wickerprints
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #9 · 85 f/1.2 L II = Not worth it. | |
That there is a pro-level troll, right on the level of a certain village idiot with initials KR.
Okay, let me first say, however, that the argument is not entirely without merit. And as someone who has owned both and used both extensively, I can say that the 85/1.8 is better than the 85/1.2L II for certain things. But the blog post makes some very flawed assumptions and uses questionable mathematics in a sensationalistic manner.
First of all, just because he doesn't see a need to shoot at f/1.2, doesn't mean that there is never a reason to. That's a common egocentrism--"I don't need/want it, therefore nobody else does."
Second, the calculation is stupid, pointless, and presumptuous. 8% return on any investment is HUGE by today's standards, unless you're willing to speculate. 30-year risk free at 8%? Someone has a very deluded view of interest rates. And who is to say that money would not go toward something else, or that purchasing an 85L wouldn't result in its own effects on income? And if indeed you could get 8%, then by extension of such reasoning, you'd be best off not buying a single piece of camera gear and investing every penny you earn. Claiming that this lens will cost you $20k over 30 years is just so ridiculously, absurdly, blatantly STUPID, that I can't even imagine KR would dare to say something like that.
Third, the 85L is in fact sharper than the 85/1.8. I should know, I've shot with both. What that dumbass doesn't realize is that in mentioning the MTF charts, he revealed his ignorance. The Canon MTF charts are drawn at two f-numbers: the maximum aperture, and at f/8. At f/8, both lenses will be sharp, because just about any decent lens will be sharp. And nobody buys an 85L solely to shoot at f/8. But then we see that the 85L is measured at f/1.2 whereas the 85/1.8 is measured at f/1.8. Of course the latter will look better than the former. You can only compare at the same f-number. And if this idiot was referring to third-party reviews of these lenses, the data is variable due to inconsistent or flawed methodology. What most people report is that at comparable apertures, color rendition is slightly better with the 85L.
Finally, my personal experience with both lenses shows that although the 85L is slower to AF, it is significantly better to AF in low light than the 85/1.8, which often ends up hunting or missing focus entirely.
Anyone who has read my past posts on the topic of 85L vs. 85/1.8 knows full well that I am not some blind fanatic of the L. It does have disadvantages. It is NOT an easy lens to use; it is extremely demanding of the photographer, and it is not a lens I would recommend to anyone but those photographers who have a very clear and specific idea of how the 85L would address their shooting needs in ways that the 85/1.8 would not. I have said in the past that the 85L is a lens that is widely misunderstood. Many people covet this lens. Quite a number of them buy it simply because of its status, only to realize they don't really need it, or would be better served with something else, because it is a specialist design.
But to make the sensationalistic arguments that this blog entry makes is not only laughable, it's easy to see that the author doesn't really "get it." He's like a 7 year-old who thinks he understands what he's talking about, so he goes mouthing off and talking authoritatively on a subject only to end up embarrassing himself.
|
What planet is he on . The climate we're in at the moment (and foreseeable future) you probably get a better return on you money if you stick it under the mattress.