Battle Of the Canon 85mm's!

I had them both...like the 1.8 better....locked focus faster and super sharp

The 1.8 is a nice lens but does not have the IQ of the 1.2 .. at any aperture. Plus the 1.8 is a purple fringing CA producing machine at 1.8 and 2.0 .. I know a lot of peeps say it's an "easy" fix in post but it's not .. you leave artifacts where the software removes the purple color and CA colors. Now the 1.2 produces quire a bit of purple fringing itself wide open but when both lenses are stopped down enough to eliminate it you have a wider usable aperture with the 1.2.

Another lens worth considering if you care to play the Sigma lotto is their 85 1.4 .. nice IQ, good bokeh and pretty sharp for the 1 in 3 times it actually hits focus.

HankM3 wrote in post #14232142
I assume you have the 85mm 1.8 lens already? If not, I highly recommend. No it's not the 1.2 and doesn't have the GIANT, aesthetically pleasing, glass but it's a fraction of the cost. Can get around for about $400 for a 1.8 / 85mm.

In the long run, are there really any photos you take that make you bump down to 1.2? vs the 1.8?

I think you will be happy with the 1.8!

Unless you have the finances to support a $2k lens. IMO get the Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Telephoto Lens for $1400, AND the 1.8 85mm.

Gives you more options. I dunno. Just some thoughts.

Yes, I've got the 1.8 version already! LOVE IT!

I'm broke, so I'd like to save what money I can, lol, I heard the 135 is a great lens, I found one for $799, I'm considering it!

I think I'm just gonna keep me lens collection like this:

70-200 2.8
200 2.8 MK II (maybe?)
135 2.0 (maybe?)
24-70 2.8
16-35 2.8
85 1.8
50 1.4 ( I can get a used one with a small nick in the front glass that dosent effect the image quality at all for $900, should I buy?)

bfleck51 wrote in post #14232167
I had them both...like the 1.8 better....locked focus faster and super sharp

Yeah, may stick with it....

mmahoney wrote in post #14232702
The 1.8 is a nice lens but does not have the IQ of the 1.2 .. at any aperture. Plus the 1.8 is a purple fringing CA producing machine at 1.8 and 2.0 .. I know a lot of peeps say it's an "easy" fix in post but it's not .. you leave artifacts where the software removes the purple color and CA colors. Now the 1.2 produces quire a bit of purple fringing itself wide open but when both lenses are stopped down enough to eliminate it you have a wider usable aperture with the 1.2.

Another lens worth considering if you care to play the Sigma lotto is their 85 1.4 .. nice IQ, good bokeh and pretty sharp for the 1 in 3 times it actually hits focus.

Yeah, that's why I want the 1.2 cause I know I've got the flex below 1.8, and IQ is better.

And I don't lime using third party lenses, unless it's a tamron 180mm macro...

There was no mention of how the Sigma 85 f 1.4 stood up against the Canon 1.8. I had the 1.8 and sold it because it wasn't getting much use, but now I'm looking into the 1.4 Sigma which retails at 900+ but can find one around here for just about $800. Thoughts??

Austin.P wrote in post #14232790
Yes, I've got the 1.8 version already! LOVE IT!

I'm broke, so I'd like to save what money I can, lol, I heard the 135 is a great lens, I found one for $799, I'm considering it!

I think I'm just gonna keep me lens collection like this:

70-200 2.8
200 2.8 MK II (maybe?)
135 2.0 (maybe?)
24-70 2.8
16-35 2.8
85 1.8
50 1.4 ( I can get a used one with a small nick in the front glass that dosent effect the image quality at all for $900, should I buy?)

Don't buy it if you don't need it.

What I would do:
- Sell the 70-200 2.8 and get the 70-200 L f4 IS.
- Get the 135L 2.0
Keep all the other lens.

Why sell the 2.8 for a 4? I shoot sports and the extra stop is needed due to the terrible football field lighting.

Aside from the IS, and being a tad sharper, what else would I be benefiting from? I personally would love to have it as well, but is it worth it?

And in the above post that you quoted, I meant to say a 50mm f/1.2 for $900.