# Review - Canon 85mm f/1.8



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 30, 2013)

You can discuss our review of the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 lens here.


----------



## Rey (Dec 30, 2013)

First of all, this is an old lens, why are you bothering to review it?
Second of all, where are the charts and maths that quantifiably prove that there is more magic in the 1.2 than the 1.8? My informal testing only indicates a 20% increase in magic that hardly justifys the price increase.
Also, why do you say it pairs with the 24/2.8? Everyone knows that the Canon budget triforce is the 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8.

I like the 1.8 better than the 1.2 and the 1.2II. I've used all three over the years, and there are three things that I like about the 1.8 that you did not touch on in your review. 
I will reiterate, I am not saying the 1.8 is better, and if you are looking for raw pixel-peeping image measurbating, get the 1.2II. However, because of the type of photography I'm paid to do, the 1.8 is better for my purposes.

1. Focus handling is generally better on the 1.8. The AF snaps quicker in general, and when I'm shooting people on stage or other people in motion in dodgy light, the 1.8 yields more keepers than either 1.2. Not to mention that while Justin mentions that you could do the same with the 70-200/2.8ISII by shooting at 1/13th, the people in motion part of the equation pretty much means that doing that isn't practical. Well, not practical if you want the people to be in focus. In fact, anytime you have moving people, the 1.2 lags behind the 1.8 The 1.8 is the better choice on the sidelines of a tennis or basketball game.
And while we are talking about the focus handling, the 1.8 is worlds better when using follow focus or otherwise using manual focus. Split-prism, live-view and video shooters know what I'm talking about. If you are constantly using the AF ring(5DII shooters I'm looking at you), 1.2II is fussy and annoying, while the 1.8 just works.

2. Minimum focus distance. Let me run some numbers by you; the 1.8 has a minimum focus distance of .85m, the 1.2II has a minimum focus distance of .95m, and the 70-200/2.8ISII has a minimum focus distance of 1.2m. This doesn't mean much to most people, and again, for 98% of the shooters out there, this does not matter. However, I frequently do tight headshots. (Just above the head to just below the chin with a little bit of collar showing) So, what does this have to do with minimum focus distance? Well, first of all, because of the minimum focus distance, this is not something that you can frame up in camera with the 70-200, because it will be too close to focus. You have to step back and zoom to 135 to get the same composition in camera. So, in this instance, you can't use the 70-200 @85 for the same shot. So, why use 85mm? Because your perspective comes from your distance to the subject, and your field of view comes from the focal length, and as soon as you back up and zoom with the 70-200, you have changed perspective vs what you would get with an 85.
So, anyway, with a minimum focus distance that is closer on the 1.8 than the 1.2, you have quicker fall-off in focus. (Macro photographers and focus stackers know what I mean) This means that if you get closer in with the 1.8 wide open, you can get both eyes in focus while the tip of the nose and the ears are out of focus, while the 1.2 pushes you back slightly, and you have to open up the aperture to get that same fall off, and it means that you typically only get one eye in focus on the 1.2 if you also want the ears and nose out of focus. If you want the medium format look on your tight headshots, the 1.8 does better, although you could probably get the same results by using a macro extension tube with the 1.2. That is, if you get a tube that doesn't kill the 1.2's focus by wire.

3. Borkeh and flare. So, I saw on dpreview a few months ago where someone did side-by-side comparisons between the 1.8 and 1.2 and said that the 1.2 had 35% better bokah. Really? You have chartable maths that tell you quantities of texture of out of focus areas? That's junk. The simple fact is that different lenses have different out of focus textures, and someone might like some textures over others. The 50/1.8 is known to have chunky bokeh texture, and in my opinion, the 70-200/2.8ISII has sterile borkeh. I don't like either.
So, in terms of bokeh, the 1.8 tends to smear the focus transition areas while the 1.2II has a more circular (rigid?) transition. When you combine this with the fact that the 1.2 tends to flare a bit more than the 1.8, it makes medium format looking tight headshots with a rim light crazy-making in post. What happens is the hair just behind the ears is out of focus, and the 1.8 will just smear and kind of pop it off the background. The 1.2II tends to flare the tips of the hair that is getting hit with the rim more than the 1.8, and you get these tiny little circular bokeh balls that are distracting. So, I end up having to go in post and clone out tips of hair. Really, nobody has time for that.


----------



## JVLphoto (Dec 30, 2013)

lol - perfect Rey, from someone who's used all of these lenses more than I have.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Dec 30, 2013)

Nice to see a review of my favorite lens by my favorite reviewer!

I'd have to say his observations match mine regarding performance at various apertures, fast autofocus, light weight, etc...

The funny thing about this lens is how people always compare this great all around portrait lens to it's very specialized 1.2 L cousin. Rather than a technical comparison, we end up discussing feelings, intagibles, magic and other vague things.

I have no doubt that under some conditions, the L version will give more contrast and more saturated colors. (I have the 135 L and that is certainly a good example of the L effect.)

The thing is... in Lightroom, I have sliders for saturation, clarity and sharpness that will give me any look I want. I can make images from the light, cheap 85 look just like the ones from the heavy, expensive 85, for all practical purposes.

So in my mind, the only advantage of the L lens is the 1.2 aperture. Would I use that if I had it? Considering that I normally use my 85 around F/2.5, I'd say not.

What we are really seeing here, in my opinion, is a victory for the Canon marketing department. Many photographers buy the 85 L as a prestige symbol and very few of them really use it to any advantage that could not be more easily and cheaply accomplished with the 85 F/1.8. Or the 135 L, if your goal is to wipe out the background and create dreamy bokeh.

