Canon 85mm f1.2 L or 85mm F1.8?

[randallfarhy]

<p>I've no experience with the 85 1.2L, however for live concert photography, I feel you would be far better served using something more flexible than a lens that has a reputation for slow focus and a notoriously thin DoF. As Jeff S suggests, one of the f2.8 zooms would be recommended as the 5D2 has excellent high ISO/low light capabilities.<br>

As for portraiture, I believe the 85 1.2L lens would perform to it's full potential in a studio mounted on a tripod, wide open or close to it. As other's have noted, it's a specialized tool designed to do one thing extremely well.<br>

If I were facing this choice, I'd rent both and test them under similar conditions in which you plan to use them. Take them on a walk-about and see how they perform. The 85 1.8 (used at F1.8-F2 for portraits) coupled with a fast zoom seems more reasonable for the purposes mentioned.<br>

</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>I have owned the 1.8 for several years, always on the latest 1Ds body. Some background blur is important to me, as is the quality of blur. </p>

<p>I borrowed the 85 1.2 for a week. I went back and forth shooting the same subjects, all portraits. I was careful to use some messy backgrounds. I shot both lenses wide open, since wide open is where the 1.2 has an advantage and why we would consider paying the premium.</p>

<p>Autofocus is significantly better than the old 85 1.2, but remember your results may differ as the autofocus of the 1Ds series is very good. AF for portaits was definitely speedy enough for me. So my decision was based solely on IQ.</p>

<p>I was surprised to find that I did not much prefer the quality of blur of the 1.2 over the 1.8. Now, there was more blur, but even there, in the quantity arena, I was not saying "Oh, I would LOVE to have this". </p>

<p>I then shot both lenses at 1.8. I put the images side by side on my screen at 8 x 10. Again, I was pleased with the 1.8. I decided that I probably would not buy the 1.2 even if it were only twice as much as the 1.8. The retail price is well within my budget so although the money means something to me, it would not have been a hardship to buy the 1.2. I simply decided not to. </p>

<p>I am surprised, at such a price premium, that Canon cannot do something better than the 1.2. Maybe the 1.8 is such a fantastic design that it truly is extremely difficult to better. I certainly don't mind that there is not a lens that I prefer. I would suggest that the largest limitation of folks using a FF body and the 85 1.2 is the operator, not the tool, unless whisker-thin DOF is very important to the shooter. </p>

<p>I rarely buy "second best" in a line. But, the 1.8 is so good, I don't even think of it as second best. It is such a fantastic lens. I would suggest getting it and simply using and enjoying it. Someday try a 1.2. I don't think you will be disappointed with your 1.8. </p>

<p> </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I had the 85/1.8 and 100/2, both outstanding lenses, and "replaced" them both with an 85/1.2 L II. For my applications, it was a good move optically, though it's hard to say whether it was worth the additional expense.</p>

<p>For your applications, however, I'd get the 85/1.8 over the 85/1.2, for the reasons that have already been stated.</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>but remember your results may differ as the autofocus of the 1Ds series is very good. AF for portaits was definitely speedy enough for me. So my decision was based solely on IQ.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree that the autofocus of the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM is <strong>perfectly</strong> fine for portraits on my EOS 5D and EOS 1Ds Mark II. Just compare the size (bulk) of this lens with it's f/1.8 counterpart. The autofocus would be faster with the latter. </p>

<p>I would also agree that my purchasing decision was also based on the stellar IQ (wide open) with the former.</p>

 

[joel_p]

<p>I bought the 85 1.2 last year. I also have the 100 2.8 and 50 1.4. I have to say that I have never regretted it. Sure, it's big, heavy, expensive, and relatively slow, but it's also the only lens that I own that can create unique photos. I used to own the 100 2.0 which is similar to the 85 1.8 and it just doesn't compare! ( i sold mine) Is the 85 1.2 worth the extra 1600 USD? For amateurs like me, probably not, but I will never go back.</p>

