# Is There a Definitive 85 to Get?



## Cory (Nov 17, 2017)

An 85mm lens on my 6D might be what I'll need most of the time for stage performances. My son just made the cut on one of the best high school jazz bands in the country. Yes, his life's over until May, but he's good with it.
There is a lot of metal so CA is maybe a top concern. I do shoot in RAW, but for some reason whenever I see purple where it shouldn't be I start screaming at my computer. Not sure why.
Thanks for any "best" recommendations although it's possible, I guess, that there's no terribly wrong answer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 17, 2017)

The Sigma 85/1.4 Art appears to have the lowest axial CA (purple/green fringing). 

Personally, I have the EF 85/1.2L II, but I expect I'll be swapping that for the EF 85/1.4L IS in the very near future.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 17, 2017)

Cory,

if you are after the best CA control in 85mm wide prime with reliable low light AF and a palatable price, then I would strongly advise you to give the Tamron 85 F1.8 VC a very good and long look.
CA control of the lens is much much better than on Sigma 85 Art wide open. better AF speed in low light and arguably a slightly better consistency.
it is a cheaper option as well. from experience, you can perfectly get away shooting at F1.8 rather than at F1.4 with your 6D body. focus and recompose is the only available focusing technique on 6D as well. therefore at F1.8 you chances of getting in focus image on 6D body is much higher. I would say, aim for F2.8 if you really can afford to stop down that much and if you can, then 70 -200 F2.8 IS is what I would use instead for flexibility of zoom lens.





Cory said:


> An 85mm lens on my 6D might be what I'll need most of the time for stage performances. My son just made the cut on one of the best high school jazz bands in the country. Yes, his life's over until May, but he's good with it.
> There is a lot of metal so CA is maybe a top concern. I do shoot in RAW, but for some reason whenever I see purple where it shouldn't be I start screaming at my computer. Not sure why.
> Thanks for any "best" recommendations although it's possible, I guess, that there's no terribly wrong answer.


----------



## Cory (Nov 17, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Cory,
> 
> if you are after the best CA control in 85mm wide prime with reliable low light AF and a palatable price, then I would strongly advise you to give the Tamron 85 F1.8 VC a very good and long look.
> CA control of the lens is much much better than on Sigma 85 Art wide open. better AF speed in low light and arguably a slightly better consistency.
> it is a cheaper option as well. from experience, you can perfectly get away shooting at F1.8 rather than at F1.4 with your 6D body. focus and recompose is the only available focusing technique on 6D as well. therefore at F1.8 you chances of getting in focus image on 6D body is much higher. I would say, aim for F2.8 if you really can afford to stop down that much and if you can, then 70 -200 F2.8 IS is what I would use instead for flexibility of zoom lens.


Thanks. I do normally try to stay at 2.8 or smaller (aperture) so that might be a very good call (for all the reasons mentioned). Much appreciated.


----------



## slclick (Nov 17, 2017)

I'd love a few more 85 (with AF) choices. You have the $300 model which I've owned and won't go back, the Old L and new L which are out of my budget for that particular lens and the Tammy which according to Bryan, I should not buy at 749. Why not extend the 24/28/35 IS lineup to 50 and 85? $550-650 and take my money


----------



## pwp (Nov 17, 2017)

If you don't mind the lack of IS, heavy weight, considerable bulk and uncommon 86mm filter thread size, the Sigma 85/1.4 Art is probably the one to get.

Read Brian Carnathan's very balanced review:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx

Carnathan also has reviews of most of the other 85's on the market for a useful, independent viewpoint. This should be your go-to lens review site.

