Will Otus 85 retain its value?

Yeah, I don't shoot f/1.4 much in studio, it's more useful outdoors where there is a background to blow away. Even still, to get the full benefits of resolution, you're talking about a tripod shot with a still subject. A manually-focused, handheld f/1.4 shot is totally possible, just expect a low keeper rate. I've shot handheld shots at f/1.2 with the 6D + 85L of still subjects, and even then I take a lot of shots. And slight wavering back and forth can lose critical focus.

I also have the precision matte focus screen installed in my 6D for just this purpose. The 5DIII and 5DSR can nail autofocus with the 85L using the precision spot AF, but my experience with the 6D is that its AF--even the center point--is too large and not precise enough to get focus right with very fast primes. My AF keeper rate with the 6D at f/1.2 is probably around 25%. And that's with the center AF point and no recomposing. With the peripheral AF points... forget about it. 5DSR on the other hand manages as near a 100% keeper rate as makes no difference, the benefit of the better AF system. In the studio, stopped down past f/4, both cameras AF well.

absplastic wrote in post #17951402
Yeah, I don't shoot f/1.4 much in studio, it's more useful outdoors where there is a background to blow away. Even still, to get the full benefits of resolution, you're talking about a tripod shot with a still subject. A manually-focused, handheld f/1.4 shot is totally possible, just expect a low keeper rate. I've shot handheld shots at f/1.2 with the 6D + 85L of still subjects, and even then I take a lot of shots. And slight wavering back and forth can lose critical focus.

I also have the precision matte focus screen installed in my 6D for just this purpose. The 5DIII and 5DSR can nail autofocus with the 85L using the precision spot AF, but my experience with the 6D is that its AF--even the center point--is too large and not precise enough to get focus right with very fast primes. My AF keeper rate with the 6D at f/1.2 is probably around 25%. And that's with the center AF point and no recomposing. With the peripheral AF points... forget about it. 5DSR on the other hand manages as near a 100% keeper rate as makes no difference, the benefit of the better AF system. In the studio, stopped down past f/4, both cameras AF well.

I was going to get a second 6D, but your comments on AF concern me.

Did you do AFMA?

icor1031v2 wrote in post #17950660
. . . It's almost as blurry @ f/2.8 as my sigma is @ f/1.4.
. . .

I call BS.

And I find it curious that the people who make these kinds of nonsense claims almost never have any photos to back them up.

I bet your Canon is either broken, mis-adjusted, or was suffering from operator error.

absplastic wrote in post #17951402
Yeah, I don't shoot f/1.4 much in studio, it's more useful outdoors where there is a background to blow away. Even still, to get the full benefits of resolution, you're talking about a tripod shot with a still subject. A manually-focused, handheld f/1.4 shot is totally possible, just expect a low keeper rate. I've shot handheld shots at f/1.2 with the 6D + 85L of still subjects, and even then I take a lot of shots. And slight wavering back and forth can lose critical focus.

I also have the precision matte focus screen installed in my 6D for just this purpose. The 5DIII and 5DSR can nail autofocus with the 85L using the precision spot AF, but my experience with the 6D is that its AF--even the center point--is too large and not precise enough to get focus right with very fast primes. My AF keeper rate with the 6D at f/1.2 is probably around 25%. And that's with the center AF point and no recomposing. With the peripheral AF points... forget about it. 5DSR on the other hand manages as near a 100% keeper rate as makes no difference, the benefit of the better AF system. In the studio, stopped down past f/4, both cameras AF well.

This reflects my experiences as well. Critical focus is much better with the five precision points of the 5Ds.

OP I think you are missing focus and mistaken it for lack of sharpness. With an Otus and MF, it will be much harder.

FTb wrote in post #17951441
I call BS.

And I find it curious that the people who make these kinds of nonsense claims almost never have any photos to back them up.

I bet your Canon is either broken, mis-adjusted, or was suffering from operator error.

I said it's DXO data.

icor1031v2 wrote in post #17951406
I was going to get a second 6D, but your comments on AF concern me.

