Sold my 85 1.2L for 85 1.8 :-)

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

CanonYouCan wrote in post #13522015
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

CanonYouCan wrote in post #13522015
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.

CanonYouCan wrote in post #13522015
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.

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

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

Ditto

MOkoFOko wrote in post #13522166
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......

^^ Well said and so true...

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).

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.

CanonYouCan wrote in post #13522015
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

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

- 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.

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

jwp721 wrote in post #13522405
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.