I think this review is a good example of how most people think about these two lenses. They can tell the 1.8 is a nice, useful, practical lens, but they are just sure that the extreme price of the 1.2 L and the magic red ring must symbolize something very important.

Your mileage will certainly vary!


----------



## JVLphoto (Dec 30, 2013)

drmikeinpdx said:


> Nice to see a review of my favorite lens by my favorite reviewer!
> 
> I'd have to say his observations match mine regarding performance at various apertures, fast autofocus, light weight, etc...
> 
> ...



Yeah, I kept going back to my (in focus) images from the 1.2 being like "ooooh that's really nice" and while I had some good photos with the 1.8 they just weren't as much of a hit. Same difference between the 50 1.2 & 1.4 in my opinion. There IS something there, maybe even un-quantifiable, but it will almost certainly cost you that much more for a marginal quantifiable difference... and not necessarily "improvement," but aesthetic difference which is really what this is all about right?


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 30, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> drmikeinpdx said:
> 
> 
> > Nice to see a review of my favorite lens by my favorite reviewer!
> ...


I'm with Justin on this one, and it's not just unsubstantiated magic - the 1.2 lenses are sharper and have more contrast (yielding better color as well) wide open than their 1.4 and 1.8 lenses respectively. They also have (physically) larger apertures at all f stops, giving smoother bokeh, even at the same aperture as their 1.4 and 1.8 equivalents. The 50 1.2 is also considerably more flare resistant than the 1.4, and I think the 85 is as well, but I can't remember off hand. The CA in the 85 1.2 is handled much better than the 1.8, though the same can't be said of the 50 1.2.

I agree that you could probably tweak images in post to make them look pretty similar, but you can't adjust the bokeh and being able to use a lens wide between f/1.2-2 to get results that would require stopping down to f/2 for the 50 1.4 and f/2.5 for the 85mm is the primary difference. If you nail a shot at f/1.2 with the associated shallow DOF, it has a look that can't be duplicated in any program. Finally, build quality is another difference, and there's no comparison between the L and non-L lenses.

All that being said, the 50 1.4 in particular is a great lens and I used it with great results for many years. I didn't like the 85 1.8 as much, but both lenses give excellent results in the right hands.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Dec 31, 2013)

My favorite 85mm lens of all time is the Zeiss Planar f1.4 used on a Contax RTS and I could never figure out why
Canon wouldn't build an f1.4 (other than to protect the f1.2 profit margin). The 85f1.8 is however a real price
performer and a great lens for the price. Now they'll probably screw it up with an IS version at twice the price
and "better" optics. I find it indispensible at indoor performances and even on a crop body it works well for 
grandchildren's recitals, indoor sports and birthday parties. I've stopped lugging those back breaking zooms and
my travel kit is a 35/85 combination which has worked well all over the world.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Dec 31, 2013)

*Canon 85mm f/1.8*

Personally, I like the background to be smoothly blurred, but not wiped out entirely. I'll offer some examples for your entertainment:

Here's a shot with the 85mm 1.8 at F/2, 1/1250, ISO 100







Let's zoom in on the hair. Sharpness is at Lightroom's default, 25.







Here is one at F/2.2, 1/250, ISO 200, hand held in very soft light.


----------



## kevl (Jan 1, 2014)

I have to LOL at this review. 

I just purchased this lens for $319 at B&H. I shoot with a 5D3, 70-200 2.8L, 24-105L, and a 50 1.4. My verdict on this lens? It is brilliant. 

I don't expect it to match a lens that costs nearly SEVEN TIMES AS MUCH. The fact that there is so much debate on this subject tells me I'm not just drinking the koolaid the lens it truly brilliant. 

The guy in the review can say that his images with the 1.2 are more magical... OK.. thanks. I wonder how one would quantify that. Could it be that when one drops $2,200 on a lens that they feel obligated to feel it is full of magic? 

The 1.2 lets in more light for sure, I'm not convinced it is sharper, and if focuses slower. 

As the reviewer put it the only cons to the 1.8 are no hood included and it doesn't have a red ring on it. I've got two red rings, one is brilliant the other is OK (guess which? lol). I'm not sure I have thought about the ring on either of them in more than a passing way ever.

I don't mean to be rude but this is one of the least helpful reviews I've ever seen on a reputable camera website.


----------



## clartephoto (Jan 2, 2014)

The 85 f/1.8 is a very solid lens but the 85 f/1.2 is a distinct step up

Many of you guys above are quite adamant you can't see a difference in shots from the 85 f/1.2 vs the 85 f/1.8 for the samples provided so far - below are some shots I have taken on the f/1.2 which in my opinion just can't be replicated using the 85 f/1.8 (but I accept I may be wrong, so very happy to be proven incorrect):


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 2, 2014)

clartephoto, more great shots, thanks for sharing. It's nice to have you on CR.



kevl said:


> The guy in the review can say that his images with the 1.2 are more magical... OK.. thanks. I wonder how one would quantify that. Could it be that when one drops $2,200 on a lens that they feel obligated to feel it is full of magic?


Have you used the 1.2? If not, how can you say he's right or wrong?

The 1.2 lets in more light for sure, I'm not convinced it is sharper, and if focuses slower. 



kevl said:


> I don't mean to be rude but this is one of the least helpful reviews I've ever seen on a reputable camera website.


LOL back at you - the old "I don't mean to be rude" preceding the rude statement. Saying that doesn't make it any less rude.


----------



## JVLphoto (Jan 2, 2014)

kevl said:


> I have to LOL at this review.
> 
> I just purchased this lens for $319 at B&H. I shoot with a 5D3, 70-200 2.8L, 24-105L, and a 50 1.4. My verdict on this lens? It is brilliant.
> 
> ...



