# 85mm prime recommendation



## bholliman (Oct 3, 2013)

I have been looking at different 85mm primes to use for portrait photography and some event work. I have a 6D and my full kit is listed below. 

I'm considering the Canon 85 1.2 II, Canon 85mm 1.8 and Sigma 85mm 1.4 EX DG HSM. I ruled out the Zeiss and Samyang 85's due to lack of AF. Obviously, there is a huge price difference here. I can afford the Canon 1.8 or Sigma now, but would have to save up a while for the Canon 1.2 II.

The Sigma looks to be optically as good as the Canon 85 1.2 II, at less than half the price. But, the AF accuracy issues reported by TDP are concerning. With a shallow DOF lens like this, poor AF accuracy means a poor keeper rate. I have the 70-200 2.8 II and 135L, so already have some top tier portrait lenses, but I really love shallow DOF photography and 85mm is often a better focal length than 135mm indoors when space is limited.

Any suggestions and hands on experience from CR members?


----------



## BozillaNZ (Oct 3, 2013)

With the lenses you have and still wanting a 85 prime, I'd say it's pure lens lust. So go ahead and get the 85L II.

The 70-200 II will make 85 1.8 seem completely redundant in every way.


----------



## wsheldon (Oct 3, 2013)

BozillaNZ said:


> With the lenses you have and still wanting a 85 prime, I'd say it's pure lens lust. So go ahead and get the 85L II.
> 
> The 70-200 II will make 85 1.8 seem completely redundant in every way.



Much as I enjoy my 85 1.8 I'd have to agree that 1.8 vs 2.8 isn't nearly as dramatic as 1.2 vs 2.8 if what you're after is thin DOF. I have f4 zooms so it's a bigger difference for me. On the other hand the 6D + 85 1.8 is a gloriously small and light package that's great fun to carry around and shoot with. Blazing AF and very sharp.


----------



## Vern (Oct 3, 2013)

BozillaNZ said:


> With the lenses you have and still wanting a 85 prime, I'd say it's pure lens lust. So go ahead and get the 85L II.
> 
> The 70-200 II will make 85 1.8 seem completely redundant in every way.



I have the 85 1.2L II, 135 2.0L and the 70-200 2.8L II. If you want to do indoor, available light portraits and love silky smooth OOF backgrounds, the 85 1.2L II will be worth adding to your kit. This is my favorite indoor lens for portraits and it adds a very special feel to shots. I usually shoot w f 1.2-2.0 depending on the lighting. It is sharper a little stopped down and the extra DOF is handy. The other two lenses certainly have their place in portraiture, but I usually use the 135 outdoors and the 70-200 when I'm working with a multi-flash set-up and want the flexibility of the zoom w the camera on a tripod. Both the 85 and 135 are great for indoor sports as well where every bit of shutter speed is required - 2.8 just isn't fast enough. The 85 1.8 is a fine alternative if $2K is more than you want to spend - but it does creep closer to the 70-200 in speed and doesn't have the image quality of the 1.2 when both are shot at f1.8, so I'd basically agree w Bozilla that the 1.8 just isn't differentiated enough from what you have already.


----------



## TexasBadger (Oct 3, 2013)

Since you can afford the 85 f1.8 right away, I would go ahead and pull the trigger. This really is a great lens with super fast AF. It is also small and light weight. An excellent walk around lens for street photography that doesn't attract a lot of attention.


----------



## Pi (Oct 3, 2013)

I used both the Sigma and the 85L, no experience with the 85/1.8 (but I used the 100/2). The Sigma had unreliable AF, dependent on the distance to the subject. This seems to be a common problem with the Sigmas. The 85L just works. Also, the TDP shows very different bokeh for both lenses (much better with the Canon) which is the whole point of getting one. 

The 100/2 is a rarely mentioned lens, and it is very good (for the price). It is probably slightly better optically, and has more or less the same diameter of the physical aperture as the 85/1.8.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 3, 2013)

No comment on others 85mm.

Compared to 135L, the 85L II has softer, smoother and more creamy-dreamy bokeh. I took Neuro suggestion and bought 3stop ND filter for outdoor shooting - awesome to shoot at wide open in sunny day. 

Some JPEG photos straight out from camera, zero PP, 85L II + 5D III, no ND filter:
http://albums.phanfare.com/isolated/oerWLRdp/1/6253867


----------



## Lamora (Oct 3, 2013)

In your case I'd actually go for the Sigma or the Canon 85mm 1.8. Some wedding photographers replaced their 1.2s with Sigmas. Just make sure that you buy it from a place which will take back or exchange your copy if there are problems. I used to have a 5d classic and a 85 1.2L but the combo was frustrating as focus and recompose does not work at f1.2 :'( .

