85/1.8 is sharper than 85/1.2 II

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>It's up to you to look for it. I know from all the hundreds of images taken with my 85/1.2 II, I see no evidence of fringing with bokeh. End of point.</em></p>

<p><strong>You</strong> are the one who pointed to the photozone review as evidence that the 85 f/1.8 was not as good due to fringing in OOF areas. When I corrected you by pointing out that their same tests showed <strong>worse OOF fringing for the 85 f/1.2L II,</strong> you then weaseled out by saying "my copy doesn't show it." It is <strong>irrational</strong> to believe their tests are accurate for all f/1.8 lenses, but not for f/1.2L lenses. It's also irrational to claim a significant difference between your copy and their copy when the characteristic in question is inherent to the optical design. Let's also be clear that their tests are so precise they can detect out of spec lenses and avoid using them for reviews. (They mention if they have trouble getting a good sample to test as it may indicate a manufacturing problem.)</p>

<p>There's no reason to believe your copy is better, or that the average 85 f/1.2L II is better, or that it would affect LoCA even if a better copy was found. It's much more likely that you just haven't noticed OOF fringing with normal subject matter at normal print sizes. (Neither have I with the f/1.8.)</p>

<p>I think it's hilarious the mental hoops you're jumping through, but I'm glad you're jumping. With every post you verify my initial comment.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>SLRGear says <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/354/cat/10" target="_blank">85/1.2</a> @1.2 is sharper than <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/154/cat/10" target="_blank">85/1.8</a> @1.8.Let alone at corresponding apertures.</em><br /><em> Apparently, those lenses are not in the same ball park.</em></p>

<p>Look at the actual numbers at photozone, or the ISO test samples at the-digital-picture.com. To say these lenses are not in the same ball park is ridiculous. They are so close in center sharpness that a small application of USM would eliminate the gap.</p>

<p>What is surprising to me is that photozone records higher corner sharpness for the f/1.8, but the-digital-picture.com shows higher corner sharpness for the f/1.2L. Variances in this characteristic could be due to a test or manufacturing variance. I would suspect test variance at TDP, but it's surprising because he's a very careful tester.</p>

<p>Castleman's tests and samples also illustrate just how very small the differences are. Even in his review I think he overplayed the differences verbally, as his test images show no difference of practical consequence. (Careful with his samples as often his focus will be on slightly different spots.) http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>I've got both, and was just shooting with both. Darn fine lenses! :-)</p>

<p>I will say that the 85 f/1.2 II wide open with a 12mm extension tube makes for some WICKED shallow depth of field!</p><div></div>

[mjferron]

<p>Just received my copy of "Truth" by the recently deceased, famed rock photographer Jim Marshall. There's not one photo in the book that's about sharpness. Sure some shots are sharper than others but as you thumb through the pages it's all about the music icons and to a lesser degree Jim's relationship with them. Yes you may need a fast lens but sharpness is certainly secondary.</p>

[walter_strong5]

<p>Well, I guess if one is making his living shooting portraits with a 24X36mm sensor SLR then forking over $2200 (MSRP) for the f/1.2 just MIGHT make sense but good gravy can the CUSTOMER tell the difference? If you have to use professional lens testors to see the small differences in performance between the two lenses then you'd BETTER have the f/1.2 if your customer is a professional lens tester!</p>

[lech1]

<p>The MTF values for 85L mentioned at PZ are close to sensor pixel count. Almoast ALL lenses tested there reproduce well above 60 lines per mm. Pls refer to 85L test on optyczne.pl</p>

[anthony_bridges]

<p>Both of these lenses are great. Rented the 85L and own the 85 1.8. I really enjoyed the faster speed of the 1.2 and bokeh was beautful but it was frustratingly hard to obtain critical sharpness on test subjects at that aperture. It would take practice.</p>

<p>Besides the great intentional blur, I didn't notice much difference between the two lenses at other wide apertures such as 1.8, 2.8 or 3.2. And the 85L is one heavy muther.</p>

[jacekdrozdowski]

<p>Probably all modern lens are sharp particularly in the centre.<br>

I think that more essential for lens are finely of the image, <br>

way of expressing: lights, shadows, colour ...........</p>

[lightwriting by swapan]

<p>What a clash of superiority complex and ego versus Inferiority complex and jealousy!</p>

[User_502260]

<p>My three 85mm lenses are all manual focus models. I have an 85/1.8 Konica Hexanon, an 85/1.8 Canon New FD and an 85/2 AI Nikkor. I think I have had the Konica lens since 1976 and the other two for a few years. These lenses are used only with my film cameras. When the first 85/1.4 ad 85/1.2 lenses came out they were used not only for shallow depth of field portraits but for more distant subjects with very slow slide film. We have now reached the point with 24X36mm digital sensors where very high ISO speeds can give good results. This makes the issue of speed much less important when comparing 85/1.8 and 85/1.2 lenses. The reasons for looking into an 85/1.2 include selectice focus, bokeh and overall sharpness but not really speed. For people who don't like portraits with very shallow depth of field there are medium telephoto macro lenses which are at least as sharp as the very fast general purpose medium telephoto lenses. The macro lenses also will show less of a sharpness difference between the center and the edges of the frame. </p>

[jkantor]

<p>L doesn't mean sharper - it means they use sophisticated design and technology to push the limits so that, in this case, you can have an aperture 2 stops wider.<br>

It's a lot easier to design and cheaper to produce a sharp lens with a maximum aperture of 1.8 than 1.2 - just like it's a lot easier to design and produce a lens for a reduced sensor size rather than full frame.</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Bottom line - again: Both lenses can produce really, really fine photographs. There can be some valid reasons for spending the much larger amount of money to purchase the L version of the 85mm lens, and some small percentage of those buying it have those reasons. Others purchase it because "it is an L," or "it is big and impressive looking" or "I believe it will be sharper."</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[User_4136860]

