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 12 Jul 2013 (Friday) 13:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

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

 
Apricane
Senior Member
Avatar
927 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 561
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Canada's Federal Capital
     
Jul 19, 2013 11:43 |  #76

shinyknights wrote in post #16133413 (external link)
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?


Apricane 500px (external link) flickr (external link) | 6D | T2i | 430EX II & 270EX II
15-85 | ∑24-105A | 55-250 STM | 70-300L
24 STM | 35 f/2 IS | 40 STM | 100L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
ed57gmc
Goldmember
1,251 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 155
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Turlock CA
     
Jul 19, 2013 12:48 |  #77

hes gone wrote in post #16134497 (external link)
=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 (external link). 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.


Ed
Canon 7D, T2i, EF 100-400mm L, EF 100mm 2.8 L, EF-S 15-85mm, EF 50mm 1.4 IS, 480 EX, etc.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed57gmc
Goldmember
1,251 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 155
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Turlock CA
     
Jul 19, 2013 12:49 |  #78

Apricane wrote in post #16134834 (external link)
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.


Ed
Canon 7D, T2i, EF 100-400mm L, EF 100mm 2.8 L, EF-S 15-85mm, EF 50mm 1.4 IS, 480 EX, etc.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shinyknights
Senior Member
275 posts
Joined Jan 2012
     
Jul 19, 2013 13:10 |  #79

ed57gmc wrote in post #16135027 (external link)
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 (external link). 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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shinyknights
Senior Member
275 posts
Joined Jan 2012
     
Jul 19, 2013 13:15 |  #80

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! :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
k-lo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,316 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Lost in SN's Canon vs Nikon Thread
     
Jul 19, 2013 13:34 |  #81

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16120642 (external link)
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 :cool::cool::cool::cool:


-=Karlo=- 1D III, 5D Mark II, 17-40 4 L, 35 1.4 L 24-70 2.8 L, 135mm 2.0 L, 85mm 1.2 L II, 300mm f 2.8 L, 580EX II, and a crapload of Elinchrom Gear :cool:
View my flickr sets (external link)
Check out my Modelmayhem port (external link)
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Avatar
8,470 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 1696
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Jul 19, 2013 19:56 |  #82

ed57gmc wrote in post #16135024 (external link)
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.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Revolverz
Member
223 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Sep 2012
     
Jul 20, 2013 00:31 |  #83

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. :)


Website: www.cristian-popa.com (external link) ___Facebook: https://www.facebook.c​om/cristian.popa.art (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drzenitram
Senior Member
824 posts
Joined Aug 2012
     
Jul 20, 2013 08:33 |  #84

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.


| Bodies - 5D Mark II, T2i | Lenses - Helios 44-2, Sigma 35mm 1.4, Sigma 85 1.4, Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS, Tamron SP AF 1.4x TC | Lights - 430ex ii x2, Random 3rd party strobes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
k-lo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,316 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Lost in SN's Canon vs Nikon Thread
     
Jul 20, 2013 12:04 |  #85

drzenitram wrote in post #16137173 (external link)
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.


-=Karlo=- 1D III, 5D Mark II, 17-40 4 L, 35 1.4 L 24-70 2.8 L, 135mm 2.0 L, 85mm 1.2 L II, 300mm f 2.8 L, 580EX II, and a crapload of Elinchrom Gear :cool:
View my flickr sets (external link)
Check out my Modelmayhem port (external link)
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Revolverz
Member
223 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Sep 2012
     
Jul 21, 2013 15:35 |  #86

Revolverz wrote in post #16136544 (external link)
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 ?


Website: www.cristian-popa.com (external link) ___Facebook: https://www.facebook.c​om/cristian.popa.art (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aaxsherm
Member
203 posts
Joined Mar 2010
     
Jul 21, 2013 18:58 as a reply to  @ Revolverz's post |  #87

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 (external link)
https://dl.dropboxuser​content.com/u/10047239​6/BMW.85mm.5292.jpg (external link)

Let me know if you want anything else. Thanks.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Andy
7D l 5D MKII l 10-22 l 24-70 L l 85 1.2 L II l 135 L l 70-200 F4 IS L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott_online
Senior Member
364 posts
Gallery: 82 photos
Best ofs: 7
Likes: 959
Joined Aug 2009
     
Jul 21, 2013 19:03 as a reply to  @ Revolverz's post |  #88

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 (external link)


flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,766 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 7062
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
Jul 21, 2013 19:04 |  #89

aaxsherm wrote in post #16141270 (external link)
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 (external link)
https://dl.dropboxuser​content.com/u/10047239​6/BMW.85mm.5292.jpg (external link)

Let me know if you want anything else. Thanks.

First one is the 85 1.8


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - Sony 50 1.8 - Sony 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RickRandhawa
Senior Member
599 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Chandler, AZ
     
Jul 21, 2013 19:08 |  #90

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).


6D l 24-70L II l 85L II l 70-200/4L IS

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

25,707 views & 3 likes for this thread
Any convincing 85 1.2L II vs 85 1.8 comparison pics to buy the L ?
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 suitman1
434 guests, 340 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.