# Which Canon 85mm Lens is for You?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 19, 2018)

```
<iframe width="728" height="409" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/e_ZqsMK-hD8" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe><p>Which Canon 85mm lens is for you?</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCknMR7NOY6ZKcVbyzOxQPhw">Kai W</a> breaks down the trio of current 85mm offerings from Canon, the classic <a href="https://bhpho.to/2EQYVH7">EF 85mm f/1.2L II</a>, the brand new <a href="https://bhpho.to/2wsZaDB">EF 85mm f/1.4L IS</a> and the bargain <a href="https://bhpho.to/2sGRBJs">EF 85mm f/1.8</a>.</p>
<p>If we had to choose only one? I think it would be the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS, though I wouldn’t have any problems owning it alongside the other two 85mm options, because they can all fit different shooting situation.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## danfaz (Feb 19, 2018)

I've owned all three, and the new 1.4 is my favorite. Not quite the same bokeh as the 1.2, but you still get 3D effect, and its speed, IS, and weather-sealing is just no contest. Way more versatile.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Feb 19, 2018)

I've also had all three (still have 1.4 and 1.8). I'd add my 2p to danfaz view and agree the 1.4 is the one to choose. 

I think the 1.8 has it's place as a great economy lens, and the 1.2 I loved for studio work, and would still have if it hadn't broken irreparably after a drop!

Stoical.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Feb 19, 2018)

Sold my 1.2II, waiting for the 1.4IS 8)


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 19, 2018)

easy! choose age-old Canon EF 85/1.8 for strong bokeh fringing all the way from f/1.8 to f/4.0 ... otherwise go with Tamron 85/1.8 VC for excellent IQ, IS, compact size and reasonable price. 

or forget mirrorslapper lenses altogether and get an EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM ... excellent IQ, IS, super compact size, very affordable price ... ooops, not available yet. ;D


----------



## aceflibble (Feb 19, 2018)

I'm on the Tamron 85 for now. Not terribly happy with it, but still preferable to any of the Canon ones. I've had the 1.8 and 1.2 several times before and was never happy with either of them. The 1.2's focusing is trash and the 1.8 is just a downgraded 100mm f/2. The 1.4 interested me at first, but after giving it a test, it became apparent very quickly that—at least the two copies which were made available to me—it's got an inconsistent rendering across the frame, with the center nice enough but the outer third having noticeably much less contrast. The colour rendering was also a touch cooler than the standard for Canon, which cause an inconsistency within a shoot. So I've ended up with the Tamron, which while having the lowest transmission and not terribly great focusing, is at least better both for manual and auto focus than the 1.2 and has mire consistent rendering and neutral colour than the Canon 1.4.

In truth, the very best 85 for me is actually the Nikon 105mm f/1.4. I sorely wish Canon would make a 100mm f/1.4L (and a 28mm f/1.4L, which they already filed the patent for; another lens Nikon has but Canon lacks) or I could adapt that Nikon to a Canon body with full functionality. (Or it'd be nice if Nikon bodies weren't so horribly cramped to hold; either way around works for me.) But since that's not on the cards, I'll keep slumming it with an 85 for now.


----------



## peterzuehlke (Feb 19, 2018)

Tamron 85mm 1.8 (i need IS or VC or whatever) for performance shooting and did want to pay twice as much for the Canon and from what i have seen, maybe not get as good bokeh. The Canon shots i have seen, from the 1.4 IS seems to have more astigmatism.


----------



## stevelee (Feb 19, 2018)

I had assumed that I would some day buy one of these now that I have a FF camera. I had been using the 50mm f/1.4 on my Rebel for that approximate crop range and DOF. I really liked the 85mm f/1.8 (I think it was) on my FT-QL, and my trinity in those days when zooms were not very good consisted of the 28, 85, and 200mm lenses when I was away from the rest of the arsenal.

Last week I was out taking shots of tiny crocuses with my 100mm non-L macro, when I got to talking with my neighbor who was washing her car, and the subject naturally turned to photography (which she had taken a course in at college). I told her the lens was good as a small telephoto as well as a macro, and said that it should be good for portraits. So she posed for me to take a head and shoulders shot, everything just set on auto. The results were good enough that the 100mm is now my portrait lens for the foreseeable future, and my GAS will be directed to focal lengths other than 85mm.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 19, 2018)

peterzuehlke said:


> Tamron 85mm 1.8 (i need IS or VC or whatever) for performance shooting and did want to pay twice as much for the Canon and from what i have seen, maybe not get as good bokeh. The Canon shots i have seen, from the 1.4 IS seems to have more astigmatism.