I upgraded to the mark iii just for that purpose and now I can finally have pleasing compositions and peoples faces (eyes) in focus. Shooting at f1.2 will be frustrating on a canon 6d. Unless you like to crop a lot or don't mind having your subject dead centre every time. 

YMMV


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 3, 2013)

bholliman said:


> I have been looking at different 85mm primes to use for portrait photography and some event work. I have a 6D and my full kit is listed below.
> 
> I'm considering the Canon 85 1.2 II, Canon 85mm 1.8 and Sigma 85mm 1.4 EX DG HSM. I ruled out the Zeiss and Samyang 85's due to lack of AF. Obviously, there is a huge price difference here. I can afford the Canon 1.8 or Sigma now, but would have to save up a while for the Canon 1.2 II.
> 
> ...



If you already have a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and a 135L then I suspect that you will only really be hapy with the 85IIL. It's a top tier lens which is highly regarded for good reason. Personally, I wouldn't use an ultra thin DOF optic which has quesionable AF charectoristics and questionable build. The Canon 85IIL is exstreamly well built and will last a life time of use....the sigma? Well good luck with that.
The 85IIL is probably the hardest to use portrait lens in the Canon line up due to it's very vey thin DOF. Nailing the point of focus is the tricky part...I get great results with my 5DIII spot focus, just make sure the point of focus is exactly where you need it!


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 3, 2013)

If you're not afraid of MF and wants something different (you've got the 135 already), then why not try this lens:

Helios 40 85mm f/1.5

You might like it.  It's the swirling bokeh that sets it apart.

http://famecherry.com/shop-with-us-2/essential-studio-equipment/lens/helios-85mm-f1-5/


----------



## albron00 (Oct 3, 2013)

Canon 85 1.2 II is expensive, heavy and slow focus but excellent quality of picture
Canon 85 1.8 is cheaper, lighter, fast focus but suffers from chromatic aberration wide open

I've tried 85 1.2 II - love it. 
I have Canon 85 1.8 - love it.

Money talks...


----------



## Zv (Oct 3, 2013)

The 85mm 1.8 is really good value when you come to think about it. The image quality was very good but that CA just spoiled it for me. As someone who likes backlit subjects it wasn't ideal so I sold it. Haven't missed it. I should also add that you prob wont wanna use it at f/1.8 and likely would stop down a bit in which case - whats the point when you have the 70-200II thats uber sharp wide open??

The 135L, though longer works much better for me for portrait work and if space is limited I just use my 70-200 @ the wider end. 

If you want the best then get the 85L otherwise compromise with the Sigma. I would go with the Sigma if I had to choose (based on my budget). It would be fine as a manual focus lens for portraits. Are you going to be doing portraits at f1.4? I'd be using live view and MF for that anyway. 

Is the AF really that bad on the Siggy? 

Someone mentioned before about AF points which is also something to consider with the 6D and a 1.2 lens.


----------



## pwp (Oct 3, 2013)

Do a search and read what WickidWombat has to say about the Sigma 85 f/1.4. From memory he puts it somewhere in the awesome category. This lens has a lot of fans and is certainly a big cut above the Canon 85 f/1.8 and has usefully faster AF than the glacial Canon f/1.2. Also go to Fred Miranda reviews to read a swag of user reviews on all three lenses. 

Personally I don't have the patience to work with ultra shallow DOF, I need a high percentage of keepers and with a flowing shooting style that rarely delivers the magic with static situations, f/1.4 or f/1.2 on an 85 just won't cut it. Photographers with superior AF technique to me can nail focus often enough, and hats-off to you if you can do it.

-pw


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 3, 2013)

BozillaNZ said:


> With the lenses you have and still wanting a 85 prime, I'd say it's pure lens lust. So go ahead and get the 85L II.
> 
> The 70-200 II will make 85 1.8 seem completely redundant in every way.



both lenses have about a 3 ft minimum focusing distance... but when I take photos of my newborn, I go to the 85mm. Maybe I should consider using the 70-200mm more... but I will say that I do use both lenses often, so for me, it isn't like one is just collecting dust.


----------



## bholliman (Oct 3, 2013)

BozillaNZ said:


> With the lenses you have and still wanting a 85 prime, I'd say it's pure lens lust.



Guilty as charged :



GMCPhotographics said:


> Personally, I wouldn't use an ultra thin DOF optic which has questionable AF characteristics and questionable build. The Canon 85IIL is extremely well built and will last a life time of use....the sigma? Well good luck with that.



Good point! OOF pictures are worthless.



pwp said:


> Personally I don't have the patience to work with ultra shallow DOF, I need a high percentage of keepers... Photographers with superior AF technique to me can nail focus often enough, and hats-off to you if you can do it.





