Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 10 Dec 2011 (Saturday) 03:35
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Sold my 85 1.2L for 85 1.8 :-)

 
CanonYouCan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,484 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 22
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
     
Dec 10, 2011 03:35 |  #1

Most are excited the other way, but I sold my 3yo 85 1.2L MKI for €1000 ($1337) and I will buy a 85 1.8 again, and have a lot of cash left, maybe for a tabletpc or something.
I compared a lot of pics wide open in past and the difference was really minimal.

I don't think models will even see the difference!
What do you think of this, good price? Anyone did the same thing?
It's not really a downgrade as the 85 1.8 is a superb lens!

In past I also sold my 135 f2L (also a perfect lens) and 200 2.8L in favour of 70-200 2.8L for the versatility (and also great bokeh at 135-200mm).
The only 2 that seem unbeatable are my 35 1.4L and 16-35 f2.8L which I will probably never sell :)


Sony A7 III | Metabones V | Canon 16-35 F4 L | 70-200 2.8L II
Sigma 50 1.4 Art | Sigma 85 1.4 Art

Lighting : Godox AD600B TTL + Godox V860II-S + X1T-S
Modifiers: 60cm Collapsible Silver Beautydish + grid | Godox 120cm Octagon softbox + grid + Speedlite Flash bender
Tripod: Vanguard Alta 253CT carbon

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Ferrari_Alex
Goldmember
Avatar
1,787 posts
Joined Nov 2007
     
Dec 10, 2011 05:45 |  #2

CanonYouCan wrote in post #13522015 (external link)
The only 2 that seem unbeatable are my 35 1.4L and 16-35 f2L which I will probably never sell :)

you need to try zeiss 35 1.4


Alex || www.dylikowski.com (external link)
_______________
Canon 5D MKII | 24-105 f/4 IS L | 70-200 f/2.8 IS II L |Zeiss 35 f/1.4 ZE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MOkoFOko
nut impotent and avoiding Geoff
Avatar
19,889 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Michigan, home of the Zombie plague
     
Dec 10, 2011 06:07 |  #3

CanonYouCan wrote in post #13522015 (external link)
Most are excited the other way, but I sold my 3yo 85 1.2L MKI for €1000 ($1337) and I will buy a 85 1.8 again, and have a lot of cash left, maybe for a tabletpc or something.
I compared a lot of pics wide open in past and the difference was really minimal.

I don't think models will even see the difference!
What do you think of this, good price? Anyone did the same thing?
It's not really a downgrade as the 85 1.8 is a superb lens!

In past I also sold my 135 f2L (also a perfect lens) and 200 2.8L in favour of 70-200 2.8L for the versatility (and also great bokeh at 135-200mm).
The only 2 that seem unbeatable are my 35 1.4L and 16-35 f2L which I will probably never sell :)

You have GOT to be kidding me. If you're honestly comparing f/1.2 to f/1.8, that makes little sense. If sharpness is your only consideration, I see the point behind your downgrade.


My Gearlist

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rudi
Goldmember
Avatar
3,751 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2002
Location: Australia
     
Dec 10, 2011 06:14 |  #4

CanonYouCan wrote in post #13522015 (external link)
Most are excited the other way, but I sold my 3yo 85 1.2L MKI for €1000 ($1337) and I will buy a 85 1.8 again, and have a lot of cash left, maybe for a tabletpc or something.
I compared a lot of pics wide open in past and the difference was really minimal.

I don't think models will even see the difference!
What do you think of this, good price? Anyone did the same thing?
It's not really a downgrade as the 85 1.8 is a superb lens!