I was hoping your "LOL's" were because those cons were mostly jokes (sarcasm) but I see it was lost on you. No problem, you're right in your observations and I certainly *don't* think the 85 1.2 is worth the extra money (I haven't bought one) but I do compare the two because focal length is an obvious comparison tool. I did mention I compare it more in line with the 50 1.4, 40 2.8 and other "like-class" lenses.

And hey, thanks for not meaning to be rude.


----------



## JVLphoto (Jan 2, 2014)

clartephoto said:


> The 85 f/1.8 is a very solid lens but the 85 f/1.2 is a distinct step up
> 
> Many of you guys above are quite adamant you can't see a difference in shots from the 85 f/1.2 vs the 85 f/1.8 for the samples provided so far - below are some shots I have taken on the f/1.2 which in my opinion just can't be replicated using the 85 f/1.8 (but I accept I may be wrong, so very happy to be proven incorrect):



"Step Up" vs. step... different? I think people need to evaluate what they need. If it's fast or good AF then the 1.2 isn't a step up at all. But I do agree with you, as I wrote, there's something in the files right out of camera with the 1.2 that I couldn't compare to the 1.8 (trust me, I tried).

Great shots.


----------



## JVLphoto (Jan 2, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> clartephoto, more great shots, thanks for sharing. It's nice to have you on CR.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ha ha - WORD!


----------



## JVLphoto (Jan 2, 2014)

*Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8*



drmikeinpdx said:


> Personally, I like the background to be smoothly blurred, but not wiped out entirely. I'll offer some examples for your entertainment:



Looking good and yeah, nice and sharp. It's definitely a great lens (especially for the price).


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 4, 2014)

*Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8*



drmikeinpdx said:


> Personally, I like the background to be smoothly blurred, but not wiped out entirely. I'll offer some examples for your entertainment:
> 
> Here's a shot with the 85mm 1.8 at F/2, 1/1250, ISO 100
> 
> ...



I agree with this point of view. In fact I sold my 135L because I find the 85/1.8 to be near as damn it good, and the 200/2.8 that I kept to be more versatile.

Clartephoto's pictures are excellent, but as usual in a great image the photographer has equalled or exceeded the lens. I've seen many head and shoulder shots with the 85/1.2 where the dof is just too thin. I've attached a picture that I took recently with the 85/1.8 @ 1.8, and in this situation where the subject is quite far away I can see that the 85/1.2 would have produced a different picture. 

As for comments about reviewing an old lens, well why not ? It's a lens that many will look to buy as their first 'art' lens, and it is very good in its own right. The bad CAs wide open in high contrast are a result of the lens's design; to have a smooth brokeh.


----------



## kevl (Jan 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> clartephoto, more great shots, thanks for sharing. It's nice to have you on CR.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No I have not used the 1.2. He is the one reviewing, how can he prove himself correct? What does "magical" mean? It is a meaningless statement and therefore completely unhelpful as a "review." It would make a lovely Tweet though... 



> The 1.2 lets in more light for sure, I'm not convinced it is sharper, and if focuses slower.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sorry you were offended, perhaps it was rude of someone to call this article a review...


----------



## kevl (Jan 6, 2014)

JVLphoto said:


> I was hoping your "LOL's" were because those cons were mostly jokes (sarcasm) but I see it was lost on you. No problem, you're right in your observations and I certainly *don't* think the 85 1.2 is worth the extra money (I haven't bought one) but I do compare the two because focal length is an obvious comparison tool. I did mention I compare it more in line with the 50 1.4, 40 2.8 and other "like-class" lenses.



I don't know what your copy of the 50 1.4 is but my 85 1.8 makes my 50 look like it is constantly out of focus. They have similar chromatic issues though.


----------



## JVLphoto (Jan 6, 2014)

kevl said:


> JVLphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I was hoping your "LOL's" were because those cons were mostly jokes (sarcasm) but I see it was lost on you. No problem, you're right in your observations and I certainly *don't* think the 85 1.2 is worth the extra money (I haven't bought one) but I do compare the two because focal length is an obvious comparison tool. I did mention I compare it more in line with the 50 1.4, 40 2.8 and other "like-class" lenses.
> ...



My 50 performs great f/2.0 and onwards, where the 85 definitely was sharper opened up at 1.8. I also use a lens hood with my 50 but didn't have one for the 85 which would make a difference in some situations. The 50 is such a well used lens from so many you'll definitely find mixed feelings towards it in the forums on my "review" of it (or article, don't know how you feel about it so I'm treading lightly with my phrasing) http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-50mm-f1-4/

I'm also sorry you don't have enough magic in your life to be unable to understand it as a quantifiable statement, while I agree it's not a technical achievement that can be measured it seemed an apt description of the "feeling" I got out of the images produced between the two lenses, like love, but I wouldn't want to compare the feeling I get for my wife to that of a lens. Hopefully some day you'll feel the same about something :'(


----------



## JVLphoto (Jan 6, 2014)

kevl said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > clartephoto, more great shots, thanks for sharing. It's nice to have you on CR.
> ...



Good thing you can find over 100,000 meaningless statements over on my twitter feed! https://twitter.com/justinvl

And I'm not going to debate about what is and isn't rude, that'll probably lead to how you were raised and it's best not to go there.

Also, 85's are the perfect focal length for a bit of free-lensing!


----------



## JVLphoto (Jan 6, 2014)

Kevl you know what? That was rude of me. I'm sorry. Let's get back to how the lens works shall we? You're clearly a fan of the 85 1.8, show us some of it's strengths and any possible weaknesses you've encountered after owning it for so long. Admittedly I've only had it off and on over the years, so never had a chance to put it through every available usage scenario.


