Canon 85 F1.2 L contrast versus EF 85 1.8

xpfloyd wrote in post #17298923
I loved the sigma 35 Art as the focus issues were cured by the dock. If sigma released a 85 art I would be very tempted although I do like the lightness of the 1.8

I tried for one week this Sigma 35 Art, it's ... how to say ... hum ... i literally felt in love

Me too but when I went to repurchase it last week (after selling all my canon gear then changing my mind this year) I ended up buying the canon 35 IS, go figure

I owned the 1.8 for around 18 months. I absolutely loved it. The IQ on the images are sharp and it is fast to focus...I replaced it for the 1.2 L (MK2). The 1.2 L is a remarkable lens but the auto focus is sooooo slowwwww. How it renders the background when wide open is just gorgeous, however…It’s not an all purpose lens whereas the 1.8 is (my personal opinion). For what I sold my 1.8 for I wish I had of held on to it but at the time I needed the funds to put towards the 1.2L
To summarise. The 1.8 is a wonderful lens you certainly will not be disappointed with it.

Been reading lots of forums and getting more options. Seems some users prefer the EF 100 F2 USM non IS over the Ef 85 F1.8, and suggest less CA, sharper wide open and still auto focus quickly and accurately.
Any opinions or thoughts about this lens, it is 50 dearer that EF 85 so still an option cost wise?

Have a good day

Kevin

warek wrote in post #17310711
Been reading lots of forums and getting more options. Seems some users prefer the EF 100 F2 USM non IS over the Ef 85 F1.8, and suggest less CA, sharper wide open and still auto focus quickly and accurately.
Any opinions or thoughts about this lens, it is 50 dearer that EF 85 so still an option cost wise?

Have a good day

Kevin

I would go with the 85m.
The focal length is much better/usable IMO.

warek wrote in post #17310711
Been reading lots of forums and getting more options. Seems some users prefer the EF 100 F2 USM non IS over the Ef 85 F1.8, and suggest less CA, sharper wide open and still auto focus quickly and accurately.
Any opinions or thoughts about this lens, it is 50 dearer that EF 85 so still an option cost wise?

Have a good day

Kevin

If you shoot the 85 at f2 instead of 1.8 the two perform much the same.

Thanks for that I notice you have a 85 1.8, just reading a review that said they preferred the 100 because of metal barrel and metal filter screw thread. I intend to use filters, but I don't suppose this is significant?

I may be delayed upgrading to a full frame, but plan to buy the lens soon and use it on my Canon crop camera so guess that an 85 would be much more useful than a 100?

Thanks

Kevin

warek wrote in post #17314804
Thanks for that I notice you have a 85 1.8, just reading a review that said they preferred the 100 because of metal barrel and metal filter screw thread. I intend to use filters, but I don't suppose this is significant?

I may be delayed upgrading to a full frame, but plan to buy the lens soon and use it on my Canon crop camera so guess that an 85 would be much more useful than a 100?

Thanks

Kevin

I have heard zero complaints about the 85 based on build quality concerns. I use a 135L as my my go to portrait lens on full frame so the 85 would be the same field of view on a crop. I liked my brief use of the 100f2 but it doesnt fit the progression of primes (28; 50, 85, 135) that I had in mind as well as the 85. I dont know how far your planning or budget will take you but once you do go full frame the 135L should be on your list so add that to reason to go 85.

Another vote for the 85 1.8. I've been using one for several years on a FF body and believe it's a very good all purpose lens. Just take a cruise through the lens sample thread and for a look at images you can expect from the lens. I think there is a good variety of shots from a good variety of photogs in that thread. Agree with Gozo that the 135 is fantastic on FF. I used the 135L nearly exclusively for a year or so. For myself, 85mm is more "all purpose". BTW, Tried a Sigma for 4 days. It was all over the place with regards to focus and I have never been very impressed with how it renders color. Even if focus was good, I didn't feel it was worth the money.

The 85/1.8 on center-point focus is the quickest, most accurate AF I have seen. Shooting basketball, I can swivel and click. I use Tv mode, ISO 800-1600 (depending on lighting), and click away as fast as I can.

bubbygator wrote in post #17314916
The 85/1.8 on center-point focus is the quickest, most accurate AF I have seen. Shooting basketball, I can swivel and click. I use Tv mode, ISO 800-1600 (depending on lighting), and click away as fast as I can.

Thanks for all the input, sounds like Canon 85 1.8 will be my next planned lens purchase

Kevin

At one stage my trusty friend the 85LII got stolen along with all my other gear and I got a 85 f/1.8 whilst I waited for my insurance to come through

The 85 f/1.8 is a distinct step down from the 85LII

It's a serviceable lens which lacks magic, or the "spark"

The 85LII feels alive. The 85 f/1.8 felt like a sharp kit lens

Sometimes all it takes is 1 stop to make a difference, but it's worth keeping in mind that even at identical apertures the 85LII's bokeh looks nicer.

Some 85LII goodness:

I would forget the 85 1.8

For the extremes, I'd get the 85L

for basic/best value, I'd wait for Sigma 85 ART

Will Chao wrote in post #17332951
I would forget the 85 1.8

For the extremes, I'd get the 85L

for basic/best value, I'd wait for Sigma 85 ART

Thanks, but this is a hobby and the 85L is 2300 AUD compared to 85 1.8 at 460 AUD, or a 135 F2 L at 1200 AUD so while it is no doubt better cannot justify the 5-6 times price difference and very few available second hand in Australia as reasonable price.
I could probably afford the 135 F2 L for a future FF camera, Canon 6D, but may find it less useful that an 85 length

Warek

warek wrote in post #17343685
Thanks, but this is a hobby and the 85L is 2300 AUD compared to 85 1.8 at 460 AUD, or a 135 F2 L at 1200 AUD so while it is no doubt better cannot justify the 5-6 times price difference and very few available second hand in Australia as reasonable price.
I could probably afford the 135 F2 L for a future FF camera, Canon 6D, but may find it less useful that an 85 length

Warek

For me, 85 is more useful than 135. This is also a hobby for myself. While I totally agree with Smorter's post, I have not been in a position that I could cough up the $ for the 85L. That said, money is relative. There are a lot of folks on POTN that shoot as a hobby but can afford to buy all the best stuff. I can't. I still feel that for the "average Joe" I still feel the 1.8 is best bang for the buck. "Sharp kit lens"…maybe…but for $300 on the used market it's a great lens. Now, if there was to be a 135 IS released that would change everything for myself.