Well, not sure about other people, but the images I take of my kids with my 85L are PRICELESS! They will be treasured for generations to come I don't think that's something you can put a price tag on. As someone who has owned both the 1.2 and 1.8 versions I can say the images don't compare. I no longer own the 1.8 version - the 1.2 version will be with me for a loooooong time.
sqdstf wrote:
8%...................where?!?!?!?! please tell me
stocks
of course it depends, someone who enters at a high point and then has the next thirty years with all sorts of crazy events occurring might have a tough time at that
Tom K. wrote:
Pretty easy to get with a smart mix of stocks and bonds. We're talking long term here.
Considering that most people have not seen their investments recover from 1999-2000 I would agree about long term.
As for a smart mix, most let others do the picking as we all have day jobs.
One quickly realizes that the "random walk" is true.
Keep it really, really simple. Starting at the earliest possible age.......put 10% of your take home income into an index mutual fund and do that every single month for 35 years and then after that 35 years take a look at how much money you have in that fund. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.....and rich.
Best is to get couple of them when Canon has double/triple rebate. I did it with many 85LII, 35L and 85f1.8 copies one time. The resale has paid off my current 85LMarkI
David Baldwin wrote:
Well, I think that the blog is as idiotic as the rest of you, but I am uncomfortable reading
"The one thing I would say to him is this: you're not even a fraction as talented or knowledgeable as you think you are. That's why you're pulling this stunt, because you can't hack it as a real artist"
Seems perilously close to mere abuse quite honestly, coming from a poster who we all know is routinely capable of finely judged technical analysis. The best answer to someone unfairly criticising a lens is to post some links to good work taken with it (and we all know that in the case of the 85L that isn't going to be difficult). Saying that someone doesn't exist as an artist is the internet equivalent of going for them with a broken bottle....Show more →
There are no rules stating I can't be strongly critical--even abusive--of someone who is NOT an FM member, and who is displaying completely asinine reasoning in a brazen display of trolling. And I *do* find his work unremarkable. He proudly shows off images that don't "need" the 85L. It's just silly that he thinks they furnish any kind of effective support for his argument.
Let me be clear. The 85/1.8 is one of the best values in the EF lineup. It's a great lens and there are times when I wish I hadn't let it go. But I strongly believe in judging a lens on its merits and letting the evidence speak for itself, rather than engaging in sensationalism, egocentric reasoning, and flawed logic, which is why I have such a visceral reaction to this kind of hit piece masquerading as legitimate photographic advice. I have already provided solid counterarguments to each of his claims.
In summary, one doesn't need to trash the 85L and make up stupid arguments about it costing $20k over 30 years in order to make the 85/1.8 look good. In light of this simple fact, it doesn't even matter how talented or generous or knowledgeable this idiot might be. He loses ALL credibility the moment he tries to pass off that kind of stupidity on others. It truly is a page from the KR playbook.
I bought my 85/1.8 new from Amazon, and later sold to someone here in less than 3 month. The purple fringing is the main reason I sold it, and I also found it lack of micro contrast as the 85/1.2L.
phuang3 wrote:
I bought my 85/1.8 new from Amazon, and later sold to someone here in less than 3 month. The purple fringing is the main reason I sold it, and I also found it lack of micro contrast as the 85/1.2L.
W.L. Castleman states the following when comparing the 85L mark 1, 85L mark 2 and the 85 f/1.8:
"No differences among the lenses were detected in birefringence induced in metallic/reflective objects at wide apertures with the three lenses using the 1Ds Mark II or an EOS 20D (20D images not shown)."
I've had both, still have the 1.8.
The 1.2 is worth every penny, just not to me. But if it made me money, it would be a bargain.
If I had a kid I'd probably sell it before I'd sell the 1.2, which requires no food or braces.
phuang3 wrote:
I bought my 85/1.8 new from Amazon, and later sold to someone here in less than 3 month. The purple fringing is the main reason I sold it, and I also found it lack of micro contrast as the 85/1.2L.
That's interesting because if purple fringing is a major concern, then 85L as the queen of purple fringing is the last lens to get. True enough, 85 f/1.8 has some CA, but that is a child's play compared to what 85L does wide open and all the way to f/2.2.
Furthermore, my copy of 85L resolved detail a bit better than my 85 f/1.8, and all around image quality was better. However, the differences were not dramatic, nor something you'd readily see by inspecting several web size images.
I do believe 85L is a superior lens with one serious flaw: CA.
Otherwise, 85L works very well wide open in a low light setting where there are no strong highlights nor high contrasts which whould ignite purple/green fringing.
Is 85L worth the extra $$ on top of 85 f/1.8 ? That is one of the most commonly asked question types on this forum for which there aren't real good generic answers, be they short or long winded. My opinion is that if one has the gear budget for that sorta purchase magnitude without causing financial stress elsewhere, then I think the lens is a must.
That blogger from Tom's OP doesn't seem to think so........hey, it's a free country....he is entitled.
PetKal wrote:
That's interesting because if purple fringing is a major concern, then 85L as the queen of purple fringing is the last lens to get. True enough, 85 f/1.8 has some CA, but that is a child's play compared to what 85L does wide open and all the way to f/2.2.
