Sorry guys, but considering the cost of this lens, these are very average shots (with the usual exception of Canerino).
If you are going to part with that much money, basically for the option of shooting at f1.2 and this is the best we can come up with after four pages, I'll stick to my cheapo 1.8 version
Sorry guys, but considering the cost of this lens, these are very average shots (with the usual exception of Canerino).
If you are going to part with that much money, basically for the option of shooting at f1.2 and this is the best we can come up with after four pages, I'll stick to my cheapo 1.8 version
David
Kudos for being so brutally honest. I agree and I also feel that there is not one single image here that couldn't have been shot just as effectively with the 85/1.8. Any of the moderately impressive shots are impressive due to lighting, composition, and post processing, not the lens.
cogitech wrote:
Kudos for being so brutally honest. I agree and I also feel that there is not one single image here that couldn't have been shot just as effectively with the 85/1.8. Any of the moderately impressive shots are impressive due to lighting, composition, and post processing, not the lens.
1) I think this thread is about technical quality of a lens and not about esthetical quality of images taken with it
2) cost of a lens has nothing to do with the esthetical quality of an image. Only with the technical quality of a lens
3) Either you have the money to buy a 1.2 or you don't... There is always the 1.8 version.
I love my 85L, and it lives on one of my cameras at weddings. I love the colors, bokeh, and resolution to be sure.
1.2 is a little too shallow for most situations, but its great to have when you need it. I find I'm more inclined to use 1.2 when I've got a decent bit of distance between me and the subject, so that I still have *some* DOF.
Here's a shot from my last wedding that couldn't have happened w/o the 85L (f/1.2, ISO 1600, 1/80sec, no flash).
Daan B wrote:
1) I think this thread is about technical quality of a lens and not about esthetical quality of images taken with it
And I'm saying the "technical quality" difference is not portrayed in any of the shots, because the "technical quality" difference is minute and not worth the dramatic price difference.
2) cost of a lens has nothing to do with the esthetical quality of an image. Only with the technical quality of a lens
Cost of a lens is not directly related to it's "technical quality." There are plenty of expensive lenses that are average performers and plenty of cheap lenses that are technically excellent.
3) Either you have the money to buy a 1.2 or you don't... There is always the 1.8 version.
So, if you have the money for a 1.2L, you aught to just buy it? I disagree. A single wedding would allow my wife and I to purchase two of them. After many weddings, we find absolutely nothing lacking in the 85/1.8. Regardless of "having the money or not", some people simply chose to be more practical than others. We would not make more money, or better photos, with the L.
I prefer the size, weight, focusing speed, and price of the 85/1.8 and I have never seen a 1.2L image that made me question my choice.
Edited by cogitech on Feb 06, 2008 at 09:56 AM GMT
There's an 85 1.8 picture thread going on right now and you can somewhat compare results. I owned the 85 1.8 and now own the 85 1.2 and for the money, there's no better lens than the 85 1.8 IMHO. BUT, if you're really anal about images, you will notice that the 85 1.2 has nicer bokeh, better color, and to my eye, better subject seperation when used properly. These differences are slight, but they are real. Whether or not they are worth the huge cost difference is highly subjective.
As an aside, I noticed some gymnastics pictures in the other thread and that is one area where the 85 1.8 kills the 1.2 version(and most other lenses): indoor sports.
I think it's a little harsh saying the shots here don't warrant the spend on an 85 1.2L. Put it this way, I used my 85 1.8 for three years and loved it to death. I always liked the look of the 85 1.2 L and eventually bought it. I can say, categorically, that the image quality produced on the 1.2 exceeds the 1.8 by some way. The quality of the bokeh is totally different to the trained eye. There's an eveness and a creaminess you can't approximate with the 1.8, especially when globular lights are visible. Also, looking at colour and contrast, plus detail at 100% - again it's not a very close contest. I own both, I never use my 1.8 anymore. I shoot on canon 1Ds mkII's and occassionally a 5D and viewing 48MB tiffs at 100%, I can spot images I've taken on my 1.2 amongst a row of 1.8's, easy. The 1.2 is very well balanced too.
cogitech wrote:
And I'm saying the "technical quality" difference is not portrayed in any of the shots, because the "technical quality" difference is minute and not worth the dramatic price difference.
