# buying advice: canon 85mm f1.2 II or f1.8?



## dash2k8 (Dec 15, 2014)

Hi all, I'm here again with a buy question: lots of online reviews state that the 85mm f1.8 is nearly identical to the f1.2 II in terms of image quality when stopped down to f2. It even focuses faster than the L version. All that the f1.2 version has going for it seems to be that it is very sharp wide open, and has slightly better sharpness and contract than the f1.8 version. Again, money is not an issue here. Is the f1.2 II worth my money with nearly identical visuals and even slower focus, to be offset with f1.2 for low light conditions? Let me know your real-world thoughts! Thanks!


----------



## sanj (Dec 15, 2014)

If money is no issue then why this question?


----------



## drob (Dec 15, 2014)

I have never used the 85 1.2, but the 1.8 is excellent. I hear Sigma may be on the verge of releasing their update to the 85. Might want to wait until then, I'm sure there's will be an excellent value.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 15, 2014)

If you don't need the f1.2 - f2.0 area, you may as well go to f2.8 and get the 70-200 f2.8L IS II. The main reason for getting the 85 f1.2L II is to be able to get the shallow DOF at, or near, f1.2. The 85/1.8 is good value for money, but its IQ cannot be compared to the 1.2L II. Its subject isolation capability is unique and its bokeh is simply beautiful. I sold it when I got the 85 Otus, but it was difficult to part with.

The downside with the 1.2L II is the focus mechanism and CA. But for anything but action shooting, the AF speed is no problem. Take a look in the 85 f1.2L II thread and check out some of the portraits there (Gary Sample's are almost all at f1.2). No other lens (but the Otus) can do that.


----------



## Synkka (Dec 15, 2014)

I can only echo Eldars statement. I have the 85 1.2ii and while it sounds silly, this lens is all about shooting at 1.2 if you want to stop down there are better options.

If you are considering the 85 1.2 ii I also think it is only worthwhile on FF, you won't appreciate the shallow dof otherwise.

While the 85 1.8 is a very good lens for the price I see it as just another lens. The 85 1.2 is something special

Best of luck on your choice


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 15, 2014)

I agree you'd only buy the 85mm 1.2 if you want to shoot at F1.2
It produces a pretty special photograph.
It's focussing is relatively slow and hunting for focus can be an issue.
It's very sharp stopped down. Bitingly sharp (not flattering at times , shows up every wrinkle, blemish and tooth decay ). It's given me a fright a few times.
It's very expensive for a limited use lens. 
You ideally need you object stationary. f1.2 has such shallow depth of field that it's very easy to have nose in focus but eyes out of focus.
I've never used the F1.8 but my friend has it and really likes it. It's way cheaper and easier to manage .
So it's all about F1.2.
Is the creamy bokeh worth the price.
It's hard to live without once you first experience it.


----------



## tayassu (Dec 15, 2014)

The 1.2 has a very unique look (bokeh : )and that would be enough for me to get it if money wasn't an object.


----------



## idene (Dec 15, 2014)

I would go with the nearly 2K priced lens ever time. 

The 85mm f1.2 is also considered one of the sharpest lenses in the world at f4. 

Plus, shooting at 1.2 isn't it's only purpose. It has image quality which makes it one of the best portrait lenses out there. 

OP, your basically asking what the difference is between a ferrari and a ford fiesta.


----------



## risc32 (Dec 15, 2014)

ferrari or fiesta? i don't see it that way, esp when the 1.8 focuses so much faster and is lighter, to me that sounds more like a ferrari, but it certainly does price out more like your analogy. i've never used the 1.2 but have studied it pretty extensively. i have the 1.8, and while it focuses fast, i've never really been all that impressed. i wish i had my 100mm f2 back instead. i find the 1.8 to miss focus often, and it's got a large amount of purple fringing on some things. for me the 1.2 looks to focus to slowly and is too expensive, while the 1.8 just doesn't wow me either. I'm waiting to see a sigma 85mm 1.4 ART materialize.


----------



## PhotoCat (Dec 15, 2014)

For me, I could shoot portraits all day with a 85/1.8 without using much effort.
Not sure I wanna do that with 85/1.2 as it is quite heavy. So if I had the 2, I would
probably use 85/1.8 80% of the time and 85/1.2 20% of the time.

Indeed, I would wait for the sigma 85mm 1.4 ART b4 I make a decision between the 2.

