# 85mm f/1.2 vs 200mm f/2



## jaayres20 (May 30, 2012)

I want both of these lenses badly. I love a very shallow DOF and even use the Brenizer Method to get an even shallower DOF. My question is to those who have used both lenses which lens has better bokeh? Or are they even comparable?


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 30, 2012)

Wouldn't recommend paying the price for the 200mm just for the bokeh. You would buy that lens because you need that focal length, you need the wider aperture, and you need VERY HIGH QUALITY images at that focal length and at that aperture. If you just want bokeh, buy the 85mm f/1.2L and get closer. That lens will not disappoint you at all. I own it and it is probably my favorite lens in my kit right now. The sharpness is amazing, especially stopped down. 

The 200 f/2.0L is another ballgame. If your goals do not fit ALL 3 of the above, it would not be worth it. Make sure if you do buy the 200 f/2L that you realize it is a great lens and worth every penny, but also make sure it is exactly what you need. I hope this helps.


----------



## pwp (May 30, 2012)

Those two lenses are very different beasts. Both highly desirable. Both brilliant. And both really need to deliver immediate and strong ROI, especially the high priced 200 f/2. Why not jump into the middle and pick up a 135 f/2? Ever read anything but high praise for this lens?

Have you noticed whenever WickedWombat gets a chance to mention his Sigma 85 f/1.4 he's relentlessly 110% positive. He's just about got me convinced to get one. WW, are you listening in here? Is the AF on the Sigma quick, unlike the Canon 85 f/1.2? 

A review...http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

PW


----------



## elflord (May 30, 2012)

pwp said:


> Those two lenses are very different beasts. Both highly desirable. Both brilliant. And both really need to deliver immediate and strong ROI, especially the high priced 200 f/2. Why not jump into the middle and pick up a 135 f/2? Ever read anything but high praise for this lens?
> 
> Have you noticed whenever WickedWombat gets a chance to mention his Sigma 85 f/1.4 he's relentlessly 110% positive. He's just about got me convinced to get one. WW, are you listening in here? Is the AF on the Sigma quick, unlike the Canon 85 f/1.2?
> 
> ...



I also have it. The AF speed is reasonable but not as fast as the 135L (which is a speed demon). Focus was off but consistent, it works very well on my 5DII after AFMA.


----------



## elflord (May 30, 2012)

jaayres20 said:


> I want both of these lenses badly. I love a very shallow DOF and even use the Brenizer Method to get an even shallower DOF. My question is to those who have used both lenses which lens has better bokeh? Or are they even comparable?



If you're after ridiculously shallow depth of field, you may want to take minimum focus distance into account too. At their respective MFDs, the 135L has shallower dof than the 85mm f/1.2.


----------



## Daniel Flather (May 30, 2012)

Ahhh, my 200/2. It's special, it's expensive, and it's heavy. Carry it around for an hour in 0°c weather and your hands will be sore. This lens attracts attention out in public, and the repeat questions get annoying. Take it to the park with your kids on a Sunday and people stare, take it without your kids and the police might show. But, this lens is amazing in every aspect. Sharp, sharp, sharp at f2.0, color, contrast, the IS, and the bokeh, yes the bokeh; it's in a class all to its own. If you get an out of focus shot, it's user error. This lens never misses focus, ever. I've never put it on a tripod for real world use, that's the beauty of this lens; it's a telephoto that you can carry around with you. I once owned the 200/2.8, and that's a nice lens, but the 200/2 trumps it. 

The 85/1.2 and 200/2 are two different lenses, the 85 in much smaller than the 200 and less expensive. I don't find the 200 too long on my 5D3, yet at the same time I find my 85/1.8 too long for when I want to use it. Still, the 85/1.2 is on my want list.

I don't shoot professionally so there's no ROI for me, it was the 200/2 over a motorcycle, so in theory I saved about $10,000 with the purchase of the 200/2.


----------



## pwp (May 30, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> Ahhh, my 200/2. It's special, it's expensive, and it's heavy...
> It was the 200/2 over a motorcycle, so in theory I saved about $10,000 with the purchase of the 200/2.



...which leaves you with $10k for quite a nice motorcycle. Yah!!!

PW


----------



## wickidwombat (May 30, 2012)

pwp said:


> Have you noticed whenever WickedWombat gets a chance to mention his Sigma 85 f/1.4 he's relentlessly 110% positive. He's just about got me convinced to get one. WW, are you listening in here? Is the AF on the Sigma quick, unlike the Canon 85 f/1.2?
> 
> A review...http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx
> 
> PW



beat me to it! 
I would say that the AF speed on the sigma is 3 times faster than the 1.2L (Based on testing side by side with 5Dmk2, mk3 wasnt out then)
it's a ton cheaper and f2 is amazingly sharp (i prefer f2 unless i need 1.4 for more light, f2 has a little more in focus)

if you are going to shoot at maximum aperture the 1.2L is sharper (marginally) but then you have to live with the slower AF too, so depends where your priority is, 

Also the sigma has 9 circular aperture blades which IMO is bokehlicious

disclaimer is that mine was front focusing and i sent it in to be adjusted and its great now, for this reason i would purchase from a reputable bricks and mortar store not online

oh yeah wide open it has some purple fringing but similar to the 1.2L (correctable with ease in LR anyway)


----------



## CJRodgers (May 30, 2012)

Thats a good, point ill see if i can get hold of a 24-70 for a while which should help me choose. Plus i can rule out if f2.8 is definately too slow.