-pw


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 17, 2017)

pwp,

in regards to 86mm filters. I was referred to the Gobe filters by a photog who is associated with the business here in Australia. I was sceptical initially until I had a chance to run sharpness, reflectance and aberration tests with the following filter and my own lens and camera:

https://mygobe.com/au/shop/lens-filters/uv-filters/gobe-uv-86mm-schott-mrc-16-layer-filter.html

there are 3 versions:

Premium - Gobe UV 86mm SCHOTT MRC 16-Layer Filter << I have got this model.
Pro - Gobe UV 86mm MRC 16-Layer Filter (Japanese glass)
Standard - Gobe UV 86mm MRC 12-Layer Filter

at A$58 for a good quality 86mm UV filter the product is a steal. They sell on Amazon as well. Just for your information.


----------



## edoorn (Nov 17, 2017)

The Tarmron is nice but having used it for more than a year professionally at weddings and events I can say that low light AF performance is the bottleneck here. Low CA for sure. 

The Sigma could be a good choice, very sharp but do check your copy has good AF. Currently I’m in possession of the new 85 IS and I think it’s great, very sharp and the focus is among the best I’ve ever seen in a Canon lens.


----------



## pwp (Nov 17, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> pwp,
> 
> in regards to 86mm filters. I was referred to the Gobe filters by a photog who is associated with the business here in Australia. I was skeptical initially until I had a chance to run sharpness, reflectance and aberration tests with the following filter and my own lens and camera:
> 
> ...



I'd never heard of Schott filters. Thanks, I'll bookmark their site. Great value if the quality is there.

-pw


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 17, 2017)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schott_AG

SCHOTT AG
Manufacturing company

Schott AG is an international manufacturing group of glass and glass-ceramics. The company is headquartered in Mainz, Germany and employs approximately 15,100 people worldwide. *All shares of Schott AG are solely held by the Carl Zeiss Foundation.*
Headquarters: Mainz, Germany
Revenue: 1.99 billion EUR (2015–2016)
Founder: Otto Schott
Founded: 1884
Subsidiaries: WACKER SCHOTT Solar GmbH, MORE
Parent organizations: *Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung*, Surana Solar


----------



## Cory (Nov 17, 2017)

One reviewer said that it's probably criminal to not get the Sigma, it costs about as much as the compact camera that I'm not getting and it matches the little Sigma lens cloth that's attached to my camera strap.
I think maybe the Sigma Art.


----------



## peterzuehlke (Nov 17, 2017)

another vote for the Tamron 85mm 1.8 I shoot performance, music and dance with a 6D (and cough Sony) with it typically at 1.8 to 2.8 and love it. 
last shoot from the weekend, most shot open, wide shots at the end are from the Sony with Sigma 30mm 1.4 (these are at 3200)

https://www.facebook.com/peter.zuehlke.3/media_set?set=a.1718866461471547.1073741889.100000446296740&type=3


----------



## JoFT (Nov 17, 2017)

Owning a couple of 85mm lenses: The new Canon. definitely If you love Manual focusing the Milvus and the Otus are mind-blowing as well. 


I will test the Sigma, too - and I am scared about autofocus confidence...


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 17, 2017)

Hands down, the new Canon. I ain't biased either.


----------



## Cory (Nov 17, 2017)

Would the Milvus possibly make sense (portraits, stage, etc.)? 

:-*


----------



## Boyer U. Klum-Cey (Nov 17, 2017)

With my marginal talent, and aging hands, I like the sound of the 1.4 IS. Hopefully, it is also "easy to dance to".


----------



## JoFT (Nov 19, 2017)

Cory said:


> Would the Milvus possibly make sense (portraits, stage, etc.)?
> 
> :-*


The Milvus makes sense. I will not sell it, even if I own both. The Milvus is a tool for experts only. The manual focus is the best what you can get. In combination with a mirrorless body like the M5 it i just awesome...


----------



## JoFT (Nov 19, 2017)

Boyer U. Klum-Cey said:


> With my marginal talent, and aging hands, I like the sound of the 1.4 IS. Hopefully, it is also "easy to dance to".




very easy to dance ;-)


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 19, 2017)

Define "definitive."


