85mm 1.2 L MK1 - OR - 135L & 85mm 1.8?

[fawadkhan]

<p >I'm considering picking up a used 85mm 1.2L MK1 in great shape for $1000. If I did I probably would sell my 85 1.8 & 135L (and probably s spare liver... we have two right?) to prevent having too much overlap.<br>

I LOVE my 135L, and 85mm 1.8, but have heard so many amazing things about the 1.2 L. I've read up on the trade offs in AF, more difficulty/time needed to get focusing right.<br>

For those of you who have used a 85mm 1.2L, what would you suggest?<br />Can you share any of your fav shots w/ this lens?<br>

Thanks!</p>

 

 

<p >Fawad<br /><a href="http://www.fawadkhanphotography.com/">http://www.FawadKhanPhotography.com</a></p>

 

 

 

[bill_dewberry]

<p>The 85 1.2 is a great lens, but also a beast. It actually teams up well with the 135 also. I suggest you buy the used 85 1.2, but temporarily keep the other lenses untill you've used the 1.2 lens to make sure its a fit for you.</p>

[JohnMWright]

<p>Actually you only have one liver and it's vital. Consider giving up a kidney instead. ;-)</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>I wouldn't do it. Trading two lenses you really like and are totally familiar with that do all you need and have lots of flexibility, for one outdated, unknown that some love but many can't use effectively and that AF's slower than I could paint a subject.</p>

<p>Apparently you can donate part of your one liver, or one of your two kidneys, but there is no lens worth that and two very good lenses.</p>

[fawadkhan]

<p>I was kidding about the kidney thing BTW. The forum won't let me go back and add in a smiley ;)</p>

 

<p >We'll my thinking was I can use the 85 F1.2 on my 5D and my 1.6x crop 30D.<br>

On the 30D it becomes a 135 L F1.2, and on my 5D I get a full F stop advantage over the 1.8 non L.<br>

So it sounds like the benefits would be:<br />1) Carrying 1 lens vs. 2 means less stuff in your camera bag<br />2) Get 1.2 vs 1.8 @ 85mm (on the 5D) & upgrade to L quality glass<br />3) Get 1.2 vs F2 @ 135mm (on the 30D)<br />4) Much faster shutter speeds allowed @ F1.2 (double over 1.8, 2x+ over F/2)<br>

5) Have a big a$$ that looks cool & can be used to fight off a potential attacker <img src="http://a.img-dpreview.com/forums/images/emoticon-smile.gif?767" alt="emoticon - smile" width="15" height="15" /><br>

Cons:<br />1) Slower AF (now that I have it, it doesn't seem as bad though)<br>

The 85mm 1.2 L seems to be the 'holy grail' of portrait lenses from what I've read.<br>

These are just some things I came up with. Posted to see what others thought as I often get good feedback on forums.</p>

 

[sheldonnalos]

<p>Do it, that's a great price. If you decide it was the wrong decision later on, you will be able to sell it for more than you paid for it by several hundred dollars.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The equation is pretty simple, I think.</p>

<p>You believe that you'll gain something from the 85mm L over what you get from the 85mm f/1.8. Can you quantify what that is? Is it real or is it "magical" and something that you hope you'll get? Is the 85mm f/1.8 letting you down in some real way? And if you are certain that the 85mm L will bring you some form of concrete betterness, will the increment of betterness be larger than the loss of the 135mm lens that you say you like?</p>

<p>I have the 135mm L and the 85mm f/1.8, and it is hard for me to imagine how I would be better off with just the 85mm L.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I have the 135mm L and the 85mm f/1.8, and it is hard for me to imagine how I would be better off with just the 85mm L.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Completely agree!</p>

[tdigi]

<blockquote>

<p>I have the 135mm L and the 85mm f/1.8, and it is hard for me to imagine how I would be better off with just the 85mm L.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just sorta playing devils advocate but with this logic why would anyone ever buy an 85 1.2? Obviously some feel an 85 1.2 would be better then owning a bunch of other lenses or Canon would not sell so many of these. </p>

<p> </p>

[steven_crist]