[sam_adams2]

<p>Like others have said already there is no easy yes/no answer to this. Here are my 2 cents:<br>

I would start with the focal length you need for a specific purpose (or various purposes). So you have a 50 and a 100. How are you using those? Are you missing really that in-between thing? I know that 85mm (on "full frame") is still considered the "standard" lens for portraits. For good reason. But there are other ways of getting good results and you may prefer a different style than the "standard" approach. Both, your 50 and your 100mm should work as very good portrait lenses.<br>

For live stage photography a fast lens is always a good thing. But will 85mm be beneficial in addition to your 50 and 100? How about a longer option? The 135L for example is a fast lens that may come in handy and is still considerably cheaper than the 85L. Or maybe even the 200L 2.8II (fixed focal, not the way more expensive zoom lens). And with either you'd still spend much less even if you upgraded your 50mm lens.<br>

Just ideas. As far as the decision between the 1.8 and the 1.2: I've been in the same boat when bought my 50mm, which has been one of my favorite lenses in the manual focus world. The 50L is a great lens, no doubt. But so is the 50 1.4 even though it has a few flaws. The 85L vs 1.8 comparison may be even tighter since the 85 1.8 is better built than my 50 1.4. None of these lenses are really "better" in all ways. They have advantages and disadvantages. Price is one of them. Speed and and minute differences in picture quality are others. Than there is weight, etc, etc.<br>

Again, I would go back and look at which focal lengths are essential to what you do. You can't really go wrong either way in the end. Maybe you can rent some of the lenses and try things out. </p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>it's also the only lens that I own that can create unique photos. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you post an example of one of these unique photos? It's hard to understand how the lens is creating the photos, definitely something that needs to be shown.</p>

[phil_derosier]

If I may chime in ... if you're gonna open up to 1.2 or 1.4, it makes sense to focus on the eyes for general portraiture.

[juan_caballero]

<p>Even if you are a rich guy buy the Canon 1.2 is stupid idea,that lens is heavy and slow.The difference between the 1.2 and 1.8 is only in the center of the image and only you going to see this difference in huge print.The Canon EF 85mm f1.8 is excellent lens fast and light,don't make a mistake and get the 1.8 lens.</p><div></div>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Juan. You don't know what you are talking about.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>By the way, Josh's most excellent shot looks like the place belongs in the original <em>El Mariachi</em> movie - the good one.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I'm sure Josh is preparing a long and detailed response.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>It's hard to understand how the lens is creating the photos...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps Joel should have worded his claim thus:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 85/1.2 is the only lens that I own with which I can create unique photos.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My experience accords with Joel's insofar as I am able to do things with my 85/1.2's (I own three, two FD's and one EF) that I'm not able to do with my other lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Can you give some examples of great photography that cannot be done with any other lens? Everyone seems to be talking about special pictures but nobody is giving any idea of how these are special. Great photos that I have seen always resulted from the photographer's vision rather than the lens, but I will let you educate me.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>Well let's get real here for a second... The 85mm f1.2L is the same focal length as the f1.8 version, just one stop faster. There is a slight increase in background blur IF YOU SHOOT WIDE OPEN, but apart from that the only differences are weight. bulk and unfortunately the f1.2's focusing is also slower. Both versions are tack sharp and both have attractive bokeh. As previously stated, at the same price even, I'm taking the f1.8 every time.</p>

<p>How this barely significant difference can make or break great photographs and render them impossible with any other lens beats me - unless great photography is now merely defined as shooting with the shallowest depth of field possible!</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>Even if you are a rich guy buy the Canon 1.2 is stupid idea</blockquote>

<p>I guess my purchase of the more expensive lens was a "stupid idea". I can still sell it for about the same price as when it was purchased used. Oh well. It sucks to be <strong>poor</strong> little ole me.</p><div></div>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Why do you bother with the EOS system then, Jeff, when you could just use a $30 Holga?</p>

