December 15, 2017, 10:48:18 PM

Author Topic: 85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?  (Read 32319 times)

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6595
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: 85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?
« Reply #30 on: May 28, 2017, 07:01:51 PM »
Any chance the 85 f1.4 IS might accept a teleconverter?  With design advances you can be sure image quality at 119 f2 would be as good or better than the old 135L.  I'd sell the 135 to fund that for sure.  It would be killer for gymnasium sports.

None if past and present designs are anything to go by, and that includes new designs by third parties. Having said that that only applies to Canon TC's, don't see why third party TC's wouldn't work.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?
« Reply #30 on: May 28, 2017, 07:01:51 PM »

CanonFanBoy

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1740
  • Dang!
Re: 85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?
« Reply #31 on: June 01, 2017, 05:39:14 PM »
Any chance the 85 f1.4 IS might accept a teleconverter?  With design advances you can be sure image quality at 119 f2 would be as good or better than the old 135L.  I'd sell the 135 to fund that for sure.  It would be killer for gymnasium sports.

None if past and present designs are anything to go by, and that includes new designs by third parties. Having said that that only applies to Canon TC's, don't see why third party TC's wouldn't work.

Considering the price of the current 135mm f/2L I have no idea why anyone would want to spend the money on an 85mm lens and then put a $429 TC on it for indoor sports. Currently it doesn't work with Canon TCs anyway.

I guess third party teleconverters are less expensive, but still. Then again, it could all boil down to the individual's budget. It just doesn't make sense to me personally.
5D Mark III, Canon A-1, Voigtlander Vito, Tamron SP 15-30 f/2.8 Di VC, 24-70 F/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 35 f/1.4L II, 135 f/2L, Helios 58 f/2 (x3), Canon FD 50 f/1.8, 600EX-RT (x7), Streaklight 360ws. Jumping ship to SoNikon any day now.

bluenoser1993

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 198
Re: 85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?
« Reply #32 on: June 01, 2017, 06:10:28 PM »
Any chance the 85 f1.4 IS might accept a teleconverter?  With design advances you can be sure image quality at 119 f2 would be as good or better than the old 135L.  I'd sell the 135 to fund that for sure.  It would be killer for gymnasium sports.

None if past and present designs are anything to go by, and that includes new designs by third parties. Having said that that only applies to Canon TC's, don't see why third party TC's wouldn't work.

Considering the price of the current 135mm f/2L I have no idea why anyone would want to spend the money on an 85mm lens and then put a $429 TC on it for indoor sports. Currently it doesn't work with Canon TCs anyway.

I guess third party teleconverters are less expensive, but still. Then again, it could all boil down to the individual's budget. It just doesn't make sense to me personally.

I admit, reading my post again I see I didn't articulate my thoughts very well.  Killer for indoor sports at f/1.4 to stop motion in volleyball, and have the ability to put the 1.4x I already own on it for the ocations I'd like to get close to the 135 focal length, still at f/2 and the benifit of IS.
5Ds, EF 24-70 f/2.8 II, EF 35 f/2 IS, EF 135L f/2, EF 100-400L II, 1.4xTC III

CanonFanBoy

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1740
  • Dang!
Re: 85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?
« Reply #33 on: June 01, 2017, 09:13:08 PM »
Any chance the 85 f1.4 IS might accept a teleconverter?  With design advances you can be sure image quality at 119 f2 would be as good or better than the old 135L.  I'd sell the 135 to fund that for sure.  It would be killer for gymnasium sports.

None if past and present designs are anything to go by, and that includes new designs by third parties. Having said that that only applies to Canon TC's, don't see why third party TC's wouldn't work.

Considering the price of the current 135mm f/2L I have no idea why anyone would want to spend the money on an 85mm lens and then put a $429 TC on it for indoor sports. Currently it doesn't work with Canon TCs anyway.

I guess third party teleconverters are less expensive, but still. Then again, it could all boil down to the individual's budget. It just doesn't make sense to me personally.

I admit, reading my post again I see I didn't articulate my thoughts very well.  Killer for indoor sports at f/1.4 to stop motion in volleyball, and have the ability to put the 1.4x I already own on it for the ocations I'd like to get close to the 135 focal length, still at f/2 and the benifit of IS.

