# 85mm 1.8 vs other 85mm Primes for portraits



## talicoa (Jan 21, 2015)

At the top of the canon Rumors homepage is a link to the review for the Canon 85mm 1.8. I read through it, and also through the discussion thread that followed. This topic really got under a lot of peoples skin. People generally disagreed with some part of the review. A lot of people bashed the 1.8, and a lot bashed the 1.2L. I think I have a pretty good relationship with both lenses and a lot of the bashing is unnecessary. 
So why am I bringing this up now? In the discussion of the review, someone even called the entire 85mm 1.8 review irrelevant because the lens was so old. The reason is that this lens is still very relevant. in certain circumstances it is an almost perfect 85mm prime. Why would this be? Read on.

First off when comparing the two lenses, they really both are capable of similar things. Creamy bokeh, Sharp images, good contrast, 85mm focal length. So what is the difference that some people would pay so much for the 85mm 1.2L? There are perfectly good reasons for some people. 
Pros for 85mm 1.2L:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Red Ring Prestige
The impressive look of the Glass Canon ball. Even if you don't know what the red ring means, that huge chunk of glass is quite striking.
the look of the large aperture. It creates unique looking images wide open. It just does.
It is f1.2. and has lower light abilities. This can be very important.
Build Quality
[*]
[/list]
If you need or want any of these attributes of the 85 1.2L then have at it. It is a great lens. If I had the money, I would own it instead of rent it when I need it.

So after that, why would you want to have the 85mm 1.8. 
The attributes of the 85 1.8 that make it desirable:
weight, it is insignificant when holding it for long periods of time. 
The Auto Focus is very quick.
The Auto Focus accuracy, for me this lens has one of the highest keeper rates compared to all of the lenses I have ever used. 
Cost, It is relatively inexpensive. I picked mine up used for $300. 

So related to Portraits, I need to take a lot of portraits. I will shoot 3-5 photos of up to 150 people in one day. It is not possible with the 85 1.2L. I would miss a lot of shots, and lifting that weight would kill me. My keeper rate with the 1.8 is above 95%. I shoot at 5.6, and use studio lighting. If I was shooting one or two portrait sessions a day, I might consider the 1.2L, because it has a more interesting look when needed. but for what I do, I can't see carrying the extra weight and expense of the L. 

What do you think? Do third party options even come into the picture at this level of value?


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 21, 2015)

If f5.6 or smaller is your style, then don't buy 85L II.

I don't recall I ever shoot smaller then f2 on my 85L II. At f2, focus is NOT an issue on my 1DX & 5D III. L produces better colors and contrast.

Both are great lenses.


----------



## brad-man (Jan 21, 2015)

I have the slower EF85 and it is a great lens in many ways, especially for the money, though it does have some limiting issues. I'm looking forward to the Sigma 85 Art (as well as the 135 OS Art).


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 21, 2015)

Had a sunset shoot yesterday with lots of action involved. I was glad I used the f1.8 version. Keeper rate was very high thanks to the much faster focus speed. It made shudder to think how miserably the shoot would have gone had I used the f1.2.


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 21, 2015)

Shooting at f/1.8 is about 100x easier than shooting at f/1.2. Auto focus actually works at f/1.8... AF @ f/1.2 works... but with a bit of luck. 

Also... for the money the f/1.8 is really good... but the f/1.2 is incredible and surprisingly... worth the money. 

But the f/1.2 is really only adequate on objects that don't move... or move very slowly... when shooting wide open. It is a challenging lens... but when it hits... it hits.


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 21, 2015)

talicoa said:


> I shoot at 5.6, and use studio lighting.



@ 5.6... get the 85 f/1.8. The bokeh in studio is a bit of a non factor... with controlled lighting you don't have to worry about the extra light you get with the 85L, and in the grand scheme of things... they are about as sharp when compared side by side. 

Don't get the L if you are going to tie 1 hand behind its back... 

As for the Sigma... I was surprised to find (just yesterday as a matter of fact) how much it sells for new. I thought it was more than the sigma 50 (old one) but less than the art lenses... but it is pretty close to the art lenses... I never used the sigma 85... I might have upgraded to 1 from the f/1.8... but I won't downgrade from the f/1.2... so I have on opinion other than it appears that Sigma doesn't want to charge more than $1000 for any of its art lenses... regardless of their quality, so if an f/1.4 art is in the pipeline... I would hate to spend $700+ on the sigma 85 to find out that if I only waited a year, I could have had an art for only $250 more... with the presumption that the new art is ridiculously amazing.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jan 21, 2015)

I have the 1.8 and its my favorite lens for portraits. I never liked the 50mm focal length.. 
I didn't have my 85 for a couple weeks due to some lens debris.. that was slightly painful. glad to have it back. cheap but really awesome performer imo. I can also attest to the keeper rates. For $280, I'm not complaining! )

I have no idea how the 85L performs but I'm sure it's great!


