Considering the 85 f/1.2 L

I find myself lusting after this lens to use it on my 5D2, what with it being the Rolls Royce of portrait lenses. At the moment, I 'only' have my 70-200 f/4 IS to cover that focal range.

I used to be addicted to wide apertures, but am slowly recovering - as illustrated by my recent purchase of the f/4 zoom above. Yes, I could have afforded the 2.8 IS, but no, I just didn't want to carry that monster of a lens around. I accept (with a tinge of regret that I couldn't fully smother) that this restricts my shooting options somewhat.

Anyway, like I said I'm looking at the 85 f/1.2 thinking I won't ever need another lens after that, because I'm prone to lying to myself. However, I just realized that while it's compact and looks funny, it's also a hefty 2.25 lbs - more than my 24-70 which I already find to be well in the 'heavy enough' category.

Now, slow AF I can live with. High price tag as well (somewhat blunted by the fact I expect to get it while traveling in Hong Kong). But I know that if the lens weighs half a ton, I just won't want to take it with me.

I know you're supposed to stop it down for optimal use, but that's not the primary reason I want it. I wanted to use it like I use my 50 f/1.8: lightweight lens I tack on when I go to a bar or a club or some event in dimly-lit conditions, and where I won't want to stick a Speedlite on top of an already conspicuous camera. So, in the crowd, low-light, no flash. Hence my salivating over the f/1.2 here. But lightweight, it seems, isn't going to happen.

Do I wish I could get more light in my 50 f/1.8? Yes. But in general, it's good enough - just barely, but good enough. So I've started looking at the simpler, lighter, cheaper 85 f/1.8. It may be the better choice for me, as I find that my 50 is a little short, and more importantly that the AF on that lens is just terrible.

All of which brings me to my question to you: how does the 85 f/1.8 perform in low-light conditions, such as f/1.8, 1/100th of a second, ISO 6400? Is the IQ terrible in those conditions? Will the AF (remember, 5D2 here) be as slow and unreliable as with the 50, or can I expect better - if not perfect - performance on that side?

Sorry for the long-winded post, and thanks for the help!


edit: almost forgot: would the Sigma 1.4 solve all my problems? It's also a bit heavy, but still more manageable than the 1.2...

Try the 50L.

I’d say go for the 70-200 IS II (trust me on this, you’ll thank me later)
The zoom is so good, so sharp, so versatile- it’s unbeliveable. I know weight is critical for you but for me- I don’t care how heavy it is.
Also, if you’re a Bokeholic, think of it this way; the 70-200 at 2.8 at 200mm Renders bokeh almost as smooth as the 85 at 1.2
I had a 135L and got rid of it for this monster and let me tell you, I will NEVER get rid of it. I was thinking of switching to Nikon and if I were, I’d get the 70-200 VR II in a heartbeat. Two best lenses ever.
That’s just my personal preference.

If you are talking ultra-low-light, then of course, the 85 f/1.2L or the 50 f/1.2L will meet your needs there, but is that really what you need? If so, get one...

50's too short of my taste on a full frame sensor.

I actually tried the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II in the store, right after the f/4 IS. The guy plopped it next to me, and even though the difference is minimal in actual centimetres, it looked far more massive. Then I picked it up and almost dropped it because I wasn't expecting 1.5 kg of glass and metal. I am convinced it's the 8th wonder of the world, but it's not for me. I may have sunk a lot of cash in my equipement, but it's a hobby. I go on holiday, I go to parties, I like bringing back nice pictures. I am taking it fairly seriously, I think, reading up on the history and famous photographers and their work, and how to compose and work with the lighting of a scene, trying to become better at photography, but in the end I'm just another guy with a camera - not a pro, not an artist. As a result, I can't imagine bringing a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II to a casual bar crawl with me, no. Plus, if 1.8 just barely does it, I don't see how 2.8's going to help me.

Now I realize that my thread title could have been better formulated so let me rephrase my question here:

I like everything about the 85 f/1.2 but the weight is likely to be a dealbreaker. Assuming I'm ok with an aperture of 1.4 or even 1.8 instead, can I expect solid low-light performance (i.e. high ISO, open wide) in terms of IQ and AF speed/accuracy from the Canon 85 f/1.8 - because I found that the 1.8's AF was pretty terrible. How about the Sigma 85 f/1.4? Reviews I found tell me that IQ shouldn't be much of a problem, but I found them strangely quiet about AF performance in low-light conditions.

armis wrote in post #13776980
50's too short of my taste on a full frame sensor.