Actually I am waiting for a 85 <= f2.0 IS.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 15, 2014)

As others have said if you go with the 85 1.2 it's meant to shoot at 1.2. It's a great portriat lens. But if you get that lens you should probably be shooting a full frame camera to maximize the shallow depth of field that shooting 1.2 offers. Also this lens is not a beginers lens IMO. Shooting that shallow of depth of field you're going to have some shots that don't come out as sharp as you want. I'm talking like one eye in sharp focus and the other out of focus or the nose out of focus. If your going for that look great otherwise you really have to pay attention when you're focusing with a 1.2 aperture. It is a awsome portriat lens though. One more down side to the 85 1.2 is it focus SLOW! 

The 85 1.8 is a great lens especially for the price. It focuses very fast and is sharp. Once you stop down to 2.8 give or take it really gets sharp and you wont tell a difference between it and the 1.2 version IMO.

So this really depends on what your shooting with it and your experience level. It's not a lens where it's i have the money so I'm going to get the best. If your experienced and are going to shoot portriats with it, shoot wide ope at 1.2 and don't need fast focus its a awsome lens. The shallow depth of field (bokeh) is beautiful. If your going to shoot portriats, the kids running around in the back yard, indoor sports, action or anything where you need a fast focusing lens I'd go with the 85 1.8. 

Just be real with your needs and experience level. Hope that helps and your chosing between two awsome lenses! Enjoy


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 15, 2014)

Depends on what other lenses you have. If you have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, then that lens will handle all the action shots and most of those at f/2.8 and smaller. The 85L II would then be a specialist portrait lens, a role that it excels at. And if you have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, is there really that big a difference between f/2 and f/2.8? Are you going to swap lenses for 1 stop when the 70-200 focuses faster and is more resistant to purple-fringing?

If you do a lot of or want to get into portrait photography, then the 85L II is a great choice. If you want a general purpose 85mm prime, then there are better options.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 15, 2014)

I'm looking to get the f/1.2L, but I thought I heard that an update might be coming soon since it's been out for 8 years.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 15, 2014)

sanj said:


> If money is no issue then why this question?



Maybe because of the 50/1.2 issues.


----------



## Besisika (Dec 15, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> Hi all, I'm here again with a buy question: lots of online reviews state that the 85mm f1.8 is nearly identical to the f1.2 II in terms of image quality when stopped down to f2. It even focuses faster than the L version. All that the f1.2 version has going for it seems to be that it is very sharp wide open, and has slightly better sharpness and contract than the f1.8 version. Again, money is not an issue here. Is the f1.2 II worth my money with nearly identical visuals and even slower focus, to be offset with f1.2 for low light conditions? Let me know your real-world thoughts! Thanks!


Before buying any lens, rent one first.
Unless it is difficult to do so where you are, I see no reason to buy one before renting (unless you have the current version or very similar one). 

You didn't specify what you need the lens for.
The good news is that you did already the good first step, by reading the internet. Now, go and rent each one of the three in order to see for yourself (including the 70-200), then ask questions. You will be able to determine the right answer from wrong, based on your personality and need. 
Don't forget, specialized lenses dictate a lot on your photography style.

The 1.2 is not for everybody. It is my go to lens and I see no other lens that can replace it in my bag for now.
I never had it alone, though. I always have a general purpose lens with it.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 15, 2014)

Besisika said:


> dash2k8 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi all, I'm here again with a buy question: lots of online reviews state that the 85mm f1.8 is nearly identical to the f1.2 II in terms of image quality when stopped down to f2. It even focuses faster than the L version. All that the f1.2 version has going for it seems to be that it is very sharp wide open, and has slightly better sharpness and contract than the f1.8 version. Again, money is not an issue here. Is the f1.2 II worth my money with nearly identical visuals and even slower focus, to be offset with f1.2 for low light conditions? Let me know your real-world thoughts! Thanks!
> ...



+1 that's very good advice


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 15, 2014)

I dealt with a similar delima... I eventually opted for the 1.8... it's not as sexy as the 1.2, but very sharp, fast focus, and for professional portrait work, it works like a charm. There have been some people who say that the 1.8 has some CA wide open... i typically shoot around the 2.0-2.2 range and if there is CA, it really isn't obvious or ugly... Just did a jewelry catalog shoot with that lens only and images came out great! Now if they can issue a mark II of that lens to have IS, that would be perfect... until then, this is a great bang for your buck.


----------



## SaabStory (Dec 15, 2014)

I tried them both, as well as the Sigma 85/1.4.

My impressions:
Canon 85/1.2 is capable of beautiful images, but it's a pain in the butt to focus, even in good light. In dim light it can be infuriating. It's also heavy and its price makes it a major investment decision.

Canon 85/1.8 is a fine lens. Nice contrast. Very easy to work with. Lighweight and fast.

Sigma 85/1.4 seems like the best compromise to me. It's not quite as spritely as the Canon 1.8, but it's a dream to use compared to the 85/1.2. I consider the image quality to be somewhat more appealing than the Canon 1.8, and somewhat less appealing than the Canon 1.2 at it's best.

