85 1.2L vs 85 1.8

[22littlereasons]

Maybe this comparison is a no brainer, but is the extra $1000 bucks or so worth it for the 1.2? In other words, should I save my money for the 1.2 or go for some instant gratification with the 1.8 that many rave about.

[Monito]

This topic is another recurring one that goes round and round without much ever being resolved. Your best bet is to search for it here and on Google.

[tim]

The law of diminishing returns generally applies with expensive lenses - pay twice as much, get 10% better performance. Do you really need 1.2? Do you really need you backgrounds blurred much more than 1.8? Do you have an excess of cash? That should answer the questions for you.

Take a look here (http://www.photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Primes/PLS_3111crx.aspx) for reviews - it's 4.80/5 for the 1.8 vs 4.87/5 for the 1.2

[tim]

Don't forget you also have an exceptionally narrow DOF with a 1.2 lens.

[CyberDyneSystems]

In some cases the super "L" is a no brainer,.

It;s not in this case.

The f1.2L is a "magical" lens offering an image quality that is quite unique,..

But the 85mm f/1.8 USM happens to be one of Canon's best lenses at ANY price.

One advantage the 1.8 has is much faster AF,. so it is the choice for sports and other fast paced subjects.

Google 85mm and "castleman" he has a nice side by side of these two.

[Adam Hicks]

For the price of the 85 1.2 you can get the 85 1.8 AND the 135 f2 and have two absolutely fantastic lenses instead of one :) Or you can get the 85 1.8, the 50 1.4 and the 100mm 2.8 Macro. Oozing of sharpness there!

I've been told by everyone who's used them that the 1.8 is much more usable due to its faster AF speed. I've not used the 1.2 so I can't comment, but I can say that the 1.8 is definitely impressive for the $!

[HKFEVER]

How about as a collection?
Just as 50mm f/1, 200mm f/1.2..

[CyberDyneSystems]

I think the reports of slow AF on the 1.2 are a bit exagerated,..

there are two reasons readily understandable why this gets so blown out of proportion,

1. All those that own the 1.8 (which does focus faster) want to feeel as comfortable as possible with there decision and thus have a tendancy to tear down the pricier option.

2. Side by side the differnce may be rather dramatic,. simply because it turns out the little 1.8's AF happens to be about as fast as any high end "L" lens I've tried,. (including 135mm f/2L and 200mm f/1.8L) ...it truly is amazing. But compared to say a 28-70mm f/2.8L the 85mm f/1.2 is just as fast. So it's not so much the 1.2 is slow as the 1.8 is a real pocket rocket.

For the application (protraits and studio work) the 1.2 is simply amazing. I'd love to own one,. but I'm pretty happy with it's littel brother ;)

Oh and as Adam recomends,. that is exactly what I did,. the 85mm f/1.8 and the 135mm f/2L ;) (plus a macro and triple rebates!)

[mbze430]

The only comment I can make is that, if you do ALOT of studio portrait, the 85mm f/1.2L is a must.

[jonniewalton]

I am not sure about the law of diminshing returns but i would agree that you get what you pay for. The 1.2 is suberb. In sports situations the extra stop can make a huge difference and in portrait photography it is just sensational.

What people say about the speed of focusing is quite true and its only other downside is its weight.

As i said at the beginning you get what you pay for and it is optically superb.

Jonathan

[Tomasz Dziechciarz]

Hi,

1 st question How to send a new post?
2 nd Which lens is better 28-75/2,8 Tamron or 28-105/3,5-4,5 USM Canon?

I have to take the decission till FRI 11th

Many thanks

[karusel]

I'd say that if you're really sure, that you are going to be using that focal length alot, and if you already have other lenses that you needed and have just enough money for the 85 1.2, then by all means, buy it.

[Pekka]

The 85/1.2L has f1.2 and 85/1.8 does not. If you want f1.2 (and sharp 1.2!) then the 85/1.2L is the lens you need to buy. If you are really asking should I buy 1.8 or 1.2, then get 1.8 because just by this question I know you do not need 1.2. :)

I've had no problems with 1.2's AF speed - I've used 85/1.2L more and more and it has performed fine. One thing: to get 1.2 lock on right place you need either very accurate AF or suitable MF focusing screen (1D series).

[Andy_T]

How about as a collection?
Just as 50mm f/1, 200mm f/1.2..

I think you are overdoing it here.
A 200/1.2 would be a lot bigger than the formidable 200/1.8, so hand holding would be a real problem.

Best regards,
Andy

[21farms]

i currently have both...see: http://www.pbase.com/norm/85_vs_85

i agree with pekka; the 85L has f1.2 and the 85/1.8 doesn't. he also said (in not so many words) that, if you have to ask, you probably don't need the L and i'd have to agree with that too.

and, yes, the 85L is indeed sharp at f1.2 but, in my experience, the 85L is *significantly* slower to auto-focus (a lot of pretty heavy glass to move, i guess) and not very well suited for fast sports shooting. the 85L's claim to fame is the exceptionally creamy bokeh and super-thin DOF.

for the same money, the 85/1.8 plus the 135/2L makes a more useful setup for *most* people, IMHO.

[donlavange]

I went to a basketball game last night with intentions of using the 70-200f2.8 but the court was dark and at 1600 there simply was not enough light at 1/250th. Not wanting to push to 3200, I used the 85 f1.2 and got there with ease! I bought this lens for for another purpose, but it has helped me in just such cases. I don't think it focuses all that slowly if you get in the right range.