<p>I think people need to worry more about the content and meaning of their work rather than the hardware both these optics are better lenses than the vast majority of people are photographers.</p>

[pisq]

<p>Amen to that Ben,</p>

[samoksner]

<p>People are saying that the edge that the 85mm f1.2 has in sharpness in the center would not be noticed if handheld... WHAT?</p>

<p>I'm sorry, but having used fast primes (35/1.5, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 85/1.4, 300/2.8) I can easiyl vouch for my abilities to focus where I want without the use of a tripod. I've leaned to stay steady and notice moments when my subject is not moving or is where I want them.</p>

<p>But how about subject blur and motion blur from a shaky photographer. That extra stop of light from the f1.2 could bring your shutter speed from 1/30th to 1/60th and make all the difference. </p>

<p>Regardless of which lens is sharpest, the f1.2 is purchased for it's build quality, ability to go to f1.2, suberb bokeh, smooth transition blur.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2679/4438217486_9fda85f04b.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="335" /><br>

35mm at f1.4 - Focus on the arm</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3570/3572778564_630d54dfe8.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="334" /><br>

Nikkor 85mm at f1.4 at Minimum Focusing Distance - I leaned back until the edge of the frames were in focus.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3269/2986763582_5e4d27103a.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /><br>

300mm at f2.8 Handheld on a D40 (the smallest DSLR Nikon made, very off balance)</p>

<p>And when the light drop to be this low (ISO 1600, 1/15th of a sec, wide open at f1.4), a lens that gathers as much light as possible becomes very useful<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2685/4173579879_5e1b7c574e.jpg" alt="" width="358" height="500" /></p>

[DickArnold]

Ben. I agree. If I were a highly successful, highly paid NY photographer I might split hairs. I had a portrait studio and worried about making my older subjects a little softer and I certainly did not want to struggle with depth of field on PR shots. Anyway, I controlled the background with strobes and did not worry much about Bokeh. I used full frame and MF, whichever was set up. I never, ever had a customer come to me because they didn't like the Bokeh, or they might have seen some barely visible CA but then I was not, at my level, ever concerned about dealing with an art director; just PR people and brides and their mothers. All of my customers did have concerns about how they looked in the center of the picture. None of them even cared about corner softness. I did commercially acceptable pictures with several different lenses, none of which cost 2200 dollars. What is all the fuss about. I do agree that on full frame 85 millimeter is nice to have with either of these lenses. The other thing is when I had the business, I mostly never bought anything that did not amortize itself or was essential to do whatever job I had. Now that I am an amateur I do indulge myself occasionally with something I really want but the 1.8 would more than satisfy my plebian tastes.

[zack_zoll]

<p>This entire argument, of course, is based around the assumption that EVERYONE sees what YOU see.</p>

<p>Suppose you had the ability to differentiate colours much better than anyone else. You might talk about how Leica, or Zeiss, or whoever had the best colours, and anyone that didn't see why they were worth the money was an idiot. You would be right. But since they could not see a quality difference (certainly not relevant to the price), they would think you were a pompous ass. And they would be right. You would both, technically, be right. And neither side would ever be able to convince the other of how wrong they were - because by the very basis of the situation, they couldn't present any visible proof.</p>

<p>See where I'm going with this? To put it another way, I currently own a Nikon 85mm f/1.4 AF. I love the heck out of it - it's my favourite lens. I have a wedding coming up, and I'm selling it right after the wedding. Why? Because I usually shoot portraits around f/8, so the higher quality wide-open is a completely moot point. It's bigger and heavier than it needs to be, and that's that. At that range, most of my other lenses are just as good. In fact, I've been using a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 instead ... because for my images, the two look identical, and I won't cry as much if I drop the Tamron.</p>

<p>Just because something might be better, that doesn't mean you can see a difference. More importantly, it doesn't mean that the difference will even apply. If you're going to shoot wide open, then the 85 f/1.2 blows the 1.8 out of the water. If you're not (or if you mostly shoot farther away with deeper DOF and 1.8 is plenty fast enough), then the 1.2 is a waste of money, and being 'better' is totally irrelevant.</p>

[gurbally_seth]

<p>Had both but dumped 1.8 because of huge purple fringing at its widest. It is nowhere 1.2L II for its bokeh and low-light performance.</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>Dang I love both these lenses! Grabbed the 85 f/1.8 today to throw in the bag because I wanted something lighter and didn't figure I'd need f/1.2 today. Shot at f/2 with available light, worked just fine...</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[bobcossar]

<p>....And they say religion is fading away.....</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Kinda farcical really, but very amusing to read from the outside. One glaring error, the kind that is normally jumped on by the knowledgeable, John Kantor wrote " you can have an aperture 2 stops wider." an f1.2 lens is one stop faster than an f1.8 lens.</p>

<p>f stops in third stop increments go <strong>f1.0</strong>-1.1-1.2-<strong>f1.4</strong>-1.6-1.8-<strong>f2.0</strong></p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>Sheldon, that's a great pic.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The best thing in this thread by far is... the "First Easter" photo! :-)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[User_4136860]

<p>Thanks Sheldon for proving my point with this wonderful shot, it doesn't matter a monkeys f**k if it's the 1.2 L or the 1.8 85mm (I own both the FD versions of these lenses) what matters is what your pictures say.</p>

[samuel_elliott]

<p>Much more detailed comparison of the lenses (full Head-to-Head review) here:<br>

http://www.h2hreviews.com/article/Head-to-Head-Lens-Review-Canon-EF-85mm-f-1-2L-USM-vs-Canon-EF-85mm-f-1-8-USM/Bokeh-Effect.html</p>