Any convincing 85 1.2L II vs 85 1.8 comparison pics to buy the L ?

RickRandhawa wrote in post #16141655
I'm on the opposite end as this. I got the 85L because I bought into the "significantly better color, contrast, sharpness, magic, etc" that people sometimes say on this forum....

I think this thread proves that the statement is way overstated, and like you said it's down to post processing skills of individuals.

Magic aside, the L isn't 'significantly' better in terms of color, contrast nor sharpness.

The real decider is the aperture as Arob100 stated. Simple as that.

You buy the L to shoot at f1.2-f1.8. Once pass f1.8, you'd be splitting hairs to spot the difference.

I wonder what Canon would have to say about these samples in this thread..

Sad to say but I think many people out there utilizes the lens sample thread to guide them to their purchase too.

85L @1.2

85mm 1.8 @1.8

The main difference is that most 1.2L users apply split toning to their images

kin2son wrote in post #16141418
What pics? I didn't post any...

I never said they are magic or wow, all I'm saying is 85 1.8 can never ever replicate the look of the L shot wide open, and that's a fact.

Whether it matters to you or not is another story. It certainly matters to a lot of wedding pros and the like...

^^^ this, I've owned 2 copies of each (1st 85L got damaged and irreparable). And each time the L proves superior in all aspects except for the AF speed. The CA on the 1.8 is ridiculous.

genjurok wrote in post #16141463
Sorry that I thought the pics where taken by you.

Anyway my point is that the example photos don't show the difference or comparison between the two lenses as the OP needed, thus are invalid examples. You don't need to list the aperture difference 1.2 vs 1.8, the OP clearly stated that he wants to see the comparison shots using the two lenses.

And I stand by my point : the example photos are nice, but I don't see anything that proves the effect can only be achieved by f/1.2 for these shots. I 'll bet that if the shots had been taken by 85/1.8 , by far the majority of people on this forum or even professional photographers won't be able to distinguish them.

Trust me, when you need poppin power, the 85L does the job. Not saying the 85 1.8 can't

You only need to go to this thread: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=852791

k-lo wrote in post #16143526
Trust me, when you need poppin power, the 85L does the job. Not saying the 85 1.8 can't

You only need to go to this thread: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=852791

Agreed. The jump from f1.8 to f1.2 is a full f-stop. That’s twice as shallow of a DOF, and twice the light gathering ability. It’s equivalent to the jump from 2.8 to 4.0 that people obsess over with zooms.

Also, am I the only who thinks that the difference between the two beemer photos is a pretty big deal? The 85 1.8 photo, which I immediately spotted between the two, looks like someone stuck a cheap neutral density filter in front of an 85L. (purple fringing, less micro-contrast, less sharp). The differences may not matter a whole lot in those particular photos, but will be more meaningful in higher contrast light, or when photographing something like skin tones.

The difference in IQ alone may not be worth the price of admission, but the differences are there.

mystik610 wrote in post #16143599
Agreed. The jump from f1.8 to f1.2 is a full f-stop. That’s twice as shallow of a DOF, and twice the light gathering ability. It’s equivalent to the jump from 2.8 to 4.0 that people obsess over with zooms.

Also, am I the only who thinks that the difference between the two beemer photos is a pretty big deal? The 85 1.8 photo, which I immediately spotted between the two, looks like someone stuck a cheap neutral density filter in front of an 85L. (purple fringing, less micro-contrast, less sharp). The differences may not matter a whole lot in those particular photos, but will be more meaningful in higher contrast light, or when photographing something like skin tones.

The difference in IQ alone may not be worth the price of admission, but the differences are there.

it's an aweful lot for 1 stop of light.

2.8 to 4 zooms are across the entire focal length and usually 100% more in price. 1.8 to 1.2 is like 5x the price for 1 stop (and slower AF).

one of the bigger diminishing returns on investment, but that's just photography in general , might even own one one day, but I kind of have a love and hate relationship with the 85mm focal length. Too long indoors, too short outdoors kind of deal.

Charlie wrote in post #16143669
it's an aweful lot for 1 stop of light.

2.8 to 4 zooms are across the entire focal length and usually 100% more in price. 1.8 to 1.2 is like 5x the price for 1 stop (and slower AF).

one of the bigger diminishing returns on investment, but that's just photography in general , might even own one one day, but I kind of have a love and hate relationship with the 85mm focal length. Too long indoors, too short outdoors kind of deal.

Well…its also about equivalent to the difference in DOF/light gathering one gets going from going from a 2.8 zoom to a 1.8 prime (which is 1 1/3 stop difference). People forgo the ability to zoom to afford themselves the ‘look’ that extra f-stop of dof control and light gathering that a 1.8 prime offers vs a 2.8 zoom.

It’s hard to put a price tag on something like that of course….just trying to put the one stop difference between f1.8 and f1.2 into perspective, as it doesn’t sound like a whole lot on paper, but can mean a lot in real world use. It’s a look that’s very much unique to the 85L.

Wide open at f1.2:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/carloalcala/9​311756914/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/carloalcala/8​298010185/

k-lo wrote in post #16143526
^^^ this, I've owned 2 copies of each (1st 85L got damaged and irreparable). And each time the L proves superior in all aspects except for the AF speed. The CA on the 1.8 is ridiculous.

