 |
|
|
Michael Watt
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 21, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 25, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Cost, relatively more affordable then the 85 1.2 L, Light, quick focus, still very fast at 1.8
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit soft at 1.8
|
|
I drooled over the Canon 85 1.2 L. My hand hovered over the credit card ready to order. Stopped, decided I didn’t want to die. My wife would kill me when she saw the credit bill. I’m sure many a man has settled for the marriage saving 85 1.8. Ok it is not huge or sporting pretty a red ring, but if used wisely, combined with understanding of the optical limitations of apertures larger then 2.8 this lens can be just as much fun it bed. Enough about marriage.
Having purchased and used this lens, I am now thankful that I didn’t go down the ‘L’ path. I don’t doubt the 85 L is a fine lens but I do debate if it is worth the thousands for an extra f stop.
I found that using this lens that the closer the subject the more prone it becomes to focusing error, especially using large apertures greater then f2. Depth of field (DOF) is razor thin. At times I found this demanding especially with a moving subject. Although this lens ( or any lens) can only focus on a two dimensional plane the circles of confusion are much smaller, the further the subject. To create the pleasing bokeh (background blur quality) a large aperture combined with a close subject is required. This combination I find difficult. At times I even had to resort to careful manual focus to hit the mark. If you are prepared for careful methodical work beautiful captures can be obtained with this lens.
example : http://www.flickr.com/photos/mw_photography/2420111589/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mw_photography/2373204362/
|
|
 Apr 25, 2008
|
|
kawter2
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 10, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 168
|
|
Review Date: Apr 22, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast, fast focus, great contrast, solid build, not to heavy,
|
|
Cons:
|
could be a tad tad sharper at 1.8
|
|
I shoot with this as my primary portrait lens and i love it. I have been tempted to swap it out for the 1.2 L but A: i don't want to put that brick in my bag, and b: if i beat this one up, I can just go pick up another one to replace it.
See here http://www.ericjphotography.com/blog
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2008
|
|
lextalionis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 28, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1076
|
|
Review Date: Apr 16, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Fraction of the cost over the f/1.2 L and nearly the same results!
|
|
Cons:
|
I say nearly because it does get pretty soft at 1.8
|
|
I wanted a good portrait lens at an affordable price. I find this lens to be a real pleasure to use. The bokeh is soooooo dreamy...I love it! It's tricky to use at 1.8 and it's easy to get overly soft captures at 1.8.
I have high-resolution photo samples taken with my Canon 30D here:
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 Sample Photos
-Roy
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2008
|
|
bacilonur
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2700
|
|
Review Date: Apr 12, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $325.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, size, weight, IQ, build
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I bought this before I could afford the 85L and I still use it, though for different things. It's very fast and the IQ is great, so for sports or studio use, it's awesome. The difference between 1.2 and 1.8 is subjective, but for the price, you can't afford to not have this in your bag. If you're choosing between the 50 1.4 and the 100 f/2, I'd get this one in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008
|
|
Boonen
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 11, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Apr 11, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Everything you need for portraits
|
|
Cons:
|
Can't think of any
|
|
|
If you have a portrait to take on a crop sensor or FF just buy this lens, don't use you zoom. The lens may only be beaten buy the 100mm f2.8 macro in terms of price/performance/quality. Its a pleasure to use when I take pictures of my daughter.
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2008
|
|
borderlight
Online
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 6, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1634
|
|
Review Date: Apr 10, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $339.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, lightweight, decent build, close to L color/contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
Hunts indoors.
|
|
|
A nice complimentary short tele-lens on a FF camera if your main lens is any white 70-200L. Color/contrast almost at L quality. Surprisingly soft until f2.8 at 100% crop. Unfortunately this loss of aperture speed seems to be more commonplace on Canon non-Ls, and quite a few Ls too. Certainly you can get away with f2.2 in less than demanding situations, or smaller enlargements. Overall, this is a valuable lens to have to stop action indoors, sometimes relying more on manual focus for consistant results. Perfect for studio portraits.
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2008
|
|
slyb
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 20, 2008
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 25, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $375.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
FTM, bokeh, price, feels solid
|
|
Cons:
|
bad CA
|
|
|
Too much CA for me (PM me for samples) which makes it hardly usable for product pictures (my main activity).
CA is coming form refraction in high contrasting areas.
However, keep in mind that Canon 50mm at 1.4, 35mm at 1.4 (L), 85mm at 1.2 (L) do not show any CA on high contrasting elements!
Stopping down solves the problem for sure, then no point to get a 1.8. I bought a 1.8 because I need to shot at 1.8?