----------



## kevl (Jan 11, 2014)

JVLphoto said:


> Kevl you know what? That was rude of me. I'm sorry. Let's get back to how the lens works shall we? You're clearly a fan of the 85 1.8, show us some of it's strengths and any possible weaknesses you've encountered after owning it for so long. Admittedly I've only had it off and on over the years, so never had a chance to put it through every available usage scenario.



"for so long"? 

I've only had it for less than a month. I have no doubt that it will not last as long as the 1.2 will. 

The lower build quality and the chromatic aberration are the only weaknesses that I am aware of. The build quality would be an issue if it were double the price but it truly isn't at the current price point. The chromatic issues come out instantly in Lightroom so they are almost meaningless to me as well. Would I prefer them not to be present? Of course. 

Is the 1.2 probably a better lens? If it was not then it would be very oddly priced... 

BTW I have many loves and passions in my life, thanks for asking. 

My new 85mm 1.8 is something that I am truly beginning to love. I used it for a number of the less important images at my first wedding of 2014 last Saturday and I have to say I wish I would have used it for many of the most important ones because it performed brilliantly. The focus is quick and accurate and it is much more sharp than is needed. I used it at 2.8 because that is where my confidence level is with it right now. I have used for a couple of couple's photo sessions at 2.8 and I'm getting a 95%+ hit rate with it. I'll be using it at 1.8 next week with some couples but in my home testing I've seen no issues at all at 1.8. I just didn't want to come home with a bunch of missed shots from the wedding.  

If there are weaknesses other than that then the review might have brought them up... it doesn't have a red ring and it doesn't have the "magic" of the 1.2. I'm sure that's true on both counts... however, the lens is brilliant! The 1.2 isn't something I would even consider now that I have the 1.8 and I was in a toss up between which to get. I needed a good 85 and now I have one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 11, 2014)

kevl said:


> I needed a good 85 and now I have one.



That's how I'd characterize it - a good 85. It's also an excellent value. I will say that I found the colors of the 85/1.8 a little flat, though. The 85L II that I replaced it with has better color...and much slower focus.


----------



## Badger (Jan 19, 2014)

Thanks for posting the review even though it is an old lens 

I am actually about to pull the trigger on either this lens, or its 100mm brother for a portrait lens attached to a 6D. These portraits will mostly be my kids and family. Any thoughts on the 100mm as a portrait lens vs. the 85mm? I am leaning towards the 100mm because I shoot my daughter at basket ball also and my 70-200 f/4 just isn't letting in enough light at the gym. 

BTW, I too, don't mean to be rude


----------



## JVLphoto (Jan 20, 2014)

Badger said:


> Thanks for posting the review even though it is an old lens
> 
> I am actually about to pull the trigger on either this lens, or its 100mm brother for a portrait lens attached to a 6D. These portraits will mostly be my kids and family. Any thoughts on the 100mm as a portrait lens vs. the 85mm? I am leaning towards the 100mm because I shoot my daughter at basket ball also and my 70-200 f/4 just isn't letting in enough light at the gym.
> 
> BTW, I too, don't mean to be rude



Which 100mm are you asking about? If you're talking about the Macro L it's one of my favourite portrait lenses: http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-100-f2-8l-is-macro/. I worry that the AF on it may not be able to keep up in sporting situations. The IS will certainly help, but it's by no means a "sports" lens (switching the focus limiter away from the macro setting would help too).

I had the 100mm f/2.8 Macro (non L) and it was nice, but if I remember correctly focus was even slower and a lack of IS really hindered hand-held shots around 1/100th, especially on macro shots.

The 85 had an incredible sale on recently, though even the price now is well placed by comparison. I'd skip the 100 Macro unless you're saving up for the L, and go for the 85 1.8 instead in this case.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 20, 2014)

Badger said:


> Thanks for posting the review even though it is an old lens
> I am actually about to pull the trigger on either this lens, or its 100mm brother for a portrait lens attached to a 6D. These portraits will mostly be my kids and family. Any thoughts on the 100mm as a portrait lens vs. the 85mm? I am leaning towards the 100mm because I shoot my daughter at basket ball also and my 70-200 f/4 just isn't letting in enough light at the gym.
> BTW, I too, don't mean to be rude


I have the Canon 100mm F2 and love it. I do not have at hand the F2.8 models for comparison, but I would say that using an aperture F2.8 Canon 100mm all three have similar sharpness. The 100mm F2 however is 1 stop brighter, and has very fast AF. There is some purple fringing when used at maximum aperture, but disappears around F2.5. If no extremely bright objects, purple fringing will not appear anyway.


----------



## Badger (Jan 24, 2014)

> Which 100mm are you asking about? If you're talking about the Macro L it's one of my favourite portrait lenses: http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-100-f2-8l-is-macro/. I worry that the AF on it may not be able to keep up in sporting situations. The IS will certainly help, but it's by no means a "sports" lens (switching the focus limiter away from the macro setting would help too).



