Canon 85L vs Canon 85 f/1.8

I am guessing it has to do with copy variation, as well.

For example, one of the 70-200 II's I had at some point had some pretty hefty purple fringing that I never saw on any other copy at 70mm. Same thing most likely happens with faster primes with some being better than others in that regard. I probably had an awesome 85 1.8

Invertalon wrote in post #16163617
I am guessing it has to do with copy variation, as well.

For example, one of the 70-200 II's I had at some point had some pretty hefty purple fringing that I never saw on any other copy at 70mm. Same thing most likely happens with faster primes with some being better than others in that regard. I probably had an awesome 85 1.8

Yes I agree. I've tried several 70-200 II's, some of them had purple fringing, some were more resistant. And yes, you had more luck with your 85 1.8 than I did with my two copies. Your 1.8 must be a freak lens.

k-lo wrote in post #16163553
This is definitely false. Please back up your claims sir. Aside from the lens tests at the digital picture, I've tested several copies back to back and the 85L is definitely sharper at 1.8 than the 1.8 at 1.8.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?=1&v=NuHEn4nLhJ​U

victordeng wrote in post #16163745
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?=1&v=NuHEn4nLhJ​U

might be copy variation/informal testing?

the 1.2 @ 1.2 is sharper than the 1.8 @ 1.8.

1.2 @ 1.8 makes the 1.8 @ 1.8 look soft.

1.2 @ 2.8 and 1.8 @ 2.8 is back to the first comparison, the 1.2 is still sharper, but not by a whole lot. Enough to spot in 100% crops. The 1.8 still has purple fringing, where the 1.2 is mostly gone.

victordeng wrote in post #16163745
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?=1&v=NuHEn4nLhJ​U

Really now... informal testing on the streets of Hong Kong got you convinced?

Digital Rev is a cool show but hardly the experts in lens testing.

This is how it's properly done. ISO 12233 http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx

I know from past experience that you need to be aware of your surroundings to control the CA that the 85 f/1.8 suffers from. If the 85L is simular in that area than I could live with it I suppose. I have been taking notes of forum members likes and dislikes of both lens and will continue to listen to the commentary while I await my trip to Omaha this weekend to try the 85L firsthand. Hopefully I will come away with some good photo's that will convince me I can't live without this lens. Otherwise the 85 f/1.8 is a nice fallback alternative.

Here's my opinion - Get the 6D + 85 1.8 instead.

One nice lens will get you exactly that, one nice lens. Whereas a body upgrade means all your existing lenses will benefit from it.

I just had a look at your recent uploads on flickr, when I view some of the photos in full size taken with the 135L, they are really suffering in terms of sharpness, fine details and tbh shots @ ISO100 still looks noisy.

Basically the body isn't doing the lens any justice.

The better the lens, the more demanding on a good body. Also more flaws will shown on a lesser body. Therefore it makes perfect sense to upgrade body before anymore lens imo.

I think glass before body still holds in general for someone with a rebel + kit lens. But once you acquire a few good lenses, a good body is imminent to bring out the best of your lenses.

Just another thought for you to think about

kin2son wrote in post #16166234
Here's my opinion - Get the 6D + 85 1.8 instead.

One nice lens will get you exactly that, one nice lens. Whereas a body upgrade means all your existing lenses will benefit from it.

I just had a look at your recent uploads on flickr, when I view some of the photos in full size taken with the 135L, they are really suffering in terms of sharpness, fine details and tbh shots @ ISO100 still looks noisy.

Basically the body isn't doing the lens any justice.

The better the lens, the more demanding on a good body. Also more flaws will shown on a lesser body. Therefore it makes perfect sense to upgrade body before anymore lens imo.

I think glass before body still holds in general for someone with a rebel + kit lens. But once you acquire a few good lenses, a good body is imminent to bring out the best of your lenses.

Just another thought for you to think about

Thanks for your opinion but I have a few of those engagement prints taken with the 5D/135 hanging on the basement wall. 12"x18" doesn't look a bit noisy and sharp as a tack to boot. Don't quite know what Flickr is doing to the image but oh well.

As for the 6D, thanks for the recommendation but that particular body doesn't interest me whatsoever. If I went to a lesser body than the 5DMIII it would be the 5DMII.