----------



## martinslade (Nov 19, 2017)

Just got Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens (one before Art). Testing out on moving target after AFMA on Canon 70D. This is 50% crop at f1.4 1/2500th iso500 on a moving dog with low contrast using AI Servo. Not every shot is in focus. Some soft and some usable but not tack sharp. Only paid £300 and loving it especially on the 6D 8)


----------



## PavelR (Nov 19, 2017)

There is no definitive 85: :'(
Sigma 85 ART:
https://www.dpreview.com/samples/3810632140/top-10-sample-galleries-of-the-year-6-the-sigma-85mm-f1-4-art
https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS7952x5304~sample_galleries/1444131463/3764272467.jpg

Canon 85/1.4 IS
https://www.dpreview.com/samples/5001614830/canon-85mm-f1-4l-is-usm-sample-gallery
https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS8688x5792~sample_galleries/6995506461/4173468085.jpg F2!
https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS6240x4160~sample_galleries/6995506461/9256427304.jpg


----------



## JoFT (Nov 19, 2017)

PavelR said:


> There is no definitive 85: :'(
> Sigma 85 ART:
> https://www.dpreview.com/samples/3810632140/top-10-sample-galleries-of-the-year-6-the-sigma-85mm-f1-4-art
> https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS7952x5304~sample_galleries/1444131463/3764272467.jpg
> ...




Nobody took the ZEISS Otus into the discussion so fare. Missing weather sealing and autofocus IQ wise it is the ultimate 85mm Lens....


In terms of unversal all you need: the new Canon. The Sigma has deficits autofocus, weather sealing and IS.


----------



## slclick (Dec 1, 2017)

My new 85 (80) is a 50 STM on an adapted M5. It's remarkably good for $87.


----------



## aceflibble (Dec 2, 2017)

If you're set on an 85mm prime, I'd actually suggest the 85mm f/1.8 stopped down to f/2.8-4. Fact of the matter is it's the fastest and most accurately-focusing 85mm prime for Canon bodies (and I say that even as someone who regularly sings the praises of Tamron's newer AF systems) and at those apertures, all these 85s end up being more-or-less the same optically, though the Canon f/1.8 does continue to have less aberration than any other 85 available for Canon. The new 85mm f/1.4 IS is a touch faster to focus on some bodies, but your 6D isn't one of those, and the optical improvements (which are only center sharpness and vignetting) don't mean much if you're stopping down anyway. (The IS meaning even less at the shutter speeds you'll usually be using for a performance.) For the sake of that lower-light concert photography, where AF really matters a lot, it's very hard to recommend the Canon 1.2 (vague focus-by-wire), the Sigma (inconsistent accuracy), the Tamron (slower), or the Zeiss (even for jazz concerts, you don't want to be trying to use a Zeiss; I happily use them in the studio, but they absolutely do not hold up for concert shooting).

Slightly better than that would be the 100mm f/2 and 100m f/2.8L IS Macro. The plain 100mm f/2 is one of Canon's best lenses for controlling aberration (as far as primes go it's a tie with the 85mm f/1.8, which, again beats every other 85 available in Canon mount) and it's also _the_ fastest-focusing lens over 50mm that Canon produces. The f/2.8L is slower to focus, as it's a macro lens with a much larger focus throw, but it's optically even better and gives you IS and weather sealing.

But really, better than any of the above would be the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. It focuses faster and more consistently accurately than any of the primes except for the cheap 85 f/1.8 & 100 f/2; it's optically as good as you can get (the only Canon-mount lens in the world with less prominent aberration is the Zeiss 135mm); and there will absolutely be times you are thankful for the extra range. There is a reason why the 70-200 2.8 is _the_ performance lens, whether it's an almost motionless piano recital, ballet, theatre, or a heavy metal festival.

