Canon 85mm 1.2L ii vs 85mm 1.8

Pigpen101 wrote in post #18432456
I have heard the 135L called "the best lens Canon makes." (more than once)

My guess is people who could not afford better glass say that, a lot. I find it to be an extremely good lens, nice focal length sharp wide open and all that. It could use IS, but I'm not willing to pay an extra $1,000 for it. If they were the same price, I'd have 200L II IS.

Both the Canon 85mm and 100mm lenses can be great portraiture lenses and are excellent telephoto lenses. I think the 100mm macro lens is slightly sharper than the 85mm lens. However, the 100mm macro lens is longer, heavier, and about $200 more expensive than the 85mm. I would say that the 85mm gives you more bang for the buck than the 100mm macro--it is more like a sleeper hit lens that Canon makes.

I have both lenses, and I love them both for different reasons. The 100mm macro is great for when I want to take a prime lens out for flower shooting. The 85mm lens is great as a compact, photojournalism-style prime lens for shooting. You can't go wrong with either lens.

I have not tried playing with the 135L lens. I've heard that is the best portraiture lens out there.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1484804

Wow! And to think I bought my 85mm lens for around $300 at Amazon back in April!

I think this lens is definitely worth the money. At this price, it's borderline theft.

i'll be the first to ask...what's you intended usage for the new lens?

also the 85 f1.8 is ridiculously cheap...i just picked one up a few weeks back for $180

umphotography wrote in post #18432392
I have used both extensively. Got rid of the L and used the 1.8 for years.

The L was to slow for focus and hit/miss at 1.2 .The focus on the 1.8 is fast and keeps up with the demands of a wedding photographer. I cant tell you how many times i missed shots because I had to have that L. Useless for event work in my opinion.

Then along comes Sigma and the 85 Art.....Problem solved. By far the best 85 on the market. Blows everything away right now. The siggy is the 85 to get

how fast does the AF need to be to keep up with the demands of a wedding photographer...are people running down the aisle now and no longer walking?

If you're ok with slower focus, size, price, and that shocking rear element, get the L, it produces amazing image quality.

Otherwise get the 1.8.

Still prefer the Canon 1.2L. Smaller and lighter than Sigma and I like the Canon's skin rendering and bokeh better.

DreDaze wrote in post #18432567
i'll be the first to ask...what's you intended usage for the new lens?

also the 85 f1.8 is ridiculously cheap...i just picked one up a few weeks back for $180

how fast does the AF need to be to keep up with the demands of a wedding photographer...are people running down the aisle now and no longer walking?

The L has great difficulty locking on a moving object, even in servo, in low light conditions and YES for brides coming directly at you at a snails pace and for people walking down the isle. The L is useless for dance shots when the pace Picks up a lot So it needs to be at least fast enough to keep up with couples walking down an Isle or doing their first dance in low light-----Which it has great difficulty doing.

I had the 85mm f1.8 and currently own the 85L II.

The AF on the 1.8 is super quick. Almost as fast as the 24-70 II and 70-200 II.

Both of Canon's 85mm have quite a bit of purple fringing when shot wide open in certain types of lighting.

I'm fortunate as my copy of the 85L is extremely sharp wide open. My 85 1.8 was not as sharp wide open out of the box.

I don't need fast AF for an 85mm lens so im very happy with my 85L. The bokeh of my 85L is creamy and the rendering is unique. However the bokeh balls are more elliptical than round if that matters to you.

If I didn't own the 85L I would probably consider the Sigma 85 Art lens as it's reviewing highly compared to the 85L.

If you want the "best" optically then there's always the Zeiss Otus albeit manual focus.

Mashimaro wrote in post #18433020
The bokeh of my 85L is creamy and the rendering is unique. However the bokeh balls are more elliptical than round if that matters to you.

That is mechanical vignetting, and it is quite normal for a very high aperture lens wide open.
The 85L has much rounder "bokeh balls" than the 85/1.8, at the same f/1.8 aperture.

Mashimaro wrote in post #18433020
I had the 85mm f1.8 and currently own the 85L II.

The AF on the 1.8 is super quick. Almost as fast as the 24-70 II and 70-200 II.

Both of Canon's 85mm have quite a bit of purple fringing when shot wide open in certain types of lighting.

I'm fortunate as my copy of the 85L is extremely sharp wide open. My 85 1.8 was not as sharp wide open out of the box.

I don't need fast AF for an 85mm lens so im very happy with my 85L. The bokeh of my 85L is creamy and the rendering is unique. However the bokeh balls are more elliptical than round if that matters to you.

If I didn't own the 85L I would probably consider the Sigma 85 Art lens as it's reviewing highly compared to the 85L.

If you want the "best" optically then there's always the Zeiss Otus albeit manual focus.

^^^^ THIS ^^^^

I tested the 85 art the Otus side by side. There was no difference in terms of or sharpness BT these 2 lens. I was blown away. How could a $1200.00 lens beat out a 5K lens DXO gave it a better score as well.......No AF is a No deal to me...http://www.thephoblogr​apher.com …ats-zeiss-otus-dxo-tests/

umphotography wrote in post #18433144
I tested the 85 art the Otus side by side. There was no difference in terms of or sharpness BT these 2 lens. I was blown away. How could a $1200.00 lens beat out a 5K lens DXO gave it a better score as well.......

The problem is that DXO (and most people) test lenses on flat subject (charts), and Sigma optimizes lenses for that.
Luckily, Zeiss still designs lenses for actual 3D subjects.
The vastly superior chromatic correction of the Otus results in almost no purple/green fringing on real subjects, hence a much better image quality.

To sum it up, the Sigma is the lens to buy if you need fast AF, or if you mainly shoot flat test charts.
But thinking it has better optics than the Otus is delusional.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18433154
The problem is that DXO (and most people) test lenses on flat subject (charts), and Sigma optimizes lenses for that.
Luckily, Zeiss still designs lenses for actual 3D subjects.
The vastly superior chromatic correction of the Otus results in almost no purple/green fringing on real subjects, hence a much better image quality.

To sum it up, the Sigma is the lens to buy if you need fast AF, or if you mainly shoot flat test charts.
But thinking it has better optics than the Otus is delusional.

most folks probably cant differ the zeiss look, while it's rich and lush, some of it can be copied in post.

Charlie wrote in post #18433163
most folks probably cant differ the zeiss look, while it's rich and lush, some of it can be copied in post.

Fair enough, but keep in mind that it is not possible to properly correct longitudinal CA in post.

And in all fairness, I should add that the Sigma is the lens to buy also if you don't want to spend $4500