# Anything Wrong with an 85 1.2 on a Crop Body?



## Cory (Jan 27, 2017)

So I have a thing for primes and also in minimalism/maximum quality possible and was thinking for swapping my 85 1.8 for an 85 1.2 II (on a 70D). It would be used mostly for indoor stage performances, portraits and "running" events.
Not that I'd be shooting a lot at 1.2, but figured that the overall image quality might take a nice jump.
Yes?
Thanks.


----------



## cpsico (Jan 27, 2017)

Cory said:


> So I have a thing for primes and also in minimalism/maximum quality possible and was thinking for swapping my 85 1.8 for an 85 1.2 II (on a 70D). It would be used mostly for indoor stage performances, portraits and "running" events.
> Not that I'd be shooting a lot at 1.2, but figured that the overall image quality might take a nice jump.
> Yes?
> Thanks.


I would say its rumored slow focus would make it a very very poor choice for this kind of work. You need something would be a hammer each and every time. Maybe the 70-200L f2.8?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 27, 2017)

I was quite happy with it on my 7D (I started with the 85/1.8 then got the 1.2L II).

"_Counting Rings_"



EOS 7D, EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM, 1/2000 s, f/1.6, ISO 100

IQ was definitely better than the f/1.8 at wider apertures, although the 1.2 still has a fair bit of longitudinal CA. The L does focus more slowly (it's a front focusing design, and that front element is a lot of glass to move). The slower speed is certainly noticeable when you rack the lens from minimum focus distance to infinity, but in practice for subject tracking I find it does the job well enough. For example, with my 7D I shot a sequence of my daughter running toward me through a field of marigolds, and 12 of the 14 shots in the 8 fps burst were sharp enough to count her eyelashes - at f/1.2! Where you may notice a problem is not following one subject, but rather focusing on one subject then switching to another subject at a substantially different distance.


----------



## cpsico (Jan 27, 2017)

How does it do in low light real world? Any good for a wedding reception? I would put it on a 6d or a maybe my old 1ds MkIII


neuroanatomist said:


> I was quite happy with it on my 7D (I started with the 85/1.8 then got the 1.2L II).
> 
> "_Counting Rings_"
> 
> ...


----------



## hendrik-sg (Jan 27, 2017)

a 135 2.0 on a 6d would be rather similar than a 85 1.2 on 7dii, so maybe you update your body, this lens would safe you 800$...

IQ should be even better:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=397&Camera=963&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&Sample=0&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Jan 28, 2017)

For the running events I think you'd be better served with the Tamron 85 1.8. It has image stabilization and, focuses faster, sharper in the corners with a little given up in the Center, and no CA to speak of.


----------



## Luds34 (Jan 28, 2017)

The generalization, over simplification is if you're not going to shoot faster then f/1.8 then you're better off with the 1.8. Even more so if focus speed is a priority.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2017)

cpsico said:


> How does it do in low light real world? Any good for a wedding reception? I would put it on a 6d or a maybe my old 1ds MkIII



It does fine in low light from my experience, at least on the 1D X. Not so sure about the 6D (I don't think highly of that camera's tracking ability).




hendrik-sg said:


> a 135 2.0 on a 6d would be rather similar than a 85 1.2 on 7dii, so maybe you update your body, this lens would safe you 800$...



Good suggestion, except for the 6D's AF. And a 5DIII or 5DIV wouldn't be a cost savings. Still, personally I liked the framing of the 85L on APS-C so well that after switching to FF, I added the 135/2L to my kit.


----------



## Cory (Jan 28, 2017)

Crap. Now I'm looking at a 6D, 16-35 4.0 IS and 135 2.0 thanks to you all.

:-X


----------



## Boyer U. Klum-Cey (Jan 28, 2017)

Even with an SL1, 1.2s/1.4s can produce some useful results. Not familiar with the 85, but the 85 II when it comes out might catch my eye/wallet.


----------



## cpsico (Jan 29, 2017)

The 6d is an amazingly good little camera as far as high ISO pictures go, for sports nope. It does ok with easy to track pictures like a person walking towards you!


Cory said:


> Crap. Now I'm looking at a 6D, 16-35 4.0 IS and 135 2.0 thanks to you all.
> 
> :-X


----------



## ozwineguy (Jan 29, 2017)

Cory said:


> So I have a thing for primes and also in minimalism/maximum quality possible and was thinking for swapping my 85 1.8 for an 85 1.2 II (on a 70D). It would be used mostly for indoor stage performances, portraits and "running" events.
> Not that I'd be shooting a lot at 1.2, but figured that the overall image quality might take a nice jump.
> Yes?
> Thanks.



I love my 85mm f1.2L - it's super sharp and the bokeh is gorgeous. No problems using it on a crop body, and it's also good for a future upgrade to a full frame body (I hope you'll do this at some point - it's worthwhile).

It's great in low light, too. But the auto focus is sloooooooow. You'll genuinely be surprised by how slow it is - you can count to three out loud before it hits the mark sometimes. That makes it a bad option for moving things. Save this lens for the studio, where you can ask a model to stay still.

