# 85 f/1.2 L II vs 85 f/1.8



## MacroBug (Apr 2, 2012)

On FF is the 85 f/1.2 L II worth the premium over the f/1.8? I know the 1.2 is an L lens and has better build quality, but Photozone indicates the 1.8 is a better value along with having faster focus. I'm also not sure about focus-by-wire. I'm trying to build a stable of high quality primes, but don't want to spend the extra money if the difference is minimal for portraits outside of a studio. Thanks!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 2, 2012)

I upgraded from the 85mm f/1.8 to the 85mm f/1.2L II, and it was worth it to me. The 85mm f/1.8 is definitely a great value, one of the best in the Canon lineup, IMO. But the 85L is a better lens.

The AF of the 85L is definitely slow...significantly slower than the 85/1.8. Still, most situations in which I use the 85L do not demand fast AF. The focus-by-wire is fine for MF, the only hassle is that you have to get used to retracting the front element before you unmount the lens (assuming you prefer to store your lenses that way, which I do).

The 85L is sharper in the center than the 85/1.8, but a little less sharp at the edges. Importantly, the 85L has less longitudinal CA (bokeh fringing is the bane of the 85/1.8 ), and with both at f/1.8 the bokeh of the 85L is better, as you can see from this test:


----------



## Bart van Dieken (Apr 2, 2012)

You might want to take the Sigma AF 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM in consideration?
- f/1.4
- solid build quality
- sharp
- not sure whether the AF is as accurate as the Canon f/1.2 or f/1.8... anyone?

Link:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/602-sigma85f14eosff


----------



## sethlowephoto (Apr 2, 2012)

I have the 85 f/1.8 and couldn't be happier. The guy I used to assist for has the 1.2, and I cant say the difference is worth it. For the same money you could have the 1.8 and the 135 f/2. Way better decision IMO. Bokeh is great, auto focus is dead on, and its incredibly sharp. (I shoot 5DMKII and 40D)


----------



## rahkshi007 (Apr 2, 2012)

i also have dilemma between this 2 lens.. and finally i made my decision of getting the 85mm 1.2 mark2. this is because i think i will mostly use at f1.2 as i like take portrait of whole body.. so it is definitely need f1.2.. but if you do half body shot, a f1.8 to 2.8 is enough. Mine will be arrive next week and i am excited to test it...


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 2, 2012)

Any "Is it worth it?" question can really only be answered after first answering one of two sets of setup questions.

If this is for a business, how long will it take to amortize the cost differential, assuming the item isn't a base requirement in the first place? Will you make more profit with this purchase as opposed to investing the money some other way?

If this is for pleasure, how much more will you enjoy spending the money on this item than on something else?

And, of course, since even professional artists should derive pleasure from work and the tools used to do the work, both questions might apply even in a business situation.

In any case, the 80/20 rule is a good one to keep in mind, though there are certainly times when it doesn't apply. However, it's been my own personal experience that, if you have to ask the question, it generally does apply.

In the case of the 85s...well, the 1.8 is an awesome lens, and it's damned cheap. And it's the one to go to if autofocus performance is at all a consideration -- if you're looking for something for indoor sports, or fast-paced event (including wedding) shooting, the 1.8 is the better lens.

But the 1.2 certainly has some magical optical properties. If you're looking for the _n'est plus ultra_ with a lens that you're not going to be in a hurry to use, _and if you don't wince at spending that kind of money on a hunk of glass and metal,_ it's certainly worth considering.

Since you're asking the question, I'm guessing it's probably not worth it for you. It's not worth it for me, either, nor for most of those who consider the matter. But it's clearly worth it for neuroanatomist!

Cheers,

b&


----------



## MacroBug (Apr 3, 2012)

All,

Thanks for the responses. Neuro, I appreciate the comparison shots and after lurking on this site for quite some time I have really come to respect your knowledge and opinion. That said, I'm leaning towards the 1.8. I don't shoot for a living and the faster AF will provide me with more flexibility in what I shoot. Hopefully I can add another lens with the money I save (already have the 135 f/2)...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 3, 2012)

The 85/1.8 is a great lens, certainly, and the 85L is significantly more expensive. I don't think you've stated the body you're using, but on FF you might very well be shooting in the f/1.6-2 range even with the 85L. On APS-C it's easier to shoot at f/1.2 because the DoF is deeper with the smaller sensor (for equivalent framing). 

I'm fortunate to have ample discretionary funds - budget isn't too big an issue for me, so 'worth it' isn't necessarily the same bar. But by any measure, the 85/1.8 is excellent - the differences are there with the 85L, but less than many people might expect at 5 times the cost.


----------



## MacroBug (Apr 3, 2012)

I am planning on using this lens on a used 5D Mark II that I will receive this week. I really wanted to pull the trigger on a Mark III, but figured I would go with the known quantity of the Mark II and add some quality lenses to my collection for the same cost. Once the dust settles on the Mark III (hopefully with a price reduction) I'll look to upgrade in another year or so. I have been shooting with a 7D that I will keep for sports/wildlife. Thanks again!


----------



## RunAndGun (Apr 3, 2012)

I went through this last year on my 5D MKII... 1.8 or 1.2, 1.8 or 1.2... I went with the 1.8. I may get the 1.2, now and give the 1.8 to my GF. There is a LOT of CA in the 1.8 (didn't notice it in reviews and sample pix). I love the focal length and super shallow DoF when I want it, but the CA drives me crazy. It may be something you don't notice or can live with. For a price difference of about 5x, a lot of people will choose the 1.8 over the 1.2. I did, but mostly because I didn't know how bad the CA was on the 1.8.


----------



## Bosman (Apr 4, 2012)

The 85 F1.2 is an animal that takes patience, if thats not you don't get it. It does get awesome photos but man to find one in focus you need to take a lot when shooting weddings, i had a version 1 and sold it for the 50 F1.2 for the speed and weather sealing without giving up the creamy bokeh.
On another note, i have never thought of getting a Canon alternative lens til recently. Sigma has a killer 85 F/1.4 lens! Check the fstops in the gallery mid page down on the link below, it actually seems to have better contrast and darks in the images over the 85 F1.2 at the exact same settings.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 5, 2012)

I've had both, and the 85 1.8 definitely holds it's own, especially for the price. It couldn't hurt to give the 85 1.8 a shot and see how you like the focal length and performance, and if it's not enough for you then you could sell it and get the 1.2. The bokeh on the 1.2 is out of this world and it resolves detail incredibly well, but it does cost significantly more. The AF is definitely faster on the 1.8.


----------