If you're absolutely dead-set on primes and 85mm, the Canon 85mm f/1.8 (or slightly better, the 100mm f/2) shot at f/2.8 or smaller is equal-or-better than everything else in terms of both AF and optical quality. If you really want to shoot wider than f/2.8 then that lens does drop behind the others quicker, but for jazz band you should have more than enough light for f/2.8 and I'd never risk missing focus by using a wider aperture than that anyway.
If you can't bring yourself to use a non-premium lens for whatever reason, the new 85mm f/1.4L IS is the second-best choice on paper for this kind of purpose (I've yet to use it enough myself to definitely say how it fares in terms of aberration, but so far it seems fine). I love the recent Tamrons, but the AF is a touch slow and if you're going to give up AF speed then you might as well get the Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS; I like the recent Sigmas, but their AF—especially on the 85—is too inconsistent for me to trust on an unrepeatable task like any kind of concert. The Zeiss, as I said above, I love in the studio, but I'd never take to a stage performance.
But, like I said, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is king of them all. You'd have to be really, really against zooms to use anything else.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 2, 2017)

JoFT said:


> The Milvus is a tool for experts only.



;D

Love it


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2017)

Cory said:


> There is a lot of metal so CA is maybe a top concern. I do shoot in RAW, but for some reason whenever I see purple where it shouldn't be I start screaming at my computer.





aceflibble said:


> Slightly better than that would be the 100mm f/2 and 100m f/2.8L IS Macro. The plain 100mm f/2 is one of Canon's best lenses for controlling aberration (as far as primes go it's a tie with the 85mm f/1.8, which, again beats every other 85 available in Canon mount)...
> 
> But really, better than any of the above would be the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.



The 85/1.8 is well-controlled for most aberrations, but _not_ for longitudinal CA, which the OP indicated was a particular concern. Shooting OOF specular highlights with the 85/1.8 might make Cory want to scream, but it made me feel like singing one or more songs from this list. 

Agree, if budget allows and f/2.8 is fast enough, the 70-200/2.8L IS II is the top choice for indoor event shooting.


----------



## Memirsbrunnr (Dec 2, 2017)

Cory said:


> An 85mm lens on my 6D might be what I'll need most of the time for stage performances. My son just made the cut on one of the best high school jazz bands in the country. Yes, his life's over until May, but he's good with it.
> There is a lot of metal so CA is maybe a top concern. I do shoot in RAW, but for some reason whenever I see purple where it shouldn't be I start screaming at my computer. Not sure why.
> Thanks for any "best" recommendations although it's possible, I guess, that there's no terribly wrong answer.


Dustin Abbott has a nice brand new comparison of 85mm lenses in his new EF85mm f/1.4L IS USM review 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNOX-dehNj4


----------



## siegsAR (Dec 3, 2017)

slclick said:


> My new 85 (80) is a 50 STM on an adapted M5. It's remarkably good for $87.


True, after I got my M5 I bought a Canon adapter right away as I already have the 50mm STM.
My definitive 85 which is not really an 85.

I used to have the Canon USM 85 with the 6D before, I loved it too!


----------



## Cory (Dec 3, 2017)

I wonder if, by chance, I should replace my 135 with the venerable 70-200 2.8 IS II. Probably THE definitive zoom; maybe without a doubt.
I have 2 years of some major Jazz Band performances and a lifetime of "running" events in a Winter Series that starts TOMORROW; that I'm constantly trying to get of, but it is founded on some major charity. 
Being a remarkable photographer is often a curse, but I do now have on my automatic "no" unless there's money involved. "Hey Cory, can you...?" "No. STFU."


----------



## deleteme (Dec 11, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> Slightly better than that would be the 100mm f/2 and 100m f/2.8L IS Macro. The plain 100mm f/2 is one of Canon's best lenses for controlling aberration (as far as primes go it's a tie with the 85mm f/1.8, which, again beats every other 85 available in Canon mount) and it's also _the_ fastest-focusing lens over 50mm that Canon produces.