----------



## RunAndGun (Jan 21, 2015)

This has come up before and I'll say pretty much the same thing… 

I have both lenses and like them both. The 1.8 is a great lens for the money. Yes, it's a stop slower, but it's lighter, smaller, focuses much faster AND focuses closer. The 1.2 is a stop faster, but it's bigger, heavier, focuses slower and not as close. BUT as has been said by countless people countless times, there is something "magical" about the images it makes. And they're right. AND that's why people pay big bucks for it.

If you can afford it without putting yourself in a hole, you won't regret owning a 1.2, but you can do quality work with either one.


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 21, 2015)

I had a 100L as my go to favorite lens... then I got a 70-200mm f/2.8 and the 100L was redundant in my naivate'... so I sold the 100L and I picked up and 85 f/1.8. My biggest complaint with the f/1.8 was the minimum focusing distance of 3 ft... I was photographing my newborn and it was an effort to find the right positioning...

I missed my 100L and the 1 ft mfd, so I sold the 85 and bought the 100L again... and I was more than adequately happy... fast forward several months, and I bought the 85L mkii and while I have all the respect in the world for the 100L, I was truly in love with the 85L. So I sold the 100L. 

I had a 135L for a week, but never ran it through it's paces... but I picked up another today, so we will see if I can find a place in my bag for the lens... though I probably think indoor sports is where I will use it most. I tried to shoe horn the 85L into activities it REALLY isn't equipped to handle... and I got the results one would expect... so...

So did I lose my point... should I have taken a left at albequeque... probably...

Also, beware of the purple fringing that occurs when you shoot wide open. I noticed it at high contrast areas when I shot (white right next to black), but lightroom does a more than adequate job of getting rid of the purple.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 21, 2015)

I have the EF 100mm f2.8L IS and it is a great lens in many ways for Portrait and Macro. I'm looking forward to the Sigma 85 Art.
I had the Sigma 85mm f1.4 and it beats both Canon 85mm lenses in many ways. I was lucky that that lens AF was spot on. I created very smooth seamless bokeh only surpased by the 85L, Color rendition was superb, AF was faster and almost no CA at all.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 21, 2015)

It is a pity that Sigma is suffering from the lack of knowledge of Canon's AF algorithms. Can't blame Canon either, of course. If I understand correctly the Sigma Art lenses for Nikon don't suffer from the same AF inconsistencies?
I wish Canon made an 85/1.4. But I can't see why they would. And the Sigma one will likely have the same problems... Ah, well!
At apertures larger than f/2.8, the 85/1.8 is softer than the [email protected] wide open at 2.8. Therefore, there is little reason to get the prime if you plan to shoot at or above f/2.8, already have a 70-200 and don't mind the weight. If you want to shoot faster than f/2.8 and don't care about sharp images, then it makes sense, but for me to buy a lens with overlapping FL, there has to be a more compelling reason (incidentally, same deal with 50/1.4 and 24-70 II). Especially given the fact that the 135L is such a solid performer wide open (same deal with the 35L). 
However, I do often wish there was a fast 85 in my arsenal to make up for my lack of ability to create stunning portraits otherwise.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jan 21, 2015)

I wanted a fast short telephoto lens that didn't break the bank.

I compared the 85 f1.8, the 100f2.0 and the 100f2.8 macro. I went for the 100f2.0

For me, key is being able to use the lens wide open and the 100f2.0 in that regard was noticably better than the 85 which is known for being a touch soft unless stopped down a little, if you're using F5.6 then your choice is much broader.

AF is also important to me and again the 100f2.0 is very fast, I'll admit it seems to hunt a fraction which means it can make a slight rattling noise in Servo mode so perhaps unsuited to video, but the noise is all but inaudible at the sort of distance you would normally shoot from.

I don't care that the design is 20 odd years old.. they got it right.


----------



## martti (Jan 25, 2015)

I have the 100mm f/2 as well. The picture quality is excellent and it is light, fast and not too expensive.
On the metaboned Sony a6000 it behaves like a manual focus 150mm f/2.0 which is really nice and crisp. 
Unlike the 85mm *L* it fits in my ThinkTank bag.

Seems that not many people use the 100mm macro *L* for portraits?


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 25, 2015)

martti said:


> I have the 100mm f/2 as well. The picture quality is excellent and it is light, fast and not too expensive.
> On the metaboned Sony a6000 it behaves like a manual focus 150mm f/2.0 which is really nice and crisp.
> Unlike the 85mm *L* it fits in my ThinkTank bag.
> 
> Seems that not many people use the 100mm macro *L* for portraits?



I complain about the 85L being too fat too... but it belongs on my body... so I can't be too mad at it.

When the 100L was the best lens in my bag... I used it for portaits... and sports... and macro... whatever really.


----------

