Qualty difference between... (85mm "L" and non-L)

Hi

I just read Pekka's review of the MkII and he talks about using "L" series lenese with the camera, to get the sharpness that is required.

The lense that he uses is the 85mm F1.2L, and I am wondeing what the qualty difference is between that lense and the and the 85 F1.8mm

And which also brings up the question, is this lens ideal for portrait photography?

Thanks

I like the 28-135 IS lens for portraits. I like to be able to zoom in and out. It's very sharp and I get superb 16x20's with this lens. Fixed focal lengths are ok but if sharpness is great with the zoom, why buy a fixe focal length. Maybe for a shallow depth of field with a large lens opening? Perhaps if you shoot available light but I normally use monolights at F8.

With all due respect to Pekka.. sometimes we tend to ignore some superb glass simply becasue it does not have the letter "L" involved.. (or the prce tag)

The much less expensive 85mm f/1.8 is a spectacular lens at a very affordable price!

It has faster AF than it's more expensive big brother "L"

Yes.. the "L" has it's advantages.. ie.. if you want to shoot "wide open" the L will remain sharper at those speeds.. but stop down to f/4 and you'd be hard pressed to see the difference.. and even at the widest f/1.8 the "cheaper" lens si no slouch

That said.. the f/1.2 is one of Canon's "legendary" primes.. the likes of which dreams are made of...

I have yet to own any of the "Dream" primes.. myself.. (85 f/1.2; 135 f/2, 200 f/1.8) ... but entry into this dimension is a big step.. were I you I'd think about the 85 f/1.8 first.. see how often you find yourself using that focal range (wonderfull portrait lens) and go from there.

The 85 f1.8 is truly a great bargain/value compared to the "L".

Of course if money is not an issue..............it'​ll be a different story.

But the non "L" 85 prime is a superb performer..........

No regrets here

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

thanks CDS for the info. and also thanks for the change in subject, I hate writing subject lines, and the same as the subject for an e-mail. hard to beleive I work in IT

When I was reading the article, I was wonding what the price was for the 85 1.2 L so when I looked it up, I had thought only when I win lotto.

Directly below that lens was the 85 1.8 and with extra stop(?) would it really be worth the cost. but like any of the "L" series, it comes down to how serious am I going to be.

I guess that being primes, even tho they are non "L" they are still good buy.

At least I was right in thinking that 85mm would be a nice portrait lense, since some people say that the 50mm 1.8 on a 10d = 80mm. I have got the 50mm but at the moment no models to photograph

roanjohn, that is a nice photo, and I can see that it works well for a portrait lens.

Of course 85 1.8 is a great lens. To me saying that L lenses are great companion to Mark II does not include a notion that all other are crap

Besides sharpness is only 20% of the deal, there are equally important things like bokeh, usability accross whole aperture range, rugged constrution, focusing accuracy, sound, handling, sealing, weight and balance, look and feel, color balance, flare, contrast, geometry...

in hopes of not sounding dumb, but what is bokeh? when it comes to a lens?

Bokeh is referred to as the out of focus area in a photograph.

Read up:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/​sm-04-04-04.shtml

Ro1

Interestingly enough the 85 mm f1.2 is NOT one of those lenses that is fully E-TTL 2 compliant, while the 1.8 is. The 1.2 is still a superb lens and I'd love to have one.

ME TOO!!!