Canon 85mm 1.2 long vs Canon 85mm 1.8 lens autofocus

[tara_ratliff]

<p>Why is the Canon 85mm 1.2 so much more expensive than the Canon 85mm 1.8 autofocus lens? Is it just the 2 extra f-stops or is the glass sharper? Is the bokeh more beautiful?<br>

Thank you,</p>

<p>Tara</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Like a salad bar, you are paying by the weight. The bokeh is definitely "more beautiful" with the heavier glass.</p>

[beautox]

<p>Firstly, it's not two extra F stops - two stops wider than 1.8 is 0.9. It's actually one and a bit stops. (Two stops means twice (or half!) the value. One stop is root-2 or 1.414)<br>

But consider this : how much does a lens that's one-and-a-bit stops faster than the f/1.2 - that means an f/0.8. So, they don't make these. Do you think it's because there's no demand? Or some other reason?</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>The short answer is that a) a LOT of glass goes into it (probably about 4-5x+ the mass of glass alone), and b) it's harder to make such a fast lens<em> also</em> sharp (a case of too <em>much</em> light).</p>

<p>To answer your questions specifically though, it <em>is</em> the extra 'speed' of the lens, but the lens is not much sharper, it is a heckuva lot sharper from f1.2->f1.8 ;-), but from f1.8 to about f2.2 not much sharper, and beyond their IQ is pretty indistinguishable)... bokeh is about the same story, it is more beautiful everywhere, but where it really shines is f1.2-> f1.8...</p>

[zml]

<p><em>> and beyond their IQ is pretty indistinguishable</em><br>

Yeah, except the 1.2 has a much better contrast and color rendition. And the overall "look" of the produced image. Neither is visible on internet-sized samples of unknown provenance, though...</p>

[philip_wilson]

I don't own the current 85F1.2 but I do own the f1.8 and I also have two copies of the older FD 85 F1.2 that I have used

for many years. The simple facts that while the EF 85 F1.8 is perhaps the best value EF lens and very good optically it

lacks the magic of the F1.2 lenses. These lenses wide open (or close to it) give a portrait a three dimensional quality that

the F1.8 cannot match. There are a few other lenses with this quality - my favorites being the Leica M 75 and 90 F2 (if

you thought the cannon was expensive these are $4K lenses). The question is do you want to pay 4x as much for

perhaps a 10% improvement? Another portrait lens I like is the Zeiss M mount 50 F1.5. They make a 50 F1.4 and an 85

F1.4 in EF mount. I have not tried the 50 but I quite like the 85.

[markonestudios]

<p>As has been said, greater quantities of low dispersion glass, so a much heavier lens. I recently acquired an 85 f/1.8 and I must say I love it! Very silent, accurate focus; a superb optic. Now, would <em>I</em> ever buy the f/1.2 version? Nope. Chunkier, by many accounts slower to focus (understandably, due to shifting of heavier glass) and more than 5x the price of the superb f/1.8 version. It really is a niche lens optimised for those who need the f/1.2 capability. I love the bokeh on my f/1.8 and have also seen some examples from the f/1.2...both can produce amazingly beautiful images. Of course bokeh is highly subjective :)</p>

<p>Are you thinking of investing in one, perchance?</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<blockquote>

<p>Yeah, except the 1.2 has a much better contrast and color rendition.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are absolutely right, I shouldn't have said IQ, I should have said sharpness. The 1.2 does have noticeably better color rendition (and contrast) up to ~f3.5 or so. Beyond that, any differences in overall IQ became (at least on mine) minimal. No difference in contrast, though the f1.2 seemed to have more 'pop' in the colors. Nothing post wouldn't fix of course (esp. shooting RAW), and I couldn't tell you (with any confidence) the difference between which lens you were using solely from the image (shot @ ~f2.5+).</p>

 

[ljwest]

<blockquote>

<p>Why is the Canon 85mm 1.2 so much more expensive than the Canon 85mm 1.8 autofocus lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The short answer is the 85mm f/1.2L ("L" means "Luxury", or so it is said, in Canon's lens lineup) USM is built to higher standards than the f/1.8 lens. The larger f stop is part of that, but by no means all of it.</p>

 

[denisbergeron]

<blockquote>

<p>The short answer is the 85mm f/1.2L ("L" means "Luxury", or so it is said, in Canon's lens lineup)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>L means "LUX" not "Luxury" Lux is the latin word for Light, Lumière, luz, licht, luce and almost every other occidental name for light came from LUX, on the other hand, luxury, came from the latin word than means bling-bling ;-) and derive from LUX also.</p>