I have to agree on the utility of the 100 f2. Almost zero mention of it anywhere ever yet it is one of the unsung heroes of the Canon line up.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 11, 2017)

Normalnorm said:


> aceflibble said:
> 
> 
> > Slightly better than that would be the 100mm f/2 and 100m f/2.8L IS Macro. The plain 100mm f/2 is one of Canon's best lenses for controlling aberration (as far as primes go it's a tie with the 85mm f/1.8, which, again beats every other 85 available in Canon mount) and it's also _the_ fastest-focusing lens over 50mm that Canon produces.
> ...



+1

Despite being a lens from the early nineties it's excellent.


----------



## Talys (Dec 11, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> Normalnorm said:
> 
> 
> > aceflibble said:
> ...



I had one of those! I ended up selling my 100 f2 when I purchased the 100L/2.8 macro -- though at one point, I had all 3 -- the f2, f2.8 macro, and f2.8L macro (I bought them in that order).

All three are just such nice lenses. At its price, I think the f/2.8L macro is a spectacular lens. The sharpness, build, and AF consistency are awesome, and the macro quality is just terrific (very important to me). You can't really ask for much more, though at half the price, you can definitely make an argument for the non-L. And for the size the f/2 is fantastic.

In the end, I kept only the f/2.8L macro, mostly because the 2.8L is a very light lens, and I really just had too much glass that I didn't use.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 11, 2017)

Talys said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Normalnorm said:
> ...



The 100/2.8L is without doubt a very good, versatile lens. The only thing I would say is that at f/2.8 the vignetting is quite heavy whereas at the same aperture on the 100/2 it is very low. Also better across the frame at f/2.8.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Dec 11, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> If you're set on an 85mm prime, I'd actually suggest the 85mm f/1.8 stopped down to f/2.8-4. Fact of the matter is it's the fastest and most accurately-focusing 85mm prime for Canon bodies (and I say that even as someone who regularly sings the praises of Tamron's newer AF systems) and at those apertures, all these 85s end up being more-or-less the same optically, though the Canon f/1.8 does continue to have less aberration than any other 85 available for Canon. The new 85mm f/1.4 IS is a touch faster to focus on some bodies, but your 6D isn't one of those, and the optical improvements (which are only center sharpness and vignetting) don't mean much if you're stopping down anyway. (The IS meaning even less at the shutter speeds you'll usually be using for a performance.) For the sake of that lower-light concert photography, where AF really matters a lot, it's very hard to recommend the Canon 1.2 (vague focus-by-wire), the Sigma (inconsistent accuracy), the Tamron (slower), or the Zeiss (even for jazz concerts, you don't want to be trying to use a Zeiss; I happily use them in the studio, but they absolutely do not hold up for concert shooting).
> 
> Slightly better than that would be the 100mm f/2 and 100m f/2.8L IS Macro. The plain 100mm f/2 is one of Canon's best lenses for controlling aberration (as far as primes go it's a tie with the 85mm f/1.8, which, again beats every other 85 available in Canon mount) and it's also _the_ fastest-focusing lens over 50mm that Canon produces. The f/2.8L is slower to focus, as it's a macro lens with a much larger focus throw, but it's optically even better and gives you IS and weather sealing.
> 
> ...


I don't understand this. Why would you want to carry around a huge zoom lens weighing almost 1.5Kg when you can do the job with the 85mm F1.8 which only weighs 425g? The 85mm F1.8 also costs £1,500 less than the 70-200 F2.8 and it is 1.5 stops faster. If the 85mm F1.8 can do the job then why go for the bigger and more expensive lens?


----------



## BillB (Dec 11, 2017)

Ian_of_glos said:


> aceflibble said:
> 
> 
> > If you're set on an 85mm prime, I'd actually suggest the 85mm f/1.8 stopped down to f/2.8-4. Fact of the matter is it's the fastest and most accurately-focusing 85mm prime for Canon bodies (and I say that even as someone who regularly sings the praises of Tamron's newer AF systems) and at those apertures, all these 85s end up being more-or-less the same optically, though the Canon f/1.8 does continue to have less aberration than any other 85 available for Canon. The new 85mm f/1.4 IS is a touch faster to focus on some bodies, but your 6D isn't one of those, and the optical improvements (which are only center sharpness and vignetting) don't mean much if you're stopping down anyway. (The IS meaning even less at the shutter speeds you'll usually be using for a performance.) For the sake of that lower-light concert photography, where AF really matters a lot, it's very hard to recommend the Canon 1.2 (vague focus-by-wire), the Sigma (inconsistent accuracy), the Tamron (slower), or the Zeiss (even for jazz concerts, you don't want to be trying to use a Zeiss; I happily use them in the studio, but they absolutely do not hold up for concert shooting).
> ...


