Hit me with the truth.... looking at an 85 for my Canon 1D Mark III, and I want the truth about what lens is the choice and lets just say that money does not matter. I have all "L" glass now and wondering about this lens for my next purchase.
If you are buying a L lens because it has a red ring and a letter "L" embossed on it and because you "simply have to have the best" and most expensive piece of equipment, then I suppose that the f/1.2 L will satisfy that urge.
If you are looking for more substantive advice on the choice relative to your needs and your photography, we need more information about what you do and how you imagine you will use such lens.
The non-L 85mm f/1.8 is an excellent lens. For many purposes it can make as much or more sense than the 85mm L. But context matters here.
Will be doing portraits and low lighting at Walt Disney World in attractions. Sounds as if 1.8 everyone is happy with this lens. I don't really have to have all L glass, just wanted honest and professional opinions. With that being said and what my primary use is, would all of you suggest 1.8? Thanks as all of you gave me good information.
I'd say if money isn't an issue always buy the best you can get. Otherwise you'll find yourself wishing you had. Worst case you could easily sell the f1.2 for not much less than you paid (providing you keep it MINT) and then buy the 1.8 and recoup some of your money.
AF speed versus faster aperture. Some also believe the 85L has smoother bokeh. Both are excellent lenses. Depends on what you want to do with them. BTW The 85L II's AF 'slowness' is only an issue if you want to track fast moving subjects and/or want to focus from MFD to infinity and back in the blink of an eye.
Garycle wrote:
Will be doing portraits and low lighting at Walt Disney World in attractions...
The L might be useful here if you want maximum subject isolation. But if you want to give some sense of the context, you probably wouldn't be shooting at f/1.2 anyway. In extremely low light, the faster lens will extend the ability to AF by about 1 EV, simply because of the 1 stop advantage in aperture. Otherwise, if the 1.8 can AF at all, it will do it faster.
There are differences in bokeh, chromatic aberration, and ghosting with strong backlight, all of which could come into play at Disney World, but either lens can give you great images if used appropriately. If I were heading there, I'd probably bring the 85 L along with 35 L and a pair of zooms, but don't sweat it too much. You'll do fine with either 85.
Garycle wrote:
Will be doing portraits and low lighting at Walt Disney World in attractions. Sounds as if 1.8 everyone is happy with this lens. I don't really have to have all L glass, just wanted honest and professional opinions. With that being said and what my primary use is, would all of you suggest 1.8? Thanks as all of you gave me good information.
How will the photographs be reproduced? Large print, small print, shared electronically? Are we talking casual "environmental portrait" style of shooting on the go, or more formal artificially lit portrait sittings?
I sort of like the advice of one previous poster - get the f/1.8 lens and give it a go, and if you end up needing the f/1.2 L you'll know it. (Most portraits aren't going to be shot at f/1.2 anyway.)
I have had the 85/1.8 for over four years and have shot with the L...I have no immediate plans of upgrading. You can save around 1.5K and put it towards something else...a 35L perhaps
Garycle wrote:
I have always been told to buy L glass but in this situation was not sure...
That's a good point to bring up. Advice to "always buy L glass" should generally not be taken literally. There are situations in which L lenses are the best solution, but there are quite a few other situations in which non-L alternatives are excellent or, depending on the circumstances, might be a better choice.
As an example, I have a number of Canon primes, and all are excellent performers for my work. Some of them are L primes and some are non-L primes. In the case of the non-L primes, I would not really be interested in replacing them with the currently available L alternatives. However, the particular L primes I use were chosen because there isn't a suitable non-L substitute for my work.
So, the bottom line is that "always get the L lens" is not the most sophisticated criterion for lens selection. Sometimes the L is the best choice, and sometimes a non-L alternative may be a better choice.
