Canon 85 1.2 L II

Splinters

Ok for folks who have this lens, sell it to me, tell me how good it is. Tell me its worth living on beans on toast for a few weeks to buy!!

I've wanted one for ages and was doing a few sums, looks like I can afford to go for one at the start of May. It'll just kill me I won't have it for the upcoming shoots over the next few weeks but hey, first world problems and all that.

I've ready every review I can find on it so Im fairly sure it won't dissapoint, still I trust the good folks of boards.

Just how good is it??? Feel free to post a few shots taken with it too (especially shots taken at 1.2)

gloobag

I have it. First thing I'll tell you is, it's almost unusable for anything serious at f/1.2. You'll be lucky to get 1 out of a hundred shots in focus in my experience. I usually stay in the f/2.0 to f/3.5 range if I want a shallow DOF shot. It's also terribly slow at focusing. I've had instances where the AF was moving so slowly that I had to check if I'd accidentally switched it to MF. It's huge, it's heavy, its closest focusing distance is annoyingly long and it drains the battery more than most lenses as it actually needs power even just to manual focus because there's so much glass that needs moving inside it.

I still love it though. It's a versatile focal length. Images are nice and sharp when you nail focus and have a nice contrast and vibrancy to them. Chromatic aberration is also controlled well at wider apertures.

My advice if you absolutely have to have it. Bring it and your camera of choice to be focus calibrated to each other (which I haven't done). Then you may get some use out of the f/1.2.

Splinters

Yep I can well imagine its tough to nail the focus at 1.2. I was reading about a guy who uses it on a 1DX. He gets the focus as close as he can then just rattles off burst shots at 14 frames a second for a few seconds and always gets "a few" that are perfectly focussed.

I know it has some issues alright, and they're often mentioned, but it does seem from what I've read as if they really don't overshadow just how magical this lens can be.

dirtyghettokid

what's wrong with the 85mm f/1.8?

Splinters

Ahh nothing at all, especially considering the price difference. I couldnt justify this much on too many lenses, especially when theres such a good alternative for over 1k less. There just seems to be a bit of magic with the 1.2 and I know Id always be wondering what Im missing out on if I went for the 1.8, if that makes any sense.

dirtyghettokid

i have always lusted for the f/1.2 but it's just so completely out of my price range. would love to use one some day, but would be completely paranoid having such an expensive piece of glass hanging off me
it's actually quite large as well, and i've heard it's heavy enough!

beauty!

Canon 85mm f/1.2L II by Eric Hines Photography, on Flickr

sebphoto

gloobag wrote: »

I have it. First thing I'll tell you is, it's almost unusable for anything serious at f/1.2. You'll be lucky to get 1 out of a hundred shots in focus in my experience. I usually stay in the f/2.0 to f/3.5 range if I want a shallow DOF shot. It's also terribly slow at focusing. I've had instances where the AF was moving so slowly that I had to check if I'd accidentally switched it to MF. It's huge, it's heavy, its closest focusing distance is annoyingly long and it drains the battery more than most lenses as it actually needs power even just to manual focus because there's so much glass that needs moving inside it.

oh c'mon it's not that slow. Actually this depends from your body.
For example on old 5d his lens was very slow, however if you'll use 1d mk3/IV or 5d III it's way faster and even in servo you can shot sport.
I agree that you must be careful at f/1.2 as depth of field is very shallow.
It's my favorite focal length, but I do know people who like 135mm way better, even though these two lenses are not comparable.
You didn't mention that manual focussing is not the same as in other lenses i.e. you can't focus if your camera is powered off and you must press the shutter button half way down to focus manually.

sebphoto

Splinters wrote: »

Ahh nothing at all, especially considering the price difference. I couldnt justify this much on too many lenses, especially when theres such a good alternative for over 1k less. There just seems to be a bit of magic with the 1.2 and I know Id always be wondering what Im missing out on if I went for the 1.8, if that makes any sense.

1.8 version is totally different lens. 85L at 1.8 is way sharper than 85 1.8 at 1.8.
Sure this lens is heavy, but it allow you to shoot in very low light scenarios, also gives you faster shutter speed. That's why quite often people say that they have "fast lens". Rent it first and then decide

Splinters

Cheers, I've probably read enough reviews and user opinions that Id be happy to buy it without renting first. If rental prices in Ireland were a bit more reasonable Id consider it, especially as I have a good few shoots coming up this week and next that Id love to use it for, but I just couldnt justify the rental price. Especially since I need to be saving every cent I have to buy this in a few weeks.

I can well imagine its in a different league at f1.8 then then 1.8 lens. I have seen some stunning shots taken with the 1.8 but I know Id always be wondering just how much better 1.2 would have been every time I used it.

Ive basically spent the morning looking at the flickr group for the 85 1.2. I can't remember ever wanting any piece of equipment this much

tylerdurden94

It can be a sickness when you spend so much time browsing for stuff have to stop myself sometimes looking at electronics sites as I just get an idea in my head and then it's hard to shake.

Nearly bought the 6D before Christmas and then started looking at the 5D Mark III low and behold I'm now a proud owner of one!

Just had a quick flick through your Facebook page some nice shots in it first pic of the chick in the pink wig/guy with the squirrel in the park/New York skyline off the top of my head, if you do end up buying the 85 1.2 (you probably will) throw up a few pics when you get a chance?

sebphoto

@Splinters i was going to send pm to you regarding renting 85L but your mailbox is full.

ImagenEstilo

Hmmm,

I had a little play two weeks ago with a Nikon 85 1.8 AF-S. I own the Nikon 85 1.4 AF-S and I was in the same position when buying it that I was blinkered, I was 1.4 all the way. If I could wind the clock back I would be going the route of the 1.8. Using the 1.4 at 1.4 is too dangerous. I've lost a rake of photos as a result. I now almost always shoot at a minimum 1.8.

I know we are talking different brands but the principals are the same. Is it worth the extra cash for the amount of times you will use the lens wide open. Honestly, is it really worth it.

In terms of Nikon, the bokeh on the 1.8 is almost identical to the 1.4. Quality and sharpness through the frame is also identical more or less. At 1.4 my photos come out somewhat soft and I hate that. I've had a look at some photos on your FB page and you do tend to go for a soft portrait look in some of them so maybe I am talking out my ar$e and the 1.2 is definitely for you.

But sure look, I thought I would be devils advocate and give an alternative viewpoint.
Dave

ImagenEstilo

dirtyghettokid wrote: »

i have always lusted for the f/1.2 but it's just so completely out of my price range. would love to use one some day, but would be completely paranoid having such an expensive piece of glass hanging off me
it's actually quite large as well, and i've heard it's heavy enough!

beauty!

Canon 85mm f/1.2L II by Eric Hines Photography, on Flickr

I see Deadmau5 managed to get into the frame there!!