Did you do AFMA?

Yes, I did a very thorough MA calibration with the 6D + 85L II combination, at two distances (2 meters and 4 meters, due to space limitations) and a few different apertures from f/1.2 to f/1.8. I took 20 shots per aperture setting: 10 each acquiring AF lock from MFD, and 10 from infinity focus, to rule out direction bias. I used a target I made that is shown below, with the camera on a tripod and the center AF point centered on the black and white target squares.

The result of my methodical testing was that the 6D + 85L AF is accurate but not precise. This is unfortunately not a problem micro-adjustment can address. MA can only fix accuracy issues, such as consistent tendency to front focus or back focus, it can't address lack of precision. My 6D + 85L combo hits dead on only about 25% of the time, but it is as likely to front focus as back focus, and by the same amount. So lots of misses, but nothing MA can improve. The 5DSR + 85L, on the other hand, is accurate and precise. It also needs no MA, but gets a very high keeper rate due to the high precision of the spot AF.

Note that this particular result was unique to the 6D + 85L combination. Using the 6D + 100L macro, I do not see the same lack of precision. Consequently, the 100L is my more go-to lens on the 6D body, whenever I have the option.

icor1031v2 wrote in post #17951465
I said it's DXO data.

I and many forum members don't like or trust DXO much. There seems to be a real bias on some or most of their tests. Plus I don't believe they still divulge exactly how they test. They didn't use to but I stopped using them long ago so I really don't know.

However, I think your assessment of the ef 85mm f1.2L USM II is regrettable. Of course all of us a different but that 85 will be with me as long as I am able to shoot. There are few lenses that capture a place in my heart but the 85 does. It is a lens in a class by itself. Only real challenger is the ef 50mm f1.2L. The fact remains when you want or need f1.2 this is the lens to go to. The fact mine is also a sharp portrait lens is a plus.
I wouldn't trade mine for two Otus 85's. But that is me. There is no freaking way that Otus is worth four grand or whatever they sell for now. That is nonsense.

ebiggs wrote in post #17951828
I and many forum members don't like or trust DXO much. There seems to be a real bias on some or most of their tests. Plus I don't believe they still divulge exactly how they test. They didn't use to but I stopped using them long ago so I really don't know.

However, I think your assessment of the ef 85mm f1.2L USM II is regrettable. Of course all of us a different but that 85 will be with me as long as I am able to shoot. There are few lenses that capture a place in my heart but the 85 does. It is a lens in a class by itself. Only real challenger is the ef 50mm f1.2L. The fact remains when you want or need f1.2 this is the lens to go to. The fact mine is also a sharp portrait lens is a plus.
I wouldn't trade mine for two Otus 85's. But that is me. There is no freaking way that Otus is worth four grand or whatever they sell for now. That is nonsense.

Can you recommend any sites for comparisons, other than flickr (that is to say: browsing real-usage shots? which is useful, but time consuming.)?
Not specifically for these lenses, but in general?

icor1031v2 wrote in post #17951878
Can you recommend any sites for comparisons, other than flickr (that is to say: browsing real-usage shots? which is useful, but time consuming.)?
Not specifically for these lenses, but in general?

No I can't. I am a user more than a reader or reviewer. I know what I like for my personal business and use.
If an Otus 85mm floats your boat, by all means go for it. You have my permission but don't expect four grand worth of improvement. Maybe it is, what do I know. I have never even touched one but I still doubt it.

icor1031v2 wrote in post #17951465
I said it's DXO data.

So you haven't actually used the Canon 85mm f1.2. You're basing your condemnation on someone else's assessment -- and of a sample you know nothing about.

Good luck with your pixel peeping and sharpness obsession. Personally, I find it soooo tiresome. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be out making photos -- or what you refer to as "blurry" photos

ebiggs wrote in post #17951895
No I can't. I am a user more than a reader or reviewer. I know what I like for my personal business and use.
If an Otus 85mm floats your boat, by all means go for it. You have my permission but don't expect four grand worth of improvement. Maybe it is, what do I know. I have never even touched one but I still doubt it.