I love that lens. I took it to Rwanda and shot gorillas with it, it never let me down. I recommend it to everyone who will listen.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 19, 2018)

I think the biggest problem with keeping the 1.2 after buying the 1.4 is the risk of very high repair costs for the 1.2. Having that slight little difference in creaminess is not worth exposing myself to a bill of 800 or $1,000 or $1,200 for a lens that will be used so rarely now that I have the 1.4.


----------



## mjg79 (Feb 20, 2018)

An interesting video. I was surprised to see how much better the bokeh looked from the 1.2 though - I wonder how scientific the test was, perhaps he focused half an inch closer with it?

Almost every review/comparison I've seen has said the 1.2 remains the best rendering in terms of bokeh but that the 1.4 is so close as to be almost irrelevant. Yet in Kai's comparison the 1.2 looks miles better.

Here's an alternative take I found:

https://neilvn.com/tangents/bokeh-canon-ef-85mm-f14l-is-lens/

From this comparison again I would agree the 1.2 is the nicest rendering and has the nicest bokeh, partly due to the fall off in focus, partly due to the lower contrast and partly due to the softer bokeh balls. But there you can see the 1.4 IS is very close, at times hard to distinguish. Indeed Canon appears to have made a conscious decision not to chase Sigma and Zeiss on sharpness (Dustin Abbott found the Canon softer than the Sigma 85Art and Zeiss 85) but to try to achieve a best of both, being sharper than the 1.2 while keeping most of the rendering and avoiding the harsh Sigma bokeh.

Has anyone found any more direct and scientific comparisons? Or anyone lucky enough to own both keen to do some comparison shots? I have an 85 1.2 II and I use it almost exclusively for portraits so the IS and faster auto-focus isn't a huge deal to me but would be nice to have as long as I don't have to give up *all* of the magic the 1.2 II gives. I can't make up my mind whether to move to the 1.4.

If nothing else I feel videos like this show just what an amazing piece of engineering the 85/1.2 is. If I have been informed correctly it dates back in fundamental design to the FD mount 85/1.2. It's astonishing really that it still hangs with the latest lenses, indeed if one isn't looking at 100% it is perhaps still the best 85 there is for portraits. Astonishing for a decades old design.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 20, 2018)

To be honest, Kai's reviews are fun (Top Gear style), I like them, but they have very little useful information.  Not that there is no information at all, but not too much. First part of this review, for example (and in the previous ones as far as I can remember) he's comparing lenses by shots taken from different locations/angles.

Sharpness comparison is somewhat useful but isn't much detailed (you wanna see what happens in the centre vs corners), also vignetting and CA.
Bokeh comparison should've been done with different backgrounds, bokeh isn't only about highlights.

I'm looking at getting 85 f1/4L but haven't decided yet, my 70-200 f2/8L IS II works fine for portraits, although it's very heavy.


----------



## michi (Feb 20, 2018)

I have had a EF 85 1.8 since the 90's paired with a Canon A2e back then. I never used it too much because results were always hit and miss, going from Digital Rebel to 7D and 5D II. AF wasn't reliable until I got a 5D IV which finally seemed to get about 85% of the shots in focus.

Finally shelled out the big bucks and got the 85 1.4. AF is always spot on. Images compared to the 1.8 pop and look amazing even wide open. The only thing I don't like is the really terrible purple and green fringing. When, for example, hair is lit by the sun from behind, it's a green and purple mess which even DPP can't fix. Not impressed at all with this. All in all, I do like the lens, but I don't think it's worth the current $1,600.


----------



## slclick (Feb 20, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> peterzuehlke said:
> 
> 
> > Tamron 85mm 1.8 (i need IS or VC or whatever) for performance shooting and did want to pay twice as much for the Canon and from what i have seen, maybe not get as good bokeh. The Canon shots i have seen, from the 1.4 IS seems to have more astigmatism.
> ...



Tha Tammy?


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 20, 2018)

mjg79 said:


> Has anyone found any more direct and scientific comparisons? Or anyone lucky enough to own both keen to do some comparison shots? I have an 85 1.2 II and I use it almost exclusively for portraits so the IS and faster auto-focus isn't a huge deal to me but would be nice to have as long as I don't have to give up *all* of the magic the 1.2 II gives. I can't make up my mind whether to move to the 1.4.



