Canon 85 f1.2

postcardcv

postcardcv

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,661
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
No
for some reason that I can't explain Ive started to think about getting an 85 f1.2... so here's the thing, just how good a lens is it and how useable is it at f2.8? Also is there much difference between the original and the mkII? Should I save myself a lot of money and just buy an 85 f1.8 instead?
 
One thing I was dissapointed to find out when I got my 50 1.4 was that it's not very usable at 1.4 unless your shooting something flat or you want the increasing blurred effect which I rarely want. 1.4 is bad enough I can't imagine what 1.2 would be like...
Mine is usually stuck at 2 or higher
 
I've owned both the 85mm 1.2 and the 85mm 1.8 and currently own neither. I would consider buying the 1.2 again at some point.

Both great lenses.

85mm 1.8

The 85mm 1.8 focuses much faster and is a good choice for indoor sports like basketball.

It is quite good wide open and makes a nice portrait lens for someone who perhaps has a 24-105 f4 and/or the 70-200 f4 but nothing faster - will allow more background blur and subject popping.

I didn't feel I personally used it that much as I also have the 70-200 2.8 MKII and now have a 50mm 1.4. The 85mm 1.8 is much better wide open than the 50 1.4 is.

85mm 1.2 MKI

Expensive, heavy, slow to focus.

Many people feel it is the definitive portrait lens. IMO f/1.2 is only useful for a small set of circumstances, but the lens is sharp @ f/1.2 so it does well in these situations.

IMO the two main uses of f/1.2 are full body portraits where the subject can pop out of a beautifully dreamy background which holds in enough visual clues to give a nice depth and context, but is distanced by the thin dof. The same shot taken with a longer lens would have more blurring, but less context as less of the background would show for the same subject framing.

The other obvious use is very low light work without flash.

Any photo @ f/1.2 has to be very masterfully taken for the thin dof not to simply make the shot look soft. My best shots with this lens were @ f2-f4 which is why I concentrated more on the zoom ultimately. I may well return to it now I'm older and wiser and have a better idea on how to play to its strengths.

On minor issue that played on my OCD mind is that because the lens expands, is not weather sealed and has a very large and protruding rear element - dust always seems to collect a little inside it. It doesn't affect the image - just my psyche!

Phil


(MKI is still a good lens reputedly - nice and sharp, but the new one is impoved on focussing speed and slightly better optically with new coatings on the lens elements.)
 
Save your money, get the 1.8, you wont be disappointed, I feel no need to even think of upgrading that one, nor would I part with it, its just simply a joy to use and not a lens I ever have to worry about in any respect.
 
The 1.2 is a wonderful piece of engineering, but very slow to focus because of the amount of glass. It's also VERY heavy. Tack sharp wide open though.
 
If you're only interest is "sharpness" then the f/1.8 will do the job adequately for you. The f/1.2's real attribute is down to how it handles the OOF parts of the image. Simply put, it's a bokeh machine and possibly the best Canon have ever produced. The trade off to make this happen is a tendency to flare but well worth the risk IMHO.

Bob
 
I used to have the Mark I but now have the Mark II. The newer one is supposed to be 60% faster at focussing, but I can't see it to be honest. It is faster, but relatively speaking is still slow. You know that when you buy it though, and I didn't get it for sports. I got it because it's the nicest lens I have ever used - sharp at f/1.2 with lovely colour and contrast (and so f/2.8 will be super duper). The f/1.8 is a cracking lens, but there is a difference between the two. Whether that difference is enough to warrant the price tag is a personal thing.

If you're going to be using at 2.8, I see no reason to get it. Most who use it are bokeh freaks who delight in shooting wide open all the time!

If you can find a Mark I, get it (providing it is appropriately priced). I tried to find one, but people were asking too much, so I got the Mark II in the end.
 
thanks for the feedback and advice... it's given me a lot to think on, BTW does anyone know how much a S/H one would go for?

I popped into my local camera shop this morning and made the school boy error of trying the lens myself... I was instantly impressed but haven't risked putting the shots I took on the computer yet, it might be too much for me!
 
