85mm 1.2

[Cheekysascha]

I've been doing outdoor adventure/landscape photography for the past 3 years but as it's getting harder and harder to keep it profitable I'm leaning towards doing portraits/shooting for my friend's bands etc.... with that in mind I've got a already good kit with my camera's being two 1dx's and a 5ds with a 24-70 2.8 ii, 14mm 2.8 ii, 24mm 1.4 ii, 35mm 1.4ii, 50mm 1.2, 70-200 2.8ii is

But I've been thinking about adding in a 85mm 1.2 to help with portraits and maybe pair it with my 35mm 1.4 ii or the 50m 1.2 so I was wondering to those of you who have it, how do you like it? is focusing still slow even with a 1dx? and do you guys think there might be a updated version coming out soon? and how's the sharpness compared to the 50mm or even the 70-200 2.8 is ii

 

[privatebydesign]

For low light band shooting I'd take the 85 f1.8 over the 1.2 any day.

 

[Larsskv]

The 85 L has at least the of the same magic to it as the 35 L II, but not as sharp wide open. Bokeh is peerless.

It focuses noticeably faster with the 1DX, than a 5Ds. On the 1DX it is very acceptable to my standards.

I had the 85 f1.8, and it is a good lens. But it can't touch the L in regards to sharpness at wide apertures, colors, contrast, clarity and bokeh. I gave the 85 f1.8 to my brother. The 85L? I will keep it till I die.

You won't regret adding the 85L to your kit.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Take the 35mm f1.4 II and the 85mm f1.2 II. Don't bother considering the 50L

 

[Pookie]

I'll take the 85 1.2 any day of the week... consistent money maker in my portrait/wedding business. I use it with strobes, low light in churches & stage and well, everything.

Here is another thread where the b5L made me a ton of dough and showed up on billboards here in the bay area fro months... http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26177.msg583020#msg583020

 

[Pookie]

Take the 35mm f1.4 II and the 85mm f1.2 II. Don't bother considering the 50L

and that is just nonsense...

 

[TommyLee]

I also have the 14L ii and 35L ii (I consider the bokeh of the 35 ii nearly as good as the 135 f2 and 85L ii)
and have the 85L ii....I sold my 135 f2 ...someone talked me into that...
the 35L ii is so beautiful... I would mark that as my ONE KEEPER... if forced to choose

I think the 135 f2 was more useful than the 85L ii
but had a little chromatics..
and not critical sharp wide open ... LIKE THE 35L is .....

I do like the 85L ii for shooting in a dark club..
but this lens is too specialized IMO
the old 135 f2 is a better match to the 14L 35L ... maybe the 100L macro is a good match to the 14, 35

I use the 85...but for special situations...


my two fav lenses are 35L ii and 100-400L ii
they arfe extrordinary..
the 35 is the best of all 35s made IMO

I also enjoy my 5D3 and 1dx2... on any of my lenses
//////////
...
my advice is to skip 85L... not that it is bad...but too specialized for the $$

I rented the 135L a few days ago.. and I can see the focus speed and accuracy difference...
it suffers a very little bit compared to the modern 100-400L ii... and 35L ii
if Canon makes a 135 f2 with I.S. I will jump on that..

I consider my 100L macro the third lens with 14L ii and 35L ii as a prime trinity.
all three of these can focus closer than a foot... very useful for creativity...

when the 24-105 arrives ...if it is good ...I will pair it with the 100-400 ii
I am hoping for some improvements that push this 24-105 lens
into the pretty good category.. with the excellent 100-400 ii

as an aside...
i also use the 15-30 tamron f2.8 I.S. with the 100L macro as a 'small' walk-around pair..
yes... the 15-30 is big and heavy and the cap is a pain...so big...
but it is sharp and useful


so that is my take...just an opinion
based on my use ...on 5d2(a while ago) 5d3 and 1dx2 ....

TOM

 

[Pookie]

I also have the 14L ii and 35L ii (I consider the bokeh of the 35 ii nearly as good as the 135 f2 and 85L ii)
and have the 85L ii....I sold my 135 f2 ...someone talked me into that...
the 35L ii is so beautiful... I would mark that as my ONE KEEPER... if forced to choose

I think the 135 f2 was more useful than the 85L ii
but had a little chromatics..
and not critical sharp wide open ... LIKE THE 35L is .....

I do like the 85L ii for shooting in a dark club..
but this lens is too specialized IMO
the old 135 f2 is a better match to the 14L 35L ... maybe the 100L macro is a good match to the 14, 35

I use the 85...but for special situations...


my two fav lenses are 35L ii and 100-400L ii
they arfe extrordinary..
the 35 is the best of all 35s made IMO

I also enjoy my 5D3 and 1dx2... on any of my lenses
//////////
...
my advice is to skip 85L... not that it is bad...but too specialized for the $$

I rented the 135L a few days ago.. and I can see the focus speed and accuracy difference...
it suffers a very little bit compared to the modern 100-400L ii... and 35L ii
if Canon makes a 135 f2 with I.S. I will jump on that..