In the end, I somehow managed to buy BOTH the Canon 1.8 (initially) and the Sigma 1.4 (later), but the Canon stays on my shelf until I get around to sending it off to eBay. The Sigma is my preferred choice for low light work and creamy short d.o.f.


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Dec 15, 2014)

risc32 said:


> I'm waiting to see a sigma 85mm 1.4 ART materialize.



+1 ^


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 15, 2014)

Excellent all-around responses! Thanks all! It looks like one of my main concerns wasn't made clear the first time, so allow me to add this wrinkle to my question: is the focus fast enough at for me to shoot reliably at f1.2 during a wedding event? Not at the altar where everybody is basically stationary, but when the bride is coming down the aisle or when she's tossing the bouquet or everyone is dancing at the reception... you know the drill. I'm all for big aperture and sweet bokeh, but is my subject going to be in focus? An all-bokeh pic of the bride's face (exaggerated) isn't going to sell money.

Thanks again!


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 15, 2014)

> You didn't specify what you need the lens for.



Yeah, I now realize it. Sorry about that! :-[


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 15, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> Excellent all-around responses! Thanks all! It looks like one of my main concerns wasn't made clear the first time, so allow me to add this wrinkle to my question: is the focus fast enough at for me to shoot reliably at f1.2 during a wedding event? Not at the altar where everybody is basically stationary, but when the bride is coming down the aisle or when she's tossing the bouquet or everyone is dancing at the reception... you know the drill. I'm all for big aperture and sweet bokeh, but is my subject going to be in focus? An all-bokeh pic of the bride's face (exaggerated) isn't going to sell money.
> 
> Thanks again!



I shot my first 4 weddings solo this year. So I'm not a expert by any means. Lots of people use and love that lens for weddings. IMO for fast moving dancing etc. I think it focuses too slow. If your quick and shoot lots of shots you'll get some but your keeper rate will be much lower than I'd like. That shallow depth of field is absolutey not forgiving then when you add the slow focus you're just not going to get every shot in focus. When you do though there awsome with that lens. The 1.8 canon does focus very fast. It's a very good lens but it's not special like the 1.2. But it's good. Why don't you rent the 1.2 go to a high school dance or something and use the 1.2 and see how it works for you. That's one lens you sure don't want to buy and shoot A wedding with before you have some time to practice with it.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 15, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> Excellent all-around responses! Thanks all! It looks like one of my main concerns wasn't made clear the first time, so allow me to add this wrinkle to my question: is the focus fast enough at for me to shoot reliably at f1.2 during a wedding event? Not at the altar where everybody is basically stationary, but when the bride is coming down the aisle or when she's tossing the bouquet or everyone is dancing at the reception... you know the drill. I'm all for big aperture and sweet bokeh, but is my subject going to be in focus? An all-bokeh pic of the bride's face (exaggerated) isn't going to sell money.
> 
> Thanks again!



While they are good at giving us a laugh, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adQHzNfvzFM#t=106 this gives a decent comparison... Fast forward to about the 7 min point. they conclude that when the 1.2 does give sharp images, they are amazing, but the big word is WHEN. If your shooting a wedding and you absolutely had to nail the first kiss, this ISN'T the lens i would rely on... the 1.8 is quite good on focusing and so far, so good...


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 15, 2014)

awinphoto said:


> dash2k8 said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent all-around responses! Thanks all! It looks like one of my main concerns wasn't made clear the first time, so allow me to add this wrinkle to my question: is the focus fast enough at for me to shoot reliably at f1.2 during a wedding event? Not at the altar where everybody is basically stationary, but when the bride is coming down the aisle or when she's tossing the bouquet or everyone is dancing at the reception... you know the drill. I'm all for big aperture and sweet bokeh, but is my subject going to be in focus? An all-bokeh pic of the bride's face (exaggerated) isn't going to sell money.
> ...



Yep I totally agree. I love using the 70-200 2.8is 2. I can count on getting my shots. Maybe look at the 135.


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 15, 2014)

Thanks Ryan85 and awinphoto for your awesome replies. Correct if I'm wrong, if I read your responses correctly, the f1.2 does not focus fast enough to keep up with even normal-speed actions, let alone fast dancing. That was my main concern. It would make a dreamy still portrait lens, though, when we pose the groom and bride after the guests have all gone.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 15, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> Thanks Ryan85 and awinphoto for your awesome replies. Correct if I'm wrong, if I read your responses correctly, the f1.2 does not focus fast enough to keep up with even normal-speed actions, let alone fast dancing. That was my main concern. It would make a dreamy still portrait lens, though, when we pose the groom and bride after the guests have all gone.



