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 25 Mar 2016 (Friday) 01:54
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Will Otus 85 retain its value?

 
icor1031
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
883 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 227
Joined Jan 2015
     
Mar 28, 2016 13:00 |  #76

wallstreetoneil wrote in post #17951947 (external link)
There isn't 'much' difference between the 85L II and the Sigma 85 but from 1.2-2.8 the Canon is sharper in the center - but we are talking about small amounts.

If you go to SLRgear.com and look at their blurr charts on full frame for both cameras you can see sharpness across the frame at major apertures.

Finally, there is no conceivable way, remotely, that a Sigma at 1.4 beats the Canon at 2.8 - not a chance in hell unless you have a damaged lens.

If you remove the Canon's F1.2 to F1.6 CA, something that can mostly be corrected in PP, the Canon is one of the Sharpest lenses ever produced stopped down to F4 - sharper than any lens I own - and I own many many L lenses. I have actually test both the new 35L II and the 85L II at F4 and IMO the 85L II is sharper and allows more fine detail to be captured using a 5DSR

Go look at the slrgear.com blurr chart and you will see it.

I have captured pictures that are used to reproduce large format oil paintings, to make prints for the artist, and I choose the Canon 85L II as the lens I use to do so - on a 5DSR, you can capture any amount of detail you want.

Thanks for the link!


(2) Canon 6D || Zeiss Sonnar 135/2 || Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 || Sigma 85/1.4 ART || Helios 44-2 58/2 || Sigma 50/1.4 Art || Canon 24/2.8 || Rokinon 14/2.8 || (2) Eg-S Focusing Screen
Ideal Portraits (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
OoDee
Senior Member
Avatar
525 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 1303
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Post edited over 3 years ago by OoDee.
     
Mar 28, 2016 13:13 |  #77

FTb wrote in post #17951899 (external link)
So you haven't actually used the Canon 85mm f1.2. You're basing your condemnation on someone else's assessment -- and of a sample you know nothing about.

Good luck with your pixel peeping and sharpness obsession. Personally, I find it soooo tiresome. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be out making photos -- or what you refer to as "blurry" photos

Looks like you definitely need to go out and shoot. If someone's interest in pixel peeping gets you under your skin, then just go out. And shoot. Just don't come here with an attitude and zero contribution. I think you made your point clear in your first post already.

icor1031v2 is at least asking honest questions. And while I can't relate to the shifted focus from creating photos to making the pixels count, I'm at least learning something out of this thread. So at the end of the day, I think all this discussion is good. Each to their own.


500px (external link) Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ebiggs
Senior Member
Avatar
638 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 70
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Spring Hill, KS
     
Mar 28, 2016 14:11 |  #78

icor1031v2 wrote in post #17951921 (external link)
40... Wow!! :o

:oops: Yeah, don't let the wife read that post! She can't tell them apart. :-D


G1x, EOS 1Dx, EOS 1D Mk IV, ef 8-15mm f4L,
ef 16-35mm f2.8L II, ef 24-70mm f2.8L II, ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II,
Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport
*** PS 6, ACR 9.3, Lightroom 6.5 ***

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
icor1031
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
883 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 227
Joined Jan 2015
Post edited over 3 years ago by icor1031. (3 edits in all)
     
Mar 28, 2016 15:29 |  #79

wallstreetoneil wrote in post #17951947 (external link)
There isn't 'much' difference between the 85L II and the Sigma 85 but from 1.2-2.8 the Canon is sharper in the center - but we are talking about small amounts.

If you go to SLRgear.com and look at their blurr charts on full frame for both cameras you can see sharpness across the frame at major apertures.

Finally, there is no conceivable way, remotely, that a Sigma at 1.4 beats the Canon at 2.8 - not a chance in hell unless you have a damaged lens.

If you remove the Canon's F1.2 to F1.6 CA, something that can mostly be corrected in PP, the Canon is one of the Sharpest lenses ever produced stopped down to F4 - sharper than any lens I own - and I own many many L lenses. I have actually test both the new 35L II and the 85L II at F4 and IMO the 85L II is sharper and allows more fine detail to be captured using a 5DSR

Go look at the slrgear.com blurr chart and you will see it.