I would tolerate some CA on a zoom lens, but not on a prime!
The 85mm 1.8 is my least used lens.
I am not saying it's a bad lens but I consider the 50mm 1.4 to be far much better! (esp for x1.6 users)
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2008
|
|
alaina
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 21, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 21, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Best for the money within non-L
|
|
Cons:
|
Unfair to blame the lens. But some Canon bodies need calibration to fit.
|
|
|
Among around a dozen Canon mount lenses I had, this one together with 50mm f1.8 gave me really pain at the very begging but finally satisfaction with joy. It is the fact not all Canon bodies can fit this lens. Small DSLR like XT and XTi need calibration. I do not know why. But 40D fits it very well. Also there is variation between copies. I keep the last one I tested, which I believed was good.
You will not regret what this lens can give you. I use this prime for my baby daughter mainly. Of course you can also use it for other purposes. Comparing with other primes I had I would say it beats 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4 and f1.8 optically for sure. The diameter of the posterior glass blade can tell why it shines. Law of physics can never lie. I did not own prime longer than 85mm so I can not compare it with 135 f2, which I still hesitated to buy. If there is any IS version for longer than 100mm I will try.
This is the only lens I think I will buy it again within Canon territory.
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2008
|
|
retrofocus
Online
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 19, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 2401
|
|
Review Date: Mar 20, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $340.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Weight, nice bokeh-effect, excellent image quality for a very good price
|
|
Cons:
|
AF works pretty unreliable in combination with my Rebel XT and f=1.8, no hood included
|
|
|
I bought this lens one year ago to use it as portrait and medium telephoto prime lens. The price was a no-brainer for the IMO excellent optical quality you get. The bokeh effect is superb, especially at wide open apertures. Another huge advantage is the weight of the lens - it easily fits in a smaller photo bag and is pretty light.
Unfortunately I observed several times that the otherwise fast AF does not work reliable enough at wide open apertures in combination with my Rebel XT camera. When I first used the lens, faces in portrait shootings were a bit out of focus especially at f<2.0. From then I mostly used the lens in MF when using wide open apertures which gave superb photos. I am not sure if this is an issue of the lens itself or of the missing center focus point availability of the Rebel XT.
The lens does not come with a hood. I solved this just by using the same hood which comes with my Sigma 105 mm macro lens - it works perfectly on the 85 mm lens, too!
Personally I never saw a reason to have a faster lens than f1.8 for my portrait work; most often I even use a bit larger aperture numbers.
In the future I would love to experience myself how this lens performs on a full-frame camera body!
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2008
|
|
havehave214
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 26, 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $333.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
after f/2.2, this lens is really fantastic.
Given this price, what shall i want.
|
|
Cons:
|
focus is not accurate at dim environment. CA is noticable at f/1.8 and f/2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 7, 2008
|
|
CWBaker
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 5, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 75
|
|
Review Date: Mar 5, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $325.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast AF, Great Bokeh and DoF Control, Compact Size with Solid Build, Photos are Mistakable for L Glass
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing
|
|
Wow, am I glad I bought this lens. I used to be all about zooms until I discovered the joys of wide apertures. I had my 50/1.8 always on my 30D until this came along. Although I’d been wanting something more wide angle, I needed a portrait and sports lens more. A lot of people talk about walk around lenses and this lens is fine for me. I can always find an interesting way to shoot something with being able to have the nice DoF control of 1.8. Indoors, the 1.6x camera crop makes it a bit long for anything but upper body portraits, but obviously you can do the math on that before getting this beauty.
Its size is very nice. It’s about as long as the camera is thick, so it’s very compact and light but it still feels really solid. I dropped this lens (attached to my 30D) from waist height right on its front onto a snowy sidewalk. Aside from some dings, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it. I’ve also had it out in the snow where it’s gotten pretty soaked and there are no issues whatsoever. I thought for sure that the focusing ring would be a little harder to turn, but it’s just like new still. The USM truly is next to silent as well.
AF is about twice as fast as the 50/1.8 and about half as fast as the 70-200/2.8, which I expected just based on the prices. (I base this off of how easily the lens focuses on something in the background of what I’m shooting and back to the subject itself in AI Servo). I think my 30D might need to be calibrated, or lowlight AF is just not too good on the 30D because I was shooting indoor cycling and I was pretty let down that very few of my shots were sharp. Outside, AF is great and I’ve shot passing cars wide open and they’re very sharp.