I would say that you are correct... I shoot studio and on-location portraiture and tried many lenses... If you've ever played with the 50 1.2, i would say it's kinda the same issue... focusing is too slow and too unreliable... and to it's defense, 1.2 is shallow... extremely shallow, so it's a lot of glass to move and not something to take lightly... So when it does nail the focus, it's very good... but, it can miss, and miss bad, especially in bad light... To me, i couldn't risk spending $2k on a lens that was a crap shoot if i would get a shot or not... the 1.8 was a lot more reliable, and fast and extremely good quality of imagery.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 16, 2014)

If budget is not an issue, go for 85L II. This lens simply shine from f1.2 to f2. The creamy bokeh will make you forget about price tag.

What about AF focus speed? This is not the best lens to shoot sports. If you can maintain the distance between you and subject, AF shouldn't be an issue. Even shooting the couple walking in church. However, do avoid using from close-up to infinity.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 16, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> Thanks Ryan85 and awinphoto for your awesome replies. Correct if I'm wrong, if I read your responses correctly, the f1.2 does not focus fast enough to keep up with even normal-speed actions, let alone fast dancing. That was my main concern. It would make a dreamy still portrait lens, though, when we pose the groom and bride after the guests have all gone.



Your welcome. I'm not going to say you can't or won't get sharp photos with the 85 1.2 with moderate to fast action but your keeper rate of sharp images will defiently be less compared to the 1.8 version. When you shoot that shallow depth of field there's know room for mistakes. Add the slow focusing its that much tougher. The 1.2 is slow to focus. If you get a chance go to lens rentals.com search the 85 1.2 & 85 1.8 and Roger Cicala the president of lens rentals gives his opion of each lens in a paragraph or two it's worth a quick read. 

So if I was going to be using a 85mm for faster action in a wedding reception I'd use the the 1.8 for the faster focus. It's not the sexy choice but to me it's the lens I know I'm going to get the results I want. 

Now if you decide to go with the 1.2 just practice with it a lot over a few months so you know what it can do and to get use to the razor thin depth of field. 

Btw what camera body and lenses are you using now for weddings?


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 16, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> If budget is not an issue, go for 85L II. This lens simply shine from f1.2 to f2. The creamy bokeh will make you forget about price tag.
> 
> What about AF focus speed? This is not the best lens to shoot sports. If you can maintain the distance between you and subject, AF shouldn't be an issue. Even shooting the couple walking in church. However, do avoid using from close-up to infinity.



I respectfully disagree with you on this. This isn't a lens that's I've got the money so I'm getting it. If your going to do portraits and slow moving subjects and you want to shoot wide open, sure it's great. If you're a inexperienced photographer IMO this lens is not for you. Shooting with that shallow of depth of field is unforgiving. I'm talking like a eye in focus and the nose or other eye out of focus if your plane of focus is off. It has a low keeper rate shooting wide open. Then add the slow focus and it's tuff. Also for the OP she's wanting to use it in a wedding reception where theres going to be fast dancing and you're going to want quick candids. Add in low light and shallow depth of field and slow focus with all the action of the reception and dancing, well it's going to be tuff to get all your shots. It's just not a forgiving lens. 

That being said it is a amazing lens. When you get a tac sharp image the bokeh is beautiful.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Dec 16, 2014)

Is the 85L incredible? Yes, and it is what I would recommend, hands down. We use it for every portrait event, BUT not every wedding, it is just... too... slow...

That being said; I did use it for the bride walking down as well as various dancing shots at a wedding we had this July. http://photosbytabor.smugmug.com/Tulsa-Wedding-Photography/Lisa-Isaiah/i-R6GPLb2/A
Since I had displaced a rib just a few days before, I updated their wedding to a 3 photographer event, (myself essentially being the third photographer). I figured, what the heck, I'll see how the 85L will handle action. I was wonderfully surprised actually. One of the many things that helped me during their wedding was a great deal of ambient light, wonderful shadows, and I would prefocus my shots just before I would focus/shoot, (basically I would focus quickly, twice, and then fire). This helped save my keep rate, but it is not something I would recommend everyone try, especially at a wedding.

For stills/portraits, it's incredible in essentially every aspect. For weddings, there are so many better options, most notably the 70-200 f/2.8L ii. Though not as wide, amazing, amazing, wedding lens. We used all of our lenses during that wedding, (apart from the 17-40 so look around the gallery (or galleries if you keep going), and use the info button in the bottom right to see if the shots you like were taken with the 85L.

As always, you could rent the thing, but yes it is well worth the money, just maybe not as a dependable, moving target at a wedding, lens.

