should i rent the 85 1.2?

I'm doing a wedding this weekend and was thinking of renting the 85 1.2. I already have the 85 1.8. How much better is the 1.2 over the 1.8 is it worth the 96 dollar rental fee? Thanks in advance.

No, Its not worth a 96.00 rental fee. The 85mm 1.8 does a great job. How often do you really shoot below 1.8 ?? Your client will never be able to tell the difference in the background blur.

didn't you literally just buy that 85?
after what seemed like a couple 85 prime threads you started in here?

just seems like deja vu

Yes

I baught that 85 prime. We had extra funds and we had to buy or pay more taxes so we upgraded a few items. As for performance, the 85L is better, but, We had an 85mm 1.8, and to be perfectly honest, the 85mm 1.8 is not that far off. If i had an 85mm 1.8, I definately would not rent an L lens for a wedding especially when they are so close in performance. You gain some performance, but to go out and rent something when 99% of the clients cant tell the difference anyway--my answer is still NO.

Downs Photography wrote in post #13036804
I'm doing a wedding this weekend and was thinking of renting the 85 1.2. I already have the 85 1.8. How much better is the 1.2 over the 1.8 is it worth the 96 dollar rental fee? Thanks in advance.

Man, you are struggling coming to terms with the 85mm prime aren't you?
I'd say don't spend the $96 rental fee for the 85L. The 85 1.8 should be fine. Is there anything you are not liking about the lens?

I love mine. I'm all set at 85mm, and you know I am an L lens junkie.

I rented both at the same time for a few days. The 85L is a solid beautiful piece of glass. Using both, I liked how the 85 1.8 focused a tad faster from infinity than the 85L, but IMHO, the bokeh on the L is more "creamy".

I also agree with the above statement.

RedMatrixXRS wrote in post #13036978
I rented both at the same time for a few days. The 85L is a solid beautiful piece of glass. Using both, I liked how the 85 1.8 focused a tad faster from infinity than the 85L, but IMHO, the bokeh on the L is more "creamy".

I also agree with the above statement.

A "tad" faster?
Now that's an understatement.

nicksan wrote in post #13036984
A "tad" faster?
Now that's an understatement.

LOL! You got that right!

This should answer all of your questions. From F/2.0 you wont be able to tell that much difference

http://www.wlcastleman​.com/equip/reviews/85m​m/index.htm

umphotography wrote in post #13036953
Yes

sorry, I meant the OP. seems like he just bought his 85 after starting multiple threads about 85 primes. sorry for the confusion.

I wanted the creamy blur, but after I realized I will be happy just sticking with the 85 1.8

umphotography wrote in post #13036953
Yes
If i had an 85mm 1.8, I definately would not rent an L lens for a wedding especially when they are so close in performance. You gain some performance, but to go out and rent something when 99% of the clients cant tell the difference anyway--my answer is still NO.

agree 100%

now if we were talking the 50 1.8, it could certainly be worth renting a better 50 prime

Downs Photography wrote in post #13037069
I wanted the creamy blur, but after I realized I will be happy just sticking with the 85 1.8

Good move!

With his lens line up, i would be inclined to rent a 70-200 f/2.8 is for some reach plus it also make a darn fine portrait lens.

umphotography wrote in post #13037128
With his lens line up, i would be inclined to rent a 70-200 f/2.8 is for some reach plus it also make a darn fine portrait lens.

IIRC, he sold his 70-200 to buy the primes...