Hope you're not thinking of using it on our weddings. I'm not hanging around for the combination of that and a 5D mkII to eventually get a focus lock :lol::lol:
 
MkII's seem to go for 1100ish, up from 950 a year ago. I haven't seen many mkI's on offer recently.

I had a 1.8 and loved it but it hugely backfocused on my 5D so I moved it on. Then I went mad and got the 1.2. Both suffered from purple fringing, the 1.2 most noticeably which was a disappointment. I tend to take full face portraits in which case the long minimum focus distance of the 1.2 is a pain, and the razor thin dof is both too tempting and too hard to control meaning I get lots of binned shots with out of focus eyes.

I keep debating selling the 1.2 (maybe getting a 1.8) and primarily use the 100L macro for portraits now. But having decided to sell I did a quick count of shots on my website though and found that the 1.2 was the second most used lens (after 70-200), so it delivers the goods.

If you can afford it, I'd recommend buying second hand. Selling it again later won't lose you much but you get to try it at your leisure. I think it is cheaper than renting.
 
postcardcv said:
BTW does anyone know how much a S/H one would go for?
Click to expand...

ianmarsh said:
MkII's seem to go for 1100ish, up from 950 a year ago. I haven't seen many mkI's on offer recently.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think that's about right. Mifsuds have (maybe had) a Mark II at £1350 - too much imo, but they wouldn't budge on price. If it's still there, it'll have been hanging around for a while now though, so a sneaky offer might secure it. There were quite a few on POTN when I was looking, but all in the US, and folk were reluctant to ship abroad.

When I got my Mark I a few years ago (maybe 2?), I got it for £750 from MPB. Probably should have kept that one :gag:

If you're going to be shooting wider than f2, the 50L is nice also, and a bit cheaper.
 
paul_g said:
Hope you're not thinking of using it on our weddings. I'm not hanging around for the combination of that and a 5D mkII to eventually get a focus lock :lol::lol:
Click to expand...

it's not that slow to focus, I reckon if it started as the bride walked down the asile I'd have a lock by the time they exchange rings...!

The AF did seem painfully slow, it was the only obvious negative that I noticed. I suspect that common sense and my bank balance will prevail and I won't end up with one.
 
postcardcv said:
it's not that slow to focus, I reckon if it started as the bride walked down the asile I'd have a lock by the time they exchange rings...!

The AF did seem painfully slow, it was the only obvious negative that I noticed. I suspect that common sense and my bank balance will prevail and I won't end up with one.
Click to expand...

If you're in the right sort of region (so that the lens doesn't need to shift all that glass too far) it's actually quite quick - it's just from one extreme to the other that it is noticeably slower, but in real terms that kind of focus need rarely happens (for me anyway) as I wouldn't be switching between something at 2m and something at 20m with this lens too often.

Common sense tends to go out the window when you see the bokeh on something - even a mundane object looks so pretty when everything around it is a big juicy blur of loveliness :geek:

It's a lot of money though - I can think of all sorts of things I should have spent that on other than the lens, but all those things were boring!
 
i still have the craving for the 85L. sometimes i'll see a picture on flickr and think... i need one.

BUT.......

have you considered the 135L ?

I have one of these and whilst the 85L is over a stop faster, the 135L focusses very quickly and is very, very sharp. It probably has less bokeh fringing than the 85L too.

and because it's a bit longer than the 85L, the background blur on full body and head/shoulder portraits outside aren't that much different really.

take a look on flickr at the 135 f2 group. there is a lot there to please.
 
I have both the 85 F1.2 and the 135 F2, and both are beautiful lenses, as Canon Bob says, the 85 F1.2 is a bokeh machine, and the 135mm F2 is not far behind in this respect, with the 135mm F2 haqving lightning fast focus.

And yes you could, get a 135 f2 and an 85mm F1.8 and throw in a 200mm F2.8 for less than an 85 mm F1.2. With a trio like that, you have quite a few bases covered.

My 85 F1.2 is my least used, but far my favourite lens.
 