I have captured pictures that are used to reproduce large format oil paintings, to make prints for the artist, and I choose the Canon 85L II as the lens I use to do so - on a 5DSR, you can capture any amount of detail you want.

I went to that site. They don't have the otus 85, but they have the 55. I used the 55 to compare to the Canon 1.2.
Both the sigma and the otus do better than Canon when wide open (barely for sigma), but the Canon beats both of them @ ~f/4-5.6, and murders the Otus there. (this is where each one finds its optimal sharpness)

I'm not sure how this is any different than dxomark, except for the results(!!) lol

It kind of makes me want an 85 1.2, but I can't shoot indoors yet (I don't expect much usefulness with my style (limited experience) @ f/5.6, outdoors.) and the sigma is doing better at the wider apertures; and there's the cost.

Although, there's this.. I realize they're two different cameras, but a reasonable comparison can still be made.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=5 (external link)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=5 (external link)


(2) Canon 6D || Zeiss Sonnar 135/2 || Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 || Sigma 85/1.4 ART || Helios 44-2 58/2 || Sigma 50/1.4 Art || Canon 24/2.8 || Rokinon 14/2.8 || (2) Eg-S Focusing Screen
Ideal Portraits (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FTb
Senior Member
543 posts
Gallery: 95 photos
Likes: 3181
Joined Jun 2014
     
Mar 28, 2016 18:39 |  #80

David Arbogast wrote in post #17951952 (external link)
Speaking of tiresome...I don't get the tiresome belligerence that some take with these posts. Just don't get it. I don't care what lenses or cameras people pick for their use. If someone prefers the Canon 85L II, then great: have at it. Someone else wants to spend 5K on a massive heavy manual focus Otus 85, that's fine with me too...just don't care. So, I don't understand why some take a snarky tone when discussing this stuff. Why?

Because I'm tired of people talking trash about things they know nothing about except some some review they read. If you take pleasure in reading that kind of stuff, more power to you.

OoDee wrote in post #17952032 (external link)
Looks like you definitely need to go out and shoot. If someone's interest in pixel peeping gets you under your skin, then just go out. And shoot. Just don't come here with an attitude and zero contribution. I think you made your point clear in your first post already . . .


You definitely need to get your facts straight before mouthing off. I do shoot, and I do contribute — or maybe my 120 post and 50 gallery submissions comes under your definition of “zero contribution”.

I guess if I deleted 48 of my gallery photos so that I had the same number as you — which is 2 — you’d feel better about my “contribution”.

And you can’t get much more hypocritical than to give me attitude for my post while accusing me of “com[Ing] here with an attitude”. Get over it.



My flickr (external link)
Favorite lenses: Canon 16-35 f/4 L IS, 50/1.2L, 85/1.2L II, 135/2L, 70-200L IS II, TS-E 17mm f/4L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
icor1031
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
883 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 227
Joined Jan 2015
Post edited over 3 years ago by icor1031. (6 edits in all)
     
Mar 28, 2016 20:25 |  #81

FTb wrote in post #17952431 (external link)
Because I'm tired of people talking trash about things they know nothing about except some some review they read. If you take pleasure in reading that kind of stuff, more power to you.

You definitely need to get your facts straight before mouthing off. I do shoot, and I do contribute — or maybe my 120 post and 50 gallery submissions comes under your definition of “zero contribution”.

I guess if I deleted 48 of my gallery photos so that I had the same number as you — which is 2 — you’d feel better about my “contribution”.

And you can’t get much more hypocritical than to give me attitude for my post while accusing me of “com[Ing] here with an attitude”. Get over it.


Oops, I got into a discussion about which lenses are better for my goal before I used the lens..
How dare I, I should have rented every relevant lens and performed extensive testing (and testing that everyone can agree on..?) with each to prove to everyone here that the one I like is truly the best.

I should have used the empirical method to draw my own conclusions and never asked an opinion on anything.

Well, I thought that was basically what DXO did. Would it have made any difference if I had used the lens? Then I'd be told I used it wrong!