For me, being able to lower my ISO and still get sharp shots at lower shutter speeds (because of IS and quicker AF) more than makes up for difficult to perceive lost "magic." 

You make a good point about the 1.2 holding up for so many years, but another point: Canon has made an excellent follow-up with IS, quick AF, and better ergonomics for about 25% less sticker price.

I am not seeing any serious purple/green fringing--though it is there at f/1.4. And it cleans up completely in LR Classic CC. (At least "completely" enough for even very picky real-world use. In other words, it is an insignificant negative factor.)

An earlier post referred to "bragging rights" with 1/3 stop larger aperture. That gave me a chuckle as I tried to imagine a bride, a business person, an athlete, or a family member bragging to a friend, "Well, your portraits are fine, but MINE were taken with a lens that could go to 1.2. Of course the photographer used f/2 to get enough of my features in focus, but, WOW, that lens COULD have gone to 1.2."

Or how about a photographer, just as a session begins, bragging, "By the way, you are about to be photographed with a lens that can do f/1.2! Do you know how AWESOME that is?"

Yes, I had some brief moments of sentiment. I bought the 1.4, used it for a few days heavily, compared images taken with the 1.2, and knew right away there was no point keeping both. I really was fond of the 1.2, but I had an excellent copy in perfect working order that would get a good amount for resale. In time, not only would resale value go down, but a repair would really be frustrating to deal with, as I'd either have to sell very cheap or pay hundreds of dollars to get it working again. Now I'm stoked to have a very fast 85mm with quick AF and IS that works great for either sitting subjects or environmental portraits with some movement on location. Not to mention low-light events.


----------



## mrgazpacho (Feb 20, 2018)

stevelee said:


> I had assumed that I would some day buy one of these now that I have a FF camera.
> ...
> The results were good enough that the 100mm is now my portrait lens for the foreseeable future



Hmmm... thanks for the interesting perspective! 

I have the 100 f2.8 IS Macro L ... might give it a trial for a couple of portraits to see how it works for me


----------



## mjg79 (Feb 20, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> For me, being able to lower my ISO and still get sharp shots at lower shutter speeds (because of IS and quicker AF) more than makes up for difficult to perceive lost "magic."
> 
> You make a good point about the 1.2 holding up for so many years, but another point: Canon has made an excellent follow-up with IS, quick AF, and better ergonomics for about 25% less sticker price.
> 
> ...



That sounds a sensible approach. I'm sure you're right than on balanced the new 85 IS is a more practical lens. 

I have a set up that I suspect is a fairly common combination - I have the 70-200 for when I must get the shot and the 85/1.2 for when I have time and want to create something special.

I think for a travel lens and for working photographers everything you say would apply 100% - I really struggle to imagine many in either group wanting to buy the 1.2 now. But for those of us who have it as a guilty pleasure and for whom practicality isn't the biggest issue then it becomes a tricky choice. 

I think I'll wait and see if the price drops a bit for the new lens but it must be nice to have an 85 that tracks fast movement!


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Feb 20, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> mjg79 said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone found any more direct and scientific comparisons? Or anyone lucky enough to own both keen to do some comparison shots? I have an 85 1.2 II and I use it almost exclusively for portraits so the IS and faster auto-focus isn't a huge deal to me but would be nice to have as long as I don't have to give up *all* of the magic the 1.2 II gives. I can't make up my mind whether to move to the 1.4.
> ...


Thank you for your considered and well reasoned summary. You have confirmed what I think I already knew - that I better trade my F1.2L ii in for a F1.4L before it is too late and before there are so many second hand F1.2s around that its trade in value drops through the floor. However, it is difficult to part with a lens that has served me well for many years and which has produced some breathtaking shots on so many occasions.

With the remark about bragging rights - I was really referring to other photographers not models or family members. Apparently some camera manufacturers don't have an 85mm F1.2 lens available at all, and it is always fun being able to claim that the extra 1/3 stop has made all the difference, allowing me to take a shot in almost complete darkness. Actually most of my family already think I am stark raving bonkers and can't understand why I haven't replaced my camera with a mobile phone yet.


----------



## Larsskv (Feb 20, 2018)

mjg79 said:


> Has anyone found any more direct and scientific comparisons? Or anyone lucky enough to own both keen to do some comparison shots? I have an 85 1.2 II and I use it almost exclusively for portraits so the IS and faster auto-focus isn't a huge deal to me but would be nice to have as long as I don't have to give up *all* of the magic the 1.2 II gives. I can't make up my mind whether to move to the 1.4.