Lamora said:


> I upgraded to the mark iii just for that purpose and now I can finally have pleasing compositions and peoples faces (eyes) in focus. Shooting at f1.2 will be frustrating on a canon 6d. Unless you like to crop a lot or don't mind having your subject dead centre every time.



I will need to work on my shallow DOF technique! Since the outer AF points on the 6D are limited, I will probably need to use the center point when shooting at 1.2/1.4 and crop.


----------



## bholliman (Oct 3, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> If you're not afraid of MF and wants something different (you've got the 135 already), then why not try this lens:
> 
> Helios 40 85mm f/1.5
> 
> ...



Very interesting lens and unusual bokeh! I think I'll stick with the more traditional "creamy" bokeh however.


----------



## MonteGraham (Oct 3, 2013)

bholliman said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > If you're not afraid of MF and wants something different (you've got the 135 already), then why not try this lens:
> ...



+1


----------



## wsheldon (Oct 3, 2013)

Zv said:


> The 85mm 1.8 is really good value when you come to think about it. The image quality was very good but that CA just spoiled it for me. As someone who likes backlit subjects it wasn't ideal so I sold it. Haven't missed it. I should also add that you prob wont wanna use it at f/1.8 and likely would stop down a bit in which case - whats the point when you have the 70-200II thats uber sharp wide open??



CA is actually extremely low with this lens. I assume you're talking about Longitudinal Chromatic Aberrations (LoCA) which gives you purple/green fringing on chrome edges and white edges. The 1.2 isn't a whole lot better in tests wide open, but should have less when stopped down to 1.8. I agree that's annoying, but with Lightroom 3+ one quick click makes it go away with no apparent effect on IQ so it doesn't bother me at all.

One of Canon's best values in $$ per IQ in my experience.


----------



## Zv (Oct 3, 2013)

wsheldon said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > The 85mm 1.8 is really good value when you come to think about it. The image quality was very good but that CA just spoiled it for me. As someone who likes backlit subjects it wasn't ideal so I sold it. Haven't missed it. I should also add that you prob wont wanna use it at f/1.8 and likely would stop down a bit in which case - whats the point when you have the 70-200II thats uber sharp wide open??
> ...



Yes. LoCA, the purple and green fringing. One quick click multiplied by 500 or more wedding images can get really time consuming and annoying. It just meant extra work. I was using LR 3 at the time so maybe it would be easier now??


----------



## wsheldon (Oct 3, 2013)

Zv said:


> wsheldon said:
> 
> 
> > CA is actually extremely low with this lens. I assume you're talking about Longitudinal Chromatic Aberrations (LoCA) which gives you purple/green fringing on chrome edges and white edges. The 1.2 isn't a whole lot better in tests wide open, but should have less when stopped down to 1.8. I agree that's annoying, but with Lightroom 3+ one quick click makes it go away with no apparent effect on IQ so it doesn't bother me at all.
> ...



I can certainly understand that, but if you have a lot of shots at the same aperture you should be able to set the sliders on one image and copy the correction to all images in one step, or even define a develop preset for importing. I do believe the fringing adjustments got better from 3-4 (and the same in 5), but I don't recall exactly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 3, 2013)

I would recommend the 85L II. I have it (along with the 135L and 70-200 II), and it is truly an amazing lens, particularly for portraits. I share your apprehension about the autofocus of Sigma's 85/1.4 (and their lenses in general). I had the 85/1.8 sometime back. It's a nice lens, and an excellent value, but I agree with the posts above that it doesn't add much to your existing 70-200. The 85/1.8 also suffers from particularly noticeable axial CA (the 85L has some as well, but not so bad).


----------



## surapon (Oct 3, 2013)

bholliman said:


> I have been looking at different 85mm primes to use for portrait photography and some event work. I have a 6D and my full kit is listed below.
> 
> I'm considering the Canon 85 1.2 II, Canon 85mm 1.8 and Sigma 85mm 1.4 EX DG HSM. I ruled out the Zeiss and Samyang 85's due to lack of AF. Obviously, there is a huge price difference here. I can afford the Canon 1.8 or Sigma now, but would have to save up a while for the Canon 1.2 II.
> 
> ...



