canon 85mm 1.8 or 85mm 1.2l

[scott_ferris]

<p>Did I ever suggest it wasn't?</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>For pure, outright, image quality the 1.2 will beat the 1.8 through the f stop range, <a rel="nofollow" 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" target="_blank">just look and compare them both at every f stop here.</a> </em></p>

<p>I was about to post that link myself, but I disagree with the strength of your statement. Have you reviewed each aperture? There's just not that much difference between these two lenses f/1.8 to f/4, and the differences are gone by f/5.6. Most of the improvement found in the L lens is in the corners. The differences found center and mid frame are well within the ability of sharpening tools to eliminate.</p>

<p>If you're shooting APS-C I would say the L lens is a waste of money unless you must have f/1.2L for low light. Even if you're shooting full frame I don't think the IQ alone justifies the price. Think about it: wide open these lenses are typically used with subject matter and compositions that make the IQ of the outer frame irrelevant. If you want shallow DoF that means you're intentionally blurring out the corners and sides to emphasize the center, where there's little difference. If your subject matter fills the frame and needs to be sharp corner to corner, such as a mildly compressed landscape shot, then you're shooting at an aperture where there is no difference between the two.</p>

<p>As for shallow DoF, on APS-C at f/1.8 you already have trouble keeping both eyes in focus in a portrait. Bokeh? One of the claimed improvements for the f/1.2L II was a more round aperture so that OOF highlights would be round like they already are on the f/1.8 version.</p>

<p>I realize these posts always elicit responses like "I've owned both and there's a WORLD of difference!". But as someone else pointed out, there are also a lot of sacred cows in photography. If you make two 16x24 prints, one with the f/1.8 and one with the f/1.2L, all other factors equal, and hang them in a mall, will the people passing by think there's a world of difference? Or will they think "why are there two identical photos hanging in the store window?"</p>

<p>Again, if you have to have f/1.2 then you have one choice. Do you have to have it is the question each person must answer with their wallet.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Castleman reviewed them both here: http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm</p>

<p>For those who say there's a world of difference in bokeh or DoF, I'm looking at this Castleman test series (http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/mann_port/mann_port.htm) and thinking that if I hung two 16x24's up in a public place, one from the 85 f/1.2L II @ f/1.2 and one from the 85 f/1.8 @ f/1.8, that most viewers would think they were copies. A few photographers might, if questioned, say they were two shots with slightly different focus points or apertures. No one would guess they were different lenses.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>That selective quote did rather change the emphasis of the opinion I gave! I agree with you, few people, if any, could tell the difference. But if you have to choose then the 1.2 is the better resolver, but not by much, and I can focus a view camera faster than the 1.2 focuses.</p>

<p>However particularly as raj said he wasn't fussed about the speed of the 1.2 I still believe, if outright image quality is the key, and I presume that means resolution, CA, distortion etc, then raj would be far better served by the 100 macro.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Scott - yes, if you don't need an aperture wider than 2.8 then a macro is the way to go. (What is it about macro lens designs that forces them to be so sharp? Even really cheap "no name" 3rd party macros like Phoenix are pretty sharp.)</p>

[bill_dewberry]

<p>The 85 1.2 lens is worlds apart from the 85 1.8; the 85 1.2 is comparable to the image quality from the 70-200 2.8; it is exceptional. The lens is expensive, heavy, big; but if image quality is what you want, this is the lens, no questions asked.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p><strong>Raj Kumar:</strong> Let me put you out of your decision making misery <strong>:)</strong> . It is the f/1.2L. Go for a mint condition version II used. There are a few out there on eBay. It is worth every two thousand dollar bill spent for the image quality at every aperture. I own one. Just go out and paint your <em>canvas</em> with it at f/1.2.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>You didn't mention what camera you are using. I purchased the 85 1.2L for my 30D and didn't like the results because was too long for my use. However, when I upgraded to a canon 5D Mark II I realized the beauty of this lens. On a full frame camera I would absolutely recommed the 85 1.2 L. The low light capabilities both still and video are amazing and will allow you to create looks no other lens can do. My thought is if you are not sure why you are purchasing an 1.2 L lens you may not really need it. By the way isn't 1.8 to 1.2 a 2 stop difference? There is a 1.4 as well. In any case It is not so much about spped for me as the supre shallow dof which allows you to isolate a subject even in a busy back ground than is only inches away...</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>1.8 to 1.2 is 1 stop.</p>