Thanks for the feed back. I actually initially wasn't thinking about the L, but now I really am! These are just toys for me, but it will be fun to dabble in the Macro world and still be able to use the lens as a portrait lens. Birthday is coming up


----------



## Northstar (Jan 24, 2014)

Badger said:


> > Which 100mm are you asking about? If you're talking about the Macro L it's one of my favourite portrait lenses: http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-100-f2-8l-is-macro/. I worry that the AF on it may not be able to keep up in sporting situations. The IS will certainly help, but it's by no means a "sports" lens (switching the focus limiter away from the macro setting would help too).
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the feed back. I actually initially wasn't thinking about the L, but now I really am! These are just toys for me, but it will be fun to dabble in the Macro world and still be able to use the lens as a portrait lens. Birthday is coming up



both the 85 1.8 or 100 2.0 are excellent for indoor sports. the very small optical edge probably goes to the 100 f/2...but 100 can get a bit long for indoor basketball

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=118&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=106&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1


----------



## kevl (Jan 24, 2014)

Here's a very good review of both the 85s showing where each is stronger than the other. Not surprisingly the 1.2 is demonstrate-ably better in very key areas. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWCpAVslmCg


----------



## flowers (Jan 28, 2014)

*Agree with Rey*

I agree with everything Rey said. I chose the 1.8 precisely because all things considered it's simply a better lens than the f/1.2! The f/1.2 is a special lens for those special times when you really want the DOF of f/1.2 at 85mm, but 85/1.8 is the obvious choice for portraits and normal photography! It's faster (AF, not aperture), better, and more reliable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2014)

*Re: Agree with Rey*



flowers said:


> I agree with everything Rey said. I chose the 1.8 precisely because all things considered it's simply a better lens than the f/1.2! The f/1.2 is a special lens for those special times when you really want the DOF of f/1.2 at 85mm, but 85/1.8 is the obvious choice for portraits and normal photography! It's faster (AF, not aperture), better, and more reliable.



Couldn't disagree more. The 85/1.8 is a _cheaper_ lens, and it focuses faster. Budget permitting, the 85/1.2 is the obvious choice for portraits - portrait subjects aren't moving fast, you have f/1.2 if you want it, and of course the 85/1.2 can be stopped down to f/1.8...and gives better bokeh with both at f/1.8. The 85L still has some axial CA, but it's nowhere near as bad as the 85/1.8. 

I'm curious as to your basis for calling the 85/1.8 'more reliable' - neither lens makes Lensrentals frequently repaired lists (Sigma's 85/1.4 has made that list, though). Do you have some data to back that up, other than meaningless anecdotal info? (I've owned both, the 85L for longer, neither broke so does that mean the 85L is more reliable? No.) 

While the 85/1.8 is a better _value_, the 85L is a better lens (unless you're shooting fast action - and even then, you're rarely racking from infinity to MFD and back, so in practice the 85L actually does ok with moving subjects).


----------



## flowers (Jan 29, 2014)

*Re: Agree with Rey*



neuroanatomist said:


> flowers said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with everything Rey said. I chose the 1.8 precisely because all things considered it's simply a better lens than the f/1.2! The f/1.2 is a special lens for those special times when you really want the DOF of f/1.2 at 85mm, but 85/1.8 is the obvious choice for portraits and normal photography! It's faster (AF, not aperture), better, and more reliable.
> ...


I buy my lenses for specific needs, but when I do, I prefer the "what else can I use this lens for" approach. That's why I said, "all in all" it's a better lens. Sure, the bokeh of the 1.2 is creamier, but it's also less sharp, has more CA (both lateral and longnitudal) and has a slower AF, and considering I already have a MF f/1.2 lens that's sharp wide open and that I can use for portraits, I had no reason to go with the lens that has a slower AF: here's where we get to the "what else" part. If I shoot indoor sports (for leisure), I don't want to be sporting a lens that has slower AF, just because it's more expensive. No one there is going to be impressed, and I'm not going to be impressed when I go home to look at a card full of blurry images or correctly focused empty floor. The bokeh of the 1.8 is quite enough for me, I actually like it a lot. What I really don't get in the 85/1.2 is the amount of CA. It's an L series lens, supposedly one of the better ones. Really? Canon couldn't control the CA better when making that lens? It's 85mm, not 15mm! I have a $200 lens from 1978 that can do better! Part of value is "getting what you pay for". Yes, I find the 1.8 better value, but more importantly, I don't find the value of the 1.2 anywhere near its price. Not so for many other L series lenses, they are well worth the money, but this one? Not in my eyes, no way. There are a few misses in the L series lenses, and despite popular opinion, I consider the 85/1.2 (both I and II) one. I'll hold on to my 1.8 (with it's better flare control than the 1.2) until I find something better in the 85mm region with AF. By better I don't mean "better in one regard only". However, I'm perfectly happy with my 85/1.8, which is why I'm holding on to it. I didn't get it because it was cheaper, I got it because it was the best set of compromises for what I needed from this lens. I would have gotten the f/1.2L if I thought it was better all around. I don't. It's a special lens for special uses, and for those uses, it's great, the bokeh is great, better than the 1.8. If you want a special lens, the 1.2 is your choice. If you want to use your 85 for anything else (like I do), if you need a fast focusing AF, the 1.2 is not your lens. That's why I went with the 1.8, and not with the 1.2 or the Sigma 85 1.4. You're welcome to disagree with my personal opinion and I think I've given you enough of an explanation. Costing less doesn't always mean cheaper, or worse, and costing more doesn't always mean better, and then there's the question of "better at doing what". I've learned that, and if you think otherwise, one day you'll learn it too.


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 29, 2014)

*Re: Agree with Rey*



flowers said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > flowers said:
> ...