In past I also sold my 135 f2L (also a perfect lens) and 200 2.8L in favour of 70-200 2.8L for the versatility (and also great bokeh at 135-200mm).
The only 2 that seem unbeatable are my 35 1.4L and 16-35 f2L which I will probably never sell :)

I sold my 85/1.8, and got the 85L II. After a couple of years, I sold it and bought back my 85mm f/1.8 from the guy I sold it to. At a nice discount, too! ;)

As good as the 85L is, I couldn't justify the cost, when the 85/1.8 gets me the same images 99% of the time (I hardly ever needed to shoot the 85L wide open on a full frame camera anyway). The 85mm f/1.8 is a great lens, and I don't regret the "downgrade" one bit. Plus, I bought some other lenses with the difference. :)


• Wedding Photographer - Sydney and Wollongong (external link)
• Borrowed Moment (blog) (external link)

Life is uncertain. Eat dessert first.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mtuepker
Member
Avatar
228 posts
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Minnesota
     
Dec 10, 2011 06:25 |  #5

I have no comment on the sale, but I think you need to update your avatar now =)


Camera, lens, lens, lens lens, lens, flash.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bcd01
Goldmember
Avatar
2,428 posts
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Orlando
     
Dec 10, 2011 07:41 |  #6

mtuepker wrote in post #13522196 (external link)
I have no comment on the sale, but I think you need to update your avatar now =)

Ditto:eek:


bcd01 - devices of enjoyment list :D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jwp721
Senior Member
771 posts
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Raleigh, NC
     
Dec 10, 2011 08:10 |  #7

MOkoFOko wrote in post #13522166 (external link)
You have GOT to be kidding me. If you're honestly comparing f/1.2 to f/1.8, that makes little sense. If sharpness is your only consideration, I see the point behind your downgrade.

I wouldn't consider it a downgrade... I would consider it a wise decision based upon the needs of the photographer. No one is going to argue that a $2000 lens isn't better than a $400 lens. But if you don't need the qualities of the $2000 lens and can find a better use for the $1,6000 difference then it is a better decision to buy a $400 lens.

Right now in this forum I see a lot of talk about how everyone needs to buy the 70-200 2.8IS MKII just because it is the very best. So far all I have seen are pictures of a few beer bottles, soda cans, etc. The $600 f4 lens would capture a beer bottle just as well as and for about $1,500 less.

Buy what you need when you know why you need it......




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shutterpat
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,508 posts
Gallery: 29 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 8016
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Orange, CA.
     
Dec 10, 2011 09:17 |  #8

^^ Well said and so true... :)


Follow me --> https://www.instagram.​com/shutterpat/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hieu1004
Goldmember
Avatar
3,579 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Seattle
     
Dec 10, 2011 10:26 |  #9

I've owned both as well and the 85L is a better lens than the 1.8 (w/minor exceptions), period. However, for some, it may not be $1600 better. Like jwp721 said, if you are not leveraging the strengths of the 85L - there is very little reason to choose it over the 85 f/1.8, which is one of Canon's best (IMO).


-Hieu
Gear | Blog (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jughandle
Member
69 posts
Joined Apr 2009
     
Dec 10, 2011 12:16 |  #10

Right now in this forum I see a lot of talk about how everyone needs to buy the 70-200 2.8IS MKII just because it is the very best."quote"

I think the more they write into something in justifying their purchases! They somehow influence people who are not sure on what they want. I will never replace my 85L and 135L.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bianchi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,007 posts
Gallery: 55 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6581
Joined Jan 2010
Location: USA
     
Dec 10, 2011 12:43 |  #11

CanonYouCan wrote in post #13522015 (external link)
Most are excited the other way, but I sold my 3yo 85 1.2L MKI for €1000 ($1337) and I will buy a 85 1.8 again, and have a lot of cash left, maybe for a tabletpc or something.
I compared a lot of pics wide open in past and the difference was really minimal.

I don't think models will even see the difference!
What do you think of this, good price? Anyone did the same thing?
It's not really a downgrade as the 85 1.8 is a superb lens!