<p>After all, the photographer's vision is all that matters...</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Guess you don't have any photos that show this. Well that's that...</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm</p>

<p>http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/aps-c_port/bokeh.htm</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=397&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=106&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0</p>

<p>The Canon 85 f/1.2L II is sharper at the edges and corners on FF than the 85 f/1.8 through f/4. Then again, when you're shooting at wider apertures with these lenses you're rarely if ever concerned with the edges. CA can get pretty bad on the L at the edges as you open up, so it's not a stellar performer edge to edge at wide apertures either, if you need that. I'm struggling to think of why anyone would in this particular case.</p>

<p>In the center the L is slightly sharper at f/2. The difference is within the range of sharpening to just about eliminate, and in practice the 85 f/1.8 can produce very sharp and detailed prints shooting wide open.</p>

<p>There is simply no difference between these lenses in bokeh in the range of apertures available to both. The L will obviously open up to f/1.2, but people make a little too much of the difference in DoF and final blur here. It's there in a side by side comparison, but I'm hard pressed to imagine it making or breaking an image. Likewise, I'm hard pressed to imagine a viewer ever knowing unless they were told.</p>

<p>If you made two portraits with these lenses at any aperture available to both, and gave the f/1.8 version a little sharpening at the wider apertures, nobody could tell the difference between the prints.</p>

<p>The conclusion? The f/1.2L II is for people who have the money and absolutely must have that last bit of light gathering ability. Unfortunately the L is not good in one of the situations which call for this, indoor sports, because of its slow focusing. I'm not sure if the 1 stop gain is worth the cost even for concert photography (assuming indoor here). I'm tempted to say the $1,700 difference would be better put away in anticipation of the next generation of EOS bodies which will likely provide a >1 stop gain.</p>

[eliza_power]

<p>Wow, that was a marathon reading session!<br>

Thank you so, so much for all of your responses. You have all given me something to think about.<br>

In conclusion, I am going to purchase the 85mm 1.8 for now simply because since I first posted here my poor 50mm 1.8 that i've had for quite a while is beginning to come apart (they aren't sturdy are they?).<br>

I am definitely going to rent a number of the lenses you have all mentioned over the next few months to try out, along with the 1.2. If I decide on the 85 1.2 I will sell the 85 1.8 to put towards it.<br>

And Jeff I must say I love your portrait 'The Proprietor'. Proof you don't need background bokeh to make a suject stand out. Love it!<br>

Thanks so much everyone,<br>

Eliza x</p>

[Brad_]

>>> And Jeff I must say I love your portrait 'The Proprietor'. Proof you don't need background bokeh to

make a suject stand out. Love it!<p>

 

Yes! And since you're interested and seeking insight into portraiture, particularly in concert environments, be sure and check out his other work, a sampling

of which can be seen <a href= "http://www.spirer.com/index.html">here.</a> Photos talk...

[eliza_power]

<p>Thank you Brad, I have looked and very much enjoyed! The photos do indeed talk :)<br>

I am also a big fan of this lady and her portraits<br>

<a href="http://www.lindabrownlee.com/index.php">http://www.lindabrownlee.com/index.php</a></p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm sure Josh is preparing a long and detailed response.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My most sincere apologies to both parties. :|</p>

[harry_p1]

<blockquote>

<p>the Canon 5D Mk II is an excellent camera. So, I suggest that you go for an excellent lens, taking into consideration the basic "thumb rule": From a given budget you should spend more on the lens than on a camera since your pictures are only as good (as you are as a photographer and) as the glass you use.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That is one foolish rule. I suggest you ignore it.</p>

<p> </p>

[juan_caballero]

<p>Well Ian and Peter J if you want to spend $1700 dollar in heavy and slow lenses that is you problem,no mine.....you eye is more important that you lens.more pictures and less talk.</p><div></div>