You can see my glass in my sig. I have the CZ21, thus this question... I do need a portrait lense and I'm not sure if I should go the EF 85mm 1.2 route or a fast exotic 85mm or 50mm. Image quality is key. No sense getting an MF lense when the 85 canon produces better images.... all compatible with EOS mount of course on the 5D for eg. I appreciate any thoughts to pre occupy myself over the coming dayz...
I'd lean towards the 85 L. All the high-end 85s are pretty damn good, so you really can't go wrong, but the 85 L won't need an adapter and AF is surely a nice-to-have. If money was no object, that would likely be my first choice.
On the other hand, money is always an object for me, and the EF 85 f1.8 is a pretty nice lens too. Although, now that I am getting better at MF, I am tempted to try the CZ 85 1.4.
Also, I would find 50mm a bit wide on a 1.3x for portraits...
Oh, I just noticed you have a 5D as well. I'd go 135 L for that one. That's a tough lens to beat, IMHO.
rockitman wrote:
You can see my glass in my sig. I have the CZ21, thus this question... I do need a portrait lense and I'm not sure if I should go the EF 85mm 1.2 route or a fast exotic 85mm or 50mm. Image quality is key. No sense getting an MF lense when the 85 canon produces better images.... all compatible with EOS mount of course on the 5D for eg. I appreciate any thoughts to pre occupy myself over the coming dayz...
If you love the 21 2.8 Zeiss then you must have the 85 1.2, preferably the C/Y manual focus mount 50th Jahre anniversary. There is simply no portrait lens on the planet that, in my opinion, is its equal. Not to say the Canon 85 1.2 L or the 135L are not superb portrait lenses, they are. But the Zeiss is really something special. You owe it to yourself to look into it.
woodyspedden wrote:
If you love the 21 2.8 Zeiss then you must have the 85 1.2, preferably the C/Y manual focus mount 50th Jahre anniversary. There is simply no portrait lens on the planet that, in my opinion, is its equal.
Woody
Thanks Woody...what do one of these baby's run $$$ ?
How about a classic Sonnar? These deliver a portrait without the dermatology exam. Specifically, consider the CZ C/Y S85/2.8 (about $300) or the S135/2.8 ($200). I use the S100/3.5, but that one is quite hard to find.
I would go for the Canon 85mm f/1.2. The Zeiss ZF 85mm is not that good close up which I am assuming would be used a lot for portraits. The Leica Summicron-R 90mm is awesome but the out of focus area is not as smooth as Canon 85mm f/1.2.
I have these 3 lenses and I certainly choose the Canon when I am doing portraits. Unless I have to hold the camera for hours, then I would use the Leica since it's quite a bit lighter.
The Canon 135mm f/2 is certainly a great choice as well.
Oh, I just noticed you have the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 as well as the Canon 100mm f/2.8. Both of those are quite good for portraits as well, no?
Right, I forgot about the Canon 100mm f/2. It is indeed quite awesome. On the other hand, the image quality is not quite to the Canon 85mm f/1.2 level though.
I think it's an easily forgotten lens because the lust factor is low.
Dergiman wrote:
why does nobody ever mention 100/f2 lenses? the canon ef is a solid performer and the carl zeiss is really good.
I have the CZ Planar 100/2, but don't recommend it for rockitman. Firstly, his EOS bodies are EF (rather than EF-S) and the P100 has the dreaded shark fin that will gouge the camera interior, and throw off the optical axis, when mounted. Some shave the fin, but that strikes me as heresy. Secondly, f/2 is awfully wide for a portrait: one will be stopping down to f/2.8-4 anyway.
If you require absolutely the best image quality possible then Woody has recommended the right lens: The Zeiss 85mm f1.2 50yr Anniversary.
Other qualities support other choices (AF, cost, size, weight, etc.) and there are many fine performers including Canon's own 85/1.2, but if the peak of image quality is required then the 50yr is your lens.