I have made this comment in another thread, but I would like to add it here as well. 

As some of you might remember, I love my 85LII. However, GAS took the better of me, and I added the 85L f1.4 IS to my kit about 7 weeks ago. The new lens is really, really good. The AF is much faster than the 85LII and very precise, better than my 35LII. The IS makes a significant difference. It is also sharper wide open, and light transmission seems very good. Vignetting is comparably good as well. Minimum focusing distance is also significantly closer than the 85LII. All summarized, the 85L f1.4 is better than the 85LII at “all” factors that can be measured in an objective way.

All this said, I still think the pictures I get from the 85LII is more desirable, in terms of background separation and that 3D-effect that makes subjects appear more life like. The 85L f1.4 takes very nice pictures, but they don’t have the same degree of wow factor that makes me fall in love with many of the 85LII pictures. My wife seems to agree. I should add that my primary use for the 85LII is portraits, and usually within the range of minimum focusing distance and up to two meters. My favorite aperture with this lens is f2.

Please note that I haven’t done any scientific comparison yet, and I am aware that my opionion is subjective.

Anyway, I do belive that I will keep both lenses. If I were to choose only one, it would be the 85LII, but that is because I use the 85mm focal length mainly for portraits, within 3 meters. For everything else, I think the new 85L f1.4 is the better choice.


----------



## JoFT (Feb 21, 2018)

for me 85mm is one of my favorite focal length.... And I do have a couple of them.

Zeiss Planar f14.
Sigma f1.4 (non Art)
Zeiss Milvus f1.4
And I tested another couple like

Tamron 85mm f1.8
My favorite is the new EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM! It is the most versatile one. The killer argument against all 3rd party is AF confidence. This is where then Canon shines!!!


In terms of IQ: Yes the Canon is an excellent peace of glass - even if pixel peeping shows some advantages here and there in favor of other lenses - but these are no killer points - like AF confidence....


----------



## aceflibble (Feb 21, 2018)

Ian_of_glos said:


> With the remark about bragging rights - I was really referring to other photographers not models or family members. Apparently some camera manufacturers don't have an 85mm F1.2 lens available at all, and it is always fun being able to claim that the extra 1/3 stop has made all the difference, allowing me to take a shot in almost complete darkness.


The Canon 85mm f/1.2L II is t/1.5-1.6 (copy variation), while, for example, the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is t/1.6-1.7, and the Canon 85mm f/1.4 IS appears to be about t/1.6 as well. (Further testing of the Canon 1.4 is required on my end, and I'd like someone else to test it too, for confirmation.) The Tamron 85mm is obviously slower since it's f/1.8, but as it's only t/1.9, it's actually the most accurate transmission of the bunch.

On top of that there are diminishing returns with digital sensors' light gathering beyond f/1.6, so even if you had a perfectly t/1.2 vs t/1.4 comparison, the t/1.2 lens still wouldn't be a full third stop brighter, but more like a fifth of a stop brighter, or a quarter for some extra-sensitive sensors.

So... yeah. That f/1.2 isn't really getting you a third of a stop more exposure. Compared to the f/1.4 options around, a quarter of a stop is the most you can expect to gain, and in many cases you'll be getting less. In fact it's very possible that, thanks to copy variation, a dodgy Canon f/1.2 delivers less light to the sensor than a good copy of any of the f/1.4 lenses.

As long as you get the frame you want, it's all fine. Just, yeah, those "bragging rights" really only fly with other photographers who are very specifically big enough gear-nuts to care about what lens you have but _not_ big enough gear-nuts to know how these things actually work. (Which, actually, does appear to be 90% of commenters on these kinds of rumour & news sites, so....)


----------



## slclick (Feb 21, 2018)

Once again, I'm in the market for an 85. I guess my search is not unlike ahsanford's quest. Perhaps the best analogy of what I want is the Tamron but made by Canon. I'm 99% sure I'm done with 3rd party glass although the Tammy 70-210 tomorrow has me interested. I've owned two copies of the Canon 1.8 and won't go back so that leaves me being patient...like my wait for the 135L incarnation which is always coming in whichever year you've been living.