I'm not supposed to base my comments on reviews, but I should take YOUR word for it.. *sigh*


(2) Canon 6D || Zeiss Sonnar 135/2 || Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 || Sigma 85/1.4 ART || Helios 44-2 58/2 || Sigma 50/1.4 Art || Canon 24/2.8 || Rokinon 14/2.8 || (2) Eg-S Focusing Screen
Ideal Portraits (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FTb
Senior Member
543 posts
Gallery: 95 photos
Likes: 3181
Joined Jun 2014
Post edited over 3 years ago by FTb.
     
Mar 28, 2016 22:38 as a reply to  @ icor1031's post |  #82

No need to get melodramatic or overly theatrical cause it's really not that complicated.

After you said, "I dislike that lens [canon 85mm f1.2]. It's almost as blurry @ f/2.8 as my sigma is @ f/1.4", I called BS, explaining that you either had a bad copy or user error.

Then you admitted you'd never actually used it, having gotten your info from a DXO review.

Finally, I called you out for condemning something out of hand, without any personal knowledge of it, and based solely on someone else's review.

See, not so complicated.



My flickr (external link)
Favorite lenses: Canon 16-35 f/4 L IS, 50/1.2L, 85/1.2L II, 135/2L, 70-200L IS II, TS-E 17mm f/4L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
icor1031
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
883 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 227
Joined Jan 2015
     
Mar 28, 2016 23:02 |  #83

icor1031v2 wrote in post #17952642 (external link)
Well, I thought that was basically what DXO did. Would it have made any difference if I had used the lens? Then I'd be told I used it wrong!

FTb wrote in post #17952806 (external link)
After you said, "I dislike that lens [canon 85mm f1.2]. It's almost as blurry @ f/2.8 as my sigma is @ f/1.4", I called BS, explaining that you either had a bad copy or user error.

See, not so complicated.

icor1031v2 wrote in post #17952642 (external link)
Would it have made any difference if I had used the lens? Then I'd be told I used it wrong!


Thought this was worth placing here ;)


(2) Canon 6D || Zeiss Sonnar 135/2 || Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 || Sigma 85/1.4 ART || Helios 44-2 58/2 || Sigma 50/1.4 Art || Canon 24/2.8 || Rokinon 14/2.8 || (2) Eg-S Focusing Screen
Ideal Portraits (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FTb
Senior Member
543 posts
Gallery: 95 photos
Likes: 3181
Joined Jun 2014
Post edited over 3 years ago by FTb. (2 edits in all)
     
Mar 29, 2016 00:14 |  #84

icor1031v2 wrote in post #17952828 (external link)
Would it have made any difference if I had used the lens?

Probably not. Why would you believe your lying eyes instead of DXO?

And of course, I'm getting the impression there's absolutely no chance that you could have discovered something on your own to like about the lens that DXO hadn't considered or covered in it's review.



My flickr (external link)
Favorite lenses: Canon 16-35 f/4 L IS, 50/1.2L, 85/1.2L II, 135/2L, 70-200L IS II, TS-E 17mm f/4L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ebiggs
Senior Member
Avatar
638 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 70
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Spring Hill, KS
     
Mar 29, 2016 02:11 as a reply to  @ FTb's post |  #85

You certainly have "mastered" the 85 f1.2 and 50 f1.2. Beautiful shots of the ladies.
Nice shots. :-)


G1x, EOS 1Dx, EOS 1D Mk IV, ef 8-15mm f4L,
ef 16-35mm f2.8L II, ef 24-70mm f2.8L II, ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II,
Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport
*** PS 6, ACR 9.3, Lightroom 6.5 ***

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OoDee
Senior Member
Avatar
525 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 1303
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Helsinki, Finland
     
Mar 29, 2016 06:15 |  #86

FTb wrote in post #17952431 (external link)
Because I'm tired of people talking trash about things they know nothing about except some some review they read. If you take pleasure in reading that kind of stuff, more power to you.

You know, most of us would just stay away from the discussion. What me and David Arbogast (apparently) were wondering was your motivation to come in with such a negative demeanor. I admit I just worded my opinion less politely than David.

You definitely need to get your facts straight before mouthing off. I do shoot, and I do contribute — or maybe my 120 post and 50 gallery submissions comes under your definition of “zero contribution”.

