposedly autofocuses faster too, which can impact IQ. Of course, the 1.2 is a much better lens at 1.2 than the 1.8, but if you don't need more than 1.8 you should be fine. I have read some posts saying that the 1.8 is soft until 2.8, but mine suits me just fine by 2. I have seen some photos from the 1.2 with wonderful bokeh though, so that might be an aspect to think about too.<br>

DS Meador</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>The f1.2 L will be better at every f-stop, (most significantly from f1.8 to f8) and colour rendition and contrast will also be improved. As mentioned "bokeh" will also be improved, and the f1.2 and f1.4 will be very useful in separating subject from background/foreground but of course depth of field is very small at these apertures. </p>

<p>Having said all that, most of the expense of the lens is spent in creating the much wider aperture and the extremely corrected glass to provide excellent results at those apertures. For example, if Canon had an 85/1.8 L it would likely cost only as much as a 135/2 L.</p>

<p>If budget is a concern I recommend purchasing a used original version 85/1.2 L. Keh.com has them for a $500 USD savings and if you are patient you can likely get one for around $1000.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>raj,</p>

<p>For pure, outright, image quality the 1.2 will beat the 1.8 through the f stop range, <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=397&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4">just look and compare them both at every f stop here.</a></p>

<p>But for even better outright resolving image quality the 100mm macro, both the older non IS and the newer version with IS will out perform both the 85mm lenses.</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>No brainer, get the 85 f/1.2. Speed isn't cheap.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Thomas,</p>

<p>Got to disagree with that, if you are not interested in the speed/aperture, which raj says he isn't, then the 85mm 1.2 holds no advantages over several other lenses.</p>

<p>The 100mm f2.8 L IS macro for instance. It out resolves the 85 1.2, has sharper corners, no distortion, no CA, it is weather sealed, it has the latest 4 stop IS, it focuses faster and closer too, it is an L lens as well so gets the suitable glass and quality build. Oh and the real kicker, it is less than half the price of the 85 f1.2.</p>

[james_atria]

<blockquote>

<p>price no matter </p>

</blockquote>

<p>If this is the case the 85mm 1.2L is the way to go. Price constraints are what keep most people out of the L range if you don't have these constraints there is usually a reason why the L badged lenses are so good.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Raj:</p>

<p>According to the MTF charts, the 1.8 will have equal or higher contrast and resolution.</p>

<p>If you're going to shoot at f/1.8 or slower, I'd save the money and buy the 1.8 version. It autofocuses faster because there is less glass to move.</p>

<p>If you need the extra stop, then go with the 1.2.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[ben_goren]

<p>raj,</p>

 

<p>If you don’t need the speed, the 70-200 f/2.8 is also well worth a consideration, as would be

pretty much any actual macro lens from any manufacturer.</p>

 

<p>The 85 f/1.8 is an awesome lens, but the 85 f/1.2 L II is a legendary lens.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>Buy both.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The f/1.8 is an excellent lens.</p>

<p>Often when I read questions like yours (must be "better at every f-stop") I wonder what you mean by "better" and how you will use the images. Unless you do very careful and critical work of very specific types and output in quite specific ways, any "betterness" of the f/1.2 could be largely an illusion.</p>

[chuck_nakell]

<p>There is a just released Canon $130 rebate available on the 85 1.2 right now if that plays into your decision. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Look at the reviews. Both are fine lenses, and those of us who have f/1.2 lenses love them*. When you need that tiny bit of extra light, they are marvellous. Certainly, at f/1.2 you have a very pleasing amount of bokeh, since the DOF is razor thin ;)<br>

If you don't see any reason why you <em><strong>have</strong> </em> to have the f/1.2, then clearly you will do better with the f/1.8. It's not a matter of "sharpness", really. Look at the Photozone.de reviews for technical details on both.</p>

<p>__________<br>

*so as not to sail under false colors, my f/1.2 is a Nikkor 55mm, but the story is the same. I still use it on both my Nikons and Canon cameras.</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>If money is not an object then don't even think about 1.8. It took me some time to master the 1.2 but once I did I never looked back. It's definitely the best lens I've ever owned.</p>

[derrickdehaan]

<p>I have both, and the 85 1.8 is going to be up for sale. There is nothing else like the 85 1.2 for portraiture. </p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>Unless you actually plan to shoot wider than f1.8 with the 85mm f1.2 lens, there aren't a lot of reasons to go for it over the f1.8 version. Some reviews say the f1.8 is better at mid apertures, some say the f1.2 is better at mid apertures - the reality is that there is nothing much between them. What is for sure is that the f1.2 is slower focusing, a lot heavier and, as JDM says, the DOF is razor thin at f1.2 (think a few eyelashes on a tight cropped face). Generally very wide aperture optics are optimized for those apertures (the main reason to buy them) and offer little or no advantages when stopped down beyond f4 or so.</p>

<p>There are some sacred cows in photography, some very expensive so owners will of course vigorously defend them. The 85mm f1.2L is indeed a special lens due to the razor thin DOF, bokeh and IQ wide open. But if you aren't shooting at f1.2 then my guess is that you will be thrilled with the 85mm f1.8's results, focusing speed and price.</p>

[wolf_weber]

<p>Another lens to consider, and U may have one already, would be the 50mm f/1.4... If U shoot digital, CA 1.6 that is, said 50mm would be an 80mm f/1.4, nothing to be ashamed of. If U insist on an 85mm, I suggest U <em><strong>test-buy</strong></em> them both then keep the one U ultimately prefer. Last, not least, Sigma is coming to market with an 85mm f/1.4. Sometimes the truth lies in the middle. Analog, I used to <em>howl</em> (after it was stolen) for my Leica Summilux 80mm f/1.4 (now available for CA, MF only)..! Not to forget the Nikon AIS 85mm f/1.4, which did great for me as well. After I switched to CA AF, I liked the CA 85mm f/1.8 for its convenience. If I needed a lens of this focal length, I would go for it. <strong>2nd</strong> after the Summilux. But if U insist on AF...</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>Again, if the money is not an issue, don't worry about comparing it to 1.8. You can shoot it at any aperture and it will produce superb quality images. I am an amature but have no issues with money. I had exactly the same questions and ended up buying 1.8 glass first only because some pepole told me that images will still be good. WRONG! Yes it's heavy, yes it's slow but once you see the bokeh you will be blown away. Just bokeh was enough for me.</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>Scott Ferris : speed isn't cheap. See Noctilux f/0.95</p>

<p> </p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>Scott Ferris : speed isn't cheap. Well, I guess it IS when you talk about Canon. See Noctilux f/0.95. </p>

<p> </p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>Scott Ferris : speed isn't cheap. Well, I guess it IS when you talk about Canon. See Noctilux f/0.95. </p>

<p> </p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>Scott Ferris : speed isn't cheap. Well, I guess it IS when you talk about Canon. See Noctilux f/0.95. </p>

<p> </p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>Scott Ferris : speed isn't cheap. Well, I guess it IS when you talk about Canon. See Noctilux f/0.95. </p>

<p> </p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>So the message is.... ahh... speed is expensive?</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>Haha, now how did THAT happen! I did NOT do that! A little help from the mod please? LOL</p>