Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
- Status
Went from crop to FF. Night and day with the 85L. Only with FF one can appreciate the 85L, believe. Colors. I used to think "I must think I like the colors and look of the pictures taken with the 85L because it costs a lot" but then my mom comes along and says "wow, beautiful colors on that and that photo". Picked one by one the ones shot with the 85L, and she knows nothing about lenses. Then I knew the 85L is indeed a special lens. Not my first choice on a set of lenses (that would be my 70-200 2.8L IS mkII), but if one can afford one and its time to buy a 85, go with the L, you can´t go wrong.
Just know the AF IS slow. But that´s part of the lens, just like one can not say "MP-E 65? hard to focus, choose another" while it´s true, there is no other like it. Know the lens, master it (I´m far from that). Part of the fun is the challenge.
Just know the AF IS slow. But that´s part of the lens, just like one can not say "MP-E 65? hard to focus, choose another" while it´s true, there is no other like it. Know the lens, master it (I´m far from that). Part of the fun is the challenge.
Upvote
0
Rui Brito said:
True, but with this lens using it on a 1-series body makes a noticeable difference in AF speed. When I went from the 7D/5DII to the 1D X, I found that my 85L II focuses much faster.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
So we're at about $10 grand eh? 5DII should be left out of that equation. WORST. AUTOFOCUS. EVER.
Upvote
0
JVLphoto said:
Hey, the center AF point of the 5DII was pretty good for still subjects.
In the case of the 1-series, it's not the AF system per se - the 1-series bodies use a higher voltage battery that actually drives the lens' AF motor faster than non-1-series bodies.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:JVLphoto said:
Hey, the center AF point of the 5DII was pretty good for still subjects.
In the case of the 1-series, it's not the AF system per se - the 1-series bodies use a higher voltage battery that actually drives the lens' AF motor faster than non-1-series bodies.
Touché. I had a pretty good experience with it on the 5DMKIII too actually, since I worked with the lens over a few different periods, including my time with a 1DX. I'm still very impressed with MF ninja's who seem to consistently nail their shots with this lens... hats off to you magical ninja's!
Upvote
0
JVLphoto said:
Yes, 5D3 focuses a lot faster witht this lens than the 1Ds3... at least to me the 1DX seems to focus even marginally faster than the 5D3 with this lens... but it is still pretty slow. But you don't buy this lens to do action photography and car racing....Canon makes excellent lenses geared toward fast action ...this is really designed for sedate portraiture and still life primarily. Different tools for different tasks.
Upvote
0
The problem with this kind of product is always... is it worth the ~2K Canon wants? truthfully, I am really on the fence with that.
Here are a couple of shots from today...that's what reading reviews like this makes one do... play with stuff you rarely use. Sorry, I use low dpi and low 800 pixel for export...not sure what it looks like on good size monitors.
Here are a couple of shots from today...that's what reading reviews like this makes one do... play with stuff you rarely use.
Sorry, I use low dpi and low 800 pixel for export...not sure what it looks like on good size monitors.Attachments
Upvote
0
Ray2021 said:The problem with this kind of product is always... is it worth the ~2K Canon wants? truthfully, I am really on the fence with that.
Here are a couple of shots from today...that's what reading reviews like this makes one do... play with stuff you rarely use.
Isn't that how most people view photos anyway? Best part is: even if it's out of focus it look fine compressed
The photos look great - the bottom one shows a lot off.
Upvote
0
JVLphoto said:Isn't that how most people view photos anyway? Best part is: even if it's out of focus it look fine compressed
The photos look great - the bottom one shows a lot off.
Tnx. Yes, nailing focus with this lens is tough even if the subject is inanimate... the center of that flower in the top is in focus...sort of...if you close one eye and look at the leaves during a full moon
Upvote
0
bchernicoff said:
I have but not at the same time. The Sigma AF was very erratic and distance dependent. It is highly subjective but I liked the bokeh of the Canon better. BTW, I did not buy either one.
