Artifical light in studio most of the time for portraits, some will be outside senior type of stuff and I would not use this for a sports lens as I have the 70-200 that I love for that. Large print and digital would be most of the formats.
I've owned both, don't own the 1.8 anymore. The L is a great piece of glass, I don't find the focus to be slow, and the IQ at 1.2 is worth the investment for me. It is considerably heavier and takes some getting use to.
You can not go wrong with the 1.8. Outrageous bargain. A contender for the most cost-effective lens Canon makes. Probably your solution.
Now permit me to suggest something unorthodox, just for consideration. Canon's secret weapon: the TS-E 90mm f/2.8.
At f/2.8 it will outperform anything (except maybe the 135L), including the 1.2 L and the 1.8. Its sweet spot is probably f5.6, where it continues to outperform the 1.2L overall, by just a bit, and by a little more in the corners. And it costs only a little more than the Sigma 85mm 1.4 that was suggested above, and much less than the 1.2L.
It functions as a semi-macro. It has tilt and shift, which you don't need for portraits, but which are great for all sorts of other things. It has gorgeous bokeh. Color and contrast are superb. You can use it with Canon extenders. It is my favorite Canon lens because it delivers extraordinary image quality, it's a bargain, and very few people know all this. When I bought it and tried it out, I was astonished to discover what I had.
Alas, it is manual focus only—wonderful, beautifully damped old-fashioned manual focus. If you think you can learn to use manual focus for portraits, you ought to give some thought.
splathrop wrote:
You can not go wrong with the 1.8. Outrageous bargain. A contender for the most cost-effective lens Canon makes. Probably your solution.
Now permit me to suggest something unorthodox, just for consideration. Canon's secret weapon: the TS-E 90mm f/2.8.
At f/2.8 it will outperform anything (except maybe the 135L), including the 1.2 L and the 1.8. Its sweet spot is probably f5.6, where it continues to outperform the 1.2L overall, by just a bit, and by a little more in the corners. And it costs only a little more than the Sigma 85mm 1.4 that was suggested above, and much less than the 1.2L.
It functions as a semi-macro. It has tilt and shift, which you don't need for portraits, but which are great for all sorts of other things. It has gorgeous bokeh. Color and contrast are superb. You can use it with Canon extenders. It is my favorite Canon lens because it delivers extraordinary image quality, it's a bargain, and very few people know all this. When I bought it and tried it out, I was astonished to discover what I had.
Alas, it is manual focus only—wonderful, beautifully damped old-fashioned manual focus. If you think you can learn to use manual focus for portraits, you ought to give some thought. ...Show more →
Now that is something to chew on.... Thanks for that bit of information as well.
I had the same debate. For me 1.2 was more important than AF speed as I love smooth background. As a result my debate was: switching to 5D + 135L ($3000) or go with 85L for my 7D ($1850).
Once I decided to go with the 2nd solution, I had to decide: 85 1.8 or 85 1.2.
Here are 3 pictures taken with the 85L to compare the OOF rendering difference on the 7D between 2.8, 1.8 and 1.2...it is clearly visible (to me). Is it worth $1500 and slower AF? You to judge. I stayed with the L with my wife approval (she prefers 1.2 picutres rendering than 1.8):
I have the L but I'm considering buying the 1.8 for faster focus, for events where I don't care about the bokeh too much...the L is THE LENS for portraits!
The 1.8 is farily sharp at 1.8 and sharp at 2.2. It will have a ghosting lack of contrast at 1.8 but you can overcome most of that in post. This all said the L is flat out pin sharp at 1.2 with wonderful constrast and color. Just my opinion what makes the shots from this lens so sepcial is the seperation of background and foreground from the target at 1.2 and 1.4. The light falloff of the corners really seems to add depth to the images, and combined with the narrow depth, sharpness and contrast make the images have almost a High Dynamic range effect.
It does focus slower and I would not recommend it for sports, but it could be easily used if youi were shooting a target where the distance to you does not change radically. For candids I find it works well if you take any time at all to compose your shot the lens will soon catch up.
I have had it a short time and have tried almost every canon lens less than 200mm and this is by far my favorite. Will it suit your needs? For you to say, but I find myself making it work just because I like it so much.
Garycle wrote:
Artifical light in studio most of the time for portraits, some will be outside senior type of stuff and I would not use this for a sports lens as I have the 70-200 that I love for that. Large print and digital would be most of the formats.
Given that the 85 f/1.8 is that good, it is utterly non-sensical to own the L, however, there's a reason why its (the L) one of the most lusted after lenses in the Canon lineup. I think it's based solely on how intimidating the front element is... It's a like a grapefruit encased in red-ringed goodness. It's just a boat-load of glass, and the aesthetics alone give it a certain "coolness factor." Yup, that's pretty shallow, however, I'm sure there are enough folks out there who've bought the L based on looks and prestige alone.
I've owned both - I sold the 85 1.8 - which I LOVED - the focus speed, the bokeh, it's easily one of the best values in the Canon lineup, and you could buy like 6 of them for the cost of the L. However, for portraiture, IMHO there simply is no substitute for the L. If you're chasing your kids around the house, get the 85 f/1.8 - it'll focus fast enough to keep up with them, the 85L can't.
If you take portraits for a living, I'd go for the L - and that's NOT to say you couldn't make a more profitable living with the 1.8 - you can, but the L gives you that little extra something in the OOF rendering - smooth, buttery liquidation of the backgrounds that make it second to none...
My only qualm with the 1.8 was the purple fringing in harsh lighting. The L has some fringing too, but its not as obvious...
I have both. and the sigma.
I'll get PF on both canons where the sigma handles it better in my experience.
if I had the sell them, the siggy goes first, then the L.
1D3 and 85 anything is such a lovely combo, imo
Use you 70-200 unless you need the stop.. If you need 1.3 more get the 85 1.8.. If you need 2.5 more get the 85 1.2
To me the flexibililty of keeping the ISOs low and/or shutter speeds high make primes worth the cost. I am very often in situations where I need the stop.
gpop wrote:
I have both. and the sigma.
I'll get PF on both canons where the sigma handles it better in my experience.
if I had the sell them, the siggy goes first, then the L.
If the Siggy gives you less purple fringing, why would it go first? (I hate the purple fringing of the Canons.)