<p>I'm looking at online samples from both lenses and wondering how anyone can come to the conclusion that they are world's apart or that the 1.2L is even noticeably better if you don't need the light gathering of f/1.2. To each his own...</p>

[bryan_lardizabal]

<p>These great Canon lens debates continue:<br>

50mm f1.4 v. f1.2<br>

70-200mm f/4 v. f2.8<br>

IS or not? and many, many other lenses alike<br>

Use what you like based on appreciated performance and take suggestions from others with a grain of salt</p>

<p> </p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>With the best will in the world I don't anyone could realistically describe these two lenses as "world's apart". The truth is that they are both excellent lenses. Going from the f1.8 to the f1.2 you are getting into a number of factors... The f1.2 version has to be a lot more expensive to justify the R&D, in addition to the much increased build cost, as there are a fraction of them sold compared to the f1.8 version. Also, with the f1.8 being so good (and it really is), you run into the law of diminishing returns... that extra little bit of performance costs you multiples in price and the slows the focusing down by more than half.</p>

<p>Is it worth it? There are the tangible benefits... you get the extra one and a third stops more light gathering ability which is useful in low light (although not indoor sports necessarily, due to the slow focusing) and there is the shallower DOF you gain in the area between f1.8 and f1.2. The build quality is better, although again, the f1.8 is perfectly well built. At other apertures, the differences will only be apparent with perfect technique - tripod, MLU, ISO 100, etc. shooting test charts (although even this is in dispute).</p>

<p>The intangibles are harder to justify but play just as big a part in many people's purchasing decisions. The desire for the "best", the "L-coholism" we see on these boards, and also pride of ownership. Nothing wrong with those at all.</p>

<p>In the end it's a decision that says more about the available cash than anything else - if you want it, can afford it and the focusing doesn't bother you, why not? </p>

<p> </p>

[peter_j2]

<p><strong>Raj:</strong> I presume you may have poured over many sites of portraiture examples of both lenses. Here is one where you can look at samples at different permutation and combination of apertures on different cameras to help in your decision making:</p>

<p>http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/canon/</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>I love my <a href="../photo/8953976">Canon 85MM 1.2</a> on my 5D. For me, it's all about the bokeh.</p>

<p>There's also many <a href="http://www.pbase.com/ericsorensen/duckpond2008">Canon 85MM 1.2 shots here</a> .</p>

[nfl_gonda]

<p>hello im raj first thanks for all of your comments and sugession.<br>

we have plan to purchase 5d ii we mension that price no matter means if we shoot with these two lenses in my studio at same apurture same modle same light means nothing change other than changing lens and print with same printer same size then what is the result of image skin softness and color and over all image quality<br>

sharpness contrast resolution when we put two image side by side.</p>

[nfl_gonda]

<p>hello i am raj first thanks for all of your comments and sugession.<br>

we have plan to purchase 5d ii we mention that price no matter means if we shoot with these two lenses in my studio at same apurture same modle same light means nothing change other than changing lens and print with same printer same size then what is the result of image skin softness and color and over all image quality<br>

sharpness contrast resolution when we put two image side by side.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>raj,</p>

<p>Just get the 1.8, very few people (if any) in a studio environment, where the lighting has far more impact on image quality, skin tones and colour etc, would be able to tell any difference. The two prints will be so similar that the lighting will make the difference not the lens. If you intend to use it between f2 and f8 and smaller there will be effectively no difference. Spend the extra money on the lighting.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>I'm with Scott - unless you plan on using the f1.2 version between f1.2 and f1.8 just get the 85mm f1.8 and be happy. Enjoy the price saving, enjoy the faster focusing.</p>