Yes, Dear bholliman.
I have both , 85 L MK II and 85 mm. 1.8 = Both of great Lenses at difference unique functions , Yes, I have 24-70 L , 135 F/ 2.0 L and 70-200 2.8 L MK I too, all of theses lenses for my Portrait/ Wedding Photographer/ Press Photography Job---But From time to time , I use Sigma 1.4 too, to get wide angle group photo in the dark area, such as in the Music/ Band action pictures.----Yes, I fell in love with Canon EF 85 mm. F/ 1.2 L MK II for open wide and super shallow of DOF. plus great Bokeh.
Nice to talk to you.
Surapon
PS. If I take the Big Group of People( 50 people or more) in the Good Light/ Out door Cloudy day or in the Shade, I Use Canon TS-E 24 mm. F/ 3.5 MK II, in shift position= take 3 photos, Left shift, normal at center, and Right Shift---And Use Photoshop program to combine the photos, Yes, I will get 3 times of MP in one Photo, and can print up to 42 X 60 Inches from my Large format HP.printer.---Yes, Canon 5D MK II set at F = 5.6
Please see the sample below.


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 3, 2013)

Save up for the 85 f/1.2 II. You won't regret it. I hardly ever shoot portraits and gasped when I hit "Submit Order", but I LOVE the lens. My wife (who isn't into photography at all) loves the lens and literally won't let me shoot her with any other lens.


----------



## surapon (Oct 3, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Save up for the 85 f/1.2 II. You won't regret it. I hardly ever shoot portraits and gasped when I hit "Submit Order", but I LOVE the lens. My wife (who isn't into photography at all) loves the lens and literally won't let me shoot her with any other lens.



Dear friend, Mr. Mackguyver.
You are the most lucky guy in this world :
1) Your wife understand , what do you need. ( No, Not My wife---I must buy my toy , before I tell her---Ha, Ha, Ha )
2) She love your Lens and she let you take the photos of Her. ( No, Not my wife, She never post for me, and she complain all the times that her picture not look good as Hollywood stars---Ha, Ha, Ha.
Have a great day, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## kirillica (Oct 3, 2013)

Forget about Sigma, their 85 is a simply crap.
85 1.8 and 1.2 are very-very different lenses. bokeh from 1.2 is creamy, milky and simply nice. it is quite sharp starting from 1.2, but only in case you are not missed. AF of 1.2 is sometimes slow and (comparing other lenses I have) not getting the point during first round. CA of 1.2 are huge like dinosaur (and not only wide open; sometimes CA correction in Lightroom is not enough and you should use your skills of PS too). 

So 1.8 is simply for shooting on 85mm, 1.2 - is something you will most probably love after getting used to it; using outdoors it creates very 3D-like photos, photos from 1.8 are flat comparing to that  But, well, once again, there are people saying 1.2 is stupid and useless due to focus and CA issues.

Helios 40 (or 40-2)... It is nice, but no AF makes it good only for stills: setting it sharp where needed at 1.5 in dynamic scenes is a huge challenge.


----------



## PavelR (Oct 3, 2013)

I replaced 85/1.8 with S 85/1.4 - better iq and AF accuracy on 1D4.
But now I have 85/1.2 too because Sigma does not work well mounted on 1ds3 with new firmware - the camera stopped responding several times...
Purple fringing around the contrasty & light parts [black foreground against white background is not problem] is pretty bad on both Canon 85 (wide open and near wide open). L is also pretty slow AF, but acceptable on 1 series body...


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 3, 2013)

surapon said:


> Dear friend, Mr. Mackguyver.
> You are the most lucky guy in this world :
> 1) Your wife understand , what do you need. ( No, Not My wife---I must buy my toy , before I tell her---Ha, Ha, Ha )
> 2) She love your Lens and she let you take the photos of Her. ( No, Not my wife, She never post for me, and she complain all the times that her picture not look good as Hollywood stars---Ha, Ha, Ha.
> ...


Dear Mr. Surapon,

You are funny and I usually tell my wife that my toys cost about half of what I actually paid for them. She usually is annoyed by them but always wants to make sure I bring along my "special portrait lens" when we go places where she wants her photo taken. She complains about most of her photos, too, but not nearly as much if I use the 85 f/1.2 II


----------



## Eldar (Oct 3, 2013)

Just to add to the choir ... 

With the lenses you have, there is no point looking at any other lens than the 1.2LII, unless you would consider a manual focus Zeiss. I love this lens, but it is also my biggest frustration. If you buy it, practice, practice and practice. If you just use it every now and then, you will have loads of sharp noses, or ears and eyes OOF etc. But if you use it regularly, and learn how it works, you will be handsomely rewarded.

I hope Canon will make a version III, primarily with improved AF speed, but also without the focus-by-wire - electronic manual focusing, which requires the camera to be powered on for manual focus to work. That feels a bit dinosaurian and irritates me every time.