Cost of a lens is not directly related to it's "technical quality." There are plenty of expensive lenses that are average performers and plenty of cheap lenses that are technically excellent.
So, if you have the money for a 1.2L, you aught to just buy it? I disagree. A single wedding would allow my wife and I to purchase two of them. After many weddings, we find absolutely nothing lacking in the 85/1.8. Regardless of "having the money or not", some people simply chose to be more practical than others. We would not make more money, or better photos, with the L.
I prefer the size, weight, focusing speed, and price of the 85/1.8 and I have never seen a 1.2L image that made me question my choice.
Edited by cogitech on Feb 06, 2008 at 09:56 AM GMT...Show more →
Try shooting @ 85mm @ 1.2 with another lens... That says it all... If you don't mind about doing so, get a 1.8 version and you'll be happy
I was willing and able to pay the extras and haven't regretted it for one moment.
Daan B wrote:
Try shooting @ 85mm @ 1.2 with another lens... That says it all... If you don't mind about doing so, get a 1.8 version and you'll be happy
I was willing and able to pay the extras and haven't regretted it for one moment.
Of course I don't think you should regret it. It is obviously worth it, to you. Just respect that it will not be everyone's choice and don't insinuate that people who do not shoot with an 85L are the people who can't afford it.
I can shoot @ 93mm (effective) @ f1.2 on my 20D, if I really want to ... That says it all... The same lens on my 5D is a 58mm f1.2, and I find that focal length in an ultra-fast lens much more usable than 85mm.
(That is an extremely busy, back-lit fence with lattice at the top in the background. I shot it this way specifically to show how wonderfully this lens deals with difficult situations)
Most of the people ripping the 85L don't have one. It's ok to feel good about the 85 f1.8
as it's a fine lens for the money. If you've got the 85 f1.2 you shouldn't have to justify
it's presence in your bag. You KNOW what it does and the heft/feel is something to behold.
Very similar rush to the first time ya fire off a 1 Series.
cogitech wrote:
Of course I don't think you should regret it. It is obviously worth it, to you. Just respect that it will not be everyone's choice and don't insinuate that people who do not shoot with an 85L are the people who can't afford it.
I can shoot @ 93mm (effective) @ f1.2 on my 20D, if I really want to ... That says it all... The same lens on my 5D is a 58mm f1.2, and I find that focal length in an ultra-fast lens much more usable than 85mm.
Cost? $115
This is how I look at it... People who don't own a 85L are people who either:
1) Couldn't care less about photography, Canon and all that
2) Don't have the money to spent (but really want one)
3) Have the money, shoot Canon stuff, but don't want one (for example: because they need faster focus, have no need for shooting @ 85mm @ 1.2-1.8 or have found another -cheaper- solution )
I respect all options and am insinuating nothing.
Trying to make me feel bad because I own a 85L isn't going to work.
It is the most fantastic lens I have ever used (on a -D-SLR system)... period
trenchmonkey wrote:
Most of the people ripping the 85L don't have one. It's ok to feel good about the 85 f1.8
as it's a fine lens for the money. If you've got the 85 f1.2 you shouldn't have to justify
it's presence in your bag. You KNOW what it does and the heft/feel is something to behold.
Very similar rush to the first time ya fire off a 1 Series.
Absolutely. If you look at the user reviews here you will see that very few people who have bought and used this lens are dissatisfied with it, and there is an awful lot of perfect 10 ratings on this lens:
I don't own many lenses and it is simply because I cannot afford them but ... to me, this lens is worth the price of 2 or 3 L-lenses, and judging by the user reviews, I am not alone in my thinking. If it is not for this lens and ONLY this lens, I would seriously be thinking about the new FF Sony, to be released later this year, as I think the new Zeiss ZA lenses can probably match the IQ of this lens. You do get what you pay for but, as usual, YMMV.
I agree too that a lot of us here do not do justice to this lens (and I count myself as being one of them) and most of the images here are really just average BUT those who own this lens knows what this lens is capable of; that it has a rather special quality about it that is missing in most other L lenses.
Edited by bobbytan on Feb 06, 2008 at 10:54 AM GMT
)