Upvote
0
Plamen said:
Ditto. Also used the Canon 85 1.8 (though not on full frame) and didn't *love it* but got some good shots. Something tells me 85mm as a focal length is hit or miss almost as much as the focus on the Sigma lens *badump-ching!*
Upvote
0
Two shots with the worst AF ever body and the 85LII:neuroanatomist said:JVLphoto said:
Hey, the center AF point of the 5DII was pretty good for still subjects.
Upvote
0
JVLphoto said:
You are gonna get beat up by the sigma crowd with comments like that...I got into boat load of trouble when I was er..lackadaisical about the new Sigma 35mm.
But yes, the 85mm is an odd focal length. I personally find there is nothing that the 85 does that the 135L cannot do, say with portraits...just step back a few with the 135L and you still get magical shots, and the AF is fast to boot. The increased focal length of 135L generates comparable OOF blur. Plus, most people have a 50mm of some kind and that focal length is quite capable of wonderful portraits and detailed still life. So, 85mm sorta "falls" in between.
Upvote
0
Having rented the 85 f/1.2L ii for a brief time in 2010, I will echo the above sentiments that state it is too specialized (the AF is too slow due to the full-time focus motor) and priced too highly, to be of much practical use.
However, if you have the need for slow paced photography at this focal length, and need a lot of bokeh and rich lovely color, by all means this is the one for you. I mainly used it on a crop camera, but also briefly on a 5D2. It vignetted more severely than every other lens I've tried, at f/1.2 or even f/1.4 (or any other f/stop), on my crop camera. So the vignetting on a full frame is even more severe. It wasn't as sharp at f/2 or wider aperture, as my 135 f/2L, at its widest of f/2. However by f/5.6, the 85 f/1.2, was as sharp as the sharpest supertelephoto I have tried...if not beyond it (and a bit sharper than the sharpest my 135 can go).
If my work needed the 85mm focal length often, I would probably first try the Sigma, (and would definitely buy the Canon f/1.8 regardless)...before purchasing the Canon f/1.2. As for now, I bought a manual-only Rokinon 85 f/1.4, and don't feel the need to buy anything else near this focal length. It's very sharp wide open, very little vignetting...color and "global contrast" a bit muted by "L" standards, but easily recovered in post. Also the "bokeh fringing" (mostly purple) is less pronounced than the Canon f/1.2 at its wider apertures.
If I ever have the need to use the forthcoming high megapixel full frame camera, then the 85 f/1.2L, when closed down quite a bit (perhaps at least to f/4.5), would be one of the few lenses that could make use of such a camera's resolution, even if it's 60 megapixels. Wide open though, you're fine with 20 or 22 MP. The color balance via my crop camera, was very vivid toward the violet and blue end...which yielded a very interesting palette. The only overall color palette from a lens I have liked better, was the 200 f/2L.
The 85 f/1.2L ii is referred to as "the magic canonball"...because it is almost round like a ball, and about as heavy. The balance felt very front heavy, and might even feel a bit too front heavy on a 1 series body. Certainly it would be the most balanced on a 1 series, compared to smaller bodies.
It was definitely a joy to use for doing landscape, and some shots of my family, and cat.
However, if you have the need for slow paced photography at this focal length, and need a lot of bokeh and rich lovely color, by all means this is the one for you. I mainly used it on a crop camera, but also briefly on a 5D2. It vignetted more severely than every other lens I've tried, at f/1.2 or even f/1.4 (or any other f/stop), on my crop camera. So the vignetting on a full frame is even more severe. It wasn't as sharp at f/2 or wider aperture, as my 135 f/2L, at its widest of f/2. However by f/5.6, the 85 f/1.2, was as sharp as the sharpest supertelephoto I have tried...if not beyond it (and a bit sharper than the sharpest my 135 can go).
If my work needed the 85mm focal length often, I would probably first try the Sigma, (and would definitely buy the Canon f/1.8 regardless)...before purchasing the Canon f/1.2. As for now, I bought a manual-only Rokinon 85 f/1.4, and don't feel the need to buy anything else near this focal length. It's very sharp wide open, very little vignetting...color and "global contrast" a bit muted by "L" standards, but easily recovered in post. Also the "bokeh fringing" (mostly purple) is less pronounced than the Canon f/1.2 at its wider apertures.
