John_T wrote:
Behind it all is the basic human genetic programming, whereby one is compelled to elevate oneself while denigrating the other, thereby attaining an illusion of superiority in order to survive in a society that only issues win and fail labels..
Yup. And in this specific case it appears somebody juuuuuust learned about compound interest and went ahead and hacked together a "meaningful" blog post, completely disregarding things like ACTUAL returns, tax implications, blah blah. But hey, he got a bunch of hits, so maybe the ad income will let him afford a 1.2L at last.
And then, if we are lucky, we will get an equally poorly thought out "article" about how the lens actually represents an INVESTMENT.
John_T wrote:
To play it safe, buy both lenses, and whenever the compulsory semi-annual 85L thread comes up, you can take whichever side that appears to be winning.
Or switch to Nikon and you can have the same debate all over again
Yeah I kinda agree that there are probably wayyy too many people with the 85L that certainly could get by with the 85 1.8. However, I've been in dark churches shooting iso6400, f1.2, 1/60-1/80sec. The 85L has saved my butt. The writer is also overly optimistic on returns of investments as stated. Most short term investments are priced to yield less than inflation. An L lens should keep about equal with inflation (ignoring currency fluctuations). Even risky assets like Europe's stock market with a P/E ratio of about 11, would only yield about 6% very long term after inflation assuming it doesn't implode.
wickerprints wrote:
I think it's amusing that some people compare the $400 EF 85/1.8 and $2100 EF 85L, and think, "why would I pay $1700 more for just one stop additional light and a much heavier lens?" Yet these same people, when asked to consider the $1300 EF 300/4L IS against the $5000 EF 300/2.8L IS (and let's not even mention the $7300 IS II), the price differential there is twice as much as that between the 85/1.8 and 85L, yet you're still only getting one stop more light. But nobody starts threads about how the 300/2.8L IS is a horrible value, or writes stupid blogs about how the $3700 price difference at 8% interest would represent $40,000 over 30 years. Same thing with the 200/2L IS vs. 200/2.8L. You don't see people trashing the faster lens for being a poor value....Show more →
You know what's more ridiculous? Those people who claim the 580EXII is overpriced relative to the 430EXII because it's only "1 stop"
Those same people often also claim the 50 f/1.8 II is "loose change" or "practically disposable" even though its cost is pretty much the difference of those 2 flashes
wickerprints wrote:
I think it's amusing that some people compare the $400 EF 85/1.8 and $2100 EF 85L, and think, "why would I pay $1700 more for just one stop additional light and a much heavier lens?" Yet these same people, when asked to consider the $1300 EF 300/4L IS against the $5000 EF 300/2.8L IS (and let's not even mention the $7300 IS II), the price differential there is twice as much as that between the 85/1.8 and 85L, yet you're still only getting one stop more light. But nobody starts threads about how the 300/2.8L IS is a horrible value, or writes stupid blogs about how the $3700 price difference at 8% interest would represent $40,000 over 30 years. Same thing with the 200/2L IS vs. 200/2.8L. You don't see people trashing the faster lens for being a poor value....Show more →
"DxO Labs’ measurements is that photographers should consider with caution the maximum f-numbers advertised for lenses. Indeed, depending on the performance of their camera body and sensor, they may not effectively benefit as they expect from such wide apertures."
the 85 1.8 won't touch the clarity, contrast and color the 85L produces, that was the selling point for me, not the extra stops of light, or the red ring
Tom K. wrote:
"DxO Labs’ measurements is that photographers should consider with caution the maximum f-numbers advertised for lenses. Indeed, depending on the performance of their camera body and sensor, they may not effectively benefit as they expect from such wide apertures."
Did you understand DxO's claim? That is not a shortcoming of the LENS. It is a shortcoming of the SENSOR. As you can see, even at f/1.8 you have some incident angle light loss, so while the actual light-gathering ability may not be a full stop greater from a nominal f/1.8 to f/1.2, it isn't as small as you might think. A number of FM members, including myself, have discussed this. My position is that if this effect were as large as stated, why don't you see a corresponding change in the distribution of light intensity of out-of-focus blur circles? You would expect the disk to be bright in the center and darker in the periphery. But you can see that it is not so. Besides, the effects of vignetting and mirror box clipping are significantly larger than the effect DxO claims in the article.
Even aside from the above, your point is still not relevant. The fact of the matter is that the 85/1.2 is significantly faster than the 85/1.8. The fact still remains that my analogy is completely valid--people think the 85L is a poor value, but these same people don't seem to have a problem with the 300/2.8L IS compared to the 300/4L IS.