Couldn't argue with any of your observations... In Digital Revs side by side comparison of both 85's from Canon, he definitely conceded the AF was faster in the 1.8 to the 1.2, wasn't even close... He also like the shot to shot reliability of the 1.8 vs the 1.2. He did like the build and the sexiness of the 1.2 and the focus WHEN the lens was properly focused. I have worked with neither, but an 85mm is on my list of next purchases (as well as replacing my backup 7D). I did however have similar results when I tested the 50mm 1.2 and the 50mm 1.4... When I tested the two lenses on the same cameras, the "cheaper" lens focused quicker, more reliably and a better value... The 1.2 was nice when it worked and focused good, but when it was off, it was horrid. As a working pro, i'm not interested in the sexiness factor, i'm looking at the odds and shot to shot factor... if i have a client spontaneously give me "that look" in which that shot would make or break that photo session, I need to have confidence that the focus is going to be nailed when I fire that shutter... If i cant have that confidence, it isn't going to make my camera bag.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2014)

*Re: Agree with Rey*



flowers said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > flowers said:
> ...



…and the 'more reliable' part?

For the rest, we simply disagree, which is fine. I had the 85/1.8 and found it to have significantly more LoCA. The lateral CA was equivalent and practically insignificant for both (in that it's readily correctable, unlike LoCA). The 85/1.2 is sharper in the center, less sharp in the FF corners. As I mentioned, the bokeh of the 85/1.2L II is better with both at f/1.8 (and the differentially brighter green of the 85/1.8's LoCA 'bokeh fringing' is also visible). 







Regarding the LoCA in particular, when I have a catchlight in the eyes from a flash, I prefer to have that catchlight be the same white as the light source, not the electric purple of the LoCA. One of the crops below is from the 85L, the other from the 85/1.8 - and it's pretty easy to tell which is which.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2014)

dilbert said:


> It's great to see you arguing like this and supporting my case of the internet saying "if a lens is faster then it must be better."



The 85L II is not better than the 85/1.8 because it's faster, it's better because it's better (IMO, and as I've already said - if AF speed is important for your use of the lens, the 85L is clearly worse). 

The 135mm f/2L is better than the 85/1.8, and it's not faster. As long as f/2.8 is wide enough, the 100L is also better than the 85/1.8.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 29, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> You can discuss our review of the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 lens here.


Nice review of a lens I haven't used much lately ... but I do recollect being impressed with it when I first tried it many years ago ... I'm getting to use the lens a bit more frequently now with the Sony a7+the metabones adapter.
Thanks for posting the nice review.


----------



## flowers (Jan 29, 2014)

*Re: Agree with Rey*



neuroanatomist said:


> …and the 'more reliable' part?
> 
> For the rest, we simply disagree, which is fine. I had the 85/1.8 and found it to have significantly more LoCA. The lateral CA was equivalent and practically insignificant for both (in that it's readily correctable, unlike LoCA). The 85/1.2 is sharper in the center, less sharp in the FF corners. As I mentioned, the bokeh of the 85/1.2L II is better with both at f/1.8 (and the differentially brighter green of the 85/1.8's LoCA 'bokeh fringing' is also visible).
> 
> ...


If you ask for proof and I say nothing, that means I have no proof and I chose not to pursue the comment as an argument so it's dropped.
Like you said, it's fine to disagree, it's not a scientific debate, it's a matter of personal preference. If you read carefully you'll notice we never disagreed on the bokeh, but I like the bokeh of the 1.8. It's not perfect, but it's plenty fine, I have no complaints. If the bokeh fringing really bothers you, it's easily (manually) corrected. CA correction might not correct LoCA well, but defringing algorithms actually do a good job, you just need to be careful with the slider or you'll start losing detail in the REAL reds.

Believe me, I would love a 85/1.2 with AF, I just don't feel the 85/1.2L II is good enough for the price. The problem with the II's and the III's is that the lens design itself doesn't seem to ever be changed, it's just the old design with new coatings or a faster AF. That's fine, if the AF is significantly faster or the new coating takes properly care of the CA and the flare, but if the improvements are half-donkeyed, I'm not going to jump the gun. If I want to use the 1.2 I can always rent it. It will take more to get me to buy it. The problem is that companies today have no incentive to make really fast lenses really well. The attitude is "just use ISO 12800, no one needs fast lenses anymore". I'm still hoping for significantly better fast lenses to be developed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2014)

*Re: Agree with Rey*



flowers said:


> If you ask for proof and I say nothing, that means I have no proof and I chose not to pursue the comment as an argument so it's dropped.



Fair enough, although I think awinphoto had a good point about AF reliability…not only does the 85/1.8 focus faster, sometimes the 85L just flat out misses focus. It's not often, granted, but it's my only lens that does that - not a little off, but really OOF. 



flowers said:


> The problem is that companies today have no incentive to make really fast lenses really well. The attitude is "just use ISO 12800, no one needs fast lenses anymore". I'm still hoping for significantly better fast lenses to be developed.



Yeah, and that's a shame. The recent Canon non-L primes, with IS but f/2.8 apertures, are a testament to that idea. 

Well, actually it's not strictly true - the Canon CN-E 24mm T1.5, 50mm T1.3, and 85mm T1.3 are fast and very well made, both mechanically and optically…and you can get all three of them for a mere $14K.


----------



## flowers (Jan 29, 2014)

*Re: Agree with Rey*



neuroanatomist said:


> Well, actually it's not strictly true - the Canon CN-E 24mm T1.5, 50mm T1.3, and 85mm T1.3 are fast and very well made, both mechanically and optically…and you can get all three of them for a mere $14K.


