I've seen a decent deal on a used Canon 85L f1.2 Mk I. I once used this lens for a day day and absolutely fell in love with it. Now, a Leica friend considers selling his R gear to buy a M8, and a 80 summilux is included. It's also cheaper than the L. I know some people here are absolutely crazy about the Summi....
Hubsand tested the 85L agaisnt the ZEISS 85. Anybody has compared 85L to Summi 80? Would love to hear experiences.
The Canon is very sharp at 1.2 across most of the whole frame. The Leica while not unsharp at 1.4, has a strong overlying softness to the image. There is a completely different look to these lenses. The Canon appears crisp and sharp, the Leica soft and dreamy. The Leica is a beautiful look but may not be to everyones taste. At 5.6 they are both very crisp and contrasty. The Leica will also have more of a 3D look to the images and holds shadow and highlight detail better.
Wide open the Canon will be in sharp focus with very smooth bokeh, where the Leica looks like there is a fog or diffusion filter over the lens -- details are there, just foggy. By f2.8 the Leica is very sharp but still has the smooth look to it and by f5.6 it is extremely sharp. Which one is better is a discussion I won't get into, but they are different. The Canon 85L is an excellent lens, but the Leica is kind of like three lenses in one.
There are some others too. How about someone posts a couple of 85L at f/1.2 images for comparison, so that we don't have to _read_ "sharp" versus "soft" all day? I personally tried the 85L but opted for the Summilux, but others may differ...
And maybe also unfaithful to our manual credo?
Here a shot at f1.2 where the DOF is apparent in the difference between the 2 eyes. But notice how incredibily sharp the in focus areas are:
By comparison, a misfocussed shot with the Oly OM Zuiko 55mm f1.2, wide open. I have a backfocu issue with this lens at f1.2, in focus plane is always a few centimeters behind where it was supposed to be. Same girl, same evening. The hair is fairly in focus, the face isn't. Nice bokeh, and a soft painterly quality that can be an interesting effetc, but galaxies apart from the 85L:
I didn't like the zeiss. The Canon was best wide open. The Leica was best stopped down.
Both the leica and Canon 85/1.2 are great lenses but the best one for you depends on how you intend to use it.
If you want one of these for optimal wide open performance then it's a no brainer, the Canon is best. The Leica is already razoe sharp at f2.0 so it's not a poor performer but it's not as sharp at 1.4 as the Canon at 1.2.
I kept the Leica and got rid of the rest because the Leica was easilly the best stopped down. It basically renders the 'best' image possible by any of the Zeiss, Canon or Leica, so I kept it.
I would like to get the Canon 85/1.2 some day, but not as a replacement to the Leica, just in addition to it.
JJ, that's very clear and good information. I think what I look for in an 80mm lens is definitively the best wide open performance, at the highest speed possible, I would shoot stopped down more at other focal lengths. SI, if I can save the money and find a good one, it ill be the Canon. Thanks.
Keep in mind that while the Canon might be sharper at f/1.2 than the Leica at f/1.4, that does not necessarily mean that the results are preferable. I tried an 85L and prefer the portrait results of the Leica. I would say it depends on what you plan to shoot.
carstenw wrote:
I tried an 85L and prefer the portrait results of the Leica. I would say it depends on what you plan to shoot.
Both are fine lenses. I think that for tight head shots the Canon is probably better, wide open that is. I use my R80 in the same way but I stop it down to f2.0. It gives me excellent OOF areas (I hate the word bokeh, it's kind of wanky), yet is extremely sharp. The main problem with the R80 wide open is that it is really only sharp in a relatively small circle in the centre. With the R80 wide open if you want to focus on an eye it must be in the centre of the frame otherwise it will be quite soft, I don't like that. Canon seem to design their lenses with a wider 'hot spot' and it seems to make the 1.2 a better lens for wide open work.
This stuff is subjective to a degree of course, I know people who swear by their Zeiss 85/1.4's but I don't like them. It doesn't mean they are bad, just not to my taste.
Belsha,
If you love wide open look and well control CA with 3-D image quality and beautiful bokeh, the Zeiss Planar T* 1.2/85 Jahre is the one if price is a no problem with you. But the second choice for me is the Canon EF 1.2/85L for wide open looks. But if you own a Leica DMR then it makes sense to get the Leica Summilux. For example, I own the Leica Apo-Summicron-R 2.0/180 and use it mainly wide open. Why? because it was intended to shoot wide open and I paid the price for it but it is my style of shooting portrait most of the time. Also these lens are very advantageous in low light condition.
Son...yes, of course, the Zeiss 60th anniversary edition is by far the best, but completely beyon my price range. The Canon L is too expensive too, but I'll think I'll sell some zooms to get it.
I have a Elmarit 180mm f2.8, last generation before APO, and i'ts great on the 5D. Yes, it's true, very sharp even wide open. It's a completely different look than Canon. Canon bokeh seems dreamy, painterly, where'as Leica gives you a 3D effet that immediately pops out at you.
I think it could be justified to own both, Canon and Leica, since the optical results are so different.