An average price for a used one would be £2000-£2,500 GBP (around US$4000)
To be fair, I've never laid hands on a Zeiss Anniversary 85/1.2, but I'd be very surprised if the extra cost was justified over the 85L, especially the new, improved one.
Diminishing returns I guess: the CZ may well be the very very best, but the 85L is truly exceptional – and better than the ZF in my book . . . the rest of the test is coming soon: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests . . .
Before closing the door on sub-£2K lenses, you might also try the Nikon 85/1.4 D and Pentax SMC-A* f1.4 which are both alleged to be outstanding. I'll be testing those next week on a 5D.
Also, if you intend to use these lenses primarily at apertures smaller than f4, the Canon f1.8 will be as good as anything else you'll use, and costs (relatively) peanuts.
To be fair, I've never laid hands on a Zeiss Anniversary 85/1.2, but I'd be very surprised if the extra cost was justified over the 85L, especially the new, improved one.
Most people who've never used one say exactly the same thing.
To those with a discriminating eye who have used one the difference is clear, and having read some of your extensive tests I'm pretty sure you will experience that surprise if you ever get to use one. It cannot be compared to the f1.4 versions at all, as its only real competitor is the Zeiss 55mm f1.2; they are both simply in a league of their own.
As you rightly point out, it is the law of diminishing returns, and whether it's worth the extra cost is entirely subjective. Softer bokeh, sharper wide open, no CA, and the most gorgeous colour rendition I've see from any lens.
To me the cost is entirely justified, and despite the £3000 rrp 20 years ago, Zeiss apparently lost money on each lens because they were designed and built to a specification, not a price.
1) Hasselblad FE 300mm F2.8 - a dream lens with many advantages for portrait, sports, wildlife, and lanscape photography. Simply the best solution for the highest demanding medium format photographer. This will cure your thurst for telephoto lens when switched from 135 mm to medium format. This lens will rival Canon very best telephoto lens line up. Just think of the advantages it will give you here.
2) Contax Carl Zeiss Planar T* 85mm F1.2 50th/60th Jahre - symmetrical bokeh, extremely high micro and macro contrast, CA control with proper adapter thickness very well. A dream lens for portrait portrait photography and enlargement works.
3) Contax Carl Zeiss Planar T* 55mm F1.2 100th Jahre - wide open micro-contrast, near focusing working distance, symmetrical design.
4) Canon EF 85mm F1.2L - great value, second in microcontrast and CA only to Contax Carl Zeiss Planar T* 85mm F1.2 50/60th Jahre, autofocus. I get this lens before I get any Canon 135mm F2.0L
5) Leica Apo-Summicron-R 180mm F2.0 - smooth bokeh, sharp wide open, color rendition, handheld manual focus capable at this length
6) Canon EF 200mm F1.8L - autofocus, simply the highest micro contrast at this length, nice bokeh as well
7) Contax Carl Zeiss Aposonnar T* 200mm F2.0 - perfect symmetrical bokeh like no other lens in this focal length, extremely sharp at F5.6
8) Leica Apo-Macro-Elmarit-R 100mm F2.8 - very high micro contrast and beautiful color rendition
9) Contax Carl Zeiss Planar T* 100mm F2.0 - lovely bokeh and very sharp lens
10) Contax Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar 100mm F2.8 - Under value lens, very sharp, it is an apo lens without the name written on it. Like the Zeiss Distagon 21mm F2.8 which has Aspherical elements without the name on it.
11) Contax Carl Zeiss S-Planar 60mm F2.8 - perfect symmetrical bokeh, very sharp
Let's face it. Look at the formula and you can begin to see the advantage of one lens over the other even before testing them appropriately.
Rico wrote, "Some shave the fin, but that strikes me as heresy. "
That is why I shave the mirror box This give me another advantage: fix problem of adapter stopping down issues with proper thinner adapters for infinity focus.
Specifically, consider the CZ C/Y S85/2.8 (about $300) or the S135/2.8 ($200). I use the S100/3.5, but that one is quite hard to find.