----------



## surapon (Oct 3, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Dear friend, Mr. Mackguyver.
> ...



Ha, Ha, Ha---Dear Mr. Mackguyver.
Sorry, I never do like that " I usually tell my wife that my toys cost about half of what I actually paid for them. "---------BUT, I JACK UP THE PRICE before I tell my wife, what I buy----" Honey, I just get the great deal to day, My Photographer friend just pass a way, and his wife call me , she want to sell almost brand new Canon EF 85 mm F/ 1.2 L Mk II that her husband pay for $ 4000 US Dollars, She want me to have just $ 2,200 US Dollars---What do you think ?"------Yes, because my wife do not know the real price of 85 MK II, She think that might be equal price to my old 200 L----Yes, She tell me That , I super smart and super lucky guy.

Ha, Ha, Ha.
\Nice to talk to you, Sir., Have a Great ay.
Surapon


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 3, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Just to add to the choir ...
> 
> With the lenses you have, there is no point looking at any other lens than the 1.2LII, unless you would consider a manual focus Zeiss. I love this lens, but it is also my biggest frustration. If you buy it, practice, practice and practice. If you just use it every now and then, you will have loads of sharp noses, or ears and eyes OOF etc. But if you use it regularly, and learn how it works, you will be handsomely rewarded.
> 
> I hope Canon will make a version III, primarily with improved AF speed, but also without the focus-by-wire - electronic manual focusing, which requires the camera to be powered on for manual focus to work. That feels a bit dinosaurian and irritates me every time.



I'll usually put to focus point on the eye and then re compose... would you suggest an alternative technique?


----------



## Eldar (Oct 3, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Just to add to the choir ...
> ...


With the 1DX and 5DIII I use center focus point, with 8 supporting points and move the focus point to as close to where in the image I want focus to, to have as little post focus lock movement as possible. If you lock on the center focus point and a recompose requires too much movement, you may still get OOF results. Pi or Neuro posted an article which explains this well, but I don´t remember which thread. If any of you read this, please repost.

If I need to use AI servo, I always use the 1DX, for its superior tracking capability. And that is when practice is required.

But for me, it took some time before I really absorbed the way this lens works and could use it efficiently and effectively. I also find that, if I havn´t used it for a while, I need a bit of "get in the 1.2LII mood" time


----------



## surapon (Oct 3, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Just to add to the choir ...
> ...



Dear Sir.
For my 5D MK II with EF 85 mm F/ 1.2 L MK II--- I have no problem about auto focus in my Portrait Photography---Yes, I know the weak point of AF speed of this Beautiful Monster Lens, But , I set up the One spot AF at the center of the viewfinder, and Lock/ One point AF at the Eyes of the Model, Push half Shutter and move the Camera until I like the composition, and just fully press the shutter= I get the best focus of my beautiful model in every times.
Nice to talk to you, Sir.
Surapon

PS, The 3 Rd. Photo of the model = 400% Crop from the original photo , to show the good AF of one spot focus at the eye of the model.


----------



## ablearcher (Oct 3, 2013)

IMO, the choice of 85 depends on the use. I have no experience with Sigma, but 85L and 85/1.8 are two different tools for two different jobs due to different AF speed. Yes, there is also IQ difference but if your AF is not fast enough for the job then IQ is not going to help much. I have 85/1.8 and i love it on FF. It was a good lens on a crop body, but it shines on FF. I love it for AF speed, small size and low cost, so I carry it quite often - trips, casual shoots, outdoor kids shoots, etc, etc. Yes, there is FL overlap with 70-200 but due to weight and size difference, the 70-200 is hardly a casual lens which you would just throw into your bag next time you go for a walk in the park with kids or go on a beach vacation. I would also think twice before I take 85L to all those places. Might be missing shots due to slow AF and might also have concerns regarding safety of the lens - the replacement cost is substantial. So yeah, I would start thinking about this purchase from the usage angle first. Just my 2c


----------



## GuyF (Oct 3, 2013)

kirillica said:


> Forget about Sigma, their 85 is a simply crap.



And what makes you say that? Do unqualified remarks like this help anyone?

I could've bought the Canon f1.2 but got the Sigma instead. Superb lens, great results (I've posted many portrait shots taken wide open on this site). Yes, focus at f1.4 is critical but do you really think every shot ever taken with the Canon is a keeper?

Perhaps I got lucky with my copy of the lens but it's naive to think Sigma can't make quality lenses. If they were that bad, would they stay in business?


----------



## Jeffrey (Oct 3, 2013)

For me, if I am not shooting moving subjects, I strongly prefer the Zeiss lens. When the subjects are moving I switch over to the 70-200mm II for the autofocus. The best of both worlds!