----------



## JoFT (Feb 22, 2018)

slclick said:


> Once again, I'm in the market for an 85. I guess my search is not unlike ahsanford's quest. Perhaps the best analogy of what I want is the Tamron but made by Canon. I'm 99% sure I'm done with 3rd party glass although the Tammy 70-210 tomorrow has me interested. I've owned two copies of the Canon 1.8 and won't go back so that leaves me being patient...like my wait for the 135L incarnation which is always coming in whichever year you've been living.




Don't wait, take the 1.4L... It is an awesome lens.... http://bit.ly/2zKesGi
I do love mine....


----------



## slclick (Feb 22, 2018)

JoFT said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, I'm in the market for an 85. I guess my search is not unlike ahsanford's quest. Perhaps the best analogy of what I want is the Tamron but made by Canon. I'm 99% sure I'm done with 3rd party glass although the Tammy 70-210 tomorrow has me interested. I've owned two copies of the Canon 1.8 and won't go back so that leaves me being patient...like my wait for the 135L incarnation which is always coming in whichever year you've been living.
> ...



Would be nice however that is my budget for 2 lenses.


----------



## aceflibble (Feb 24, 2018)

slclick said:


> Once again, I'm in the market for an 85. I guess my search is not unlike ahsanford's quest. Perhaps the best analogy of what I want is the Tamron but made by Canon.


The Tamron is basically the best all-rounder 85 on the market right now. Third party be damned, it's built better than most Canon mid-range and the lower-L lenses, the manual focus is better than any other 85 on the market, autofocus is not particularly worse than any other 85 (it's a huge improvement over the Canon 1.2's and the Sigma's AF) and the VC works extremely well.

The most important thing for me, as I've gone through every 85-100mm option for Canon, is the Tamron has the most _consistent_ rendering. There are lots of 85s which are super sharp in the centre but much weaker toward the edges, or really contrasty when the light's behind you but they go flat when you shoot into the light, etc. The Tamron gives you really predictable, totally even quality in all conditions and across the whole frame. That may not be _exciting_, but for me as a working pro who needs repeatable, reliable results, it's proven to be the best of the current options. The fact it's also one of the cheaper options is just a nice bonus.

Forget whatever you think about third party lenses, the Tamron primes are absolutely as-good-if-not-better-than their Canon equivalents, except the 35mm which is 'only' dead even with the Canon. (It's AF is a _fraction_ slower and it is quarter of a stop behind in light transmission, but it's weather sealed and has a much greater magnification, so I call that a tie.)


----------



## slclick (Feb 25, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, I'm in the market for an 85. I guess my search is not unlike ahsanford's quest. Perhaps the best analogy of what I want is the Tamron but made by Canon.
> ...



I have an opportunity to pick up a Tamron at a crazy good price, if I do I'll report back.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 3, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> An earlier post referred to "bragging rights" with 1/3 stop larger aperture.



To be pedantic, the 85 1.2L II is a half stop larger aperture than the 85 1.4L, not a third of a stop  (I believe the 1.2L II only has a slight advantage in T-stop though.)

Interesting to see some very positive comments about the Tamron ... and CR guy seems to be quite a fan of it too. If I decide to change from old Sigma 84 1.4 EX at some point, I will have to give it a close look.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 3, 2018)

mjg79 said:


> https://neilvn.com/tangents/bokeh-canon-ef-85mm-f14l-is-lens/
> 
> From this comparison again I would agree the 1.2 is the nicest rendering and has the nicest bokeh, partly due to the fall off in focus, partly due to the lower contrast and partly due to the softer bokeh balls. But there you can see the 1.4 IS is very close, at times hard to distinguish. Indeed Canon appears to have made a conscious decision not to chase Sigma and Zeiss on sharpness (Dustin Abbott found the Canon softer than the Sigma 85Art and Zeiss 85) but to try to achieve a best of both, being sharper than the 1.2 while keeping most of the rendering and avoiding the harsh Sigma bokeh.



Thanks for the link! Interesting comparison, and to my eye the 1.2L has the best bokeh, followed by the Sigma Art and then the 1.4L. There isn't much between all three though.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 3, 2018)

Now if only 50mm had so many fine options!


----------



## slclick (Mar 3, 2018)

I didn't do it. The copy I had a chance with did not give me confidence like Dustin's review did. Anyone else feel as if Tamron has more copy to copy variance than the other major players?


----------



## jd7 (Mar 4, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Now if only 50mm had so many fine options!



Agreed! I like the Sigma a lot but it is pretty big and heavy for a 50mm prime. And the Canon options all have their flaws, although I'd give the 50L a go if it wasn't so expensive. Just don't want to pay that much for a 50mm prime.


