Any convincing 85 1.2L II vs 85 1.8 comparison pics to buy the L ?

shinyknights wrote in post #16133413
Sorry it took me so long. This is actually an old pics. I have not had time to use both lenses on tripod yet, but you can take a look at my dummy model

Looking at these two pictures (and the others previously posted in this thread), I'd have to agree with those who say there isn't a roughly $1600-dollar difference in quality between the two lenses, especially not when it's the cheaper one of the two that focuses faster.

Is it possible that your pic with the 85 1.8 is slightly less exposed than the one with the 85 1.2?

hes gone wrote in post #16134497
=he's gone;16134497]the biggest give away is the vignetting on the 1.8, and the fact that the 1.8 is indeed sharper in those test shots.

I think what you're talking about is chromatic aberration. Vignetting occurs at the fringes of the entire image, which should have been cropped out. I see that the "123" looks bolder on the first right image, perhaps due to some CA on the left pic making it look not as sharp.

This thread made me go back to Brian Carnathan's review. He mentions that both versions of the 85L are very sharp, but the DOF is extremely thin. The samples here may have been hand-held and thus the plane of focus may have varied. This also may be affected by the camera's ability to track the same focus point in both shots, something also mentioned in Brian's review. He says its his favorite portrait lens, but it seems to me that this is solely due to the ability to open to 1.2. So while the 85mm 1.8 has some advantages in AF speed and CA control, the real reason to choose the 1.2 is for the aperture gain, which takes some expertise and a high end camera to take advantage of.

Apricane wrote in post #16134834
Is it possible that your pic with the 85 1.8 is slightly less exposed than the one with the 85 1.2?

I noticed this too, especially in the bg.

ed57gmc wrote in post #16135027
I noticed this too, especially in the bg.

Both images were not edited, they were just exported and resized from RAW to JPG, otherwise the images would be too big. You can view the actual EXIF data at www.imageinforeader.co​m. Just put in the image URL and it will spit out all the EXIF data. The images were shot with a canon 5d mark ii and on a tripod. Both same distance from the object.

Both are shot at ISO 100
Shutter speed at 0.3
Aperture at 1.8

I am assuming that when you set the aperture to 1.8, it is not exactly set at 1.8. There could be a give or take depending on the quality assurance used when evaluating the lenses before they get shelved.

Now that I read the EXIF data, the color temperature and tint diff slightly. I had auto black/white balancing. 3600 and +11 for the 85mm 1.8 vs 3550 +8 for the 85mm 1.2 II.

With that said, I still think this example is terrible. Cartoony objects look good on all lenses. I'll try and get some real pictures under the sun this weekend. Hopefully some night shots too. To be continued!

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16120642
I really don't understand these "comparison" threads. There are 2 fundamental questions to answer when it comes to buying a lens.

Do you need the lens in question? If yes, move to the next question, which is, can you afford the lens in question?

Most of the time, the answer to the first question is yes, and many people posting in these "vs" threads come here to justify the answer to the second question. Unfortunately, it just so happens that majority of these questions are asked to justify why the expensive version of a lens is unnecessary.

Of course 1.2 is better than 1.8, why else would it cost $2,000? Can you afford it? Do you need it? There is your answer.

An M3 is %30-50 more expensive (depending on the options involved) than a 335. A 335 is a phenomenal car to 90% of the public and a reach for many people. The M3 is a master piece, it's a car in a league of its own. You go to any public car forum and ask this question, 9 out of 10 people who don't own an M3 will say it's a waste of money and how you can get an 335 and chip this and mod that and beat an M3 0-60. Reality is M3 can never be beaten by a 335, because when you take the two cars, you never compare the 0-60 times. It's the suspension, the differential, the seats, the V8, the body work, and more importantly the name that makes an M3 the legendary sports car.

I cannot afford a 1Dx, but can only afford a 5D3. I don't go around saying how 1DX is a waste of money and how 5D3 is more than enough. Totally different cameras for totally different purposes. Now, even if I had the need for 1DX, I still wouldn't be able to afford it and stick with 5D3. That doesn't mean I'll try to justify my decision by saying how such a waste of money 1DX is. Makes sense?