I guess if I deleted 48 of my gallery photos so that I had the same number as you — which is 2 — you’d feel better about my “contribution”.

And you can’t get much more hypocritical than to give me attitude for my post while accusing me of “com[Ing] here with an attitude”. Get over it.

Well. I was talking about this thread, not the entire forum. I thought that was obvious. But I guess I should've been explicit. And I sure love the fact that your only response to me was ad hominem.

Perhaps we should quit hijacking this thread and let everyone else stick to the topic. If you're willing argue further, I'm happy to take this to PMs.


500px (external link) Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Moncho
Member
Avatar
162 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 67
Joined Dec 2015
     
Mar 29, 2016 07:52 |  #87

In defense of Ftb, the Op did sound like he knew what he was talking about , specially since he was talking smack about all those lenses, until he admited he didn't. He didn't make it clear that most of his knowledge was theoretical. But after he mentioned that, I " heard" him more in a questioning tonetone, instead of the arrogant tone I heard before. This happens a lot in this type of communication, lets not get carried away because we thought we " heard" the wrong tone. I don't consider myself an amateur, but I really find some nuggets of information gold in these forums. :-)


Carpe Diem
(Seize the carp!)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,624 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5683
Joined Sep 2007
     
Mar 29, 2016 10:22 |  #88

Moncho wrote in post #17953102 (external link)
In defense of Ftb, the Op did sound like he knew what he was talking about , specially since he was talking smack about all those lenses, until he admited he didn't. He didn't make it clear that most of his knowledge was theoretical. But after he mentioned that, I " heard" him more in a questioning tonetone, instead of the arrogant tone I heard before. This happens a lot in this type of communication, lets not get carried away because we thought we " heard" the wrong tone. I don't consider myself an amateur, but I really find some nuggets of information gold in these forums. :-)

how did you reach that conclusion? TS is not really wrong in his comparisons, however he does tend to use hyperbole a bit.

calling the 85Lii @2.8 "blurry" or 85Lii "murdering" the otus @ 5.6, I can see why some wont take him seriously, however with the gear he shoots with, the 85Lii would be out of optical character, as the edges are fairly weak wide open. Sometimes they'll appear OOF on the edges, but they're simply not sharp wide open. When you're shooting high quality optics like the 135 APO, you tend to pick up on these weaknesses.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FTb
Senior Member
543 posts
Gallery: 95 photos
Likes: 3181
Joined Jun 2014
     
Mar 29, 2016 10:50 |  #89

ebiggs wrote in post #17952934 (external link)
You certainly have "mastered" the 85 f1.2 and 50 f1.2. Beautiful shots of the ladies.
Nice shots. :-)

Thank you. Much appreciated!



My flickr (external link)
Favorite lenses: Canon 16-35 f/4 L IS, 50/1.2L, 85/1.2L II, 135/2L, 70-200L IS II, TS-E 17mm f/4L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Moncho
Member
Avatar
162 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 67
Joined Dec 2015
     
Mar 29, 2016 13:20 |  #90

Charlie wrote in post #17953282 (external link)
how did you reach that conclusion? TS is not really wrong in his comparisons, however he does tend to use hyperbole a bit.

calling the 85Lii @2.8 "blurry" or 85Lii "murdering" the otus @ 5.6, I can see why some wont take him seriously, however with the gear he shoots with, the 85Lii would be out of optical character, as the edges are fairly weak wide open. Sometimes they'll appear OOF on the edges, but they're simply not sharp wide open. When you're shooting high quality optics like the 135 APO, you tend to pick up on these weaknesses.

Notice that I did not say that I didn't agree with him. I was just talking about the percieved "tone" . About all this sharpness talk, I shoot with a 50L, so you know right off the bat that sharpness is not the main quality I prize in my glass. The 85L is my next lens, so there might be some cognitive dissonance making me try to protect it against naysayers to defend my choice. :)

The Otus lenses seem great and sharp, and I would love to have one of them, but you have to like working in liveview if you use a canon dslr, or embrace the sony bodies.


Carpe Diem
(Seize the carp!)

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

13,739 views & 38 likes for this thread
Will Otus 85 retain its value?
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 EJayA
874 guests, 311 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

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.