lms1 wrote:
Aham:

Thanks for your samples. Appreciate it.

They're not my samples, but from forum member denoir, which I should have mentioned. He is a huge contributor to this forum with his pictures, knowledge/experience and opinions.

How tied are you to your original choices? The Leica 90/2 and 2.8 should be good, I thinkg there are newer apo versions. Zeiss 85/2.8 is supposed to be good. Probably some other Leica and Zeiss choices as well. The mc 100/2.8 zuiko can be good, as wellas the 90/2.8 tamron 72b. Also the wide end of a 75-300 zoom can be quite sharp. Does anyone know how the 85/1.8 compares to the 1.2 stopped down?

Nobody has brought this up but for landscapes I'd really rather have a zoom for telephoto. Not that I've never used primes in this length. At night I usually stop down because it's hard to focus. You can get a lot of noise with a couple minutes exposure, though. Often at night you need a tripod anyway, not sure what sort of night work you are doing. So fast aperture may not be as advantageous as you might think for this. Easier to focus, though.

Philber:

How do you feel about the 'painterly way" when the 85 is really stopped down?

Larry

I do well at night with a 35F1.4.

larry

I just recently bought the MP 2/100 and having owned the 85LII, 135L, Sony CZ 85, Sony CZ 135, and Nikkor 85G, I find the MP 2/100 to have the best "3D" separation between focus and out of focus. The quality of bokeh is outstanding, not the liquefying effect of the 85L but more textured and smooth.

The resolving detail and sharpness ranks up there with the Sony CZ 135.

The default rendering is cooler then Canon L optics but if you shoot RAW you can easily match L color while retaining the Zeiss micro contrast. The default CZ "look" is starting to grow on me though as it's a more realistic rendition of color with IMO a greater color depth.

As for "too much sharpness" for portraiture, I find that easily resolved with just a little post processing on the skin.

I find the lens much more versatile in terms of IQ then the 85L for work beyond portraiture but less convenient due to lack of AF and weather sealing.

lms1 wrote:
Brad:

Take a look at Morton Byskov gallery on Smugmug.
All pics were done with the 85 II. Until I saw it I thought of the 85 as only for portraits.


Larry

I did look, and there are some very nice samples there. But no one has to work to convince me the 85L deserves its status as great Canon glass. I do think the results have to be spectacular to make working with that massive PITA lens worth it.

Edgars Kalnins wrote:
I would buy the 85L if I were to use it professionally, center focus is quite reliable and if you shoot in street with this long lens AF is handy. Also f1.2 is quite an advantage. I used them both on a crop sensor with standard focusing screen, the 100 macro was a challenge. Now I have bought the 85L again, this time in FD version - the prices are so low, could not resist.

+1

I would also buy the 85. If you don't do macro or close up shooting

Hello, I've used both the 85L II and the Zeiss 100F2. I also shoot everything you have listed except for night photography. I highly recommend the Zeiss. It feels great as an all-purpose lens. I have long sold the 85L because it was so cumbersome. The Zeiss also has a more solid feel. Optically, I think they are similar. The Zeiss is probably better in the corners. Also, I prefer Zeiss rendition of colors. The lack of AF means very little to me since the 85L isn't really known for speedy focusing. MF with a confirmation chip is quite accurate and can be done pretty quickly with practice.

Cheers,
Dan

For those concerned with the 85L large size & heavy weight - there is always the FD 85/1.2L and 85/1.2 aspherical - very lightweight and affordable - the conversion has some tricks but very doable. You'll like that 1.2 for low light work.

mMontag wrote:
For those concerned with the 85L large size & heavy weight - there is always the FD 85/1.2L and 85/1.2 aspherical - very lightweight and affordable - the conversion has some tricks but very doable. You'll like that 1.2 for low light work.

But to be fair. You will not get the same image quality out of the converted 85FD as you will get from either the EF 85L mark I or mark II lenses

I have 85Lmk2, C/Y 100/2 Planar, Contax N 85/1.4, and Rokinon 85/1.4
Each has different rendering and strengths.
85L I think of as a portrait lens useful if you need 1.2 and soft bokeh look.I don't like using it outside in bright contrast light as the highlights always seem to blow out easier than Zeiss.John Black mentions that in his review of 100/2.
My favorite portraits and walkaround lens is the contax N 85 because of its great combination of excellent sharpness and smooth bokeh even wide open along with typical Zeiss colors and microcontrast which I prefer over Canon. It was designed as a portrait lens so its sharpness falls off slightly in the corners.
Thus for landscape where I want max sharpness across the frame and Zeiss colors and microcontrast then I use the C/Y 100/2 Planar.
The Rokinon is great for those times like going to Disneyland where I didn't want to bring my heavier and more expensive lenses.
I also adapted the ZA 135/1.8 which is an incredible portrait and walkaround lens with great sharpness and bokeh.

Lars,

I have an FD 85L & 85 asph - the aspherical is a unique 9 blade - many like the FD rendering vs the newer AF's - Undoubtedly the new-est 85L will have some corrections and AF their older brothers could not have but for most amateurs - the FD 85's are a real bargain - size, weight and cost wise - an 85 f1.2 that can cost less than $600 - WoW. Many a great photo has been produced using less than the best / most expensive lenses.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/785029/0

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/TEST_85mm_f_1,2/00_pag.htm

The FD is a nice lens of course. But IMO not as good as any of the two EF versions. And it cost $ 600 + how much do I have to pay to get it converted? And where can I do that? And the FD lens is also very old
The EF mark 1 can cost $ 1000-1100. But then you get a newer lens with the Canon mount and all those advantages that have. You can also get the lens repaired or serviced if something happen to it. Canon will not touch the FD lens if something happen to that lens.
To me it's not a good deal. But we are all different of course

Wayne :

Where is that John Black review?


Thx, Larry

So lms1, have you considered renting both for a week and trying them out? This would give you the best idea of which lens will work better for your shooting style. Just a thought...

-Jason

lms1 wrote:
Where is that John Black review?

http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Contax_100mm_Planar.html

carstenw wrote:
lms1 wrote:
Where is that John Black review?

http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Contax_100mm_Planar.html


The part I was remembering about the 85L tendency to blowout highlights outside is in John's Contax N 85 review:

http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Contax_85N_1.html

He talks about the various alternatives at that focal length on the 2nd page of that review too.

Jason:

That is exactly what I'm going to do.
I am going to rent the Zeiss 100F2 !

And; I want to thank everyone one more time for contributing to this
thread. It really helped me decide .


Best regards

Larry

Lars Johnsson wrote:
But to be fair. You will not get the same image quality out of the converted 85FD as you will get from either the EF 85L mark I or mark II lenses

Do you have anything (links) to back that up? What I've seen from Paul's FD85 SSC Asph and Dmitri's and other's FD85L looked absolutely great. You also get actual manual focus (not focus by wire).