Interesting, I actually haven't checked out any of the cine lenses from Canon. I tried to look for images made with them but I couldn't find any on flickr. I wonder how the canon 85 T/1.3 compares with the Samyang 85 T/1.5 Cine https://secure.flickr.com/photos/landerandonegi/11849418053/sizes/o/in/photostream/ . The Samyang is not a perfect lens, but it's very sharp, and very capable of producing excellent results https://secure.flickr.com/photos/robin_antonsen/12000915343/sizes/k/in/photostream/ and is sharp even wide open https://secure.flickr.com/photos/ken-gilbert/7314727546/sizes/k/in/photostream/ . It's very cinematic https://secure.flickr.com/photos/ken-gilbert/7094050043/ https://secure.flickr.com/photos/ken-gilbert/7314628976/ https://secure.flickr.com/photos/ken-gilbert/7314659344/ https://secure.flickr.com/photos/ken-gilbert/10193104253/ https://secure.flickr.com/photos/gillestourette/10410609675/ https://secure.flickr.com/photos/gusba/8631979697/in/[email protected] in its rendering.

The price? It costs around $300 for Canon. The question is not if the Canon cine CN-E 85 is better. The question is: does it include $4700 worth of improvements over the Samyang?

That's the difference between a cheapskate and a smart person. A smart person spends the money, no matter how much, when it's the only option. A smart person will also spend the bigger amount when the benefits justify the extra cost. A cheapskate will always choose the cheap option. A smart person will not, however, spend a very much larger amount of money for minor improvements, when the improvements don't justify the cost, aren't required to get the job done, and when the extra money could be used for other lenses/equipment.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 29, 2014)

*Re: Agree with Rey*



flowers said:


> The price? It costs around $300 for Canon. The question is not if the Canon cine CN-E 85 is better. The question is: does it include $4700 worth of improvements over the Samyang?
> 
> That's the difference between a cheapskate and a smart person. A smart person spends the money, no matter how much, when it's the only option. A smart person will also spend the bigger amount when the benefits justify the extra cost. A cheapskate will always choose the cheap option. A smart person will not, however, spend a very much larger amount of money for minor improvements, when the improvements don't justify the cost, aren't required to get the job done, and when the extra money could be used for other lenses/equipment.


I'll jump into the fray here because I think you are missing a number of points. There's more to lenses than image quality and test charts. Let's compare another lens the Rokinon/Samyang/Bower (et al) 24mm 1.4 vs. the Canon 24 1.4 II:

Weatherproofing:
Canon, yes; Rokinon, no

Tough construction (won't break on a paying shoot - I've dropped my 24L on concrete with no issues):
Canon, yes; Rokinon, decent, but not tough

Manufacturer support:
Canon, yes, multiple US service centers, Canon Professional Services; Rokinon, no US support

Autofocus (we don't all shoot landscapes and buildings with 24mm lenses):
Canon, yes; Rokinon, no

Image quality @ f/1.4 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=480&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=821&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0):
Canon, good, useable; Rokinon, soft, lots of CA

Distortion (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?FLI=0&FLIComp=0&Lens=821&Camera=453&LensComp=480): 
Canon, well-corrected; Rokinon, not so much

Vignetting (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=821&Camera=453&LensComp=480)
Canon, abysmal; Rokinon, better, but still terrible

Flare: (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=821&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=480&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5)
Canon, slight, small artifacts; Rokinon, slight, large artifacts

Conclusion, Rokinon saves you about $1000 ($669 vs. 1668 currently). That's great unless you want to shoot wide open, shoot something moving quickly, go out in bad weather, or in conditions where the lens might get bumped or broken. If it breaks, you pretty much have to buy another one. Now you're only saving $330.

You can either buy right once, or buy cheap, buy cheap again, then buy right. Read Thom Hogan's tripod article for reference: http://bythom.com/support.htm

Back to the original topic, the 85 1.8 and 1.2 are two totally different lenses and really shouldn't be compared for anything other than portraits. The 1.8 is a nice lens and is better at nearly everything else, but the 1.2 is clearly the best portrait lens. For some it's worth the extra money for the seemingly small gains (or not so small as neuro's sample's show), for others, the 1.8 is more than sufficient. The 1.8 in a talented photographer's hands will beat the 1.2 in a rookie's hands, but give that same person a 1.2 and they will never want to go back to the 1.8, at least for portraits.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Of course. So it is just a coincidence that it is both faster and better.



Not necessarily a coincidence, it's a case-by-case thing. But it is certainly not true that faster lenses are always better, nor are they considered to be so, even according to the all-knowing Internet. For example, it is pretty well acknowledged that the 70-200mm f/4L IS is sharper than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (and slightly sharper than the f/2.8 non-IS, despite the latter being a stop faster.



dilbert said:


> Yes, but the 135mm f/2L isn't an 85mm lens and therefore shouldn't be compared to it.



Why not? They're both "classic" portrait lenses, and in reality if you ignore perspective, only a couple of steps separate the angle of view at portrait distances. Plus, the 85L on APS-C is equivalent to the 135L on FF, and despite being slower and costing half as much, in that comparison the 135L wins, hands down.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 29, 2014)

Has anyone come across the CN-E lenses being used for still photography ? The prices are not so outrageous when compared with the Zeiss Otus. I'd love to see a comparison of the CN-E 85 1.3 and the EF 85 1.2 L. 

But in the meantime I'll keep using the 85/1.8.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Has anyone come across the CN-E lenses being used for still photography ? The prices are not so outrageous when compared with the Zeiss Otus. I'd love to see a comparison of the CN-E 85 1.3 and the EF 85 1.2 L.



I haven't seen such a comparison, but to be honest there may actually not be that much difference. The resolution requirements for (even 4K) are much lower than current still photography resolutions, meaning any additional benefit in terms of sharpness is not realized with video. 