I don't know about third party teleconverters, but Canon's won't work anyway. I doubt the new 85mm will accept a teleconverter, but who knows?
« Last Edit: June 02, 2017, 07:41:00 AM by CanonFanBoy »
5D Mark III, Canon A-1, Voigtlander Vito, Tamron SP 15-30 f/2.8 Di VC, 24-70 F/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 35 f/1.4L II, 135 f/2L, Helios 58 f/2 (x3), Canon FD 50 f/1.8, 600EX-RT (x7), Streaklight 360ws. Jumping ship to SoNikon any day now.

Ian_of_glos

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
Re: 85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?
« Reply #34 on: September 05, 2017, 05:57:01 AM »
Is there a case to be argued for owning both the 85mm F1.2L ii and the new 85mm F1.4?
The new F1.4 lens has some clear advantages - it is lighter (slightly), has IS, faster AF and presumably less chromatic aberration. On the other hand - although the F1.2 ii is difficult to handle it produces some remarkable images that are unlike anything I can produce with any of my other lenses.
Do I go for the F1.4 for moving subjects, outdoor use or more general photography and keep the F1.2 just for extra special studio portraits or is this just a symptom my acute GAS flaring up again?

arthurbikemad

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 415
Re: 85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?
« Reply #35 on: September 05, 2017, 06:28:27 AM »
Is there a case to be argued for owning both the 85mm F1.2L ii and the new 85mm F1.4?
The new F1.4 lens has some clear advantages - it is lighter (slightly), has IS, faster AF and presumably less chromatic aberration. On the other hand - although the F1.2 ii is difficult to handle it produces some remarkable images that are unlike anything I can produce with any of my other lenses.
Do I go for the F1.4 for moving subjects, outdoor use or more general photography and keep the F1.2 just for extra special studio portraits or is this just a symptom my acute GAS flaring up again?

This is the question I have been asking myself.

My fear would be the new lens is so good the 1.2ii will never be used again and become worthless, or they will both have there own look and we should own both, or the 1.2ii will still be King and retain its classic look/rendition and I will have no desire for the new lens. Who knows...? Time will tell.

That said, the new 35 is just AWESOME, but then I think the reviews and test data reflect that, not sure this new 85 has hit it off like the new 35??

SecureGSM

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 742
Re: 85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?
« Reply #36 on: September 05, 2017, 07:40:31 AM »
I am genuinly confused about people keep talking about using IS for freezing the moment for indoor sports like valley ball. Do I miss somethjing here? The only way to "stabilise" a fast moving subject is to increase shutter speed and usually well above 1/500s. at this shutter speed therer is no need for IS at 85mm focal length.
even at 1/250s you still do not need and even at 1/125s if you shoot with a medium pixel density body.
IS is very usefull for video.

as to the idea shooting moving subject with 85mm lens at F1.4:

I wouls suggest the DOF may be so thin that very little will be in focus at all. I mean there are some cases when you can if your object is far enough for the DOF to stay acceptably deep.

as to those special studio shots at F1.2:

not many photogs would choose to shoot wide open in studio. you need decent DOF to keep your subject in focus hence you shoot at apertures F8 and even smaller. there is no shortage of good quality light in studio. you do not need IS for that either as stobes will freese the moment for you anyway. in fact you will be better of swtiching the IS in studio off.
and finaly 85 F1.2 AF ability in low light is quite poor and some studios are quite dark.

If you shoot environmental portraiture, then F1.2 comes handy though.



Is there a case to be argued for owning both the 85mm F1.2L ii and the new 85mm F1.4?
The new F1.4 lens has some clear advantages - it is lighter (slightly), has IS, faster AF and presumably less chromatic aberration. On the other hand - although the F1.2 ii is difficult to handle it produces some remarkable images that are unlike anything I can produce with any of my other lenses.
Do I go for the F1.4 for moving subjects, outdoor use or more general photography and keep the F1.2 just for extra special studio portraits or is this just a symptom my acute GAS flaring up again?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2017, 07:47:28 AM by SecureGSM »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?
« Reply #36 on: September 05, 2017, 07:40:31 AM »

wockawocka

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 647
Re: 85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?
« Reply #37 on: September 05, 2017, 08:28:48 AM »
I am genuinly confused about people keep talking about using IS for freezing the moment for indoor sports like valley ball. Do I miss somethjing here? The only way to "stabilise" a fast moving subject is to increase shutter speed and usually well above 1/500s. at this shutter speed therer is no need for IS at 85mm focal length.
even at 1/250s you still do not need and even at 1/125s if you shoot with a medium pixel density body.
IS is very usefull for video.

as to the idea shooting moving subject with 85mm lens at F1.4:

I wouls suggest the DOF may be so thin that very little will be in focus at all. I mean there are some cases when you can if your object is far enough for the DOF to stay acceptably deep.

as to those special studio shots at F1.2:

not many photogs would choose to shoot wide open in studio. you need decent DOF to keep your subject in focus hence you shoot at apertures F8 and even smaller. there is no shortage of good quality light in studio. you do not need IS for that either as stobes will freese the moment for you anyway. in fact you will be better of swtiching the IS in studio off.
and finaly 85 F1.2 AF ability in low light is quite poor and some studios are quite dark.