<p>Have you used a 5D with the 85L MKI? I know I tried the 5D with the 85 MKII and the focussing was pretty slow, and the MKII is a noticibly faster lens. I held off getting the 85L MKII until I got a 1D MKIII. The 85L focusses much quicker with that body. Not as fast as other rear focus lenses but not slow. You may want to hold out for an 85L MKII if you keep the 5D. It also had minor optical upgrades compared to the MKI model.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>The 85/1.2 is a gorgeous piece of glass.... And produces stunning imagery... <em>if</em> you're shooting static subjects... if the subject is going to move <em><strong>at all</strong></em>, the 85/1.8 is a far better choice. </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>You know, the 85mm f/1.8 is no slouch at all with static images...</p>

[martin-s]

<blockquote>

<p>"I LOVE my 135L, and 85mm 1.8, but have heard so many amazing things about the 1.2 L."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since you've only heard "so many amazing things" about the lens, I would definitely borrow/rent one before making the decision.</p>

<p>I doubt, you will find enough in the 1.2 L for it to be clearly superior to the 1.8 and certainly not enough to sacrifice the excellent 135mm 2.0 you already own: two lenses = much more versatility.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Why? The difference in DoF and bokeh between your 135L and the 85L is too minor to be noticed for the same composition. You will notice some difference here between the two 85's when both are wide open, but how often will you be able to shoot the 85L wide open given the razor thin DoF and critical focus required?</p>

<p>The difference in IQ between any of the three is tiny. The 85L is heavy and slow focusing, the latter meaning you can't effectively use that extra stop in many low light situations.</p>

<p>I just don't get it.</p>

[derek_stanton2]

<p>I used to have the 85L. It's a fantastic lens, for sure. But, at this point, i'm planning to replace it with the 85/1.8. Two reasons: the 1.8 lens is something i'm more likely to have with me (the L is just so huge, heavy, and costly); and the 1.8 is capable of great results. I know how wonderful the 1.2L is, but i also love the rendering from the 1.8. It has a very Sonnar-like bokeh. And either lens is sharp enough. So, if it were me, i'd go with the 135+85/1.8 setup. I'm sure, though, that if you haven't had the 1.2L, it's got some sort of mystique in your mind, and you're not likely to get over it without the experience of it. I'm convinced, though, that if you don't need to blast away at the widest possible apertures, you already have an enviable kit that can do anything anyone should need to do. And, you already have the background-melting 135L if you need it. </p>

[model mayhem gallery]

I have the 85 1.2L, 50 1.8, 28 1.8 and wish I had the 85 1.8 instead of the 85 1.2. One it is just too damn big and

heavy. That is probably why it is a studio portrait lens. Also focusing at 1.2 is just too damn hard 1.8 is about as

wide as I needvfor low light and blurred background. I would much rather have 85 1.8 lighter and smaller for street

candies or portrait. Plus for the same price add a 135 you have a much more flexible system.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>Not to turn things upside down, but I have an 85mm f1.2L and I would NOT trade it for an 85mm f1.8 + the 135mm f2L.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>Personally, I wouldn't make the trade. Two FL are better than one and the 85/1.8 is far from being a bad lens. So, the question to you is: Do you love the 85mm FL that much?</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[chinnyplus]

<p>It is not an apple-to-apple comparison. Generally speaking, 85/1.2L is very for quality whiles the other combo is for versatility. It depends on what you need.<br>

In my opinion, I will trade the combo for the mark II but not for mark I.<br>

By the way, you get a good price on the mark I. A bit hard to take final decision.</p>

[OPK]

<p>don't ever think on selling 135L, it's a gem. 85 1.8 is also good one....and much faster than 85L (in terms AF).</p>

[andrew_harto]

<p>What Martin Abtman said right above. Seriously.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I have been a big fan of the 85 F1.2 over many years. I have owned three FD vintage 85 F1.2 lenses and indeed still own and use two of them. When I made the move to EOS film I looked into the 85 F1.2 Mk I but was rather disappointed with it. Optically it did not quite have the magic of the older FD lens and the AF was terrible (even on the EOS 1N I was using when I borrowed one). Now the 1 series AF has improved quite a bit since then but my EOS 5DII AF is only about the same as my EOS 1 NRS in terms of performance. When I tested the lens I found that it was difficult to get the critical focus I wanted even with almost static subjects if I was shooting at F1.2. Remember at 6 feet subject distance and F1.2 the DOF on full frame is just over an inch (2m distance and 3cm for the metric). At that time I decided to say money and get the F1.8 and wait for Canon to fix the MkI. Since then I have looked at both the Zeiss *5 F1.4 and the Mk II but have yet to take the plunge. I loved the Zeiss but was not sure about MF only as EOS bodies are difficult in MF (I use it a lot with T/S lenses and lenses on T/S mounts from medium format MF cameras).<br>