Rather, the optical benefits have to do with things like focus breathing, which is not really an issue for still photography (except perhaps macro), but is a huge problem when focus pulling during cinematography. Likewise, the mechanical improvements are centered around things like distance scales that are actually accurate and reproducible when using them to set focus, consistency across the entire series of lenses in terms of size (so accessories all fit), focus backlash (or lack thereof), etc.


----------



## flowers (Jan 30, 2014)

*Re: Agree with Rey*



mackguyver said:


> Points before
> ...
> 
> You can either buy right once, or buy cheap, buy cheap again, then buy right. Read Thom Hogan's tripod article for reference: http://bythom.com/support.htm
> ...


I agree with the points you made before, those things are all also considerations. I'll only quickly comment on them: I own a few of the Samyang lenses and I've used the rest. The build quality is generally very good. Samyang is a reliable company in Korea, you only need to contact them in Korea. Samyang covers their lenses. Samyang also licenses their lenses to other companies (Samyang manufactures them always, no other company is allowed to manufacture them, but other companies put their brand on the lenses, so you have Bower, Rokinon and many others) and if you buy the Bower or Rokinon lenses, you can contact Bower USA or Rokinon USA for warranty issues, they seem to both offer warranty.

If you want AF, go Canon or Sigma (don't listen to the focus issue scare, never had a problem with Sigma AF. My Sigmas are perfect copies and from what I've heard, not that many people actually have issues, the ones that do just talk the loudest. Anyway, Sigma will fix them for you if they're miscalibrated). If you don't need AF, most of the Samyangs are just as good an option in terms of IQ, buildQ and warranty. There are lens profiles for all of them that correct the distortion perfectly, but if you want a less distorted image to begin with, you're better off going with Canon on the 14 and 24mm.

Now for the rest of it: I agree that the f/1.2 can give you a little more than the 1.8, the question is if you really need/want more. The 1.8 is perfectly capable of delivering great results in the right hands which you admitted. If I didn't already have more than one great 85mm portrait lens and if I didn't need the faster AF for capturing action (meaning I can't replace the 1.8, I'd have to add to it) maybe I'd consider it, but the fact is that at the moment I'm trying to sell some of my lenses, not buy more. I have some 20 primes that are mostly redundant, so I have no room for more lenses before I clean up my "lens collection".


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 30, 2014)

flowers, thanks for some good discussion and 20 primes, wow, I thought I had a problem ! The only thing I'm going off of in regards to Samyang is what I have read from Roger over at Lensrentals. He has said that their warranty service and repairs are so bad that you might as well throw away the lens if it breaks, at least here in the US. I see he's updated his last post about this to remove that language, but that's pretty much what he had said (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/08/lensrentals-repair-data-2012-2013). I know one thing, though, those lenses can't be beat for astrophotography - Canon's fast lenses (other the the 24-70 2.8II) all have horrible coma issues in the corners.


----------



## flowers (Jan 30, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> flowers, thanks for some good discussion and 20 primes, wow, I thought I had a problem ! The only thing I'm going off of in regards to Samyang is what I have read from Roger over at Lensrentals. He has said that their warranty service and repairs are so bad that you might as well throw away the lens if it breaks, at least here in the US. I see he's updated his last post about this to remove that language, but that's pretty much what he had said (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/08/lensrentals-repair-data-2012-2013). I know one thing, though, those lenses can't be beat for astrophotography - Canon's fast lenses (other the the 24-70 2.8II) all have horrible coma issues in the corners.


Oh wow, I did not know that. I've never had an issue with my Samyangs yet, so going on hope! But as someone pointed out, in some cases even two Samyangs don't make the price of one Canon/Sigma, so if both of the two lenses last for a long time... togther they might outlive the competition! But in complete seriousness, if the warranty doesn't work and the Samyangs start to need servicing often, I'll look to Canon or Sigma. Luckily I haven't had any Samyangs need any servicing yet. He did write this though: "I can give you a simple generalization, though: If you want to buy a lens that will last decades, then you want a completely mechanical prime lens." Based on that you've got little to worry about with the manual focus, manual aperture Samyangs!

Ps. Lensrentals seems to have removed the bit about Rokinon/Samyang/Bower lenses because Rokinon chose to lie to him about Rokinons being different. If you don't believe me, you (or Roger) can contact Samyang directly and ask them! The lenses are the exact same lenses as the Samyang, just rebranded.


----------



## slcparche (Jan 22, 2015)

Does anyone know a manufacturer that can make a Tulip shape lens hood for the EF 85 f/1.8 or EF 100 f/2?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 22, 2015)

slcparche said:


> Does anyone know a manufacturer that can make a Tulip shape lens hood for the EF 85 f/1.8 or EF 100 f/2?


Any lens hood with 58mm thread can be fitted to the 85mm F1.8 or 100mm F2. However, the protection of a lens hood tulip type is lower because these are designed for wide-angle lens (28 to 35mm on full frame) and allow the sun's rays reach the lens, causing flare.


----------



## noncho (Feb 22, 2015)

Am I the only one who hate that purple fringing on 85 1.8 and 100 2.0?:





I know I can easily remove it during post-processing, but I don't wanna see it on the camera screen.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 22, 2015)

noncho said:


> I know I can easily remove it during post-processing, but I don't wanna see it on the camera screen.



Um, on newer digic5 and later camera bodies there is the in-camera CA correction to take care of this, isn't it?


----------



## mpphoto (Feb 22, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> noncho said:
> 
> 
> > I know I can easily remove it during post-processing, but I don't wanna see it on the camera screen.
> ...



On Page 150 of the 5D3 manual it says:


> If you play back a RAW image shot with the chromatic aberration corrected, the image will be displayed on the camera without the chromatic aberration correction applied.


----------