Furthermore, my copy of 85L resolved detail a bit better than my 85 f/1.8, and all around image quality was better. However, the differences were not dramatic, nor something you'd readily see by inspecting several web size images.
I do believe 85L is a superior lens with one serious flaw: CA.
Otherwise, 85L works very well wide open in a low light setting where there are no strong highlights nor high contrasts which whould ignite purple/green fringing.
Is 85L worth the extra $$ on top of 85 f/1.8 ? That is one of the most commonly asked question types on this forum for which there aren't real good generic answers, be they short or long winded. My opinion is that if one has the gear budget for that sorta purchase magnitude without causing financial stress elsewhere, then I think the lens is a must.
That blogger from Tom's OP doesn't seem to think so........hey, it's a free country....he is entitled. ...Show more →
Quite obviously you haven't been following the 85L threads and images on this very forum over the years. There were a lot of samples of amazing 85L shots in various threads, and I for one am convinced that you could not possibly get with the 85/1.8 lens.
Marcus Watts wrote:
Several here have indicated they can get shots they could not possibly get with the 1.8, no one can post a single example to back that up though it seems.
Not to say there is no difference but no great difference.
In my experience axial chromatic aberration in the 85L is only worse than the 85/1.8 at apertures faster than f/1.8. At comparable apertures, I did not observe worse performance from the 85L.
In a previous thread, I have mentioned what I consider to be the flaws of the 85L:
1. Axial color is high from f/1.2 - f/1.8
2. Mirror box clipping of blur circles is severe at f/1.2
3. AF speed is very slow
4. Very fat and heavy lens makes for poor handling and storage
5. Rear element is very exposed, requiring extremely careful handling
6. Non-sealed design tends to collect dust between focusing group and rear element
7. Curved, recessed front element makes cleaning more difficult
8. Focus by wire requires the lens to receive power to collapse the barrel for storage
9. Drains battery faster than many other non-IS lenses due to greater power requirements
10. Expensive.
Yet, for all these shortcomings, many of which are not found in the 85/1.8, not once do I make some outrageous claim in an attempt to dramatize the point. Not once do I claim that nobody needs this lens, or that it's a waste of money. Not once do I suggest that the 85/1.8 can do everything the 85L can. My points are fair and based on personal evidence and experience.
So perhaps you can appreciate my frustration and disdain for the claims in the blog post, in light of the fact that one doesn't even NEED to go to such lengths to present a sound, logical, and persuasive case for the 85/1.8 over the 85L.
On the flip side, what does the 85L do that the 85/1.8 doesn't?
1. It is, with certainty, sharper with higher contrast at comparable apertures
2. It is a full stop faster
3. In my experience, it is capable of AF in lower light than the 85/1.8
4. In my experience, AF is more accurate than the 85/1.8 for static subjects.
5. Build is much more solid, and the focusing ring has little to no play.
6. It has no equal among all 85mm lenses, giving extreme blur at f/1.2. See Bryan Carnathan's review @ TDP of the Sigma 85/1.4 and its comparison against the 85L: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx
I seem to have to keep repeating myself--I keep saying that the 85L is not a lens for everyone. You really have to have a specific application in mind for which no other lens would suffice, to truly appreciate what this lens does. For the vast majority of people, it is not a lens with a high performance-to-cost ratio, and yes, the 85/1.8 would be a much better choice, even better than the Sigma 85/1.4 (which I also do not consider to be that good a value). But just because it's not for everyone doesn't mean that it isn't one of the most impressively unique designs in existence. The 85L II is the latest incarnation of a design with a very long and prestigious pedigree among Canon lenses, and as such, truly represents a hallmark of Canon's EOS.
I like what I see on the images taken with my 85L MkI wide open. Again, as long as CA doesn't come into play. Quite remarkable IQ for f/1.2. That alone makes the 85L very, very, VERY special, and a subject of aggressive envy by all other camera system camps, be they Nikon, Leica, Zeiss or any other alternative flavour.
PetKal wrote:
I like what I see on the images taken with my 85L MkI wide open. Again, as long as CA doesn't come into play. Quite remarkable IQ for f/1.2. That alone makes the 85L very, very, VERY special, and a subject of aggressive envy by all other camera system camps, be they Nikon, Leica, Zeiss or any other alternative flavour.
And more than a few Canon users as well, it seems :-)
PetKal wrote:
I like what I see on the images taken with my 85L MkI wide open. Again, as long as CA doesn't come into play. Quite remarkable IQ for f/1.2. That alone makes the 85L very, very, VERY special, and a subject of aggressive envy by all other camera system camps, be they Nikon, Leica, Zeiss or any other alternative flavour.
Think how much money you would lose if you spent that $20,122 after 30 years instead of waiting 60 or 90 years. The cost of buying something would be gianormous.
I don't think that's something you can put a price tag on. As someone who has owned both the 1.2 and 1.8 versions I can say the images don't compare. I no longer own the 1.8 version - the 1.2 version will be with me for a loooooong time.
.