If you shoot environmental portraiture, then F1.2 comes handy though.



Is there a case to be argued for owning both the 85mm F1.2L ii and the new 85mm F1.4?
The new F1.4 lens has some clear advantages - it is lighter (slightly), has IS, faster AF and presumably less chromatic aberration. On the other hand - although the F1.2 ii is difficult to handle it produces some remarkable images that are unlike anything I can produce with any of my other lenses.
Do I go for the F1.4 for moving subjects, outdoor use or more general photography and keep the F1.2 just for extra special studio portraits or is this just a symptom my acute GAS flaring up again?

Well kinda. But you need to also factor in that the further away something is the more pronounced hand shake will be. If you've ever tried to shot a photo of the moon at 400mm without IS or a tripod you'll get me.

Then also at 1.4  the further away something is the area of focus is greater. Which is why close up portraits will blow the background but in the seats of a volleyball match the distance is beneficial.

So there's some truth in what you're hearing.

Ian_of_glos

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
Re: 85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?
« Reply #38 on: September 05, 2017, 08:39:10 AM »
I am genuinly confused about people keep talking about using IS for freezing the moment for indoor sports like valley ball. Do I miss somethjing here? The only way to "stabilise" a fast moving subject is to increase shutter speed and usually well above 1/500s. at this shutter speed therer is no need for IS at 85mm focal length.
even at 1/250s you still do not need and even at 1/125s if you shoot with a medium pixel density body.
IS is very usefull for video.

as to the idea shooting moving subject with 85mm lens at F1.4:

I wouls suggest the DOF may be so thin that very little will be in focus at all. I mean there are some cases when you can if your object is far enough for the DOF to stay acceptably deep.

as to those special studio shots at F1.2:

not many photogs would choose to shoot wide open in studio. you need decent DOF to keep your subject in focus hence you shoot at apertures F8 and even smaller. there is no shortage of good quality light in studio. you do not need IS for that either as stobes will freese the moment for you anyway. in fact you will be better of swtiching the IS in studio off.
and finaly 85 F1.2 AF ability in low light is quite poor and some studios are quite dark.

If you shoot environmental portraiture, then F1.2 comes handy though.



Is there a case to be argued for owning both the 85mm F1.2L ii and the new 85mm F1.4?
The new F1.4 lens has some clear advantages - it is lighter (slightly), has IS, faster AF and presumably less chromatic aberration. On the other hand - although the F1.2 ii is difficult to handle it produces some remarkable images that are unlike anything I can produce with any of my other lenses.
Do I go for the F1.4 for moving subjects, outdoor use or more general photography and keep the F1.2 just for extra special studio portraits or is this just a symptom my acute GAS flaring up again?
No - Image Stabilisation will not help with moving subjects. It simply allows you to use slower shutter speeds for hand held stills and, as you correctly point out, it is very useful for video work.
The point I was trying to make here was that the autofocus on the 85mm F1.2L is so slow that it is not possible to use it for moving subjects. The AF just cannot keep up so I never try to use my 85m F1.2L if the subject is  moving. It is therefore a lens that I use mainly in the studio, for still life shots and for models that sit or stand in one place.
Again, I rarely shoot at F1.2 because my focusing skills are just not that good and anyway, if I am shooting a portrait I usually want most of the facial features to be in focus. Occasionally I will use F1.2 to highlight a particular feature - one number on the face of a clock or an item of jewellery that the model is wearing but for general portrait work I tend to stop down to F5.6 or even F8.
So what is the point of having an F1.2 lens? Well as I said, occasionally I want to produce an arty shot where one item is in focus and everything else is blurred. However there is another, intangible quality to this lens that I simply cannot explain. It is not a lens that is technically perfect but it has produced some really lovely pictures that I could not have produced with any other lens

Ian_of_glos

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
Re: 85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?
« Reply #39 on: September 05, 2017, 08:44:37 AM »
Is there a case to be argued for owning both the 85mm F1.2L ii and the new 85mm F1.4?
The new F1.4 lens has some clear advantages - it is lighter (slightly), has IS, faster AF and presumably less chromatic aberration. On the other hand - although the F1.2 ii is difficult to handle it produces some remarkable images that are unlike anything I can produce with any of my other lenses.
Do I go for the F1.4 for moving subjects, outdoor use or more general photography and keep the F1.2 just for extra special studio portraits or is this just a symptom my acute GAS flaring up again?