Cheers!
-Tabor


----------



## chromophore (Dec 16, 2014)

The camera body on which you intend to use the lens is an important factor in your decision.

I have owned the 85/1.8 and currently own the 85/1.2L II. I shoot on a 5D2 presently.

Let's break this down step by step:

1. At the same f-numbers, the 85/1.8 and 85/1.2L II will produce substantially similar images, provided that the copy of the 85/1.8 that you get is a good one. You will have a tough time picking apart the two results, and any minor differences in color rendition are too small to be of concern after a typical post-processing workflow.

2. The 85/1.2L II is very tempting to use wide open all the time. Ever since i got it, I estimate about 99% of my shots with this lens have been between f/1.2 - f/2, and 50% are shot at f/1.2. It is nice to have but...

3. At f/1.2, critical focus is extremely challenging on a dynamic scene. This is where the camera body comes into play: if you have a 1DX, 5D3, or similar AF system with responsive and precise focusing, then your accuracy will be better than with an antiquated AF system as found in the 5D2. You'll also have slightly faster AF drive with a 1-series body. Remember how I said 50% of my shots are at f/1.2? The vast majority of those shots were taken while the subject was stationary. I wouldn't dream of trying to nail a critical shot of a moving subject with this lens unless they were moving parallel to the image plane, or they were reasonably far away that the DOF is not quite so thin.

4. The 85L is a low-light portraiture lens. It's a specialist design, slow to focus, difficult to achieve focus accuracy, and extremely heavy. It's also awkward to switch out due to its fat, round shape and exposed rear element. It also lacks any weather sealing (although the 85/1.8 lacks it too). You can mitigate this somewhat by using the lens hood, but the hood itself is even fatter and awkward than the lens, and I always find it difficult to fit it in my camera bag.

The bottom line is that the 85L, if used for wedding photography, is for a very *specific* use case, such as e-sessions, or shots where the subject is very still, the lighting minimal, and the use of flash prohibited. It's not for capturing quick action, even if you have a good AF system (which only increases the keeper rate somewhat). Yes, there are photographers who show off their 85L ninja skills and show shots of dragonflies landing on a speeding motorcycle in a hailstorm and the veins on the wings are crystal clear at f/1.2, but let's face it: your goal is not to impress other photographers with your one-in-a-hundred keeper, but to get the shot when it counts, and to capture the best source material you can for your client.

So, unlike many, I won't steer you toward any specific recommendation. I'm not saying don't get the 85L. I am simply telling you what to expect when you use it, and how I personally think it would fit into your photographic needs. The best thing to do is to rent one and see how well it works for you in a somewhat lower-stakes situation before committing to it. The 85/1.8 is a snappy lens but at a full stop slower and lacking IS, it too has its limitations.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 16, 2014)

chromophore said:


> The camera body on which you intend to use the lens is an important factor in your decision.
> 
> I have owned the 85/1.8 and currently own the 85/1.2L II. I shoot on a 5D2 presently.
> 
> ...



+1 good advice


----------



## Besisika (Dec 16, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> Excellent all-around responses! Thanks all! It looks like one of my main concerns wasn't made clear the first time, so allow me to add this wrinkle to my question: is the focus fast enough at for me to shoot reliably at f1.2 during a wedding event? Not at the altar where everybody is basically stationary, but when the bride is coming down the aisle or when she's tossing the bouquet or everyone is dancing at the reception... you know the drill. I'm all for big aperture and sweet bokeh, but is my subject going to be in focus? An all-bokeh pic of the bride's face (exaggerated) isn't going to sell money.
> 
> Thanks again!


Now that you are asking a specific precise question, the answer is no.
I used it on two weddings and keeper was around 50% during the walking down the aisle and bouquet tossing.
For these two specific moments you better go with the 70-200 2.8. No joking during these two moments. Please don't take your chances during wedding. It is a one in a lifetime moment.


----------



## zlatko (Dec 16, 2014)

chromophore said:


> I wouldn't dream of trying to nail a critical shot of a moving subject with this lens unless they were moving parallel to the image plane, or they were reasonably far away that the DOF is not quite so thin.



I agree. Depth of field is so shallow that it's not going to work well, i.e., not reliably. For walking down the aisle, bouquet toss, people dancing, etc. ... you'll get some shots but you'll also get a lot of misses (assuming 1.2 aperture is used).


