I have the CZ 85/2.8 C/Y and its Sonnar sibling, the 100/3.5. These slower lenses have awesome bokeh (not a given with CZ). They also offer a compact size, smooth focus action, and exemplary DOF scales. The S100 is probably my favorite lens - hard to find, thought. The S85 is quite common, and used prices are much lower recently (nearing $200). Don't get hypnotized by the big aperture!
I had the 85/1.2 L (FD and EF) and the zeiss 85/1.4. The Canon is basically a better lens and I don't yearn to have the zeiss back at all however I would like to pick up a copy of the 85/1.2 L some day. The Canon is really very sharp even wide open where as the zeiss was so 'creamy' that nothing was really very sharp at all, untill you stopped it down. The zeiss was definitely quite good stopped down but then why bother with a fast lens if you have to stop it down to get a decent image.
I sold them all and got a nice Leica R 80/1.4. Very happy with it but the EF 85/1.2 L is still sharper wide open.
The (nearly) NIB Planar 85/1.4 that I had briefly was not as "dreamy" wide open as others have experienced/described, but I found it to be cool (bluey greens) and the bokeh was only neutral and even "busy" sometimes.
I agree with Tariq on the EF 85/1.8. I, too, ended up getting a terrific sample of this lens. The L certainly does have better bokeh from all the shots I've seen, but if any thought at all is given to the background distance in relation to the subject, it is quite simple to produce superb results with the Christmas turkey. If anything, I am getting bored with it, as it is so easy to get consistently great results. I'll likely pick up a Jupiter 9 to make things interesting at this focal length for me again. I really aught to pull out the Tamron 90/2.5 more often as well...
Rico, I had a chance to get the 100/3.5 for a great price about 18 months ago, but my wife said "enough." Maybe I aught to look for another.
This really never ends, does it Here I am considering selling lenses because I have a new camera system on the way, but getting caught up in the idea of buying 2 or 3 more in the "portrait" range. Nuts!
cogitech wrote:
I'll likely pick up a Jupiter 9 to make things interesting at this focal length for me again.
I love that statement! I think I need to invest in the Hasselblad-Canon adapter myself to see just what my 80mm 2.8 CF planar looks like on my 5D per your earlier remark.
It must be my considerable lack of discernment, but I shoot my *cheap Christmas turkey* of an EF 85/1.8 far more than the 85L II that sits at home ...
I'm biased, of course, but my Canon 85/1.8 does so many things so well, that it's a mainstay: snapshooting, portraits in any light, sports, macro (tubes), etc etc. All with quick, accurate AF and auto-elsewhere for USD 300. Whattadeal.
I did get a chuckle out of your wording earlier, but then I realized that the lens itself is not funny in any way and the only thing cheap about it is the price. The turkey reference is funny in a Monty Python sort of way.
I don't think anyone is really offended or anything.
Well, quite often even English people don't realise I'm joking about something unless they know me well, so I suppose I should be a bit more obvious when posting on forums where you can't see my smile. I didn't mean to upset anyone, I was just teasing.
Anyway, I've actually read so many good reports about the 85mm f1.8 that I've nearly bought one myself on a couple of ocassions.
It would be nice to have fast AF in a light and compact portrait lens, and it seems the combination of good IQ, lightening fast AF and bargain price, make it an almost "must have" lens.
Maybe I'll give it a go.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I would put my sample of the Canon 1.8 up against the Cantax 1.4 any day. I did so against a Leica 90mm Elmarit R and the Leica surprisingly was outlassed by my cheap Christmas turkey of a lens. Color rendition was the same, the Canon was sharper with better Bokeh. The two areas the Leica was obviously better was in distortion and of course build. I'm sure against the Contax, the Contax would have more contrast and punchier color but loose out in the creamy Bokeh department and actual resolution. A good sample of the Canon 85 1.8 is a very fine lens. ...Show more →
I goy my cheap christmas turkey for only three month, then I sold it. All I can remember is that Canon may be sharp but has low micro contrast and strong purple fringing. 85L, on the other hand, is more contrasy and better CA control as the 90 Elmarit. The later is one of the best 90mm Leica ever produced, next to 90 APO.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I think I need to invest in the Hasselblad-Canon adapter myself to see just what my 80mm 2.8 CF planar looks like on my 5D per your earlier remark.
I am very interested in the results too. Has this already been tested on other bodies? Hubsand may be?
Unfortunately, that may be the infamous Canon sample variation at work. I have read about the CA issue with the 85 1.8 but it just does not show up with mine, even in the backlit situations that reportedly it should show up. Micro contrast is not at the Zeiss level but then what other brands are. I did expect the Leica Elmarit to show improved micro contrast over the Canon and it did not to my surprise.
phuang3 wrote:
I goy my cheap christmas turkey for only three month, then I sold it. All I can remember is that Canon may be sharp but has low micro contrast and strong purple fringing. 85L, on the other hand, is more contrasy and better CA control as the 90 Elmarit. The later is one of the best 90mm Leica ever produced, next to 90 APO.
phuang3 wrote:
I goy my cheap christmas turkey for only three month, then I sold it. All I can remember is that Canon may be sharp but has low micro contrast and strong purple fringing.
I was hoping someone would bring this up. The 85/1.8 does everything so well, fast USM focus, small size, bright aperture, everything except produce pleasing results. I've never had huge problems with the purple fringing, but the contrast stinks and I can't get the lens to produce pleasing tones or gradations, like the softness of skin or anything else with fine gradations and subtle tones. It's just flat. But the resolution is there, so people (if that's what I'm shooting) end up looking very artificial: flat skin tones and razor sharp jaw lines. But I still keep it. Why I don't know. Probably because it's good at everything else, and when you need fast AF and brightness, it's really a nice lens to use.
I've never owned the 85L, but I've used it in shops, and it seems to have the resolution *and* the contrast.
StevenPA wrote:
I was hoping someone would bring this up. The 85/1.8 does everything so well, fast USM focus, small size, bright aperture, everything except produce pleasing results. I've never had huge problems with the purple fringing, but the contrast stinks and I can't get the lens to produce pleasing tones or gradations, like the softness of skin or anything else with fine gradations and subtle tones. It's just flat. But the resolution is there, so people (if that's what I'm shooting) end up looking very artificial: flat skin tones and razor sharp jaw lines. But I still keep it. Why I don't know. Probably because it's good at everything else, and when you need fast AF and brightness, it's really a nice lens to use.
I've never owned the 85L, but I've used it in shops, and it seems to have the resolution *and* the contrast....Show more →
Steven
I agree with you on the 85/1.8. The term I've used is "sterile" images with this lens - not at all disparaging it.
Here I am considering selling lenses because I have a new camera system on the way, but getting caught up in the idea of buying 2 or 3 more in the "portrait" range. Nuts!