In past I also sold my 135 f2L (also a perfect lens) and 200 2.8L in favour of 70-200 2.8L for the versatility (and also great bokeh at 135-200mm).
The only 2 that seem unbeatable are my 35 1.4L and 16-35 f2L which I will probably never sell :)

Side tracking for a moment , can you give your reasoning for the comment in bold text


My Gear flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommydigi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,611 posts
Gallery: 51 photos
Likes: 502
Joined May 2010
Location: Chicago
     
Dec 10, 2011 12:54 |  #12

There are lots of lens choices for a reason, for some the 1.8 does make more sense. small, faster focus etc. I also think justifying cost can be tough sometimes depending on what you do with your camera


Website (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)
Canon 5DII • 7DII • G7XII • 24LII • 50L • 100L • 135L • 40 STM • 16-35L F4 IS • 100-400L II • 600EX II • 270 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CanonYouCan
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,484 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 22
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
     
Dec 10, 2011 13:08 as a reply to  @ Bianchi's post |  #13

- First of all the 1.8 is also sharp wide open
- I compared f1.2 <> f1.8 bokeh's and there was very little difference (I swiched many times screens between same pics, the 1.8 is dreamy enough!)
- they both have purple fringing/CA so no advantage of the L.
- f1.8 is mostly the edge to have both eyes sharp, f1.2 too thin if the head is not straight
- f1.8 is fast enough (and I also work with 5D2, so even ISO3200 is no problem)
- faster AF is always welcome
- lighter and more compact is nice
- I bought the L second hand for €1000 and sold it for €1000, so I actually borrowed it
- €750 extra in my wallet is always welcome (tabletpc or extra lens,...)

I thought of the MKII (too expensive and probably not worth the cost either) and Sigma 85 1.4 (if you are lucky that you have a good copy, but reviews say harder bokeh and less IQ).
So 85 1.8 seems the best option, I don't see it as a downgrade but a more comfortable lens.

@ Bianchi :
The reason I wouldn't sell my 35 1.4L is that it has excellent IQ, ideal for models with more background (some say it's no portrait lens cause -85mm lenses have distortion), but if you check the lens database it's actually perfect. Only 85mm would be too close and 24LII is too wide for portraits. And I can't use the Sigma 30 1.4 as i'm on FF, so 35 1.4L is perfect for modelling with more background. Zeis is probably better but I prefer AF.

16-35L II : ideal wide-angle zoom / urbex-lens, I first had version I but not sharp in the corners.
I also thought of the best price/quality 17-40 f4, but sometimes I don't like to work with tripod and urbex is often in dark environments, so the f2.8 II is Canon's best.
The new expensive 8-15 f4 is more a speciality fun lens. So I don't see any other fast competitor, also not from the alternative brands.


Sony A7 III | Metabones V | Canon 16-35 F4 L | 70-200 2.8L II
Sigma 50 1.4 Art | Sigma 85 1.4 Art

Lighting : Godox AD600B TTL + Godox V860II-S + X1T-S
Modifiers: 60cm Collapsible Silver Beautydish + grid | Godox 120cm Octagon softbox + grid + Speedlite Flash bender
Tripod: Vanguard Alta 253CT carbon

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
malla1962
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,714 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2004
Location: Walney Island,cumbria,uk
     
Dec 10, 2011 13:09 as a reply to  @ Tommydigi's post |  #14

Not a FL I use very often so I sold my 1.2 and got another 1.8 and find it has some advantages over the 1.2


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
absplastic
Goldmember
Avatar
1,643 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 529
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Dec 10, 2011 13:21 |  #15

jwp721 wrote in post #13522405 (external link)
No one is going to argue that a $2000 lens isn't better than a $400 lens.

Well.. you might make just such an argument for the 50mm f/1.2L vs 50mm f/1.4mm. Which is "better" depends entirely on the look you're after. One does not buy a 50/1.2 expecting it to be an across-the-board upgrade from the 1.4.


5DSR, 6D, 16-35/4L IS, 85L II, 100L macro, Sigma 150-600C
SL1, 10-18 STM, 18-55 STM, 40 STM, 50 STM
My (mostly) Fashion and Portraiture Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link) (NSFW)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,771 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sold my 85 1.2L for 85 1.8 :-)
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is tnt2112
1328 guests, 331 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.