What I am saying is the lens is a brush. And the fact is the Canon 85 1.2 L 11 has a special and unique signature all it's own. Period.
Now if your happy with the 85 1.8 EF version , fantastic.
However, if your looking that unique "look" that the 85 1.2L 11 give. There is no other choice.
Look, I am not knocking the 85 1.8 EF. I never even seen one. Never even seen a picture of one. In fact untill this thread, I didnt even know Canon made one. But If your happy with the Canon 85 1.8 than that's great.
Personally I love these kind of threads as there are an oppurtunity to share images and get other's excited about a very special Canon lens. The Canon 85 1.2 11 .
M Vers wrote:
I have had the 85/1.8 for over four years and have shot with the L...I have no immediate plans of upgrading. You can save around 1.5K and put it towards something else...a 35L perhaps
The OP said cost isn't a factor. If weight is an issue, the 85 f1.8 wins!
I love mine. Small, compact and very nice IQ/bokeh, at the expense of some image isolation - depth of field.
+1, Amazing how people compare lenses. Just like any other threads such as 200L2.8 II vs 200L2.0 and 50f1.8 vs 50f1.4 vs 50L1.2 vs 50L1.0 and 5dseries vs 1dseries..... . Sure 85f1.8 is nice but not the same league as 85L series and i have three 85L I/II and 1.8. After all is all about light, isn't it.
The 85L is my most used lens. Pretty much my favorite for what I do. It has paid for itself many times over. It's probably one of Canon's greatest lenses, and you don't have to live at f1.2 to see that. The 85 1.8 is a good, solid lens, but it's not the 85L. If you can't see the difference, save yourself some money and stick with the 85 1.8.
mcarr wrote:
The 85L is my most used lens. Pretty much my favorite for what I do. It has paid for itself many times over. It's probably one of Canon's greatest lenses, and you don't have to live at f1.2 to see that. The 85 1.8 is a good, solid lens, but it's not the 85L. If you can't see the difference, save yourself some money and stick with the 85 1.8.
For contrast/shallow DOF and that certiain "look,"the L is the better lens. I can see the difference, but I doubt most paying clients would...... that's the kicker here. Can the average joe see the difference? Probably not.
I have the 1.8 and it's remarkable. I tried the L a few times and I am planning to get it too at some point. I want both! I plan to use the 1.2L mainly for static portraits. The 1.8 for moving subjects.
I have the Mk III and chose the 1.8. Reason being even as good as it is the 1.2 is kind of a one trick pony. It excels in being shot wide open for portrait shots with that ultra nice bokeh but the 1.8 is no slouch and a great all around lens.
If cost is an issue, I say go for the 1.8. It's a solid performer and a good value. The L is certainly better, but hardly 5x better.
I own the 1.8 and have absolutely no desire to drop the cash for the 1.2L. Not to say that I wouldn't prefer owning the L. If it were half its price, I would probably reconsider. But I'm not made of money, so cost is an issue.
So if money is not an issue and you're not expecting super AF speed, go for the L!
Agreed if you have plenty of time to focus this heavy monster. No offense! jcolwell wrote:
I have used the 85/1.2L II for over eighteen months. I have no immediate plans for downgrading.
fast focusing and sharp
