agnius wrote:
@AhamB: Thanks, they were gorgeous! I try to visit this garden every week, and every week I see something new and fantastic.
BTW, those two shots were at f2.8 handheld (with Leitz shoulder stock).
The last one of the flower shots is about as nice a capture as I've seen in these threads. Just perfect in every way. I guess you don't know what f-stop that was taken at, right? Maybe f/4 or so?
And the bird is beautiful. Clarity against silky smooth bokeh.
cuonghuutran wrote:
Canon 85mm 1.2L is hard to beat but it's different from Leica 80mm. For portraits, I much prefer 80mm as the color tone just glows at f2.8 or wider. Zeiss 85mm 1.2 Anniversary is better than Canon 85mm 1.2L at open aperture.
I compared the leica 80 lux ROM to the canon 85mm f/1.2 L quite extensively and posted here a long while ago. Perhaps you can find it via search. In any case the Leica 80 lux was sharper at every f/stop and IMHO had better color and bokeh. The focusing on the canon 85mm f/1.2 was so slow that I felt it not a factor. It's a great lens of course, but I'd be surprised if anyone who had shot both would prefer the canon.
p.s. Agnius nice floral images! Still have the 21-35 ROM?
... I'd be surprised if anyone who had both would prefer the canon...
The Canon is still sharper wide open and at 1.4 so if wide open performance is your priority then the Canon betters the Leica. I had the FD and EF 85 1.2's and Zeiss 85/1.4 (Contax) at the same time (a very long time ago). I sold everything after trying the Leica R 80 but wide open performance wasn't critical for me and I am very happy with the R 80 at F2 and smaller. The Canon's don't ever seem to reach the sharpness of the Leica at F5.6/8 but they seem to have more contrast, maybe too much. I would still like a nice EF 85/1.2 but it would be to complement the R 80 and not compete with it. I think they are quite different.
@erichard: f4 or f5.6 sounds about right. I prefocus fully open (@f2.8 on this lens), then stop down and adjust my zone of what needs to be in focus. So it is possible I have stopped down even more, but then the background would be less smooth.
@EricH: Yep, I am still shooting with it too - whenever I need a wide angle. Fantastic lens! I will look through my images and post something nice from it. Thanks for the lens!
EricH wrote:
I compared the leica 80 lux ROM to the canon 85mm f/1.2 L quite extensively and posted here a long while ago. Perhaps you can find it via search. In any case the Leica 80 lux was sharper at every f/stop and IMHO had better color and bokeh. The focusing on the canon 85mm f/1.2 was so slow that I felt it not a factor. It's a great lens of course, but I'd be surprised if anyone who had shot both would prefer the canon.
p.s. Agnius nice floral images! Still have the 21-35 ROM?
After much searching, my 80 'lux is on its way! I think I can already agree with you about the focusing. It is one area that really made me put the 85L up for sale. The focus always left you feeling disconected. You almost had to guess when focusing wtih it because of the electronics involved. At times, it felt as if it was a touch behind the movement of the ring.
I think I made the right move, atleast for me. I got a good deal too, that is, if everything arrives safely.
JohnJ wrote:
The Canon is still sharper wide open and at 1.4 so if wide open performance is your priority then the Canon betters the Leica. I had the FD and EF 85 1.2's and Zeiss 85/1.4 (Contax) at the same time (a very long time ago). I sold everything after trying the Leica R 80 but wide open performance wasn't critical for me and I am very happy with the R 80 at F2 and smaller. The Canon's don't ever seem to reach the sharpness of the Leica at F5.6/8 but they seem to have more contrast, maybe too much. I would still like a nice EF 85/1.2 but it would be to complement the R 80 and not compete with it. I think they are quite different.
JJ...Show more →
I had both and I disagree with your statement. My 80 Lux was better wide open and I sold the 85L.
