Canon 85mm 1.2L ii vs 85mm 1.8

CheshireCat wrote in post #18433135
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.

I did not know that! (I usually shoot the 85L at 1.2 haha)

I don't notice the elliptical bokeh balls as much on my 50L or my Leica F1.4 lenses? I thought it was an 85L trait haha

Mashimaro wrote in post #18433208
I don't notice the elliptical bokeh balls as much on my 50L or my Leica F1.4 lenses? I thought it was an 85L trait haha

The lens design also affects this phenomenon.
Lenses with same FL and aperture might behave differently.

https://photo.stackexc​hange.com …-non-uniform-bokeh-effect

Another funny thing about the 85/1.2 and 50/1.0 is the "chopped bokeh", i.e. the bokeh oval is cropped horizontally due to mechanical vignetting caused by the mirror box.

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.

thats coming from someone who has probably never touched an Otus.....My guess

When you put them side by side come back and talk some more

umphotography wrote in post #18433699
thats coming from someone who has probably never touched an Otus.....My guess

When you put them side by side come back and talk some more

I dont own otus, but do have some zeiss lenses, and the art series doesnt have the same zeiss look, not that it's a totally bad thing. The color neutrality, the tones of the skies are most noticeable. It's noticeable, but I'm ok without the zeiss look. I still have and use the older 100-300, which is one of the finest zooms made, old and new, and it certainly gives a different look compared to the 135 art at the same focal length.

While I love the zeiss look, they have a nasty habit of making big and heavy lenses. The metal build is ridiculous, scratch/scuff magnet that I dont like at all.

there was an old comparison on FM comparing the zeiss MP to canon 100L, a newer style optic that many canon folks swear by. Not surprising to zeiss enthusiasts, the zeiss gave much better contrast while sharpness was a wash. You see similar comparisons with L and non L glass. You may or may not pick up subtleties. Matt Granger on youtube has a comparison on the sigma art and otus, and optically, it's clear which one is better, however, most would be totally happy with good enough.

Never had issues shooting fast action things with the 85L. The extra stop is nice in low light situations. Can't beat subject separation when shot wide.

umphotography wrote in post #18433699
thats coming from someone who has probably never touched an Otus.....My guess

When you put them side by side come back and talk some more

I have tried the 55 and 85. However I only own the 135 APO Sonnar, which is an Otus class lens at a much lower price.
I have never shot with the Sigma 85 Art, but it is enough to check a few examples online to see that the lens has big issues with longitudinal CA. So disappointing for a modern design, that it is not worth replacing my 85L with it.

But since you put them side by side, it would help us all if you posted your test shots. Please skip charts.

I've got the 85mm f/1.8, and I'm happy enough with it. Having said that, there are now better choices on the market, as detailed above. It seems that a lot depends upon your budget. For my budget, the 85mm f/1.8 fits just fine. I'm glad that Canon still makes decent and relatively inexpensive lenses. That's what brought me to Canon in the first place. There's no shame in using a non-L lens.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18433835
I have tried the 55 and 85. However I only own the 135 APO Sonnar, which is an Otus class lens at a much lower price.
I have never shot with the Sigma 85 Art, but it is enough to check a few examples online to see that the lens has big issues with longitudinal CA. So disappointing for a modern design, that it is not worth replacing my 85L with it.

But since you put them side by side, it would help us all if you posted your test shots. Please skip charts.

135art, hardly any CA, even vignette is very low wide open, and nice bokeh, not too catty.

Of course it's probably easier to make than 85mm, as most 135 legacy options are pretty darn strong.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18433835
I have tried the 55 and 85. However I only own the 135 APO Sonnar, which is an Otus class lens at a much lower price.
I have never shot with the Sigma 85 Art, but it is enough to check a few examples online to see that the lens has big issues with longitudinal CA. So disappointing for a modern design, that it is not worth replacing my 85L with it.

But since you put them side by side, it would help us all if you posted your test shots. Please skip charts.

I no longer have the test shots. Already in the trash.

There is simply nothing there to justify the expense. When i go in to buy a lens i bring a calibration target and shoot identically from a set points. I also use it like i would in the field with a subject. When i shot both of these lens at various distances there was no difference that I could see. And I have a very trained eye to look for differences in color, quality of Bokeh sharpness and Boken drop off from subjects at closer distances and chromic concerns

It darn sure was not $3900.00 in improvement and the manual focus turned me off ....The art is top of the class despite what all the zeis owners will tell you- Heck if i spent 5K for an 85 I would try to convince myself and everyone else on the planet how much better the lens is. It simply is not. Put both on your own body and go do your own comparison

We seem to come to the same conclusion.
I say the Otus is certainly the best lens (optically), but would I spend +$3000 for that ?
My very personal answer is: no.

And the Sigma 85 Art is certainly better than the Canon as far as sharpness and AF speed is concerned, but would I sell my 85L for that ?
My very personal answer is: no.

Absolutely. Not every L lens has a cheaper counterpart that is great, but many do. I think the 100mm macro is very close, as well as the 85mm. I have watched many B&H videos hosted by some well known pros. MANY have said they thought the 50mm F/1.4 was even better than the F/1.2 L version.

Pigpen101 wrote in post #18435192
MANY have said they thought the 50mm F/1.4 was even better than the F/1.2 L version.

MANY people should know better.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18435318
MANY people should know better.

No!!! ... ... this has been gone over so many times before and ever so tediously ... ... and I'm not going to, stupidly, allow myself to get drawn in again ...

... but ... but ...

the often (casually) trashed 50mm 1.4 really, really is a far, far better lens than its lynch mob make it out to be.

[And 'no', I don't think it's better than the 50L 1.2]

I will say this 'only once' ... I have already broken my vow of silence ... I will not do that again.

I had the original EF 50mm f/1.8. Nice lens with a noisy micro-motor focuser.

I had 3 copies of the EF 50mm f/1.8 II. None of them were consistently good at focusing, in any light.

I had 2 copies of the EF 50mm f/1.4. Same erratic focus as the II. Bought and sold the first one used. Got the second refurbished. AF died in two years of light intermittent use.

My last attempt at a Canon 50mm lens was the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM. Same glass as the II. Better coatings. And it focuses on what I point it at. For now.

The message that will become my mantra on the 50mm f/1.4 ...

... my copy is just fine, no worries ...

... my copy is just fine, no worries ...

... my copy is just fine, no worries ...