<p>BTW, I got the 85mm f1.2 MKII, but not the f.18, so I can't tell the difference, but the 1.2 it's one of the kind, you can't get this IQ, Bokeh, DR, Overall everything with anything else.</p>

 

[peter_j2]

<p>I would go as far as claiming the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM is the <strong>best</strong> portrait lens in it's focal length.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>There are differences in performance, but they are often drastically over-stated, they aren't significant to most photographers (including those who are very perceptive, and both lenses are great performers.</p>

<p>While many would argue that the excellent 85mm L is a best-of-class lens, especially shot wide open, the non-L alternative is one of Canon's best performers as well. There are many of us who would not trade our non-L f/1.8 85mm lenses for the f/1.2 L version, since the non-L lens produces excellent image quality, is functionally great, and is a lot smaller and lighter.</p>

<p>Among some there is a notion that every choice between a L lens and a non-L alternative should lead to the L version, and this is buttressed by claims of phenomenal differences between the choices. This simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny in a number of cases. Rather than succumbing to the unsophisticated "L only" mentality, photographers really need to look objectively at both their own realistic needs and shooting style and the actual performance differences before choosing. </p>

<p>Dan</p>

[ljwest]

<blockquote>

<p>L means "LUX" not "Luxury" Lux is the latin word for Light, Lumière, luz, licht, luce and almost every other occidental name for light came from LUX, on the other hand, luxury, came from the latin word than means bling-bling ;-) and derive from LUX also.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I don't know for sure, but:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>L Lenses</strong><br>

<strong>Where Dreams are Crystal Clear</strong><br>

The bright red line engraved on the lens barrel. <em>And an L for "luxury"</em>.<br>

The Canon EF lens L series possesses a level of quality sufficiently high to be called professional,<br>

designed to include groundbreaking image performance, outstanding operability, and resistance to weather and aging.<br>

...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From Chapter 2 of Canon's EF Lens Work III...</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>So L lenses are resistant to aging too? Pah, what nonsense!</p>

[ljwest]

<blockquote>

<p>So L lenses are resistant to aging too? Pah, what nonsense!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Resistance is futile" ;-)</p>

<p>To be fair, though, how often do Canon's L lenses get, or even need updates? The superteles only got updated recently, and their progenitors date back to the last century... A LOT has happened in electronics, miniaturization, autofocus, image stabilization, etc. oh, and optics, too, I suppose in the 12 years most of them have been around. Yet, the previous models still produce great images on current cameras.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I wish I was resistant to aging...You are talking about updating, which is not quite the same thing...</p>

[ljwest]

<blockquote>

<p>You are talking about updating, which is not quite the same thing...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My point was that if Canon though the lenses introduced in 1999 had <em>aged</em> after a few years, and did not perform up to then-current specification, they would have improved them earlier, rather than wait this long.</p>

<p>Of course, anything that is used will wear physically over time, but is wear from use the same thing as aging? One might buy and use an L lens so much that parts begin to wear, internally and externally, and it may even need a trip or so to the Canon service center, but can you say the lens aged in that case?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I've said before - f/1.2 lenses are <em>specialized</em> tools. If you don't know why you need one, you very likely do NOT need one.<br>

In any case, ISOs up to 25000 and such have done a lot to make the little extra light gathering of the superfast lenses less important, but I still treasure my old Nikkor 55mm f/1.2 and use it frequently on my Canon bodies.</p>

<p>I would say that the use of f/1.2 lenses as 'bling' is not really a very good reason for getting one, but they do impress the easily impressed. </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>JDM there is something about a shallow depth of field that can be breathtaking - F1.2 lenses are meant to be shot at that FL. unfortunately the old FD 85 F1.2 can only be used on APS-C or smaller digital sensors in MF mode which means it is difficult to focus and use. In terms of aging I doubt if the EF L series lenses will last like the FD lenses did (by the way very few FD lenses earned the L designation - for example the FD 135 F2 is not an L lens). I think this is partly due to the fact that old MF lenses had to be made sturdier than their Af counterparts.<br>

In terms of best portrait lens my personal all time favourite is the Fuji GX 680 180 F3.2 which is effectively and 85 F1.2 equivalent. This lens has it all - no wonder Hassy switched to Fuji for their modern cameras.</p>

[rob_caswell1]

<p>The only downside to the f1.2 85mm was managing DOF and I found the autofocus a bit slow and ponderous.</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>I found the autofocus a bit slow and ponderous</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Version II's autofocusing is faster and not ponderous.</p>