Differences of the 85's

My 85mm f/1.2L II shot @ [f/1.2, ISO 200, inside a a well-lit gym]

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

TheHoff wrote in post #6006633
ben_r has said the nearly same thing about owning both 85s.

Sorry Hoff, should have commented myself in this thread...

Yes people its true, as much as I wanted to believe the 85L was a magically better lens than the 85 1.8, I simply did not find that it was worth the money to me. Now dont get me wrong it is an incredible lens, both IQ wise and just in how the damn thing physically looks. Its impressive looking attached to a camera. However, I took my 85 1.8, and 85L, put my 5D on a tripod, hooked up the remote shutter release and took about 20-30 shots of many different subjects in and around the outside of my house including my dog, people, flowers, sky, random items, with off camera flash, on camera flash and with no flash. I would take a shot, then without moving anything switch to the 85 1.8, focus and take the exact same picture to compare later and did that for all the pictures I took. The 85L is in fact a very slow focuser, weighs a lot for a prime and yes f/1.2 is incredible but so thin a DOF that its almost silly to use. I tried the same shots at 1.2 just to compare, both lenses at 1.8 and both at f/8. So once I got done testing and went back to lightroom on my 30" calibrated monitor and I couldnt really tell a difference AT ALL! I even took several shots specifically meant to test the look of the bokeh and color and I swear both looked the same to me at 1.8. So I started thinking man... For the additional $1367 this 85L cost me over the 1.8 I could upgrade to an awesome travel tripod. I started looking at new tripods and said forget it, the 85L isnt worth it to me. Now, if I had a 1Ds Mark III and was making lots of money at this stuff, Id have an 85L just on principal. But im not. So I returned it and got this setup instead! The 85L def is an amazing lens, but I think with it being the canon flagship L prime you are paying more for the fact that you can do f/1.2 more than anything else.

Here are some random shots comparing the two. All are at f/1.8. Now I know they are cropped to hell, converted to jpeg, and put on the web, but that process being the same for both can you tell which is which and if so is the difference so great that you would spend $1370 more to have it? Also can the difference you see be made up for free in Photoshop? I would like to note also that these are right out of the camera, no adjustments whatsoever, just the resizing and jpeg compression. These were all taken with a 5D as well and I have left the EXIF data intact so you can satisfy your curiousity. Bear in mind also that in the first flower pic the AF focused on a different point in the two pics and I didnt catch that till after I was done and looking at them on the PC.

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

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

Here is a couple more:

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

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

Two more:

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

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

boyetblas wrote in post #6009971
My 85mm f/1.2L II shot @ [f/1.2, ISO 200, inside a a well-lit gym]

Why is this the one sample you chose to post? It is nice that he is sharp but what benefit did the 1.2 give you in this case? To me, at least, the background isn't pleasing nor does it show where he is. I don't mean to pick on your shot -- and I mean it when I say welcome to the forum! -- but this is the sort of use of f/1.2 that doesn't make sense to me.

Believe me guys it really did pain me to feel this way about this lens... I wanted soooo badly to love it and think it worth the outrageous $1700 price tag, but try as I might I just couldnt do it. I mean take a look at my gear list in my sig, I LOVE to spend money, so when something like this comes up that disappoints me after I have spent the money for the BEST, I get REALLY disappointed!

I did however get one shot from this lens in my playing that I really liked and yes it was at f/1.2 so I couldnt retake it with the 85 1.8 to compare... But that still didnt make me feel it was worth keeping and the price was justified.

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

scotteisenphotography wrote in post #6006394
become a CPS member. then you can try it out for 2 weeks and only pay return shipping costs. Anyways, I've always used the 1.2 and i've loved every minute of it. I put it on my camera so i can just force my self to take photos with it. the 1.8 is faster, but i do not believe it's as sharp and not as contrasty.

Its not that simple

To be eligible for membership of CPS, you need to:

Be a full-time professional photographer *
Own/use and register with CPS two or more eligible Canon EOS professional bodies ** and three or more L-series EF lenses which have been purchased from an authorised Canon Professional Dealer in Australia or New Zealan

I bought the 1.8 first and now also have the MkII L.
If you dont plan on shooting below ~f/2 much and/or need to shoot fast non-predictable action, then I don't think that the slight difference in sharpness and color would be worth dealing with the weight, slow focusing speed and cost of the L. At f/1.8 the only clearly obvious thing that set the L apart was sharpness, and that was mainly noticeable pixel peeping at 100%. There are probably a lot of people out there whose styles would not benefit much if at all from using the L.
I, however, am a bokeh whore and don't think I have even shot the L above 1.8 since I got it. I have also been taking advantage of the flexibility that being able to open up to 1.2 allows when shooting in available light. I am not sure if the difference was real or psychological but compared to my L primes I always found the 1.8 slightly lacking (probably due to color & maybe contrast?) and never really loved it. On the other hand, I have found the L to be exceptional, especially below 1.8 where it blows the non-L away. My 85L and 135L seem to be neck and neck when it comes to putting out the most shots with the kind of bokeh, color and sharpness that make me say "wow".
So, although the 1.8 is a nice lens in it's own right, it was a pretty easy choice to keep the 1.2L and my 1.8 will soon be visiting Craigslist to help pay for it's bigger, heavier, slower focussing, ridiculously expensive bro...

I've never used the L, but the 1.8 shows a suprising amount of CAs in harsh contrast situations. What do people who own the L think about CAs?

The bokeh is different between the two lenses; if you look closely you can see a difference in at least two of the three samples. There's also a slight sharpness difference. IMO, anyway.

There is no reason to get the 85L if you aren't planning on shooting it at f1.2 and f1.4. Why even bother?

I bought it because of the f1.2 and how good it is wide open.
There is something about it that makes it pop...not everything of course. The color/contrast is better. $1300 better? Probably not. You certainly pay the price for that extra bit of premium.

I wouldn't buy this lens if I had other lens needs. I didn't so the only part was coming up with the money. Again, I got the MKI as a "compromise". So much cheaper for essentially the same glass.

Show me a lens that doesn't have good amount of CA in "harsh contrast situations"?

35L, 50L, 85L...they all show CA.

jaymrobinson wrote in post #6010551
I've never used the L, but the 1.8 shows a suprising amount of CAs in harsh contrast situations. What do people who own the L think about CAs?

2 more shots taken at f/1.2

I guess the dreamy bokeh rendering the photos like paintings or so they say is perhaps the reason why some opt for the 1.2 instead of the 1.8

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

unless you have lots of disposable income, imo the only reason to get the L is if you are working professionally and the extra stop could potentially make or break a job. even then it might be difficult to justify as i've found these situations to be quite rare.

otherwise the 1.8 is a great lens at a bargain price.

Really?

I don't shoot for money, it's just a seriously fun hobby for me and spending that kind of money on gear isn't something THAT dramatic...unless I can't pay your bills or put food on the table because of it.

I mean, my golf clubs cost me more than my 85L. In fact a couple of my guitars cost 2-3 times that. I don't make money on these either.

I got a friggin 9-5 putting food on the table.

I totally agree it's not for everybody, but you don't need to be a "professional" to enjoy a nice and fast f1.2 lens!

suyenfung wrote in post #6010945
unless you have lots of disposable income, imo the only reason to get the L is if you are working professionally and the extra stop could potentially make or break a job. otherwise the 1.8 is a great lens at a bargain price.