We say glass before body.... interesting twist:

picturecrazy wrote in post #10647207
I'm not quite convinced about the colour/contrast/satura​tion thing. If you do any kind of PP to your images whether RAW or jpeg, you adjust those parameters. I've not really heard of anyone saying they don't PP their 85L shots because the lens renders everything 100% perfect. If shooting with the 1.8 means pushing to saturation slider to 10 instead of 5 with the L, then really, what difference does it make? It's no less work.

And the AF is brutally slow. I'm not talking about full sweeps through the range, I'm talking about catching moving people. The 1.8 is one of my favourite wedding dance floor lenses. Erratically moving people in the dark. One of the reasons I got rid of the 1.2 because it got me something like a 5% keeper rate in that situation, which is pathetic. By the time the 1.2/s lens elements move into position, the person has already moved too much. The 1.8 snaps into focus fast enough to catch them before they've moved too much to mess the shot up.

Well I was not satisfied with the color/saturation/contr​ast part of the 85 1.8 (whatever I did in PS did not help) and that's why I made the move to go to 85 1.2 and I am a happy man. I don't need the AF speed as well for the stuff I do with 85L.

also, the whole AF speed issue is kinda like the 5D/5Dii AF issue. For some people it IS an issue, but for others, they work around it just fine. I don't really have a major issue with AF speed really, as long as it eventually locks and takes shots in focus. When it gives up focusing thinking it's focused but not, then I have an issue.

If you're not in a huge hurry, you might wait and see what the Sigma 85 will do.

Can't speak for the lens, but body wise I think the 5DMII offers a whole lot more that can outweigh the 5DC/85 1.2 combo (Auto dust sensor cleaning, live view,lens calibration, higher ISO capability)

Ben, just get the better body and then worry about the rest later....

You know you're going to end up with the 5Dii as it is.... Also with the simple fact that you mention that you hate cleaning the sensor all the time... Do you really want to go back to having to clean the sensor and wasting cash on sensor cleaning kits over the next year (until you switch bodies again, lol). Think about the fact that the upgraded body will be saving you money in not having to buy supplies to clean the sensor as much...

Isn't that alone worth the cash difference up front? If you were going to keep the 5Dii for a couple years then it would most certainly make up for the difference in price (materials and time spent).

Time spent cleaning is time spent not taking photos....

I really like the 5D II and 7D bodies as a pair, so my vote goes to the 5D II and 85 f1.8.

Given the same choice, I'd go MkII + 85mm f/1.8

5Dii and 85mm 1.8

That's what I have. The 1.8 is sandwiched between my 35L and my 85L. I just can't afford to pay that much for 1.2.

I'll vote for 5D ii and 85 f1.8 combi.
I'm using the 85l on 5d ii now, sometimes I really find it difficult to meddle with the super shallow DOF. And the 5d ii focusing is not so accurate especially at corners.
While I did own the 85 f1.8 for a while before, the focusing was fast but the CA was really quite bad wide open at extreme conditions.

picturecrazy wrote in post #10647207
I'm not quite convinced about the colour/contrast/satura​tion thing. If you do any kind of PP to your images whether RAW or jpeg, you adjust those parameters. I've not really heard of anyone saying they don't PP their 85L shots because the lens renders everything 100% perfect. If shooting with the 1.8 means pushing to saturation slider to 10 instead of 5 with the L, then really, what difference does it make? It's no less work.

And the AF is brutally slow. I'm not talking about full sweeps through the range, I'm talking about catching moving people. The 1.8 is one of my favourite wedding dance floor lenses. Erratically moving people in the dark. One of the reasons I got rid of the 1.2 because it got me something like a 5% keeper rate in that situation, which is pathetic. By the time the 1.2/s lens elements move into position, the person has already moved too much. The 1.8 snaps into focus fast enough to catch them before they've moved too much to mess the shot up.

Where is the logic in that? If PP can compensate for contrast, saturation and colors with any lens, why ever bother getting any of the high end lenses. You can just find the cheapest, smallest lenses with acceptable speed and process the rest in Photoshop to match the IQ of the best lenses. But that is just not the case. And then there's the argument that certain lenses will cut down on your post processing flow, that is true just like that certain lenses, no matter how much you try to process the images, you won't get "WOW" out of them.

pixel_junkie wrote in post #10664214
Where is the logic in that? If PP can compensate for contrast, saturation and colors with any lens, why ever bother getting any of the high end lenses. You can just find the cheapest, smallest lenses with acceptable speed and process the rest in Photoshop to match the IQ of the best lenses.

how many "cheap small lenses" have acceptable speed though? Or length? And how about AF performance? What about sharpness?

Colors and contrast, for the most part, can be processed back into images. Sharpness can too, to an extent, but AF and speed generally only come with the more expensive lenses (granted the 85mm example is NOT one of them).

but I see what you're saying and generally agree. I'd take the less processing route whenever possible.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10664391
how many "cheap small lenses" have acceptable speed though? Or length? And how about AF performance? What about sharpness?

BINGO

Colours and contrast CAN be processed inot an image, and like I said, it's extremely rare that a lens can honestly cut down PP time to a significant degree. Like I said, even with an 85L people are still going to PP their images, so it's no more work to adjust sliders a little bit more with a lens that might be less saturated.

Which is why colour and contrast is not even a consideration when I buy a lens. Your argument doesn't make sense to buy a cheap lens with acceptable speed. Speed is usually the major reason someone will choose one lens over another. Like there is no cheap canon version of the 70-200 2.8 IS. You buy the L or you have no other Canon lens that will give you the speed. That's why you buy the L. If there was a cheap version then I'd buy it. There are MANY reasons to buy an expensive lens, but colour and contrast? Maybe 20 years ago...