If I ever have the need to use the forthcoming high megapixel full frame camera, then the 85 f/1.2L, when closed down quite a bit (perhaps at least to f/4.5), would be one of the few lenses that could make use of such a camera's resolution, even if it's 60 megapixels. Wide open though, you're fine with 20 or 22 MP. The color balance via my crop camera, was very vivid toward the violet and blue end...which yielded a very interesting palette. The only overall color palette from a lens I have liked better, was the 200 f/2L.
The 85 f/1.2L ii is referred to as "the magic canonball"...because it is almost round like a ball, and about as heavy. The balance felt very front heavy, and might even feel a bit too front heavy on a 1 series body. Certainly it would be the most balanced on a 1 series, compared to smaller bodies.
It was definitely a joy to use for doing landscape, and some shots of my family, and cat.
Upvote
0
On the 85 f/1.2L II review, Justin said the following,
"I compare the 85 1.2 to the 200 f/2 at times, that’s because similar framing can be achieved with both lenses, and with both lenses you can dramatically throw your foreground and background out of focus. Obvious advantages of the 85 are, of course, size, weight, and cost – all far less. For portraits, I do like working a bit closer to my subjects, it builds a better level of trust than 200mm sniping from afar can." ...
On the 200mm f/2L review, CR's take is,
"Without a doubt, one of my top 3 favourite lenses in the Canon lineup. It can be a bit cumbersome to use, but the results make it worth it at the end of the day." ...
So, that implies the 85 1.2 shall be another one of the top 3. Then which lens will take the remaining top spot? It's no doubt those are all great lenses. However, what's the relative comparison between the 2 lenses from experts' point of view? And I'm really curious what's the experts' top 3 lenses, or top 5, top 10?
"I compare the 85 1.2 to the 200 f/2 at times, that’s because similar framing can be achieved with both lenses, and with both lenses you can dramatically throw your foreground and background out of focus. Obvious advantages of the 85 are, of course, size, weight, and cost – all far less. For portraits, I do like working a bit closer to my subjects, it builds a better level of trust than 200mm sniping from afar can." ...
On the 200mm f/2L review, CR's take is,
"Without a doubt, one of my top 3 favourite lenses in the Canon lineup. It can be a bit cumbersome to use, but the results make it worth it at the end of the day." ...
So, that implies the 85 1.2 shall be another one of the top 3. Then which lens will take the remaining top spot? It's no doubt those are all great lenses. However, what's the relative comparison between the 2 lenses from experts' point of view? And I'm really curious what's the experts' top 3 lenses, or top 5, top 10?
Upvote
0
junior said:
I thought everybody's favorite Canon lens (including all the experts) is the 70-200 f/2.8 ii.
I didn't find the 200 f/2 to be cumbersome at all to use. Of course I used it on a monopod. I guess if you are going to hand-hold one all day, and do studio portraits or something, then yes...it would be a bear. But frankly, studio portraiture isn't what the 200 is designed for. It's designed for indoor and low light sports, and low light wildlife shots at close range. Wedding shots in available light, would also work. But if creating strong bokeh is all you want to do, you can do that just as well with any other shorter, fast lens.
Upvote
0
junior said:
I am not entirely sure if the 85L as one of the 3 is implied necessarily... could very well be, but doesn't have to be. However, it would be fair to guess that the 135L is one of the three, considering it is frequently ranked among the top three lenses list of many users, including yours truly.
On that note...135L review would be forthcoming soon CR? If only so everyone can fawn over the lens and praise it to heaven?
Upvote
0
Ray2021 said:On that note...135L review would be forthcoming soon CR? If only so everyone can fawn over the lens and praise it to heaven?
Agreed, but the 135L almost needs no justification or review. Its price is more than a bargain, and just look at the pictures taken with it. Talk about a lens that would be tough to replace...especially given the price.
http://www.pbase.com/search?q=canon+135+f%2F2&b=Search+Photos&c=sp
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