Trust me, when you need poppin power, the 85L does the job. Not saying the 85 1.8 can't

You only need to go to this thread: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=852791

Not saying that the 85L doesn't have more popping power than the 85 f/1.8. But the example photos in the thread don't really prove it IMO.

Actually the very first photo in the quoted thread by you isn't convincing to me either. Notice it's somewhere between a head shot and half body shot meaning the shooter was very close to the subject and the background is quite some distance away from the subject. In this case the 85/1.8 can achieve the same effect easily. The f/1.2 would be just overkill in this case. Actually I'd argue any telephoto lens at focal length > 135mm with smaller aperture like f/4.0 or f/5.6 can get similar effect or even distroy the background better at FL > 200mm than the 85L in this case.

In my opinion a better example photo or comparison photo would be a full body shot with the background close to the subject. That'd be a better proof of the superior isolation capability of the 85L.

And talking about CA, in my experience all the 85mm lenses at wide aperture are pretty bad at it, regardless the 85L, the Siggy 85 or the 85 f/1.8. They're all terrible compared to the 70-200 IS II.

genjurok wrote in post #16143697
Not saying that the 85L doesn't have more popping power than the 85 f/1.8. But the example photos in the thread don't really prove it IMO.

Actually the very first photo in the quoted thread by you isn't convincing to me either. Notice it's somewhere between a head shot and half body shot meaning the shooter was very close to the subject and the background is quite some distance away from the subject. In this case the 85/1.8 can achieve the same effect easily. The f/1.2 would be just overkill in this case. Actually I'd argue any telephoto lens at focal length > 135mm with smaller aperture like f/4.0 or f/5.6 can get similar effect or even distroy the background better at FL > 200mm than the 85L in this case.

In my opinion a better example photo or comparison photo would be a full body shot with the background close to the subject. That'd be a better proof of the superior isolation capability of the 85L.

And talking about CA, in my experience all the 85mm lenses at wide aperture are pretty bad at it, regardless the 85L, the Siggy 85 or the 85 f/1.8. They're all terrible compared to the 70-200 IS II.

Totally hear your points, yeah I agree. The only problem is not everyone/ every location has half a football field of wide open space to use a 135mm (let alone a 200mm) to do the same field of view and background destruction of the 85L.

genjurok wrote in post #16143697
Actually I'd argue any telephoto lens at focal length > 135mm with smaller aperture like f/4.0 or f/5.6 can get similar effect or even distroy the background better at FL > 200mm than the 85L in this case.

Measuring a lenses usefulness by its ability to ‘destroy the background’ is a flawed mentality, IMO. There’s a stark difference between using a large aperture to isolate the subject, and a longer focal length to compress the background. Aperture and subject distance/focal length each contribute to the amount of background blur you get, but they aren’t really interchangeable as there are field of view considerations that should be made.

Longer focal lengths puts the subject at a greater distance from the shooter, creating a compressed perspective that ‘destroys the background’. Sometimes this is a desired effect, sometimes it isn’t. If you want to keep your subject in the context of the background, you most certainly don’t want to shoot with a telephoto lens.

The beauty of fast lenses with wider focal lengths is the ability to keep the background within the frame (providing context), while isolating the subject with a shallow depth of field. It creates a sense of dimension and the ‘pop’ that can’t be created when you ‘destroy the background’. I happen to like the 85mm focal length because it’s a perfect balance of compression and dimension. It’s a focal length that keeps the backgrounds mostly in tact, but without exaggeration(creating dimension and context), while offering a very nice flattering subject compression. The extra stop you get by shooting at f1.2 you effectively doubles your subject isolation you'd get at 1.8 (giving you more pop!)

k-lo wrote in post #16143850
Totally hear your points, yeah I agree. The only problem is not everyone/ every location has half a football field of wide open space to use a 135mm (let alone a 200mm) to do the same field of view and background destruction of the 85L.

+ your perspective will ALWAYS be flat with 200mm. No matter if you shoot from the ground level or eye level, subjects will still look like shot from the same angle.

Unlike a 35mm (who would eventually let you play with angles and get some more dynamic perspective on your subject) the 85mm focal is still limited but NOT as limited as the 200mm.


Oh.. I just noticed mystik610 explained it already above.

FWIW, i've never seen even a hint of CA in my 85 1.8

100 and 200 percent of the same image taken with my XSi, I'll try to dig up the EXIF.

@mystik610, I agree with what you said in general that the telephoto lenses like 200mm include less of the background and shorter focal length like 85mm is better at describing the context. However I was talking about that specific photo only and there is practically no context at all in the photo. Hence I mentioned the effect of destroying the background can be done by a telephoto for that shot. My point is that it isn't a good example to prove the capability of the 85L. And I also think 85 f/1.8 can achieve that effect easily for that shot as well.

And I don't agree with what you said "The extra stop you get by shooting at f1.2 you effectively doubles your subject isolation you'd get at 1.8 (giving you more pop!)".
It depends on the scenario. If the focal distance is short and the background is far from the subject, which is quite common in many portrait shots for example a close-up shot at close to minimum focus distance, then f/1.8 aperture will give you the same look just as f/1.2 simply because the background will be completely destroyed.

@Revolverz, good point that telephoto lenses have more of the same look compared to shorter focal length like 35, 50 or to a less degree 85mm which can give a more variety of perspective depending on how you shoot with it. Totally agree with you on that.