----------



## zlatko (Dec 16, 2014)

awinphoto said:


> dash2k8 said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent all-around responses! Thanks all! It looks like one of my main concerns wasn't made clear the first time, so allow me to add this wrinkle to my question: is the focus fast enough at for me to shoot reliably at f1.2 during a wedding event? Not at the altar where everybody is basically stationary, but when the bride is coming down the aisle or when she's tossing the bouquet or everyone is dancing at the reception... you know the drill. I'm all for big aperture and sweet bokeh, but is my subject going to be in focus? An all-bokeh pic of the bride's face (exaggerated) isn't going to sell money.
> ...



I love good bokeh, but sometimes it's too much of a good thing. With an 85mm, f/2.8 and f/4 can look great too.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 16, 2014)

Very hard to add to the excellent, thorough advice here, but I can share my experience.

First, the CA on the 1.2 has never reared its head in any significant way even when I'm shooting wide open, but it is clearly there on the 1.8 in many situations. Easily correctable with LR5.

Second, I still own both lenses, 1.2 and 1.8. My 1.2 is clearly superior in sharpness, creaminess, color, and contrast all the way to 2.8, at which point even pixel peeping, they are equal in sharpness. I still see a better "glowy" or luminous feel to images shot with the 1.2 in window light or outdoors with reflectors all the way to f/5.6.

Third, my AF, though slow, is amazingly accurate on the 1.2, even at MFD.

I use mine only for portraits. But I've assisted an excellent wedding/portrait/commercial photographer who brings it on all her shoots and uses it for spontaneous, quickly posed portraits and for detail shots. I don't believe she uses it during any kind of action because her go to lenses for that are the 24-70 2.8 II and the 70-200 2.8 II.

My 1.8 I gathering dust, though if I ever get back to some street photography, I'll put it on my 60D. It is lightning fast, reliable, and very light.

If money is no object and you can get the wisely recommended 70-200, you'd be leaving too much good IQ and creative possibilities on the table by going with the 1.8.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 16, 2014)

I owned both... 

When I got my 70-200, I sold my 100L. I replaced it with an 85 f 1.8. And I really liked the lens

I didn't like the minimum focusing distance of 3 ft... Do I eventually wound up selling the f1.8 and buying the 100 L again. Then I got the 85L mkii and right now it is my favorite lens for all things. 3 ft mfd, don't care. It is such a beautiful lens that I'm perfectly content working around its flaws... And when I miss the focus while shooting at f1.2, I accept the blame... 

Both have chromatic aberrations-_-but they are readily enough resolved in post.

Smooth beautiful bokeh... It is really worth it. To me at least.


----------



## DRR (Dec 16, 2014)

I had both, only the 85L II right now.

If money is not an issue buy both. Seriously. These lenses are often compared because they're the same focal length but beyond that they handle very, very differently.

If you're shooting above f/1.8 there is almost no reason to get the 85L. Only get the 85L if you need f/1.2 to f/1.8. Of course you can't get this range in the other lens so there is no comparison at these apertures.

To answer another question, it does not focus fast enough to shoot motion at f/1.2. This is not an indictment of the lens, but rather the DOF is going to be so thin that subject will have moved by the time you shoot. The closer you get, the worse the effect. If you're shooting a more environmental portrait and have a subject distance far enough to have a deeper DOF then yes, it might work. But in this situation a 70-200 IS is going to be a much more versatile lens.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 17, 2014)

I'm pretty pleased with this one from today... f/1.2, with 2nd curtain flash bounced from a corner of the room, 1/80 of a second... I'm pleased on the whole.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 17, 2014)

DRR said:


> I had both, only the 85L II right now.
> 
> If money is not an issue buy both. Seriously. These lenses are often compared because they're the same focal length but beyond that they handle very, very differently.
> 
> ...



+1 really good point of money isn't a issue like you said go with both! They really are to completey different lenses


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 17, 2014)

Ryan85 said:


> DRR said:
> 
> 
> > I had both, only the 85L II right now.
> ...



If we can play with all the money we want... I say 85L mkii + 135L (rather than the 85mm usm). Honestly... it is only $600ish more... and every penny of that is worth it...


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 17, 2014)

Again, thx for all your enthusiastic and valuable opinions/suggestions. I've bought a 85/1.8 and am having a good time with it. I might look at the Sigma 85/1.4 Art when that comes out for a "potential" upgrade, given that I have had an excellent experience with other Sigma Art lenses. Cheers all!


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 17, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> Again, thx for all your enthusiastic and valuable opinions/suggestions. I've bought a 85/1.8 and am having a good time with it. I might look at the Sigma 85/1.4 Art when that comes out for a "potential" upgrade, given that I have had an excellent experience with other Sigma Art lenses. Cheers all!



Good for you. I hope you enjoy it and it works for you


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 17, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I'm pretty pleased with this one from today... f/1.2, with 2nd curtain flash bounced from a corner of the room, 1/80 of a second... I'm pleased on the whole.