Well, the 85mm f1.8 doesn't have IS and it doesn't zoom.


----------



## tron (Dec 11, 2017)

BillB said:


> Ian_of_glos said:
> 
> 
> > aceflibble said:
> ...


I believe the fact that 85 1.8 is faster ( 1.8 instead of 2.8 ) and much much lighter than 70-200 2.8 mitigates the fact that it does not have IS. The zoom is totally another issue. And - since I read the previous post - I also have the 2.8 IS II zoom so - at least myself- I have nothing against zooms but each have different use.


----------



## tron (Dec 11, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...


This is interesting (I am referring to 100 f/2 IQ and small size/weight advantage). Have you compared somehow the 85 1.8 and the 100 2.0 ? I know there are comparison tests (TDP) but I would be interested in personal experience of you or any other forum member. Thanks.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Dec 11, 2017)

BillB said:


> Ian_of_glos said:
> 
> 
> > aceflibble said:
> ...


The original post specifies an 85mm lens so I assume he/she knows how far from the stage he/she will be standing and has decided that a zoom lens would not be necessary. Also, if the musicians are going to be moving around then IS would be of limited use. In that situation I would rather have the wider aperture available so I could use a faster shutter speed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2017)

tron said:


> This is interesting (I am referring to 100 f/2 IQ and small size/weight advantage). Have you compared somehow the 85 1.8 and the 100 2.0 ? I know there are comparison tests (TDP) but I would be interested in personal experience of you or any other forum member. Thanks.



I've used both the 85/1.8 and the 100/2. They are virtual clones, the 15mm focal length difference notwithstanding. The 85/1.8 perhaps suffers from a bit more longitudinal CA (i.e., the 100/2 has a lot, the 85/1.8 has very slightly more) – LoCA is the biggest weakness of the two lenses. I was shooting APS-C at the time, and the difference between 85 and 100mm was noticable for indoor shooting, with the 100mm being slightly too long, so I kept the 85/1.8 (until getting the 85/1.2L II, which I recently replaced with the 85/1.4L IS).


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 11, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > This is interesting (I am referring to 100 f/2 IQ and small size/weight advantage). Have you compared somehow the 85 1.8 and the 100 2.0 ? I know there are comparison tests (TDP) but I would be interested in personal experience of you or any other forum member. Thanks.
> ...



I have both, and agree with Neuro above. In terms of wide open sharpness the 100/2 has been better than all but the latest 85/1.8 that I have which is also very good. If I'm going to be really picky the 85/1.8 has a very slightly softer bokeh. I have found the 100 to be the more consistent focusing wide open. Overall I'd say the 100 is the sharper lens. To put it in a nutshell; 85/1.8 for portraits, 100/2 for low light short tele sports. 

Historically I think the 100/2 came first as a seriously good, fast short telephoto for the newly introduced EOS system, running rings round Nikon at the time. The 85/1.8 came a few years later.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> Historically I think the 100/2 came first as a seriously good, fast short telephoto for the newly introduced EOS system, running rings round Nikon at the time. The 85/1.8 came a few years later.



The 100/2 was released in October 1991, the 85/1.8 in July 1992. They were probably developed concurrently.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 11, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Historically I think the 100/2 came first as a seriously good, fast short telephoto for the newly introduced EOS system, running rings round Nikon at the time. The 85/1.8 came a few years later.
> ...



