Matt Leitholt wrote:
I'd go with the 1.8, great lens for the price, much lighter, and super sharp wide open.
I've had the 1.8 and the 1.2 at the same time. The 1.2 wide open didn't seem any sharper than the 1.8 wide open. (In fact, I was LESS likely to hit focus with the 1.2, though this might have been due to the shallow depth of field at 1.2.) It was in the budget for me to get the 1.2 if I would have wanted it but, more often than not, I was stopping the 1.2 down just to get adequate depth of field so I felt the 1.2 wasn't worth the doe. I was wondering what really I was getting for all that extra bread that I didn't have already in the 1.8. Plus, that vulnerable glass sticking out the back end of the 1.2 made me nervous because I do a lot of fast lens swapping in the field.
Canon 85 1.2 L 11 on 5d2. @1.2 1/100 second 320 ISO .
To me it's no brainer get the 85 1.2 L 11. It's one of the most amazing lenses I have ever owned, and that is saying something. There are so many things about the 85 1.2 L 11 I love, but first and formost is for me is the IQ @1.2 in low light.
I have found the focus to be very accurate using the center AF point. And when light gets really low the manual focusing is plenty decent.
True it's not cheap, and it's not small, and it's not light. You can't have everything .
switch to nikon (say D700) and buy just arrived 85 1.8G, much better than crappy canon 85 1.8.
I had the chance to use it on my 5D while ago and all the sky was purple on any shot taken at 1.8 - 2.2
vovkinson wrote:
switch to nikon (say D700) and buy just arrived 85 1.8G, much better than crappy canon 85 1.8.
I had the chance to use it on my 5D while ago and all the sky was purple on any shot taken at 1.8 - 2.2
Hane you heard that the Nikon is better in regards to purple fringing?
That blog post shows a remarkable lack of understanding of money...
Otherwise, horses for courses, as usual. If you need f/1.2, you need it. If you don't, you don't. I got the L because I shoot a lot in very low light and f/1.2 matters to me. I am happy with this lens.
I had the 1.8 and the original 1.2 at the same time. I couldn't see enough of a difference to justify the extra money. I own neither now because the 70-200L IS 2.8 mkII is fine, I mean excellent, ah it's fantastic! I prefer zooms over lens swapping plus the 70-200 mkII is more versatile then any prime lens. I'd like to have an 85 1.8 and a 135L but then I couldn't afford the 70-200.
From my perspective it's a no brainer but my situation and needs are different then yours.
Seriously though, you need to just get what you want. If you can see yourself using it a lot then get the L. If it's going to be a part time lens then get the 1.8 and use the left over money to get something else that will compliment the 85.
Canon 85 1.2 L 11 on 5d2. @1.2 1/100 second 320 ISO .
To me it's no brainer get the 85 1.2 L 11. It's one of the most amazing lenses I have ever owned, and that is saying something. There are so many things about the 85 1.2 L 11 I love, but first and formost is for me is the IQ @1.2 in low light.
I have found the focus to be very accurate using the center AF point. And when light gets really low the manual focusing is plenty decent.
True it's not cheap, and it's not small, and it's not light. You can't have everything .
Nice shot but you could get that on the 1.8 with no discernible difference. With much faster focus on the 1.8 i would say it's not a no brainer really.
You guys are probably right. But after spending all that cash on the 85 1.2 L 11, and putting up with slow AF, what am I going to say...
But here is the thing , even you guys admit there would be a difference.
And while for many that isnt enough. For me that little bit "extra" is worth every cent and the extra size/weigt cost...oo .
Like many many things I am interested in I realize how much being just a little better.
When you consider how harder and more time / concentraiton /effort it takes in this life to get 3% better (gaining muscle, being a better musican, becoming more efficient in Martial Arts" when your at the highest level in ... anything . The amount of effort time money energy to get a little better is unbelievable, It's just how it is.
Now if your expecting the 85 1.2 L to be three times better because it cost so much more than the 1.8 version. That's not how it works. And for some, I can see why many say.. for the huge differnce in price, why bother.it
And considering what your getting with the 85 1.2 L 11 (one of the finsest medium telephoto's ever made by anyone) the price is reasonable.
If it was made by Leica it would be $6,000
I am stcking with what I said about the 85 1.2 L 11. It's a no brainer.
"But here is the thing , even you guys admit there would be a difference."
That is what you took from no discernible difference?
I'm not knocking your images, just saying again that all of those could well have been shot on the 1.8
If there were money on guessing which lens they had been shot on any answer would only be a guess had you not already pointed out they came from the 1.2
Alternatively if shown several images from someone else it's unlikely you would be able to tell which lens was used either.
. 
Thanks for the laugh...I needed that today.
