85L original or mk II?

Looking to see what people's thoughts are on these two lenses compared. I'm not sure if the mk II is necessarily worth the extra few hundred bucks (used).

To get things out of the way:

• I can budget for either... just a matter of time.
  
• I would use the 85L for outdoor portraits.
  
• I low light shoot sports, too. However, I'm more likely to use the 85/1.8 for sports for its faster AF.

Only have 85L II; never use the original one.

From http://www.the-digital-picture.com …-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx:

From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Canon_EF_85mm_l​ens

Good luck.

I've used both and neither of them wil be very great at indoor sports. If you're a member of CPS, lens rentals are free. Just remember that the "1.6x" times faster than geological speed is still painfully slow.

The original 85L had major CA issues unless stopped down to F/2.8 and a very slow and hard to capture focus.
The mark II is faster to focus (but still slow mind you), and still has CA issues, but more manageable (as in not so noticeable and easier to fix post processing) and hardly exist at F/2.8.

If you want something on crop, which will be equal to a 135, I would suggest the sigma 85.
Its better than the 1.8, will focus much faster, the IQ is good, and it doesn't have the "normal" sigma behaviour of miss behaving focus.

Nathan wrote in post #16736967
Looking to see what people's thoughts are on these two lenses compared. I'm not sure if the mk II is necessarily worth the extra few hundred bucks (used).

To get things out of the way:

• I can budget for either... just a matter of time.
  
• I would use the 85L for outdoor portraits.
  
• I low light shoot sports, too. However, I'm more likely to use the 85/1.8 for sports for its faster AF.

How does either lens perform at weddings and events? Is the original 85L's autofocus so bad that it shouldn't be used at events?

Thanks

Heya,

Neither.

Sigma 85mm F1.4

Otherwise, EF 135mm F2.

Very best,

x_tan - Thanks. I already read the digital picture review... which tells me that image quality between the two are not substantial. That's why I asked if anyone knew enough to compare.

Eyal - I've got two ff bodies. See my sig. As far as CA goes, apparently the 1.8 is better than both.

Malveaux - Those lenses are different considerations and topic. Irrelevant... I'm looking to gather as much light as possible.

Do not buy an 85l mk1. Canon no longer supports them and the repair parts, specifically the focus drive motors are hard to find.

Just another small consideration if you intent to keep the lens long term: the original version USM (Ultrasonic Motor) will run out the support earlier than Mark II; and 85L can't even manual focus without its motor.

kachadurian wrote in post #16740240
Do not buy an 85l mk1. Canon no longer supports them and the repair parts, specifically the focus drive motors are hard to find.

We post at the same time

So, this is the same story as 200/1.8L.

The optical design of the two lenses is identical. The danger you risk in buying the version from 1989 is that when that focus motor goes, you have a useless lens on your hands that you'll have to focus like it's a macro lens: the lens requires a functioning autofocus motor to focus because there is no mechanical focusing element. I wouldn't risk that with a lens that could be as old as 25 years.

I've heard that the lens laying on the mk II gives it an IQ edge over the first edition. Can anyone confirm this?

I got myself the mkI version last year for a great price. It looks as though it sat in storage since it was made. The focus speed isn't fast, but it isn't as slow as people make it out to be (gogo internet tales!). I'd get it again for the price I paid (about $1000 off a new mkII version).

It's easily my favourite lens by far. Though it doesn't get abused in its usage as it's primarily used for portraiture and the weather where I live is fairly tame. So here's hoping I haven't jinxed myself with this post!

The last wedding I went to I took only the 85L with my 5D classic. Even with this 'impossible to focus in poor light' combo, it performed very well indeed. f1.2 @ISO1600 sucks in a huge amount of available light.

Lol... I might be veering away both altogether. Been looking at some of the so-called manual focus Bokeh Monsters.

I have the Version 1 and LOVE mine. No complaints.

Nathan wrote in post #16763651
Lol... I might be veering away both altogether. Been looking at some of the so-called manual focus Bokeh Monsters.

? You mean Pentacon 135mm f/2.8