This is the question I have been asking myself.

My fear would be the new lens is so good the 1.2ii will never be used again and become worthless, or they will both have there own look and we should own both, or the 1.2ii will still be King and retain its classic look/rendition and I will have no desire for the new lens. Who knows...? Time will tell.

That said, the new 35 is just AWESOME, but then I think the reviews and test data reflect that, not sure this new 85 has hit it off like the new 35??

Let me know if you decide to buy a copy of the 85mm F1.4. I would be very interested to hear what you think of it.

Are you referring to the 35mm F1.4L ii? if so then I could not agree more.
This lens has a remarkable quality that most of my other lenses lack and I find I am using it more and more as a general walkabout lens in preference to a zoom.

SecureGSM

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 742
Re: 85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?
« Reply #40 on: September 05, 2017, 10:09:32 AM »

Well kinda. But you need to also factor in that the further away something is the more pronounced hand shake will be. If you've ever tried to shot a photo of the moon at 400mm without IS or a tripod you'll get me.


yep, thats super telephoto focal length though. 85mm is not quite 400 :) I can handhold and get sharp images with my Sigma 120 320 Sports at the telephoto end with IS switched off on FF body at 1/500. not a hair slower. else I get shakes. the lens is kinda heavy at 3.5kg.

Quote
Then also at 1.4  the further away something is the area of focus is greater. Which is why close up portraits will blow the background but in the seats of a volleyball match the distance is beneficial.

yep, that I do understand perfectly hence the following statement:

Quote
I mean there are some cases when you can if your object is far enough for the DOF to stay acceptably deep.

still, I would imaging 70-20 F2.8 or 120-300 F2.8 zoom would be a more versatile option for an indoor sports assignments. If you ask me what  2 of my lenses I would use on my cameras at indoor sport event:

Cam #1 : Canon 5D IV + Sigma 120-300 F2.8 Sports
Cam #2: Canon 6D + Canon 70-200 F2.8 II L



nc0b

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • 5DsR
Re: 85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?
« Reply #41 on: September 07, 2017, 11:43:46 PM »
If I were shooting indoor sports, I would certainly use my 6D and 70-200mm f/2.8 II. I have no concern shooting at ISO 6400 or 12800.  I do shoot indoor ballroom dancing, and it is in effect an indoor sporting event. Lots of couples on the floor, lighting usually not great, and with spin turns there is rapid motion to freeze.  If I had an f/2 lens, let alone an f/1.4, I doubt I would have enough depth of field unless the couple was on the other side of the dance floor. I usually shoot at f/4 unless the lighting is just plain awful.
5DsR, 6D, 60D & 40D. 400 f/5.6, 100-400 IS II, 70-200 f/2.8 IS II & f/4 IS, 85 f/1.8, 50 f/2.5, 24-105 f/4, 15-85 f/4-5.6 & 16-35 f/4.

lucileburt

  • Canonflex
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: 85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?
« Reply #42 on: September 09, 2017, 12:20:50 PM »
 Best Canon Camera Lens for Professional Photos?
Hi there, today I had a conversation with a photographer who I briefly met on a photoshoot and she suggested to buy a Sigma 50MM Lens for $120 ...She very briefly told me the details and I've tried looking them up, but have had no luck.

Instead I came across these lenses for my Canon EOS kiss x5 (T3i 600D) :
50mm ef F/1.4 USM Canon Lens
or
SIGMA 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM
Which one is better mostly? It's hard to tell, so hopefully someone who knows what they're talking about is reading this! :)

I'm open to other suggestions for lenses, my aim is to get a lens that can do fantastic photography such as, portraits, modeling/whole body shots/scenic etc...., almost like studio quality. I know you get what you pay for, but I'm looking for the best in the price range for about $200 - $300 maximum. That will do professional shots for what it's worth.
Update: I just wanted to say thanks to people who have responded. I KNOW for a fact that it's the photographer and not the lens, but the lens is a tool USED to make pictures, it depends on how you use it. I know. But of course there are different lenses for different purposes. And that, is what I'm interested in knowing.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?
« Reply #42 on: September 09, 2017, 12:20:50 PM »

Talys

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 593
  • Canon 6DII
Re: 85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?
« Reply #43 on: September 09, 2017, 12:34:29 PM »
Best Canon Camera Lens for Professional Photos?
Hi there, today I had a conversation with a photographer who I briefly met on a photoshoot and she suggested to buy a Sigma 50MM Lens for $120 ...She very briefly told me the details and I've tried looking them up, but have had no luck.