I’ve always thought it strange that Canon introduced two such similar lenses, with such different optical formulas. If I could only have one it would be the 100/2.


----------



## tron (Dec 11, 2017)

Many thanks Neuro and Sporgon for your responses.


----------



## BillB (Dec 11, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



And I've always thought the price difference between the 100 and the 85 to be strange. The list price of the 100 is $500, while the list for the 85 is $420. Currently, Canon is selling the 100 for $500 and the 85 for $350. While some prefer the 100mm, I have never seen anything that justifies that kind of price premium.


----------



## slclick (Dec 12, 2017)

definitive 85...the 135L and a few steps backwards.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 12, 2017)

slclick said:


> definitive 85...the 135L and a few steps backwards.



I disagree as I think for most people's general usage the 85mm focal length is far more versatile and easier to use.


----------



## slclick (Dec 12, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > definitive 85...the 135L and a few steps backwards.
> ...



Was this a query about what is best for most people? I find most people disagree with my photography choices in general (love the 40 FL, hate 50mm, rather use primes over a 70-200 etc etc) and thats the sort of thing that keeps us all from homogenizing to death. YMMV and I hope it does.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 12, 2017)

slclick said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



No because it sounds like we are the same ! ;D


----------



## Cory (Dec 12, 2017)

Good points. Decided to keep the 135 as my 85 and add the 100-400 II and 50 1.2. 
Granted, the 50 is the 135 with even more steps back, but it seems a nice complement to the UWA just in case there's a wall.
Thanks again. Much appreciated.


----------



## JoFT (Feb 16, 2018)

Cory said:


> Good points. Decided to keep the 135 as my 85 and add the 100-400 II and 50 1.2.
> Granted, the 50 is the 135 with even more steps back, but it seems a nice complement to the UWA just in case there's a wall.
> Thanks again. Much appreciated.




Be careful with the 50f1.2. I tested that lens a couple of times on my camera - and i was never satisfied... I do love my Milvus 50 f1.4 which is awesome and I do expect the 50 f1.4 L from Canon being similarly amazing to the new 85mm f1.4 as well as the 35mm f1.4


----------



## arthurbikemad (Feb 16, 2018)

I sold my f1.2  now waiting for stock on the new 1.4IS


----------



## danieltoader (Feb 19, 2018)

85 f1.2 L II is the one to get if you want something different, unique ... a lens with character.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 19, 2018)

danieltoader said:


> 85 f1.2 L II is the one to get if you want something different, unique ... a lens with character.



Have yo tried the 1.4L?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 19, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> danieltoader said:
> 
> 
> > 85 f1.2 L II is the one to get if you want something different, unique ... a lens with character.
> ...



I find that the 1.4L has character...and IS...and fast AF.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 19, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > danieltoader said:
> ...



Me too! Finally catching kids when they aren't sleeping.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Feb 19, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...


Can you think of a good reason why anyone who already owns the F1.2L ii would want to buy the F1.4L in addition? The pictures produced by the F1.2L ii have a unique look and of course there are the F1.2 bragging rights, but the F1.4L has weather sealing, faster auto focus and image stabilisation. Although the F1.2L is slow, unwieldy and difficult to use I love the pictures it produces and I would be unwilling to compromise on picture quality just so I could have faster autofocus and image stabilisation.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 19, 2018)

Ian_of_glos said:


> Can you think of a good reason why anyone who already owns the F1.2L ii would want to buy the F1.4L in addition?



In addition, no. Instead of, yes.


----------



## Larsskv (Feb 20, 2018)

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.


----------



## JoFT (Feb 21, 2018)

Cory said:


> Would the Milvus possibly make sense (portraits, stage, etc.)?
> 
> :-*


Definetely. Owning both the Milvus is a keeper. Wherever a quick reaction is not needed but manual focusing - like in studio environments I will definitely use the Milvus - not the Canon. The Milvus Lenses are high precision tools. I dod had my special experience shooting with the 35mm f1.4... That was amazing.....


----------