Nah, I'm not after the otus; as I said, in general. I just hoped someone had a good source to make it easier.
I gave up on the otus because of the lack of AF.. If I have a ton of extra cash, I'll maybe get one - but that won't happen. LOL, probably would rent one first too.

I'm happy to hear non-aggressive criticism like yours (and unlike someone else...) This is part of the reason I come to forums: I don't know *what* I don't know; I had no idea DXOMARK data was questionable, and didn't know field curvature was a thing.

I also asked so I could compare canon 1.2 to sigma 1.4

icor1031v2 wrote in post #17951906
Nah, I'm not after the otus; as I said, in general. I just hoped someone had a good source to make it easier.
I gave up on the otus because of the lack of AF.. If I have a ton of extra cash, I'll maybe get one - but that won't happen. LOL, probably would rent one first too.

I'm happy to hear non-aggressive criticism like yours (and unlike someone else...) This is part of the reason I come to forums: I don't know *what* I don't know; I had no idea DXOMARK data was questionable, and didn't know field curvature was a thing.

Hey man we are all in this world together. What works for me may not be your cup of tea. Doesn't make it right or wrong. Just different. I buy and sell lenses pretty often simply for my own curiosity and enjoyment. I have currently approx. 40+. The ef 85mm f1.2l II has found a home with me. I will never sell it. I have about half a dozen or so that I consider my best all time favorites. They occupy my bag mostly.

Some swear about DXO. Some swear at DXO. I am in the latter spot. They don't like to reveal how they measure or if they do it the same all the time. Besides some of their data may be correct but misleading. I just don't use them anymore.

ebiggs wrote in post #17951917
Hey man we are all in this world together. What works for me may not be your cup of tea. Doesn't make it right or wrong. Just different. I buy and sell lenses pretty often simply for my own curiosity and enjoyment. I have currently approx. 40+. The ef 85mm f1.2l II has found a home with me. I will never sell it. I have about half a dozen or so that I consider my best all time favorites. They occupy my bag mostly.

Some swear about DXO. Some swear at DXO. I am in the latter spot. They don't like to reveal how they measure or if they do it the same all the time. Besides some of their data may be correct but misleading. I just don't use them anymore.

40... Wow!!

There isn't 'much' difference between the 85L II and the Sigma 85 but from 1.2-2.8 the Canon is sharper in the center - but we are talking about small amounts.

If you go to SLRgear.com and look at their blurr charts on full frame for both cameras you can see sharpness across the frame at major apertures.

Finally, there is no conceivable way, remotely, that a Sigma at 1.4 beats the Canon at 2.8 - not a chance in hell unless you have a damaged lens.

If you remove the Canon's F1.2 to F1.6 CA, something that can mostly be corrected in PP, the Canon is one of the Sharpest lenses ever produced stopped down to F4 - sharper than any lens I own - and I own many many L lenses. I have actually test both the new 35L II and the 85L II at F4 and IMO the 85L II is sharper and allows more fine detail to be captured using a 5DSR

Go look at the slrgear.com blurr chart and you will see it.

I have captured pictures that are used to reproduce large format oil paintings, to make prints for the artist, and I choose the Canon 85L II as the lens I use to do so - on a 5DSR, you can capture any amount of detail you want.

FTb wrote in post #17951899
So you haven't actually used the Canon 85mm f1.2. You're basing your condemnation on someone else's assessment -- and of a sample you know nothing about.

Good luck with your pixel peeping and sharpness obsession. Personally, I find it soooo tiresome. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be out making photos -- or what you refer to as "blurry" photos

Speaking of tiresome...I don't get the tiresome belligerence that some take with these posts. Just don't get it. I don't care what lenses or cameras people pick for their use. If someone prefers the Canon 85L II, then great: have at it. Someone else wants to spend 5K on a massive heavy manual focus Otus 85, that's fine with me too...just don't care. So, I don't understand why some take a snarky tone when discussing this stuff. Why?