Instead I came across these lenses for my Canon EOS kiss x5 (T3i 600D) :
50mm ef F/1.4 USM Canon Lens
or
SIGMA 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM
Which one is better mostly? It's hard to tell, so hopefully someone who knows what they're talking about is reading this! :)

I'm open to other suggestions for lenses, my aim is to get a lens that can do fantastic photography such as, portraits, modeling/whole body shots/scenic etc...., almost like studio quality. I know you get what you pay for, but I'm looking for the best in the price range for about $200 - $300 maximum. That will do professional shots for what it's worth.
Update: I just wanted to say thanks to people who have responded. I KNOW for a fact that it's the photographer and not the lens, but the lens is a tool USED to make pictures, it depends on how you use it. I know. But of course there are different lenses for different purposes. And that, is what I'm interested in knowing.

For 50mm value, it's pretty hard to beat the Canon 50mm 1.8.  The sharpness is amazing; CA is very well controlled (much better than 50/1.4).  Bokeh is very pleasing, too.  And it's only a hundred bucks!

Personally, I would skip the Canon EF50/1.4.  It takes lovely pictures, but the 1.8 photos are just as good in most cases, weighs a lot less, and is so cheap that it hardly matters if you somehow damage it.  The only downside is no USM ring.

Also: since you're using a T3i, you probably don't want an 85mm for a whole body shot.  You'd have to stand too far away from your subject.  Even 50mm may be too tight; but if you want wide apertures, every other prime will cost you too much.

A zoom you might consider that is in your price range is a 18-135 Nano.  It's lousy at 18 and it's lousy at 135, but it's really nice at, and around, 50mm.  It might give you a lot more flexibility if you want to take upper torso, whole body, and landscapes, all within $300 than a single prime.  The build quality is very good for the price, and the autofocus is extremely fast.

You can also get good isolation by getting close to your subject... just be aware that the corners are not comparable to something like a 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 -- but that might not matter if your subject is centered anyhow.

By the way, "almost like studio quality" is going to require more than a body and a lens.  Lighting and environment (backdrop, the space, etc) are key, and a lot of the success will be in directing your model and using lighting to create interesting contrast.   There are an endless number of light modifiers that will not only empty your wallet, but fill up your photography space :D
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 12:39:33 PM by Talys »

Larsskv

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 488
  • Enthusiast with Canon related GAS
Re: 85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?
« Reply #44 on: September 09, 2017, 02:48:48 PM »
Best Canon Camera Lens for Professional Photos?
Hi there, today I had a conversation with a photographer who I briefly met on a photoshoot and she suggested to buy a Sigma 50MM Lens for $120 ...She very briefly told me the details and I've tried looking them up, but have had no luck.

Instead I came across these lenses for my Canon EOS kiss x5 (T3i 600D) :
50mm ef F/1.4 USM Canon Lens
or
SIGMA 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM
Which one is better mostly? It's hard to tell, so hopefully someone who knows what they're talking about is reading this! :)

I'm open to other suggestions for lenses, my aim is to get a lens that can do fantastic photography such as, portraits, modeling/whole body shots/scenic etc...., almost like studio quality. I know you get what you pay for, but I'm looking for the best in the price range for about $200 - $300 maximum. That will do professional shots for what it's worth.
Update: I just wanted to say thanks to people who have responded. I KNOW for a fact that it's the photographer and not the lens, but the lens is a tool USED to make pictures, it depends on how you use it. I know. But of course there are different lenses for different purposes. And that, is what I'm interested in knowing.

The Sigma 50 f1.4 EX is better optically than Canon 50 f1.4, but I had big problems with it's AF. The in focus pictures look very good, though. The Canon 50 f1.8 STM isn't as good optically, but is cheaper, focuses better and is lighter and smaller. All in all I believe most people will be better off with the Canon 50 f1.8 STM, but it's not a clear choice. You won't go wrong with either.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?
« Reply #44 on: September 09, 2017, 02:48:48 PM »