The only difference I ever noticed between the 85L I and II was the speed to focus. The optics were, so far as I know, identical. But I don't necessarily agree that either of them really have the edge wide open. To me, the lux is simply easier to focus where I want it to focus, not where the camera's AF thinks I want to focus or where a spin of that magical focus-by-wire lands me. When you can actually get it in focus, the 85L is pixel-peeper sharp, with a high resolution, high contrast drawing style typical of Canon's very best. And aside from the L, there's a plethora of great fast 85s to choose from. The cream-machine Nikon f/1.4, the surprisingly reserved and all the better for it draw of the Zeiss f/1.4, the high quality and high value of the Samyang, the indoor sports/event ready Canon f/1.8, and a possible Sigma contender on the near horizon. All different and all exceedingly good to great.
But I'm certainly not in any rush to give up the lux. Aside from the aforementioned ease of focus, there's the watercolor bokeh, gentle color transitions, and high fine detail that comes alive in big prints. Love it.
I had the FD SSC Aspherical and the original 85 L. They performed identically as far as I could see but I never compared them directly in a 'test' as such. I've never used the 85L II
The R 80 is noticeably sharper at distance than it is close up when wide open. You often hear/read contradicting opinions aboutht the wide open sharpness of the R80 and maybe this has some thing to do with it. It's not bad at all at distance but I don't like it wide open at close range.
I'm pretty sure that Canon rounded the apeture blades in the 85L II as well...
freaklikeme wrote:
The only difference I ever noticed between the 85L I and II was the speed to focus. The optics were, so far as I know, identical. But I don't necessarily agree that either of them really have the edge wide open. To me, the lux is simply easier to focus where I want it to focus, not where the camera's AF thinks I want to focus or where a spin of that magical focus-by-wire lands me. When you can actually get it in focus, the 85L is pixel-peeper sharp, with a high resolution, high contrast drawing style typical of Canon's very best. And aside from the L, there's a plethora of great fast 85s to choose from. The cream-machine Nikon f/1.4, the surprisingly reserved and all the better for it draw of the Zeiss f/1.4, the high quality and high value of the Samyang, the indoor sports/event ready Canon f/1.8, and a possible Sigma contender on the near horizon. All different and all exceedingly good to great.
But I'm certainly not in any rush to give up the lux. Aside from the aforementioned ease of focus, there's the watercolor bokeh, gentle color transitions, and high fine detail that comes alive in big prints. Love it....Show more →
Right, the AF speed was main difference, but there were others. I'm not sure whether the first one had rounded aperture blades like the first or not. Does the Leica have rounded blades? I'm guessing not, but maybe so. I personally like the drawing style, colors/skin tones of the Leica very much.
Here's a quote from a review on the 85L vs the 85LII regarding image quality:
"Image quality was excellent on the original 85 L, but using Super Spectra coatings and optimized lens element shaping to suppress flare and ghosting should make the 85mm f/1.2 L II an even better performer. Anti-reflective material has been placed inside the lens barrel as well."
I have had both the 85L I/II. The main thing that is different, in my eyes, is price, AF, and COMA in the II.
I was shocked when I took my mark II out and looked at the pictures for the first time only to see purple fringing in every picture. Some where worse than others, so the next time out, I pushed it. Huh, $500-$600 price difference for this lens? Yeah right! Not for me.
That is why my 35 Cron has been on my 5D.
If I can find an example, I'll post it here.
I am gladly waiting for my 80 Lux! I've lost nothing with that 85LII.
Agnius, regardless the lens, #2 is quite a nice composition. You must be pleased with the way that turned out. Not so simple to come up with the concept and execution.
@erichard: the #2 photo came out pretty good, I was quite pleased. The key in this one was to wait for a passing bus to get the orange light trails on the top of the frame. And big thanks to my friend and fellow photographer Victor for showing me the spot. Location is crucial for this type of shot. Having sunset afterglow worked well too. Fun times!
Okay, I'm going to ask this question in here because I'm fairly certain there are a few people participating in the thread who own or have owned this lens. What is so special about the 280/4 APO? Given the asking prices for it (from eBay ridiculous to Igor's 3695) the prices far outpace that of the 280/2.8. I've shot with the 2.8 and loved it so much I had to seek out my own copy. I finally found what I think is a very reasonably priced and, judging from the photos, pristine copy of the 2.8, and for what I paid, I wouldn't have been able to touch the lowest priced 4 I could find without an addition grand plus.
So what is it? Scarcity? Size and weight versus the 2.8? Were the elements ground by the archangel Gabriel?