85L II is one of few best lenses to take kid portrait.

I viewed your photo on my calibrated monitor(under Gammar2.2) the skin tone is little red - this tell me, your photo might come out red in printing. If you exported for internet(sRGB) viewing, then ignore my comment


----------



## gigabellone (Dec 17, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> Again, thx for all your enthusiastic and valuable opinions/suggestions. I've bought a 85/1.8 and am having a good time with it. I might look at the Sigma 85/1.4 Art when that comes out for a "potential" upgrade, given that I have had an excellent experience with other Sigma Art lenses. Cheers all!



I think you made the right choice. The 85/1.2 is a marvelous lens, but it's heavy and quite slow to focus. The razor-thin DoF could also be a problem if it's used on a camera with a simple AF system. While not as brilliant as its L grade counterpart, the 85/1.8 is a really solid performer in all regards, and it's also light and cheap. I made the same choice a year ago, and i don't regret it.


----------



## clartephoto (Dec 17, 2014)

The 85 f/1.8 is not even close to the 85L

Try these on a 85 f/1.8 :


----------



## Click (Dec 17, 2014)

clartephoto said:


> The 85 f/1.8 is not even close to the 85L
> 
> Try these on a 85 f/1.8 :



Lovely shots. I really like the first picture.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 17, 2014)

Those are very nice shots. Nobody is saying that the 85L isn't a great lens it is. But for action shots it's focuses to slow and shooting it wide open theres a low keeper rate. They are to completey different lenses.


----------



## Besisika (Dec 17, 2014)

clartephoto said:


> The 85 f/1.8 is not even close to the 85L
> 
> Try these on a 85 f/1.8 :


These are nice! Well done!


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 17, 2014)

Ryan85 said:


> Those are very nice shots. Nobody is saying that the 85L isn't a great lens it is. But for action shots it's focuses to slow and shooting it wide open theres a low keeper rate. They are to completey different lenses.



I agree with everything you said... but when you hit that thin sliver of depth of field just right... wow!


----------



## martti (Dec 17, 2014)

The 'glass pomelo' 85mm f/1.2 takes a lot of room in your bag, it weighs a lot and it focuses slow.
Nothing else gives you the pictures you can take with it full open. You might not need it but I do.


----------



## Luds34 (Dec 18, 2014)

I know I'm a little late to the party, and there has been a lot of intelligent advice already given, but I can't help but toss in an opinion of the 85 f/1.8.

So I realize the design of this lens is all the way back from 93'. For example I have a buddy who owns the new 35mm f/2.0 IS and is waiting for that update to occur on the 85 before he jumps in. However, it's an oldy but goody in my opinion. I believe (at the time this was cutting edge) it had some computer aided design to help with the bokeh, has circular aperture blades, etc.

The short is this, for the price, it's not even worth discussing, debating, renting, etc. It is so attainable, just buy it, use it. And one can always upgrade to the 85mm f/1.2L down the road.

The longer answer is this. Yes, unlike all of Canon's new lenses, the CA on this shot wide open can be really bad. A couple years ago I did a "photobar" session with a photography buddy. Really was an excuse to drink beer and get together. However, as part of that day, I did a "get to know my lens" and shot the 85mm exclusively, and exclusively wide open. This forced me to take photos I would never have done, including buildings, fire escapes, etc, shot at a distance, wide open, against the sky. The purple fringing it terrible. With that said, I don't think it's a big deal to me, or to most people. Because the idea of a fast prime in the 85mm range is typically used to shoot people. The CA just isn't an issue in typical shooting, it won't show up...

...especially stop down just a tiny bit. I'm sure it varies from copy to copy of course. But for me, I almost exclusively shoot this lens at f/2.0. I dunno what the deal is, but my photos just "pop" that much more stopped down that tiny bit. The combo of sharper, more contrasty, more micro-constrast, less CA, etc. etc. just this lens shines at f/2.0.

The focus speed is awesome. It focuses as fast (and most importantly locks on) as well as any lens I've used.

Some of my favorite shots have come from this lens. Here's one I like.



20140615-IMG_2894-70D by Luds34, on Flickr


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 18, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Ryan85 said:
> 
> 
> > Those are very nice shots. Nobody is saying that the 85L isn't a great lens it is. But for action shots it's focuses to slow and shooting it wide open theres a low keeper rate. They are to completey different lenses.
> ...