As an E92 M3 owner, I agree

ed57gmc wrote in post #16135024
I think what you're talking about is chromatic aberration. Vignetting occurs at the fringes of the entire image, which should have been cropped out. I see that the "123" looks bolder on the first right image, perhaps due to some CA on the left pic making it look not as sharp.

i'm not talking about CA, I'm talking about the vignetting on the original toy images posted. The inside of the photograph is slightly lighter while the outside is considerably darker when compared to the L@1.8. The vignetting is also visible on post 32 of the bears, in fact i commented on it before the toy pics were posted.

Interestingly enough someone a week or so ago said that the 85 1.8 was the one with CA problems. I've never seen it and I use that lens a lot.

These lenses are insanely close in overall real world performance.

No offense guys, 85L isn`t made to take pictures of small objects from close distances.
Take some full body shots with both lenses so we can see some useful examples.

The other pictures are worthless as from close distances on small objects, the lenses provide similar results.
+ the background needs to be quite far. we wanna see some bokeh here.

Luckily there's the sigma 85, sharper than the 85L, faster focusing, and still gives the 3d "pop" that the 85L makes, all for half the price of the 85L.

drzenitram wrote in post #16137173
Luckily there's the sigma 85, sharper than the 85L, faster focusing, and still gives the 3d "pop" that the 85L makes, all for half the price of the 85L.

The Sigma 85 1.4 is also a nice alternative thought it's 1/3 stop slower. My 85L (UA code) is extremely sharp at 1.2 and is surprisingly enough the only lens in my arsenal that didn't need MA.

Revolverz wrote in post #16136544
No offense guys, 85L isn`t made to take pictures of small objects from close distances.
Take some full body shots with both lenses so we can see some useful examples.

The other pictures are worthless as from close distances on small objects, the lenses provide similar results.
+ the background needs to be quite far. we wanna see some bokeh here.

So.. is there anyone who did this test ?

Is this the type of test you were looking for? I figured a BMW 335i would be a good subject. (Especially since I do not have a M3.) Sorry it is not as clean as I would like.

I removed the exif info in case anyone wanted to guess and did do some minor updates to the jpgs in lightroom/PS6. I have to apologize in advance, I must have bumped the tripod changing the lens, because they are not exactly the same. These shots are always more difficult than than it should be....I was watching for (the occasional) car...and the rain that has been on and off all day. (I figured with my luck as soon as I pull the lens, it would start pouring rain.)

Here are links to the full res jpgs as well:
https://dl.dropboxuser​content.com/u/10047239​6/BMW.85mm.5289.jpg
https://dl.dropboxuser​content.com/u/10047239​6/BMW.85mm.5292.jpg

Let me know if you want anything else. Thanks.

Juza from juzaphoto did a side-by-side comparison a couple of years ago. I can't find the link but IIRC he concluded that the IQ was identical when shot at the same aperture.

Edit: found it http://www.juzaphoto.c​om/article.php?l=en&ar​ticle=49

aaxsherm wrote in post #16141270
Is this the type of test you were looking for? I figured a BMW 335i would be a good subject. (Especially since I do not have a M3.) Sorry it is not as clean as I would like.

I removed the exif info in case anyone wanted to guess and did do some minor updates to the jpgs in lightroom/PS6. I have to apologize in advance, I must have bumped the tripod changing the lens, because they are not exactly the same. These shots are always more difficult than than it should be....I was watching for (the occasional) car...and the rain that has been on and off all day. (I figured with my luck as soon as I pull the lens, it would start pouring rain.)

Here are links to the full res jpgs as well:
https://dl.dropboxuser​content.com/u/10047239​6/BMW.85mm.5289.jpg
https://dl.dropboxuser​content.com/u/10047239​6/BMW.85mm.5292.jpg

Let me know if you want anything else. Thanks.

First one is the 85 1.8

The first one has some major purple fringing so I'm going to guess that one is the 85 1.8

That being said...of the two pictures, I prefer the look of the first (minus the purple).