However, in your case I suggest that you may want to look at the Zeiss 85 F1.4 as you can buy a new one for about $1200. It is clearly a better lens than the Canon F1.8 and performs as well as the Canon F1.2 did when I compared them although they have different traits. The build quality of the Zeiss lens is much higher and it is a joy to use manually. I have added a link to what I consider to be an excellent test. In the test he states that the Zeiss lens had a rather stiff focus but that his sample was an early production model. The one I tested was a later model and had silky smooth focus.</p>

<p>http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/zeiss_85mm/index.html</p>

[n_w1]

<p>Hey Fawad,<br>

I don't have any experience w/ the 135 but used to assist someone w/ the 85 1.2 and the lens was so heavy that you needed a higher shutter speed to compensate in low light. Also as the others have said, it focuses slower- just bigger glass to move. The Mk 1 is from the EOS film era and isn't as well sealed. Save your money and keep your 85 1.8 That is what I use and I love it. It's much faster handling despite it's "slower" f stop.<br>

Good Luck,<br>

Ned</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>However, in your case I suggest that you may want to look at the Zeiss 85 F1.4 as you can buy a new one for about $1200. It is clearly a better lens than the Canon F1.8...</em></p>

<p>You sure about that?</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=481&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=106&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0</p>

<p>http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/536-zeiss85f14eosff?start=1</p>

<p>http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/419-canon_85_18_5d?start=1</p>

<p>The Canon looks better in TDP's comparison tool (no matter which of the three Zeiss copies you try) and in the photozone.de MTF graphs. Photozone also gave 3 stars to the Zeiss for optical quality but 4 to the Canon.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>The one I tested was sharper than my 85 F1.8 at F1.8 and up. It was not a massive difference but it was sharper. The construction was definitely better as was the contrast and colour. Was it 3x as good - no, only in terms of construction. It is important to state that I was shooting test portraits - not test charts so the very small differences in sharpness are less obvious.<br>

You will probably notice that the Photozone tests show the Canon F1.8 having much sharper borders and edges than the Canon F1.2 II . The F1.2 Canon has a slightly sharper centre. When you look at the Zeiss it has similar centre sharpness to the Canon F1.2 II (usually slightly better) but noticeably sharper edges - although still not as good as the F1.8.<br>

I stated quite clearly that I have not yet upgraded from the Canon F1.8 which is an excellent lens. That said the colours and contrast of the faster lenses - both the Zeiss and the Canon F1.2 together with their Bokah are, in my mind superior to the Canon F1.8. <br>

In terms of MTF it is difficult to argue that the Canon F1.8 is better than either of the much more expensive lenses. I suspect that the reason it was better was that I was shooting portraits so I was really only assessing centre sharpness a wide apertures. In this situation the Photozone tests show the Zeiss lens (and the Canon F1.2) to be sharper than the F1.8.<br>

Photozone, TDP and DXOMark all rate the Canon F1.8 as having higher resolution than either of the two more expensive lenses. However, away from the test charts I find the more expensive lenses have a pictorial quality that is slightly better than the F1.8. My personal issue is that I find that the new EF mount fast 85s do not perform dramatically better given their prices. This is the reason I have stuck with my 85F1.8 for many years - despite using much more exotic portrait lenses on other bodies e.g the FD 85 F1.2s or my Fuji GX 680 180 F3.2 - or even the Contax G 90 F2.8 - all three of which are amazing lenses. <br>

I think it is also fair to add that based on many reviews the Zeiss lenses appear to show significant performance differences between lenses. I really wish that Canon made an 85 F1.2 that was a clear step ahead of the Canon F1.8 but despite two attempts they have yet to do this. Until they do I suspect that I will continue to use my F1.8 and my Canon 100 f2.8 L IS - which is a great lens.<br>

Here is the DXO Mark test<br>

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lens-with-Camera/Compare/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/270/(lens2)/241/(lens3)/329/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Zeiss/(camera1)/436</p>