----------



## ddl (Oct 3, 2013)

I have the Sigma 85 f/1.4 and have used it to take go karting pictures so the focus is ok for that. My keeper rate for that event was lower than I would have liked but I screwed up by using expanded focus points rather than a single point on a moving target with lots of contrasting crap in the background. Overall I'm quite pleased by it.

I had the Canon 85/1.8 - lower cost, faster focusing, smaller size but the purple/green fringing drove me to trade it in against the S85.

Evey lens is a compromise between price, build and performance - you have to determine which compromise is best for the way you're going to use the lens.


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 3, 2013)

If you want to buy soon, my vote goes to the f/1.2, for the following reasons:

The f/1.8 isn't great wide open; it's appreciably better stopped down to f/2.8. So, apart from the lens's compactness, it's of marginal use to you with your zoom that's already sharp at f/2.8.

Most things said about the Sigma are complimentary. The trouble is, it's only a matter of time before they re-release the 85mm f/1.4 as an Art lens, with its better quality assurance, sleek design, perhaps an even better optical formula, plus fine-tunability via the dock. The only question is, when?

For now, that leaves the very desirable f/1.2.

If you're not in a hurry, you could wait to see how Sigma's 85mm Art lens turns out but with no hint of a release on the horizon, how long you'd have to wait is anyone's guess.


----------



## Pinchers of Peril (Oct 3, 2013)

Like some others have already said, looking at your current set up I think you'll probably only be satisfied with the 1.2. If you got the Sigma or the 1.8 I'm sure you'd be able to take some great pictures but you'd always have that thought in the back of your mind that the 1.2 might be just a little better. I love that lens and glad that I spent the money to get it. I don't think you'll be disappointed at all. Plus if get the Sigma or the 1.8 then the new lens will feel left out because it doesn't have a red ring like your other lenses... and that would just be mean.


----------



## kirillica (Oct 3, 2013)

GuyF said:


> kirillica said:
> 
> 
> > Forget about Sigma, their 85 is a simply crap.
> ...


Sigma 85 comparing Canon 85 1.2 is crap. period.
talking about business: price for Sigma makes it alive; most people can't afford Canon's primes.


----------



## Pi (Oct 3, 2013)

pwp said:


> Personally I don't have the patience to work with ultra shallow DOF, I need a high percentage of keepers and with a flowing shooting style that rarely delivers the magic with static situations, f/1.4 or f/1.2 on an 85 just won't cut it.



You can have as large DOF at f/1.2 as you want, for example, 1m.


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 4, 2013)

I have the 70-200 2.8 II and the 85 1.2
In my opinion the 70-200 is much more flexible and gives great portraits .
The 85 1.2 is a specialised lens. Shooting at 1.2 is difficult. The depth of field is very thin.
It's a risky lens to use compared to a 70-200mm. The focusing is slowish and easily out of focus if either you or the subject budges an inch. It's easier to use stepped down but then you may as well buy the excellent 1.8.
My conclusion 70-200mm expensive but worth it
85mm 1.2 expensive not really worth it (but you do get some amazing shots with it.
(If scares people though', they see the shutter.


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 4, 2013)

the canon 85 L II is not 3 times better than the sigma 85

I closely evaluated the 2 on a 5Dmk2 when i made the purchase
AF on the 5D was significantly slower on the canon than the sigma
this went a long way to making me go with the siggy on a 1D body 
the AF is said to be faster but I didn't bother to test mine.

wide open the canon is slightly sharper in the center at 1.2 than the siggy is at 1.4
however this is only noticable at 100% crop or more and you wont see anything in real life images other than the canon also has smoother creamier bokeh 

the canon is much larger physically, it is very impressive... it looks super awesome but you also have to carry and pack it


both lenses have a little purple fringing wide open but nothing like the amounts seen on the canon 1.8
by f2 on both the L and the sigma the purple is basically gone
by f2 both lenses are equally sharp
at f2 either lens is noticably sharper than a 70-200 f2.8L II at f2.8
f2 is a real sweet spot for either lens

my sigma was heavily front focusing when i got it, i sent it back they calibrated it and i had it back 4 days later and its been pretty much spot on ever since tested on 7 bodies including rebels with no AFMA

I rule out the 85 1.8 because its old, has heaps of purple and is no where near as good as the sigma 

while making your decision think about this you can get a sigma 85, sigma 35 and a canon 135L for the same price of the 85LII 

oh I forgot to add that i feel sigma will give this lens an overhaul soon, so given the glass you currently have I would say wait and get none and see what awesomeness the new sigma brings, if its like the 35 i'm gonna be all over it

I also hardly use my 70-200 anymore since getting the 85 1.4 and especially now i have the 135L too

Still for runway fashion the 70-200 II from canon is king i have contemplated the sigma 120-300 for this use too.