Yeah, the fact that the 1.8 even legitimately and closely compares to a lens costing 5X as much is one of the reasons I love Canon. The 1.2 is one of the best lenses ever made by the company IMO, but Canon doesn't punish amateurs who simply don't need 1.2 too badly.
Nov 22, 2011 at 02:54 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
wickerprints wrote:
That is not a shortcoming of the LENS. It is a shortcoming of the SENSOR. As you can see, even at f/1.8 you have some incident angle light loss, so while the actual light-gathering ability may not be a full stop greater from a nominal f/1.8 to f/1.2, it isn't as small as you might think.
I know what this article says to me.....
85 1.2L is more expensive and maybe only a fraction better....but it still has one sweet red ring at the end of it, and that in itself is worth the $2000 if you have it....
I mean who doesn't turn their head when a Red Corvette cruises by?
zebek wrote:
I know what this article says to me.....
85 1.2L is more expensive and maybe only a fraction better....but it still has one sweet red ring at the end of it, and that in itself is worth the $2000 if you have it....
I mean who doesn't turn their head when a Red Corvette cruises by?
I don't. Cars don't interest me unless they are especially unique--not necessarily fast or aesthetically pleasing. I once saw a Ford Pinto that was decked out in what must have been tens of thousands of small mirrored tiles, like a disco ball. That turned my head.
Similarly, I don't elevate lenses or cameras as status symbols. What matters to me regarding a lens is whether it does something for my photography that is worth the money I spent on it. As such, everybody has a different valuation--not only do people have different photographic approaches and needs, they also have different sensibilities regarding the value of a dollar. It's when those two factors come together in a single lens that the buyer would truly benefit. For that reason, the 85/1.8 is much more likely to be the preferred choice between the two lenses--but that is not a reflection upon the fact that there are are also quite a number of people who can and do find the 85L to be a worthwhile lens, both because they can afford it and because they know how to wield it.
I find that those who put forth value arguments such as the author of the blog post have ironically failed to consider what the vast majority of the public would think of the price of even an 85/1.8. We live in a world where camera phones are ubiquitous and comprise by far the largest segment of cameras. To these people, they could buy an entire new phone for one lens. They would look at your 5D2 with an 85/1.8 and think, "why on earth would you want to waste $3000+ on a bulky camera?" Remember, they just want to be able to take pictures. The idea of 'bokeh' is largely lost upon them. They don't obsess over noise or dynamic range or MTF or cross-type AF systems. To them, YOU are the crazy one. So for this blogger to turn around and have the same attitude about someone who finds a $2000 85/1.2L worthwhile is a colossal failure to see the irony.
I have little respect for someone who buys an 85L just because it's an 85L--i.e., for the sake of saying they have this coveted lens. Like any other lens, it's not a status symbol. It's a tool to help express one's creative vision. I believe in coveting talent, artistry, originality, creativity, technique. Those are embodied by the photographs themselves, not the tools with which they were made.
wickerprints wrote:
Did you understand DxO's claim? That is not a shortcoming of the LENS. It is a shortcoming of the SENSOR. As you can see, even at f/1.8 you have some incident angle light loss, so while the actual light-gathering ability may not be a full stop greater from a nominal f/1.8 to f/1.2, it isn't as small as you might think. A number of FM members, including myself, have discussed this. My position is that if this effect were as large as stated, why don't you see a corresponding change in the distribution of light intensity of out-of-focus blur circles? You would expect the disk to be bright in the center and darker in the periphery. But you can see that it is not so. Besides, the effects of vignetting and mirror box clipping are significantly larger than the effect DxO claims in the article.
Even aside from the above, your point is still not relevant. The fact of the matter is that the 85/1.2 is significantly faster than the 85/1.8. The fact still remains that my analogy is completely valid--people think the 85L is a poor value, but these same people don't seem to have a problem with the 300/2.8L IS compared to the 300/4L IS....Show more →
SKumar25 wrote:
Or Zeiss ZE 100 MP f/2 vs. 100 L f/2.8...
That comparison is flawed in the context discussed here. The cheaper one is the one with AF, 1:1 magnification, and IS. The more expensive one may be one stop faster, but it offers nothing else, not even better optical quality. Any optical performance differences between the 100MP and the 100L are much, much smaller than between the 85L and the 85/1.8.
Absolutley!!! is the 85 f/1.8 worth it
