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

genjurok wrote in post #16145892
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.

It’s actually pretty rare that I’ll shoot a portrait with the 85L close to the minimum focus distance, and if I do, it’s usually stopped down to 2.8 or more because a) you don’t have enough DOF to keep all of your subject in focus, b)the background will be compressed beyond recognition.

That said, I primarily use the 85L wide open for loosely framed shots (full and half body portraits). For this type of framing, the background is very much within the frame, and f1.2 creates a sense of dimension (pop) that a smaller aperture flat-out can’t.

As mentioned earlier, the jump from f1.8 to f1.2 is quite a lot in terms of subject isolation. It’s a full stop. Its equivalent to the change you get going from f4.0 to f2.8, and close to equivalent to the change you get going from f2.8 to 1.8.

mystik610 wrote in post #16146124
As mentioned earlier, the jump from f1.8 to f1.2 is quite a lot in terms of subject isolation. It’s a full stop. Its equivalent to the change you get going from f4.0 to f2.8, and close to equivalent to the change you get going from f2.8 to 1.8.

The thing is actual images posted here so far aren't really showing that big difference.

I'm curious, why do several of you, who own the 85L also own the 85 1.8? Did you buy it first, and never get rid of it, use it when you need something lighter and faster focusing, or something else?

RickRandhawa wrote in post #16146433
I'm curious, why do several of you, who own the 85L also own the 85 1.8? Did you buy it first, and never get rid of it, use it when you need something lighter and faster focusing, or something else?

Yep, got the 1.8 before the 85L. Never bothered selling the 1.8 b/c it's so cheap and is useful for when I need something lighter at that focal length.

mitchrapp wrote in post #16146959
Yep, got the 1.8 before the 85L. Never bothered selling the 1.8 b/c it's so cheap and is useful for when I need something lighter at that focal length.

Same reason here. Bought it first, and it was cheap and light and focuses faster, so I never bothered selling it.

FEChariot wrote in post #16146419
The thing is actual images posted here so far aren't really showing that big difference.

the images so far dont show the best features of the 85L imo.

reason: the subject is quite large in the frame, so that means the lens shooter is fairly close. Being fairly close, you can easily blow out the backgrounds, but it's not a working distance that shows off full body shots really well.

the L is a stop faster, and that's pretty significant, although these shots wont show much on their own. If you compared a collection of images @1.2 vs @1.8, the difference is very apparent.

being a tad bit sharper and a tad bit better backgrounds, the improvement is definitely there, and it's significant IMO.

Thanks for the first test shots allready, anyone has both the 85 1.2L II and 85 1.8 and can take 2 real life pics, for example of your wife outside ?

So 85 1.2LII at f1.2 vs 85 1.8 at f1.8, then we'll see if there is a magic effect at f1.2 vs 1.8 in the same conditions, thanks!

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16120642
I cannot afford a 1Dx, but can only afford a 5D3. I don't go around saying how 1DX is a waste of money and how 5D3 is more than enough. Totally different cameras for totally different purposes. Now, even if I had the need for 1DX, I still wouldn't be able to afford it and stick with 5D3. That doesn't mean I'll try to justify my decision by saying how such a waste of money 1DX is. Makes sense?

This thread does have two purposes. The rational numeric considerations tend to obscure a key emotional one: in order for people who pay more to feel good about paying more, do people who pay less have to feel bad about paying less? Ideally, each can feel good about the value that their lens provides. Surely the folks who have and enjoy both have shown this to be the case or why not just sell the one that doesn't?

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

It's true in a number of fields. An example that comes to mind is Z rated tires. Each letter corresponds to how fast you can expect the rubber to keep you going in a straight line, Z being the fastest. The higher the rating, the more you pay. But you also get faster tread wear and a rougher ride. So does it make sense to put 'the best' tire on every car?

Both of these lenses are specialists. But the closer you get to maximum possible of anything, the more it costs to get each additional improvement. The 85L II is fly by wire focused, for Pete's sake. I can't see canon doing that to any lens that wasn't pushing the limits. The only question for those who can afford it, is how close to the edge do you want to be?

85 f/1.8 is a great lens but it can't do f/1.2. It's not an insult, just a fact. I got over that and just got on with trying to justify my purchase of the L by photographing everything at f/1.2

Some more photos that the 85 f/1.8 cannot take:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

^^^ Just like 200mm f1.8 can do what 200mm f2 can't.

touché

smorter wrote in post #16152861
85 f/1.8 is a great lens but it can't do f/1.2. It's not an insult, just a fact. I got over that and just got on with trying to justify my purchase of the L by photographing everything at f/1.2

Some more photos that the 85 f/1.8 cannot take:

if hot women start posing for me when I bring out the 1.2 lens.... then I'm sold


you need to stop posting these smorter because my wife is going to slap me for buying the lens, and it's your fault.

Charlie wrote in post #16153200
if hot women start posing for me when I bring out the 1.2 lens.... then I'm sold

Works with the mini 1.2, too:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/towhit/93182895​20/

smorter wrote in post #16152861
85 f/1.8 is a great lens but it can't do f/1.2. It's not an insult, just a fact. I got over that and just got on with trying to justify my purchase of the L by photographing everything at f/1.2

Some more photos that the 85 f/1.8 cannot take:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

Beautiful pictures, but I'm afraid that these tight-framed head/half body shots don't prove much and the reason has been stated a few times by several people not just me. IMO 85 f/1.8 can easily do the job equally well for most of the pics you posted. You need more convincing examples or even better just shoot the same subject with the 85L and 85 f1/.8 as requested several times in this very thread?

genjurok wrote in post #16155066
Beautiful pictures, but I'm afraid that these tight-framed head/half body shots don't prove much and the reason has been stated a few times by several people not just me. IMO 85 f/1.8 can easily do the job equally well for most of the pics you posted. You need more convincing examples or even better just shoot the same subject with the 85L and 85 f1/.8 as requested several times in this very thread?

Well...I gotta disagree with this a little bit. Shooting the exact same shot with aperture at 1.8 would give a blurred background, but it wouldn't be as blurred, and that is sometimes the difference between a "nice" shot and a "great" shot.

For example, the second shot with the reflection: the arc of blurred light that intersects the subject's face at eye level would be a sharper line, and might be just thin enough to be distracting, whereas the wider blur from 1.2 doesn't make you think "laser eye girl".

Yeah, it would be really great if someone would go shoot some model shots at 1.2 and 1.8, and maybe even slap on the 85 1.8 as well, but I would bet most folks simply aren't going to have the wherewithal to do so "on demand". Instead, maybe the next time someone is shooting a bride-to-be, after they've got the shot they want at f/1.2, they'll take a couple of extra shots at f/1.8 to see if they can get the same feel.

If you don't think you'll ever need f/1.2 because you'd be willing to compose the shot differently to use f/1.8, that's OK, but that extra aperture is quite valued by some folks and they will always want that extra je-ne-sais-quoi that 1.2 vs 1.8 gives.

IMHO, I personally cannot justify the cost of the 1.2L over my 1.8, but if the 1.2L was only a few hundred more, I might have it.

shinksma