----------



## kirillica (Oct 4, 2013)

I'm really curious why people check sharpeners of 85 1.2 and compare it to any other 85 while bokeh of Canon's prime is something million times better than anything else?


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 4, 2013)

dont think its a million times better 
its not even 3 times better to reflect the nutty price tag
it is a little better

but AF speed on a non 1D body is a big factor also physical size and coupled with the monster price difference....


----------



## kirillica (Oct 4, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> dont think its a million times better
> its not even 3 times better to reflect the nutty price tag
> it is a little better
> 
> but AF speed on a non 1D body is a big factor also physical size and coupled with the monster price difference....


from artistic point of view - it is significantly better. but, yes, art is a question of taste


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 4, 2013)

kirillica said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > dont think its a million times better
> ...



its highly subjective

and bokeh is unquantifiable however if you look at brians comparisons there is not alot in it
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

the extra 1/3rd of a stop aperture probably plays a big part in the bokeh

but if you want bokeh over all else i think the 135L leave both 85s in its dust... and then there is the 200f2L IS... 

anyway i have never said the sigma is better than the canon 1.2 in any way other than AF speed
BUT
the differences are pretty marginal and not worth the massive price gulf between the two


----------



## kirillica (Oct 4, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> its highly subjective
> 
> and bokeh is unquantifiable however if you look at brians comparisons there is not alot in it
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx
> ...


yes, it is subjective. and for me there is a huge difference in a place you (subjectively) don't see that


----------



## Maven (Oct 4, 2013)

As I can see all 85mm primes are mostly equal in image quality.
I don't realy need AF. For action shots I have 100L and 70-200/4LIS. I am using 5D3.
I am considering Samyang, Sigma and Canon f/1.8. Canon f/1.2 and zeiss are out of price range.
I will be using it mostly 1.4-2.0 for shots from distance in dark conditions and low light video.
So my primary conserns are resolution (so I can crop image, if I only could afford 200 f/2) and manual operation.
As I can assume Samyang have better focusing ring? Are Sigma and Canon f/1.8 good for manual operation?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 4, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> but if you want bokeh over all else i think the 135L leave both 85s in its dust... and then there is the 200f2L IS...
> 
> the differences are pretty marginal and not worth the massive price gulf between the two



The 135L isn't better or worse for creating out of focus backgrounds, it's is just different. It is a different angle of view, so a diferent amount of telephoto compression. If you want less, use a wide lens , which is why 85mm lenses are so popular these days for portraiture for adults, less compression which generally suits adults. Where as skinny models or teenagers tend to benefit from more compression.
The 85IIL offers slightly better background melting abilities, but offers simular effects as the 135L and 200mm f2.8 but at greatly reduced working distances. 

Dimunishing returns is common place. My hi fi at home cost around £2.5K but to take it to the next marginal level will cost nearly double if no more. The 85IIL is better tahn the Sigma certainly in areas of colour fidelity, contrast, build (rack out an 85IIL and look though the rear element), engineering (the Canon uses automotive grade ball barings in it's AF system) and AF (slo but far more dependable than the Sigma AF system). My copy is over 6 years old and has endured a lot of hard wedding and landscape work...it still looks fresh as the day I bought it and is now worth more second hand than I paid for it...good luck with your Sigma in that regard. 
Quality gear holds value and sometimes increases....look at Apple mac book pros, Rolex watches, Quad or Linn amplification, Canon L lenses are in the same bracket. There is a world of difference between a Sigma 85mm and a Canon 85IIL.


----------



## kirillica (Oct 4, 2013)

Maven said:


> As I can see all 85mm primes are mostly equal in image quality.
> I don't realy need AF. For action shots I have 100L and 70-200/4LIS. I am using 5D3.
> I am considering Samyang, Sigma and Canon f/1.8. Canon f/1.2 and zeiss are out of price range.
> I will be using it mostly 1.4-2.0 for shots from distance in dark conditions and low light video.
> ...


You are using 100L for action shots? Really?  
I mean, 100L is a great lens and I have one, but it has nothing to do with actions: micro-contrast and sharpness it has makes it good only for close-ups and macros. 
Samyang... I haven't heard about any good product from them (regardless the fact they place red rings on their lenses)... are you?

Having good camera like 5D3 and investing in cheap and unreliable stuff like Samyang makes this camera useless.


----------



## Maven (Oct 4, 2013)

100L is fine by me to track movement. Running people or bicycle, I don't shoot sport cars ar things like that.
I haven't heard about any bad product from samyang. I used 35mm T1.5 VDSL once for video recording and it is marvelous. 85mm is just older product, but it have same quality.
My other option is 135L, but it's only f/2.0 and I don't know how good is it for manual focusing, but it's an option if considering 85mm f/1.8 from canon.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 4, 2013)

kirillica said:


> Maven said:
> 
> 
> > As I can see all 85mm primes are mostly equal in image quality.
> ...