It’s nice that the 50/1.8 is so cheap, but having full time manual focusing is so nice on my 85 (and every other Canon EF lens). I find f/1.8 on my 85mm to require manual focusing at close distances because I don’t want any misfocused shots. I’m actually trying to not rely on AF as much because manually focusing makes me slow down and compose better. Plus, close up portraits wide open need the attention so you get the eyes in perfect focus. The bokeh is nice and lights are very round.
I think this stacks up VERY well against L glass, especially for the price. Of course the 85/1.2 is an experience of its own that I haven’t had. I couldn’t think of any way to improve this lens and it has never let me down. I got it for $325 on a rebate from Canon and it’s already paid for itself a couple times. That makes me VERY happy.
Just try to find someone that doesn’t recommend this lens.
Here are some of my best examples of its sharpness and bokeh.
http://flickr.com/photos/charliebaker/2310981239/sizes/m/in/photostream/
http://flickr.com/photos/charliebaker/2218091560/sizes/m/in/set-72157603333102048/
http://flickr.com/photos/charliebaker/2217281853/sizes/m/in/set-72157603333102048/
http://flickr.com/photos/charliebaker/2205120207/sizes/m/in/set-72157603337616285/
http://flickr.com/photos/charliebaker/2205121203/sizes/m/in/set-72157603337616285/
http://flickr.com/photos/charliebaker/2205909690/sizes/m/in/set-72157603337616285/
|
|
|
Mar 5, 2008
|
|
eyalg
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 15, 2005
Location: Israel
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Feb 11, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $315.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent color and sharpness, fast, accurate.
|
|
Cons:
|
None for the price.
|
|
|
Everybody says the best bang for the buck is the 50mm f/1.8, and that may be true, but this lens is so much better.
On my 10D, it gives head shot portraits that exact 'wow' factor I was looking for.
It could be a bit tight indoors on a crop body, but it's worth cramping in the corner to get the shot.
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2008
|
|
infinityG35
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 21, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 213
|
|
Review Date: Jan 31, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $310.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
For what it is it has a nice build and quality. It is in the level of consumer price but the quality is up far with L lenses and even better with some of the L zooms.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I used 20D & 5D and its like have 85 and 135 1.8 for me. Best bang for the bucks. It leaves with all the hipes that you read in here.
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2008
|
|
Tigadee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 4, 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jan 30, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $440.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, very sharp, great contrast/colours, fast focus and deliciously creamy bokeh.
|
|
Cons:
|
None except the limited use it gets.
|
|
|
Now I know what real beautiful bokeh is! 85mm combined with f1.8 produces the best bokeh I've seen in limited years in photography. Love this lens and wish I could use it more often. not much else to say except that is you like your 50mm f1.8 or f1.4, then you'll like this lens too!
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2008
|
|
Jedd
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 30, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 29, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ in all aspects, weight, cost, speed.
|
|
Cons:
|
Harder to use inside on a crop body.
|
|
|
I've been though a dozen of different lenses, zooms, primes, Ls, non-Ls and still consider this one to be the best IQ for the buck. Whenever I look through the pictures after the shootout and see something breathtaking - 9 out of 10 it was done with the 85mm f/1.8. If left with the choice of the only one lens - it will be the one.
I also own 85mm f/1.2L II which is a true masterpiece as well, but I can hardly find any difference above f/2 between them IQ wise, while autofocus is much faster on non-L. So to answer the popular question of 1.8 vs 1.2L - get both if you can afford 1.2L, get 1.8 otherwise.
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2008
|
|
three60
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 5, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 12, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast-focusing, sharp, lightweight, inconspicuous
|
|
Cons:
|
Minimum focusing distance is too far - 3 feet
|
|
|
This lens has got to be one of the best values in the EF lens lineup. This little guy has incredible resolving power and very good sharpness from f/2 onward. Optimal sharpness is around f/4 or f/5.6 by my eyes.
Sharpness talk aside, I love it because it's so compact and lightweight. It's not a large intimidating lens, like the 70-200/2.8 and so when shooting portraits or candids, people don't freak out. I recently used it to shoot several young children/babies and they felt comfortable around me. I probably wouldn't have been able to get right up to them had I brought along a big long piece of glass. The creamy bokeh is quite good, though it doesn't have that etheral quality that the 85L produces. Then again, this lens costs about 1/6th the price of the 85L!
The only thing I wish this lens would do is focus closer. 3 feet is a bit too far when using the lens for existing light shooting indoors. Other than that, no complaints at all.
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
307
|
462397
|
Feb 14, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
95% of reviewers
|
$349.50
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.92
|
9.46
|
9.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