<p>Skin softness? Color? Sharpness? Contrast? Resolution? - Seriously you just aren't going to see a difference. So much is achieved in post processing - where minor or huge changes in these values can be made - that you are effectively tilting at windmills in this case. You are shooting in the studio, with studio lights with total control presumably at mid apertures (you wouldn't have asked for a comparison between the lenses at like apertures if you intended to shoot at f1.2).</p>

<p>At the risk of ruffling a few feathers let me add this. The 85mm f1.2 is a specialist lens, with a price to match. It has a very defined role and there are compromises that people are willing to accept (weight, slow auto focus, price) to achieve this very specific goal. The point of this lens is it's maximum aperture and it's performance at that aperture - that's why it's so heavy, expensive and slow focusing. If you want razor thin depth of field for some reason and are willing to pay dearly for it, then it's the lens for you (and an excellent one at that). If you are not shooting at, or very close to, f1.2 the main point of this lens evaporates. It is not just a more expensive "better" alternative 85mm lens to the f1.8. There is nothing in the overlapping performance to justify the price difference and who on earth would trade that debatable performance difference for the weight penalties and slow AF if they just wanted a general purpose 85mm?</p>

<p> </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>John,</p>

<p>Totally agree. It always amuses me when people post images of their f1.2 and f1.4 lenses at f4 and proclaim how unique it is.</p>

<p>At the risk of sounding like a broken record player, the 100mm f2.8 IS L macro will out perform both and has a good circular aperture that gives very nice Bokeh, if that is of interest. I am very lucky and just got a bonus, part of it will be going on the 100 IS macro.</p>

[nfl_gonda]

<p>sorry we can not use 100 mm due to space required and also don not want to compromise with quality.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Space is fair enough raj, but the difference between 85 and 100 is very little, also the 100 will focus closer than either 85, considerably closer than the 1.2. If quality is your primary concern, at any f stop from 2.8 on, the macro will out perform both 85's by a long way, you would not be compromising quality, you would be maximising it, that is why I suggested it.</p>

<p>What is your intended f stop, and what framing do you want to achieve in what space limitations? If you truly don't want to compromise quality then medium format digital backs truly wipe the floor with 5D MkII and 1Ds MkIII's especially as you are not interested in super narrow DOF.</p>

[nfl_gonda]

<p>dear scott ferris we have only 18x12 feet <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=657840">studio and most of the times we shoot full length photograph in my calculation if we shoot just from 4 feet from background then we can only use 85mm not 100mm.<br /> </a></p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Raj,</p>

<p>85mm is too long to shoot full length if your measurements are correct, unless you are only shooting midgets or dogs. If you want a 4ft background separation and you want to stand behind the camera you are down to 10ft on the long side. That means for full length you need a 50mm or so.</p>

<p>I just went and shot these for you. Top image is 78mm at 14 feet, you would get considerably less of the person (I think she is 5' 7", but slouching :-) ) with an 85mm and moving forward to operate the camera, the bottom image is a much more comfortable 50mm from 10 feet. Hope these help. </p>

<p>Take care, Scott</p>

<p>P.S. Why did you link to me?</p><div></div>

[john_bellenis]

<p>Raj - If you are wanting to do some full length images in that tight space, some 3/4 and maybe some tighter head shots, have you considered the 24-70mm f2.8L zoom? The image quality is extremely good, the constant aperture works for changing focal lengths and studio strobes, the f2.8 max aperture give you a bright viewfinder and the zoom would give you a lot of flexibility. It also has good image quality wide open (not that it sounds like that's a priority). It's a great lens outdoors too with good bokeh and it would seem to suit you well.</p>

<p>If I had to shoot a variety of portrait style shots in that space, the 24-70mm is what I'd use for everything with no worries.</p>

<p> </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Raj,</p>

<p>Got to second John's thought there. I have broken my 24-70 or I would post you some more distance shots, but if it is good enough for Annie Leibovitz, and many other high end pros then it is more than good enough for us. I use mine the majority of the time and with your kinds of working distance is the perfect high quality solution.</p>

[ron_rivchin1]

<p>I have used both lenses. I find the 1.2 is pleasing and has paid off with my headshots and other print photography.</p>