I used the 100L for sports as well, tracking football players at all distances... and the lens is a champ when it comes to ai servo. I had significantly more keepers than not. I've since sold it... but indoor and our... works like a champ.


----------



## kirillica (Oct 4, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> I used the 100L for sports as well, tracking football players at all distances... and the lens is a champ when it comes to ai servo. I had significantly more keepers than not. I've since sold it... but indoor and our... works like a champ.


It's not I think 100L is not capable to do that, but it's not aimed to do that. IQ from 70-200F2.8IS m2 I love significantly more for this (again, except portraits and macros).


----------



## surapon (Oct 4, 2013)

Dear Friends.
Sorry, I am not the Real PRO, Just Past time Hobby lover.
Here are the Sample of photos , by Canon 5D MK II, and Canon 85 mm. F/ 1.2 L MK II USM, at F = 1.2 ( for the maximum Shallow DOF ), ISO = 100. Day Light, But use 4 ND filter.
Enjoy.
Surapon


----------



## surapon (Oct 4, 2013)

Dear Friends.
Sorry, I am not the Real PRO, Just Past time Hobby lover.
Here are the Sample of photos , by Canon 5D MK II, and Canon 85 mm. F/ 1.2 L MK II USM, at F = 1.2 ( for the maximum Shallow DOF ), ISO = 100. Day Light, But use 4 ND filter.
Enjoy.
Surapon


----------



## mycanonphotos (Oct 4, 2013)

I was just able to snag a Canon 85 1.8 refurb on sale and am very impressed with it at 1.8... for $285...CANT go wrong..


----------



## GuyF (Oct 4, 2013)

kirillica said:


> Sigma 85 comparing Canon 85 1.2 is crap. period.




Wow, with such a reasonable, coherent and well thought out argument such as that, I can't understand why I feel sorry for you.

Best not feed the trolls.


----------



## bchernicoff (Oct 4, 2013)

I've owned the both the Canon 1.2 L II and the Sigma. I sold the Canon and kept the Sigma.

Sigma pros:
vastly faster AF
actual manual AF
vastly better dust protection (with a filter on, the lens is effectively sealed)
around half the cost

Canon cons:
SLOW AF
drive by wire manual AF
large gap between body and the barrel that moves in and out while focusing (dust entry point)
high price

Canon pros:
half stop faster

tie:
IQ


----------



## bholliman (Oct 4, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> I've owned the both the Canon 1.2 L II and the Sigma. I sold the Canon and kept the Sigma.
> 
> Sigma pros:
> vastly faster AF
> ...



Did you experience any AF accuracy issues with the Sigma?


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 5, 2013)

There is alot of red ring snobbery around and especially so here.

sometimes it gets annoying fact is both sigma and tamron have vastly stepped up their game in recent years
I have been burnt by tamron in the past and so am still reluctant to go down that road again
sigma i am very cautious about because there is alot of hate out there for them so i carefully check out reviews and experiences and i test the lens before i buy and i only buy sigma lens from a store i trust that i can return it to if i have problems. I have the 35 the 50 and 85.

while the 50 has good iq its AF accuracy is terrible i've given up using 50mm lenses on canon there is nothing good out there IMO the nikkor 50 f1.4G runs rings around everything (im discounting MF lenses here, not interested in MF with DoF this shallow)

the sigma 35 and 85 however are stellar I definately cant complain about focus accuracy on either lens
although as i always state my 85 was heavily front focusing when new but sigma recalibrated it for me and it is now good as gold.

simple fact is when looking at an 85

if you want super cheap and AF = canon 85 f1.8
if you dont care what it costs and want absolute best IQ widest aperture and smoothest bokeh = canon 85 1.2L II not to be confused with the mk1 which the sigma blows away entirely. (but i'm sure someone will argue this is not the case )
if you want IQ so close to the L II its not significant at a good price and faster AF then the sigma 85 1.4 is the best choice

if you are only looking at video then the samyang cine 85 is probably going to be the best bang for buck


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 5, 2013)

kirillica said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I used the 100L for sports as well, tracking football players at all distances... and the lens is a champ when it comes to ai servo. I had significantly more keepers than not. I've since sold it... but indoor and our... works like a champ.
> ...



Over the time I had the 100L, it outperformed the 70-200mm f/4L usm and the f2.8L usm, though the latter has some front focusing issues. But the 100L was a beast with how impressive it really was. I used it indoors and out... it is a surprisingly versitile lens.


----------