I see you're considering the 6D now. The 6D mkII is due soon, so there will be used ones on the market soon when people upgrade. Could be a great way to go full frame for cheap. And yes, the 16-35 f4L IS and 135mm f2L are also stunning lenses. I sold my first 16-35mm f4L IS and then bought another a few months later because I missed it so much! And perhaps consider the 35mm f1.4L II if you need really fast glass indoors and a wider angle will be OK.


----------



## Cory (Jan 29, 2017)

I guess the 6D II might make sense, but is the 6D really "that bad" for motion? I generally use a single-point anyway and did pretty well with volleyball with my old T1i.
With that, I think I might slowly migrate to full-frame starting with swapping out my ND and CPL filters from 67mm to 77mm (and step-up rings where needed).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2017)

Cory said:


> With that, I think I might slowly migrate to full-frame starting with swapping out my ND and CPL filters from 67mm to 77mm (and step-up rings where needed).



Unless you're considering the 24-70/2.8 II or the 16-35/2.8 III, which take 82mm filters.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Jan 29, 2017)

Cory said:


> I guess the 6D II might make sense, but is the 6D really "that bad" for motion? I generally use a single-point anyway and did pretty well with volleyball with my old T1i.
> With that, I think I might slowly migrate to full-frame starting with swapping out my ND and CPL filters from 67mm to 77mm (and step-up rings where needed).



If you're serious about this option you can shop around for the best used price on a 6D and start the changing of lenses. Getting a good used deal will let you sell and upgrade to the mark II version down the road for maybe a loss of only a couple $100. In fact, if you're happy enough using it a while longer, you can wait out the initial release price and perhaps the intermediate 6D wouldn't cost you anything.

I do agree a 135 f/2 on a FF would be a better choice than investing in the 85 II on a 70D. The 135 is known as a portrait lens, but has AF speed fast enough to be a great sports lens too. I love mine.


----------



## Cory (Jan 29, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Unless you're considering the 24-70/2.8 II or the 16-35/2.8 III, which take 82mm filters.


- 16-35 4.0 IS
- 50 1.2
- 85 1.8
- 135 2.0
- 200 2.8 II
- 70-300L
:-*


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 29, 2017)

Cory said:


> Crap. Now I'm looking at a 6D, 16-35 4.0 IS and 135 2.0 thanks to you all.
> 
> :-X



Cory, I can't speak as to the 6D. Never had one, but from what I understand the image quality is very good.

I moved from the 70D to the 5D Mark III. When I took the first photo with the 5D mark III (Using an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM) and chimped... a choir of angels began to sing.

I sold my 70D very soon after and never looked back.

What I did is get my foundation of zooms first (24-70L, 70-200L) and then the 135L. Then I got the 5D Mark III.

The 85 f/1.2L is also on my wish list, but I understand it will be replaced by a 1.4L so I am waiting to see what happens.

From what I understand the 6D has great image quality. Good luck!


----------



## Cory (Jan 29, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Cory said:
> 
> 
> > Cory, I can't speak as to the 6D. Never had one, but from what I understand the image quality is very good.
> ...


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Jan 30, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Cory said:
> 
> 
> > Cory, I can't speak as to the 6D. Never had one, but from what I understand the image quality is very good.
> ...



That was a good laugh... both of you! 

Cory, my methodology was recently very similar to your thoughts. I gave up my 7DII, normal zoom, and 60 macro lens so I could upgrade to the 5Ds. The 35 f/2 IS will be my go to lens for a while, with the crop factor of the 5Ds the 35 works like a 35-70 f/2 IS zoom lens. I couldn't be happier.


----------



## Cory (Jan 30, 2017)

I think you all did it; hence the magic of obsessing and constantly asking questions that barely make sense.
My 200 2.8 really comes in handy at times, but mostly collects dust so I think I can spend not too much (if anything through selling the dust collectors, 70D and EF-S lens) and end up with a 6D, 35 2.0 IS, 85 1.8 and 135 2.0. 
I think I'm gonna do that.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Jan 30, 2017)

Cory said:


> I think you all did it; hence the magic of obsessing and constantly asking questions that barely make sense.
> My 200 2.8 really comes in handy at times, but mostly collects dust so I think I can spend not too much (if anything through selling the dust collectors, 70D and EF-S lens) and end up with a 6D, 35 2.0 IS, 85 1.8 and 135 2.0.
> I think I'm gonna do that.



If it helps you with any concerns about giving up the rarely used 200, the 135 takes the 1.4x quite well for a 189 f/2.8


----------



## Luds34 (Jan 30, 2017)

Cory said:


> I think you all did it; hence the magic of obsessing and constantly asking questions that barely make sense.
> My 200 2.8 really comes in handy at times, but mostly collects dust so I think I can spend not too much (if anything through selling the dust collectors, 70D and EF-S lens) and end up with a 6D, 35 2.0 IS, 85 1.8 and 135 2.0.
> I think I'm gonna do that.



Well, I'm probably not as picky/elitist as the super tech types that spend a lot of time on these types of forums, yet I like/appreciate a good kit that is the right fit for one's shooting. I shoot a very similar kit (with additional options/lenses) as I have a 6D, 35 f/1.4 Sigma Art, 85 f/1.8, and 135 f/2 and all 3 lenses are an excellent fit. The 35mm is by far my most used lens while the 85 and 135 are both in my top 5 for sure (maybe even #2 and #3).


----------