----------



## briansquibb (May 30, 2012)

I find the 200 f/2 to be a superb lens. Better by far than the 135. Noticably better than the 70-200 f/2.8 II

Cant help with the 85 f/1.2 as I make do with the 85 f/1.8


----------



## Daniel Flather (May 30, 2012)

pwp said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhh, my 200/2. It's special, it's expensive, and it's heavy...
> ...



I have the money, it's the free time that I lack.


----------



## crasher8 (May 30, 2012)

I've had the 85 and yes the bokeh is sweet however I sold mine and went for the 100 sibling due to too much CA on the 85 and yes I know you can deal with that in post but I'd rather not deal if I don't have to. The 100 is almost as fast and IYAM it's as sharp wide open as the 85 is at 2.0. So a a 1/3 stop more stopped down and it's razor. The bokeh is almost identical. 

As for the 200, have you considered the 135 f/2L? Amazing lens, one of Canon's best bang for your buck. 

I for one love the 100-320 FL range (1.6) and all of these lenses here are on my A list.


----------



## Chewngum (May 31, 2012)

I have the Sigma 85 f1.4 and have extensively used the Canon 85 1.8 and 1.2. The Canon 1.8 is the best bang for buck but the fringing is annoying. It is soft in comparison to both the other 85s. The Canon 1.2 is amazing for the bokeh. Though it is slow to focus, wouldn't recommend it for moving subjects, remembering that hand shake can dramtically change the DOF...razor thin tolerancve to work with. I was consitently getting OOF shots with it. I then tried the Sigma and fell in love. I use it a f1.6 for the small jumps in performance and slightly more DOF to work with. I started using it only on AI-Servo and the AF has always kept up. I put it through a brutal test of a husky running at me and it focused properly and fast enough right up to the MFD, with only one or two frames OOF. The bokeh is amazing and i can not recommend it enough. While the canon 85L has a special look to it, the AF on the sigma is priceless. Daniel talks about the 200 f2L never missing a shot and it being amazing, I would love to know what the reaction to it would be if the 200L focused like the 85L, makes it an entirely different beast and most of all the shooting technique required is worlds apart.


----------



## Daniel Flather (May 31, 2012)

Chewngum said:


> Daniel talks about the 200 f2L never missing a shot and it being amazing, I would love to know what the reaction to it would be if the 200L focused like the 85L, makes it an entirely different beast and most of all the shooting technique required is worlds apart.



Yes, but I knew the 200's AF was excellent before I bought it, so your point is moot. I researched the 200L before I bought it and I knew the AF was excellent, much like the whole lens. I have the 50L and I was fully aware of everyone's issues with it and that did not deter me from buying the 50L, nor will the 85's documented AF issues curtail my 85L acquisition. The 50L is a great lens despite its over emphasized issues online, I'm glad I have the joy of using it. The 50L bests the 50 1.4 in EVERY way, yet the 50L gets a nasty reputation for focus issues (yes, I own a 50 1.4 too). 

Buy the lens you want, don't compromise and buy a lens twice, like I did with my 50 an 85 non-L lenses. (both are for sale).


----------



## briansquibb (May 31, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> Chewngum said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel talks about the 200 f2L never missing a shot and it being amazing, I would love to know what the reaction to it would be if the 200L focused like the 85L, makes it an entirely different beast and most of all the shooting technique required is worlds apart.
> ...



+1 You get what you pay for

+1 know your kit, play to its strengths and avoid its weaknesses


----------



## dirtcastle (May 31, 2012)

The 135mm f/2 is the best bang for the buck, by far. It's a telephoto, but not too long. It's DOF is as shallow as you'll probably need. It's relatively light and short compared to comparable lenses in that range. And it focuses MUCH quicker than the 85 f/1.2.

Compared to the 135mm, the 85mm f/1.2 simply allows you to be a little closer to your subject. So I would make your distance from subject (and desired crop) the deciding factor.


----------



## briansquibb (May 31, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> The 135mm f/2 is the best bang for the buck, by far. It's a telephoto, but not too long. It's DOF is as shallow as you'll probably need. It's relatively light and short compared to comparable lenses in that range. And it focuses MUCH quicker than the 85 f/1.2.
> 
> Compared to the 135mm, the 85mm f/1.2 simply allows you to be a little closer to your subject. So I would make your distance from subject (and desired crop) the deciding factor.



- which is why I use the 200 f/2 for portraits, and it is sharper and with more contrast than the 135L


----------



## wickidwombat (May 31, 2012)

did you get the 200 f2 new or second hand?
how much did it cost?
you seem to jag amazing prices on used kit


----------



## briansquibb (May 31, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> did you get the 200 f2 new or second hand?
> how much did it cost?
> you seem to jag amazing prices on used kit



This was new - £4600. Just none around used

The 300 f/2.8 II is next in my sights as a walkaround lens to double up with the 70-200 f/2.8. The zoom on the 1DS3, the 300 on the 1D4


----------



## risc32 (Jun 1, 2012)

300mm 2.8 with that other kit as walk around. man, you are awesome.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 1, 2012)

here is a 100% crop of an unedited raw from my new 5Dmk3 with the sigma 85 f1.4
it was iso 100 f2 and 1/60 sec


----------



## pwp (Jun 1, 2012)

risc32 said:


> 300mm 2.8 with that other kit as walk around. man, you are awesome.



And as strong as Attila the Hun...sir.

PW


----------

