I would just plop and get the 1.2 but it's so heavy.

Photodo lists better numbers for the 50/1.4 and the 100/2.0 so what is it about the 85 1.8 that is so great?

I have heard much around here to that regard but I think maybe I should make due with the other 2 lenses I mentioned which I have and which have served me well.

I guess the 100 is a bit long sometimes and the 50 too short but foot-zoom should be able to make up the difference.

I am weary of zooms. The 24-70 got me hooked on L but I think I am a prime person. The 24-35 end is so soft, especially wider 2.8-4.0. Primes way out perform, even non-L..

All of these are good lenses. This article will give you a better idea of the 85 f/1.8 compared to the 85 f/1.2L...

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm

It's a wonderful balance of excellent optics, decent build, nimble AF and reasonable price. To get a slightly better 85 you must "plop" down another grand or so. If you're well heeled or portaits are your bag, the L version is worth it. But for the rest of us the EF 85 1.8 USM is as near to perfect as it gets this side of $375.

Having had both the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8, I can say I prefered the 85's pictures better. It has better background blur and focuses worlds faster.

All that plus its very light/compact, not a whole lot bigger than the 50 1.4 and much faster/more accurate focusing. A great indoor sports/action lens.

I don't have the 1.2, and frankly don't see the need for it, since the 1.8 is so good. It is a phenomenal portrait lens.

I have the 50 1.4, and the portrait results are not nearly as flattering.

The crop factor of the body you are using will have a significant effect on your lens selection.

The 85 1.8 is alot of bang for the buck. Its not far behind the 135 f2. These are definately my favorite two lenses for people shots.

Thanks all!

The 135/2 is definitely on my list as well but having the 100 I know it will be long for a lot of things. I am so hooked on L glass but I still can't see that big honking 1.2, especially after the most recent review here.

Yeah, I have 100mm Macro and 70-200mm f4L, but 135mm f2L is gonna be mine too.
One day


Andrew

franzdom wrote:
I would just plop and get the 1.2 but it's so heavy.

Photodo lists better numbers for the 50/1.4 and the 100/2.0 so what is it about the 85 1.8 that is so great?

I have heard much around here to that regard but I think maybe I should make due with the other 2 lenses I mentioned which I have and which have served me well.

I guess the 100 is a bit long sometimes and the 50 too short but foot-zoom should be able to make up the difference.

I am weary of zooms. The 24-70 got me hooked on L but I think I am a prime person. The 24-35 end is so soft, especially wider 2.8-4.0. Primes way out perform, even non-L..


The 80/1.8 is a great lens, I heard.

The 85f1.8 is far better than 50f1.4 wide open. 50f1.4 is noticeably soft at f1.4 - 1.8 range. I sold my old copy because of that. I just picked up another copy, but it is the same. But I like the range of 50mm on 10D.

Stopped down to f2, you'd be hard pressed to find any differences between the 1.2 and 1.8. It's an excellent lightweight, cheaper alternative to the monster of a 1.2.

The biggest difference between the 50MM f/1.4 and the 85MM f/1.8 (besides maximum aperture) is the construction. The 50MM has a moving lens element (in/out) whereas the 85MM is "sealed". The 85MM is just a more solid package all around, without the infamous 50MM "clunk".

As for the 100MM - it's the same construction as the 85MM, but the 85MM is just more of a "usable" focal length for most people using a 1.6 crop camera.

Personally, I can't wait until I have 1.3 crop or FF camera so I can use my 85MM f/1.8 more often - it really is a fantastic lens, for all the reasons everyone else has given. I hope Canon updates the 50MM f/1.4 at some point to give it the same build quality - and while they're at it, they can give us a 35MM f/1.8 with the same construction.