+1 your absolutely right. When you get everything just right with that lens it is amazing. It really does have a wow factor


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 18, 2014)

Luds34 said:


> I know I'm a little late to the party, and there has been a lot of intelligent advice already given, but I can't help but toss in an opinion of the 85 f/1.8.
> 
> So I realize the design of this lens is all the way back from 93'. For example I have a buddy who owns the new 35mm f/2.0 IS and is waiting for that update to occur on the 85 before he jumps in. However, it's an oldy but goody in my opinion. I believe (at the time this was cutting edge) it had some computer aided design to help with the bokeh, has circular aperture blades, etc.
> 
> ...



+1 and very nice shot


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 18, 2014)

Might a 1DX/7D2 provide powerful enough focus for the 85/1.2II to be fast enough? Anybody have any experience in this?


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 18, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> Might a 1DX/7D2 provide powerful enough focus for the 85/1.2II to be fast enough? Anybody have any experience in this?



They might help a little. But not really much. It's just how the lenses were designed.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 18, 2014)

Ryan85 said:


> dash2k8 said:
> 
> 
> > Might a 1DX/7D2 provide powerful enough focus for the 85/1.2II to be fast enough? Anybody have any experience in this?
> ...


AF is faster on the 1DX, compared to the 5DIII, but it is still no race car. But my experience is that for regular use, where your focus only need to change a minor distance, it is fast enough. The challenge, when things start to move, is not focus speed, but to determine where you want that millimetre thin DOF. If this is a lens you pick up every now and then, it will probably not give you much. But if you practice and use it extensively, it delivers images you can´t get from any other AF lens (The Otus is in a league of its own, but requires even more practicing and dedication due to its manual focus).

A lot of people bash the AF speed of this lens (and I suspect many of them have never truly used the lens). But I think we should appreciate the challenge of making an AF system accurate enough for this lens at f1.2. As a comparison, the focus ring on the Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 travels about 220-230 degrees. How slow would that have been as an AF lens?


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 18, 2014)

A lot of people bash the AF speed of this lens (and I suspect many of them have never truly used the lens). But I think we should appreciate the challenge of making an AF system accurate enough for this lens at f1.2. As a comparison, the focus ring on the Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 travels about 220-230 degrees. How slow would that have been as an AF lens?
[/quote]

I don't think anyone is bashing AF speed of this lens. All were saying as compared to the 1.8 it's slow. The 1.8 AF is very fast. The 1.2 is an Absoluty amazing lens. Like you said it takes lots of practice to master this lens. With its razor thin depth of field wide open and slow AF speed compared to other lenses like the 1.8 version it's not a ideal lens to me for shooting fast action at a wedding. The fast dances and stuff like that IMHO which is what the op was asking. Now if you're good with that lens you can get some of those shots but shooting wide open your going to have a low keeper rate compared to lenses like the 70-200 2.8 IS 2


----------



## DARSON (Dec 18, 2014)

clartephoto said:


> The 85 f/1.8 is not even close to the 85L
> 
> Try these on a 85 f/1.8 :



Clartephoto these are really nice
Unique look and that blur.... Simply amazing
Now I really want one 



dash2k8 said:


> Hi all, I'm here again with a buy question: lots of online reviews state that the 85mm f1.8 is nearly identical to the f1.2 II in terms of image quality when stopped down to f2. It even focuses faster than the L version. All that the f1.2 version has going for it seems to be that it is very sharp wide open, and has slightly better sharpness and contract than the f1.8 version. Again, money is not an issue here. Is the f1.2 II worth my money with nearly identical visuals and even slower focus, to be offset with f1.2 for low light conditions? Let me know your real-world thoughts! Thanks!



dash2k8 you should get 1.2L version You said money is not an issue.
Don't want to spend money , rent 1.2L before you purchase to make your decision more firm


----------



## Eldar (Dec 18, 2014)

Ryan85 said:


> Now if you're good with that lens you can get some of those shots but shooting wide open your going to have a low keeper rate compared to lenses like the 70-200 2.8 IS 2


At least lower. But if you shoot the 85/1.2L II at f2.8 or higher, which would be a more fair comparison, your keeper rate goes up. It will not reach the 70-200 f2.8L IS II, but it will be a lot better than at f1.2.

By the way, the AF speed bashing has not been bad in this thread. I have a feeling more of the enthusiasts have posted here. But you´ll find numerous other threads, where (in my view) too many are throwing unfounded/incompetent/... (you choose) venom and bile at its AF system. The one thing I don´t like about it though is its focus by wire electronic manual focus. I never got the hang of that.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 18, 2014)

The focus by wire makes it an oddball, for sure. Remembering to put it into manual, retract the barrel, turn off the camera, then flick back the AF switch to on before putting the lens away took a while to become automatic!


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 18, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> The focus by wire makes it an oddball, for sure. Remembering to put it into manual, retract the barrel, turn off the camera, then flick back the AF switch to on before putting the lens away took a while to become automatic!



It is a little different


----------

