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

[juan_caballero]

<p>More pictures and less discussion....</p><div></div>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>that is you problem,no mine</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't have a <strong>problem</strong> with the expenditure on this fine lens for my intended use. Certainly, I didn't enter this respectable forum comprised mostly of respectable people to make it your <strong>problem</strong>. <em><strong>:)</strong></em></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>more pictures and less talk</blockquote>

<p>We are here to <strong>talk</strong> (dis/agree) about photography. <em><strong>:p</strong></em></p>

<p> </p>

[juan_caballero]

<p>Come on show me a good pictures and less speech,many people like to talk a lot and they don't know how take a good picture,too many cameras and a lot of money for nothing...get a cheap Holga and take a nice picture.</p><div></div>

[tdigi]

<p>I played around with an 85 1.8 for some concert photography. This thread has me missing it. </p><div></div>

[juan_caballero]

<p>Nice Tommy! you see,great lens,great price,fast and light,you can take good photo with any cheap camera,is all in your eyes and you head.Sorry about my english.</p>

<div></div>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Most of Jeff's photos do absolutely nothing for me, but I must admit that <em>The Proprietor </em>is a very fine image, indeed.</p>

<p>Incidentally, I find Brad's work to be very compelling.</p>

[joel_p]

<p>Man, some strong opinions on this site. <br>

"Unique" for me means the ability to completely isolate a subject from its environment. Sure, the 1.8 does this as well but less so. The centre sharpness of the 1.2 is also wonderful. </p><div></div>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>Based on the type of portraits the original poster has here on photo.net, I feel the 1.2 would serve <em>her </em>best. That's just my opinion.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>The portraits the OP has, were shot with a 50mm at f2 (at least the first one which has EXIF data) the backgrounds look good and don't - in my opinion - need to be further defocused. An 85mm lens shot at f1.8 will have considerably shallower depth of field (assuming the same subject size) and I see no need to go to f1.2 which would narrow her DOF for this type of tight head shot to almost nothing.</p>

<p>The assumption that if the background blur at f1.8 (or in this case f2 on a 50mm) is good, it would be better at f1.2 is not necessarily so. The inherent disadvantages of paper thin DOF and the 85mm f1.2's slower focusing can easily turn a keeper into a failure.</p>

<p>If the f1.2 suits you, that's great, but it is a very specialized lens and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who isn't going to primarily use it wide open and who has a good idea of why they want to do that. The second you use the 85mm f1.2L at or below f2.0 you'd be better off with the f1.8 version for the focus speed, the image quality is indistinguishable.</p>

<p>I rarely use my 85mm at f1.8 (I'm not wild about too many totally blown out of focus backgrounds, I think it can become as hackneyed as other specialized lenses, ie. fisheyes, T/S used for portraits, etc.). However, for shooting picket fences with one stake in focus, etc. the f1.2 has no peer.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>The 85L is excellent, its just expensive. If your simply looking to blow out backgrounds and you have the room a 135 or 70-200 2.8 could also be considered. I have seen some great portraits done with the 70-200 2.8 as well as the 135 but the zoom will be more versatile.</p>

 

[juan_caballero]

<p>Of course that the Canon 85mm f1.2 is great lens,no doubt about that but again is slow and heavy,for that price you can get the 1.8 is very close in image quality and also is stellar,light and fast lens.</p><div></div>

[eliza_power]

<p>Ha thank you J. Harrington and John Bellenis, the focus of my post did seem to get a bit lost after page 4... :)<br>

I think I will happily purchase the 85mm 1.8 at the weekend and see how I get on, simply because I also want to add a 24-105mm f4 to my kit after testing it out for the last two days. It's given me some great results for concert photography and seems to suit me! I can't quite justify the £1600 odd price tag yet for the 1.2 when there are two lenses that I would really value in my kit and coupled with the 1.8 would come in cheaper than the 1.2 alone! If I feel a bit further down the line that I want to swop I will trade in the 1.8 and get a 1.2. I really value your comments so thank you very much!<br>

Eliza </p>

[fridrik_skulason]

<p>Well, I own both ... I like both - but I use them for different things. The f1.2 lens is just about unbeatable for portraits, but it just focuses too slowly to be usable for certain other things - I use the f1.8 lens quite a bit for certain indoor sports - besides, sometimes I just don't want to carry around a big, expensive lens.<br>

So, evaluate your needs and how the lenses can meet them, and get the one that is most suitable ... or get both.</p>

 

[ejder]