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 4, 2018)

slclick said:


> I didn't do it. The copy I had a chance with did not give me confidence like Dustin's review did. Anyone else feel as if Tamron has more copy to copy variance than the other major players?



I had the Tamron 45mm f1.8. Really, really nice lens optically. However, I could not get it to focus accurately with the off center focusing points, even though the one in the middle was as reliable as any other lens I’ve had. 

I would be tempted by the Tamron 85 if it wasn’t for this experience.


----------



## ykn123 (Mar 4, 2018)

i own the 1.2II and while i think i use it not often enough, i just can't sell it because the images it gets me are special and i love them.
I think about adding the 1.4 IS for the IS and faster AF - maybe if the price has dropped a bit.
One note one the Tamron - i thought a while about adding Tamron glass and i started with the 45 1.8. It had so good reviews and looks and feels great but i have the same issues with the AF as described above. I had it on my 5DSr and 5DM4 with the best results , i purchased the tap-in console and entered the focal and field AFMA test results into the lens - still don't get images that i find overwhelming. I did some high contrast shooting (my dog on snow, fast moving, IS off) - I got a lot of CAs (purple) and had not many keepers at all. I did the test with my 135 2.0 in the same setting and the images where sharp and clear, no CAs .... so i really think about selling the Tamron 45 1.8 based on the last week testings and based on that i am less interested in the other Tamron options :-(


----------



## jaell (Mar 8, 2018)

Just got my 1.4 dropped off tonight. Wish UPS would have actually hit their delivery window so I could do a little more testing before the kids hit the sack, but tomorrow is another day.

It's heavy, but not in a ponderous way. Feels _substantial_.

Just took a few test shots. Low light AF was fast and accurate: better than I had hoped. The bokeh was very nice, made the box of tissues I was photographing look very special, rendered sharp against a pleasingly out-of-focus bookshelf behind it.

In a dark room with one desk lamp (with what amounts to a 25W incandescent bulb in it), I was shooting at ISO 200 at 1/20th at f/1.4. Not a problem with acquiring/nailing focus, and the images turned out bright and sharp.

I'm normally an outdoor/travel/landscaper who dabbles in macro. But my kids are cute enough that I want to expand to portraiture, so this is by far my most appropriate (and fastest) lens for that. I think my next purchase will be a new hard drive to store all the pictures I'm going to be taking with this lens.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 9, 2018)

That shot alone makes the lens worth buying.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 9, 2018)

stevelee said:


> That shot alone makes the lens worth buying.



Thanks!


----------



## cayenne (Mar 9, 2018)

Is there some sort of problem with the Canon 85mm f/1.2 lenses?

I've been reading this thread, and multiple people have been talking about trading theirs in before "costly" repairs are needed.

I'd not heard these lenses had any particular problems or short shelf lives.....?

Can someone fill me in on this?

I got the 85mm 1.8 as one of my first lenses, bang for the buck type thing.

But have been eyeballing a 85mm 1.2 in the relatively near future.

I was thinking of picking one up off Canon Refurbs for the 85mm 1.2, but if there's some sort of inherit problem with them, I may re-think this.

Thanks in advance!!

cayenne


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 9, 2018)

cayenne said:


> Is there some sort of problem with the Canon 85mm f/1.2 lenses?
> 
> I've been reading this thread, and multiple people have been talking about trading theirs in before "costly" repairs are needed.
> 
> ...



After deciding to keep my 1.4L IS, I made the decision to sell the 1.2L II for two reasons. Firstly, I believed that the resale value of the 1.2L II was good and might not get better. Secondly, I did not want to keep a lens that added very little in IQ or "character," yet exposed me to a fairly high _potential_ repair bill. I don't have any reason to believe the 1.2L II is more prone to problems than other L lenses, but it is unique in its implementation of AF, and its rear element is flush against the back of the assembly. And it's a whole lot of glass crammed into a tight space!

If I remember correctly, lensrentals actually posted a typical cost-of-repair in this forum, but I could not find that post to share with you. You might contact them for the information, or another member here might find the post. As a CPS member, I'm well aware of repair costs generally, but fortunately never needed to send in my 1.2L.

My decision to replace the 1.2L II with a lens that has, say, 95% of its IQ "magic" plus IS and much quicker AF doesn't need a whole lot of further explanation.


----------