I actually tried the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II in the store, right after the f/4 IS. The guy plopped it next to me, and even though the difference is minimal in actual centimetres, it looked far more massive. Then I picked it up and almost dropped it because I wasn't expecting 1.5 kg of glass and metal. I am convinced it's the 8th wonder of the world, but it's not for me. I may have sunk a lot of cash in my equipement, but it's a hobby. I go on holiday, I go to parties, I like bringing back nice pictures. I am taking it fairly seriously, I think, reading up on the history and famous photographers and their work, and how to compose and work with the lighting of a scene, trying to become better at photography, but in the end I'm just another guy with a camera - not a pro, not an artist. As a result, I can't imagine bringing a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II to a casual bar crawl with me, no. Plus, if 1.8 just barely does it, I don't see how 2.8's going to help me.

Now I realize that my thread title could have been better formulated so let me rephrase my question here:

I like everything about the 85 f/1.2 but the weight is likely to be a dealbreaker. Assuming I'm ok with an aperture of 1.4 or even 1.8 instead, can I expect solid low-light performance (i.e. high ISO, open wide) in terms of IQ and AF speed/accuracy from the Canon 85 f/1.8 - because I found that the 1.8's AF was pretty terrible. How about the Sigma 85 f/1.4? Reviews I found tell me that IQ shouldn't be much of a problem, but I found them strangely quiet about AF performance in low-light conditions.

Then go with the Kegma. IMHO, best value for the money for the 85mm’s out there... Almost as good as 85L... ALMOST.

I just sold a 85l for a 70-200.. that should explain it all IMO don't spend the money on the 85L unless you have plenty of it, or shoot professionally.. get the 85 1.8 and have a happy bank account

I had the 85L. Beautiful lens. I sold it because I could`nt handle the weight. I now have the 85 1.8

+1 on the 70-200 f2.8 II, but if money and weight are an issue, I would compliment the f4 zoom with the 85 f1.8, which is a really good value if you can live with the purple fringing at wide open apertures. I tried 2 Sigmas and both had to be returned.

Michael1984 wrote in post #13777045
I just sold a 85l for a 70-200.. that should explain it all IMO don't spend the money on the 85L unless you have plenty of it, or shoot professionally.. get the 85 1.8 and have a happy bank account

agree with this guy..

Guys, listen, let this guy get the 85L. He’ll regret later. We all learn, we all go through this lens hassle. Look at my gear list. I’ve only been shooting (first DSLR) since july 2010 and weddings in summer 2011 and I went through A LOT. Mostly primes. What did I end up with? that’s right, a 24-70L, a 70-200 IS II and of course a 50 1.4 but that’s only for travel (for it’s lightweight)

iluxa007 wrote in post #13777150
Guys, listen, let this guy get the 85L. He’ll regret later. We all learn, we all go through this lens hassle. Look at my gear list. I’ve only been shooting (first DSLR) since july 2010 and weddings in summer 2011 and I went through A LOT. Mostly primes. What did I end up with? that’s right, a 24-70L, a 70-200 IS II and of course a 50 1.4 but that’s only for travel (for it’s lightweight)

seriously you shoot wedding. Of course zoom to you makes sense as it's more versatile.

As an enthusiast, I pick fast prime over a slow 2.8 zoom any day. Flexibility is not on top of my list either.

I don't care how sharp the 70-200mkII is, it's just a zoom with no character. Don't even put it in the same sentence with the legendary 85L please.

kin2son wrote in post #13777159
seriously you shoot wedding. Of course zoom to you makes sense as it's more versatile.

As an enthusiast, I pick fast prime over a slow 2.8 zoom any day. Flexibility is not on top of my list either.

I don't care how sharp the 70-200mkII is, it's just a zoom with no character. Don't even put it in the same sentence with the legendary 85L please.

Not trying to be rude here or anything but ask how many of us actually got rid of 85L, 135L etc, for the 70-200 IS II

As good as the 85L is (and it IS), I sold mine and bought my 85/1.8 back from the guy I sold it to when I bought my 85L. I just don't need super-thin DOF, the DOF I get with my 85/1.8 is thin enough for my needs. Dark nightclubs? You're gonna have trouble focusing the 85L anyway, I find that the 85/1.8 tends to lock focus better on the 5D, even in the dark. Hope this helps.

iluxa007 wrote in post #13777167
Not trying to be rude here or anything but ask how many of us actually got rid of 85L, 135L etc, for the 70-200 IS II

I got rid of the 85L, but am hanging onto my 135L. I think the 135L is a gem, the 85L is just something that everyone lusts after.

iluxa007 wrote in post #13777167
Not trying to be rude here or anything but ask how many of us actually got rid of 85L, 135L etc, for the 70-200 IS II

Many, but only because people are lazy and would rather trade speed for little flexibility. They are the same people who takes 18-200 or Tamron 18-270 for vacation instead of proper lens imo.

Although some have legitimate needs (like a wedding photographer such as yourself).