<p>If you do not shoot in dark situations much, then you probably do not need the extra stop of light from the f/1.2.</p>

<p>If you shoot against bright lights often, then the extremely bad flaring of the f/1.8 lens may frustrate you. The f/1.2 lens is MUCH better about flare control.</p>

<p>If you don't need the extra narrow depth of field, probably don't need f/1.2.</p>

<p>If you need a much faster AF system, f/1.8 is much faster.</p>

<p>If you can live with really, really bad purple fringing at f/1.8, the f/1.8 lens is fine.</p>

<p>I have owned both, currently own the 85 f/1.2 and have for a few years now. It is my overall favorite lens for output, and second most-used lens next to my 35 f/1.4.</p>

[john_kale]

<p>Flickr has many groups devoted to specific pieces of equipment, so it's possible to check out quite a few sample pictures if you feel that might help you when lens shopping.</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?w=37879325%40N00&m=pool&q=portrait">Portraits taken with the 100mm f/2.8 macro</a></p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?w=77805784%40N00&m=pool&q=portrait">Portraits taken with the 85mm f/1.8</a></p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?m=pool&w=84346957%40N00&q=portrait">Portraits taken with the 85mm f/1.2 L II</a></p>

[harry_p1]

<blockquote>

<p>The 85L is excellent, its just expensive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's also slow, very slow AF. I think that is a major disadvantage, especially when shooting movement.</p>

<p>It's also cumbersome.</p>

<p>Otherwise I agree it would have been an excellent lens. Perhaps canon should have sticked to 1.4 aperture and provide faster AF and less unwieldy lens body.</p>

<p>On what body do you use this lens? If it's on a 5DmkI or mkII, how on earth can you focus precisely without a split screen and without focus aids?</p>

 

[ejder]

<p>It has slow AF but not so slow that it is useless for tracking moving subjects. I use the 85L on 5D and 5D II bodies all the time, accurate focus, works well, very nice output. For weddings, both nonmoving and moving subjects. Go figure...</p>

[elton_weaver_jr.1]

<p>This forum is great for so many reasons and photography is my reason for membership. I like all the diversity of views on all the topics. Sometimes it can be confusing when asking for directions from point "A" to "B" and so on but the feeling that so many viewers really care about how to at lease get started on the journey makes it so rewarding to be a member. buy what you will and use it as best you can and enjoy the experience learning your tool for yourself . The 1.8 is my tool for so many reasons that I have experienced through its use but not for the sole purpose for which I purchased it.</p>

[paul_schpak]

<p>Here is a video made using the 85mm 1.8. of course the 1.2 is nicer on the bokeh.<br>

<a href="

<a href="

 

[rob_h5]

<blockquote>

<p>I sprang for the 85MM 1.2 and have no regrets. We only live once. It is the cream-of-the-crop portrait lens.<br /><em><strong>It's all about wide open bokeh (or nearly wide open) and super shallow DOF.</strong></em><br />You will lose a significant portion of shots you make wide open due to the paper this DOF at 1.2. However, if portraits are your thing, it's worth every penny.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p> Exactly although the 85/1.8 is a fine lens for headshots/portraits nothing will beat the Canon 85/1.2 L ...it is the BEST portrait lens ever made for Canon for any headshots/portraits.</p>

[marco_palladino1]

<p>I admit I've never used the 1.2...I do own an 1.8 indeed, and I had to make it be calibrated by Canon, since then I saw a big improvement and I currently use it upto max f2/f2.2 with great results. It suffers a bit of purple fringe at widest apertures against light and is a bit less crispy at borders, on full-frame. But I love it, it's fast, it allows very smooth and blurred background, it makes pictures creamy but crisp on focus...I could not have similar results with zooms at tte same focal lenght.<br>

And - for me this is a big plus - it is very very light, you can carry it always with you, even if you already have a zoom that covers that focal, I doubt you would with the 1.2!<br>

Here is a sample picture taken with ef 1.8 and canon eos 1ds mark2 at f2.8:<br>

<img src="http://www.scuolafotografia.net/marcopalladino/galleries/PORTRAIT/05.jpg" alt="" /><br>

this instead was taken at f2.2:<br>

<img src="http://www.scuolafotografia.net/marcopalladino/galleries/PORTRAIT/19.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>Nice images Marco. I share your sentiments about the 85mm f1.8 and - as previously stated - I would choose it, without a moments hesitation, over the f1.2 version if they were being sold at the same price. </p>

[marco_palladino1]

<p>I think this can be of interest: <a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm">http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm</a></p>