Thorrulz wrote in post #16166279
As for the 6D, thanks for the recommendation but that particular body doesn't interest me whatsoever. If I went to a lesser body than the 5DMIII it would be the 5DMII.

Dunno about that, I have the 5D2 and 5D3 and they are like cameras from different eras. I can't use the 5D2 anymore because it feels like an antique. I'd prefer 6D over 5D2

Well have a look - http://www.flickr.com …0/sizes/o/in/ph​otostream/

With a shot like that, you should be counting individual eyelashes with the 135L

I think you just haven't seen what a tack sharp photo truly is @ 100%.

What's the point of getting a 85LII when it's just going to look soft, lacking detail and noisy even at ISO100 if you aren't giving it a chance on a decent body?

Sorry but that's just how I feel...it's like fitting a huge turbo in a Yaris (ok, maybe a Corolla, but you get what I mean)

kin2son wrote in post #16166318
Well have a look - http://www.flickr.com …0/sizes/o/in/ph​otostream/

With a shot like that, you should be counting individual eyelashes with the 135L

I think you just haven't seen what a tack sharp photo truly is @ 100%.

What's the point of getting a 85LII when it's just going to look soft, lacking detail and noisy even at ISO100 if you aren't giving it a chance on a decent body?

Sorry but that's just how I feel...it's like fitting a huge turbo in a Yaris (ok, maybe a Corolla, but you get what I mean)

^^ that was shot with the 135, but it's soft because he probably missed focus a tiny bit and tried to salvage the photo. The 5Dc is very sharp if you nail focus.

fwiw, the 85L wide open is pretty damn close to the 135L wide open. it has far more CA than the 135, and quite a bit less than the 85 1.8

Actually I softened the photo in post processing a bit. The prints I received from the lab look fine btw and if the bride to be is thrilled with them than that's what really counts.

smorter wrote in post #16166295
Dunno about that, I have the 5D2 and 5D3 and they are like cameras from different eras. I can't use the 5D2 anymore because it feels like an antique. I'd prefer 6D over 5D2

kin2son wrote in post #16166318
Well have a look - http://www.flickr.com …0/sizes/o/in/ph​otostream/

With a shot like that, you should be counting individual eyelashes with the 135L

I think you just haven't seen what a tack sharp photo truly is @ 100%.

What's the point of getting a 85LII when it's just going to look soft, lacking detail and noisy even at ISO100 if you aren't giving it a chance on a decent body?

Sorry but that's just how I feel...it's like fitting a huge turbo in a Yaris (ok, maybe a Corolla, but you get what I mean)

If I walked too close to a billboard I am pretty sure the image wouldn't seem as sharp as if I am standing back a good distance. You are viewing a the image at 100% and comparing I would guess your images to mine I would guess and saying I don't know what a sharp image doesn't really look like.

Here are two images sized very close to being the same size. The first is yours and the second is mine. I would say my 5Dc image holds up very against yours, especially if yours was shot with "better" equipment.

Yours LINK

Mine LINK

By your criteria maybe you should be looking at a 1Dx.

Regardless, now that we are comparing apples to apples again and not apples to oranges I earnestly thank you for your opinion even if we don't agree in this instance.

smorter wrote in post #16166295
Dunno about that, I have the 5D2 and 5D3 and they are like cameras from different eras. I can't use the 5D2 anymore because it feels like an antique. I'd prefer 6D over 5D2

Not to put down the image quality of the 6D smorter, I really don't like dslrs with articulating screens nor the missing joystick, rear button layout. That's the reason I would prefer something more simular in design to my old 7D in FF when I upgrade bodies later on.

Canon 85 f/1.8 Fanboy here!

Since I got my 5D 3 almost a year ago, I've become a big fan of the 85mm 1/8 lens. I've got a boatload of lenses, but the 85/1.8 is my favorite. It is light and focuses fast. No MFA is needed on my Mark 3. The chromatic abberation is only visible wide open and only under very specific conditions. I never notice it in my normal work.

Last Sunday I did an entire outdoor photoshoot with the 85/1.8 and every shot was at F/2.0. There were around 400 images and every one was in perfect focus. I do give a lot of credit to the 5D3 autofocus system, the body does make a difference in this area. Compared to my old 5D classic, it is like night and day.

Since this thread lacks photos, I'll post a few here for your enjoyment. All were taken at F2.0 with the Canon 85mm F/1.8 lens.