I have both the 135/2 and the 85/1.2, which I use for people, primarily indoors. I keep thinking I prefer the 135, but guess what, when I do the final edit, it's about 70-30 in favour of the 85mm. It's that good. I have a 1.3x crop body, so it's still a great portrait length.
Always buy second-hand if you can, but you will find that the 85s (of any aperture) come up rarely, and the 135 even less frequently than that, which is another way of saying that they're great lenses that people find difficult to part with.
I don't find the 85/1.2 to be slow to AF in real world usage. OK so it's clearly not as fast as the 135 or the 200/2.8, but it is perfectly useable in all circumstances I have come across to date.
 
The 85mm L is the best Low Light lens I have ever had the pleasure of using.. in fact I was totally blown away by the light gathering capabilities of it
the Bokeh is smoother and creamier than all other canon's bar the 200mm F1.8 which I would say are on par in the Bokeh department

I also used to own the 135mm which is also incredibly sharp and contrasty I sold it after 5 years of service -it also gave me some of my best shots that I have taken

to me though the 85L is a specialist Low light performer without equal - the autofocus is slow on it .. but the good points outpoint the bad one's by a mile
right up there at the top of the Canon food chain of Lenses
 
All depends on price, if you find the MK1 for good money do not hesitate. I have had the MK II, it was my first "dream lens". then I sold it to play around with other lenses. At the end I have bought it again - this time in FD mount. Apparently, it is nearly as good as the new EF ones. I have yet to use it. certainly a good lens to have!
135mm seems so long, I would hardly use it, but then again it is a personal matter.
 
You would think that if the f1.2 was that slow to focus they'd make it USM?
 
out of interest, does anybody have a shots which particularly show off the 85L's bokeh?
 
The 85mm f1.8 is the lens that I have to keep telling myself that I don't need.

I was looking forward to the Siggy 85mm f1.4 but I'm beginning to think that I dreamed it.
 
out of interest, does anybody have a shots which particularly show off the 85L's bokeh?
Click to expand...

I've got some on a flickr set here - 85L
 
One of mine here @f1.2
p535029174-4.jpg

​
 
I'd go with the 85mm f/1.8 if I were you. I had the 85L II and it was a great lens, but if you don't need f/1.2 you'd be better served by the 85mm f/1.8 and use the rest of the cash for more lenses.
 
Superb lens. Love it in every which way.

Shot tonights 365 entry on it. Shot at f1.4 dang it is SHARP!

IMG_0719-Edit.jpg
 
Shot at f/1.4 on a 30D

Bob

DPP_0139.JPG
 
Last edited:
If my f/1.8 wasn't so sharp at f/1.8 I would probably be already seriously considering one of these jobbies. But the 1.8 really surprised me, so the 85L will probably just be something in dreams for me now. Unless I came into a lot of money by pure chance, it wouldn't make financial sense. The upgrade cost could be spent on much better things, for me. I can see why people in the industry use the 85L though, and I am by no way trying to debunk its usefulness. Not for me though.
 
Mifsuds have an 85 F/1.8 for 250 quid, if anyone is interested.
 
Alternatively, they are just asking too much for the one they have, which is probably more likely in my view given the trend in 2nd hand prices I've noticed from them.
 
I brought an 85L MK1 a few years back and haven't regretted in buying it - glad i did as the prices for used are much more higher now :( Shooting in 1.2 is fun and also its amazing how much light it sucks in. I find the picture quality, colours are great and sharp even at 1.2 , compared to my 50mm 1.2 which i'm not that impressed. It is one of my most used lens as i'm always using it to take photos of my kids indoors with natuaral light. The speed of focussing is slow but its still managable taking photos of my kids moving around. I was thinking of buying the 1.8 to save money, but knew that when i had a 50mm 1.8 i found that i still needed a smaller f number to let more light into the lens for a faster shutter speed.
 
Just bought one a few days ago - cant wait for it to turn up.
 
I bought my 85L MkII quite early in my photographic pursuits - it was to be my main lens as I could barely afford anything besides it. After a year or two I sold it to enable myself to explore Zeiss lineup. I like the lens, it is truly wonderful and highly recommended. If I had to make the same decision again I would buy the first version - simply because I have learned to focus manually and slow AF would not put me off. In fact, I recently bought the FD version of this lens which i will either adapt on EF or use on sony nex. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top