I consider my 100L macro the third lens with 14L ii and 35L ii as a prime trinity.
all three of these can focus closer than a foot... very useful for creativity...

when the 24-105 arrives ...if it is good ...I will pair it with the 100-400 ii
I am hoping for some improvements that push this 24-105 lens
into the pretty good category.. with the excellent 100-400 ii

as an aside...
i also use the 15-30 tamron f2.8 I.S. with the 100L macro as a 'small' walk-around pair..
yes... the 15-30 is big and heavy and the cap is a pain...so big...
but it is sharp and useful


so that is my take...just an opinion
based on my use ...on 5d2(a while ago) 5d3 and 1dx2 ....

TOM

Not sure I would agree with skipping the 85L as I consider it filling a good gap in the focal lengths and it's definitely not a specialty lens as you can use it for anything like any other lens. I will say the 135L is a superb lens in itself and I love it also but for low light f/2 isn't really going to cut it. The problem with skipping a focal length with a killer lens in the portrait business is that often you are space limited and on the fly. They are tools, at least in my mind, if I need the DOF and I'm in a garage like the image above, I may need a 50L and an 85 will be too tight. Same goes for a church where light is limited, space is limited... flashes are verboten. You'll be SOL if you can't pull a good lens and focal length out of the bag. That's where the money is made and why you get people who trust you as a professional to get the job done. So yes, I have a 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 100L, 135L and a 200L. Just tools.

The biggest "specialty" lens I own and struggle to keep in the bag is the 200L. I'll never sell it as it was a gift but it rarely comes out to play that often. Great lens, razor sharp, get's lots of oh's and ahh's but really does very little different in comparison to the 70-200 II. That's the real zoom workhorse in my portrait business, that paired with a 24-70 and you are good to go for zooms.

If your going to buy just one lens for starting a portrait business then go for a 70-200II. If you have that and are starting to fill low light/DOF niches... the 85L is a great start and I highly recommend it.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I also have the 14L ii and 35L ii (I consider the bokeh of the 35 ii nearly as good as the 135 f2 and 85L ii)
and have the 85L ii....I sold my 135 f2 ...someone talked me into that...
the 35L ii is so beautiful... I would mark that as my ONE KEEPER... if forced to choose

I think the 135 f2 was more useful than the 85L ii
but had a little chromatics..
and not critical sharp wide open ... LIKE THE 35L is .....

I do like the 85L ii for shooting in a dark club..
but this lens is too specialized IMO
the old 135 f2 is a better match to the 14L 35L ... maybe the 100L macro is a good match to the 14, 35

I use the 85...but for special situations...


my two fav lenses are 35L ii and 100-400L ii
they arfe extrordinary..
the 35 is the best of all 35s made IMO

I also enjoy my 5D3 and 1dx2... on any of my lenses
//////////
...
my advice is to skip 85L... not that it is bad...but too specialized for the $$

I rented the 135L a few days ago.. and I can see the focus speed and accuracy difference...
it suffers a very little bit compared to the modern 100-400L ii... and 35L ii
if Canon makes a 135 f2 with I.S. I will jump on that..

I consider my 100L macro the third lens with 14L ii and 35L ii as a prime trinity.
all three of these can focus closer than a foot... very useful for creativity...

when the 24-105 arrives ...if it is good ...I will pair it with the 100-400 ii
I am hoping for some improvements that push this 24-105 lens
into the pretty good category.. with the excellent 100-400 ii

as an aside...
i also use the 15-30 tamron f2.8 I.S. with the 100L macro as a 'small' walk-around pair..
yes... the 15-30 is big and heavy and the cap is a pain...so big...
but it is sharp and useful


so that is my take...just an opinion
based on my use ...on 5d2(a while ago) 5d3 and 1dx2 ....

TOM

Not sure I would agree with skipping the 85L as I consider it filling a good gap in the focal lengths and it's definitely not a specialty lens as you can use it for anything like any other lens. I will say the 135L is a superb lens in itself and I love it also but for low light f/2 isn't really going to cut it. The problem with skipping a focal length with a killer lens in the portrait business is that often you are space limited and on the fly. They are tools, at least in my mind, if I need the DOF and I'm in a garage like the image above, I may need a 50L and an 85 will be too tight. Same goes for a church where light is limited, space is limited... flashes are verboten. You'll be SOL if you can't pull a good lens and focal length out of the bag. That's where the money is made and why you get people who trust you as a professional to get the job done. So yes, I have a 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 100L, 135L and a 200L. Just tools.

The biggest "specialty" lens I own and struggle to keep in the bag is the 200L. I'll never sell it as it was a gift but it rarely comes out to play that often. Great lens, razor sharp, get's lots of oh's and ahh's but really does very little different in comparison to the 70-200 II. That's the real zoom workhorse in my portrait business, that paired with a 24-70 and you are good to go for zooms.

If your going to buy just one lens for starting a portrait business then go for a 70-200II. If you have that and are starting to fill low light/DOF niches... the 85L is a great start and I highly recommend it.

I wouldn't ever recommend a 85L over a 135L. The results I get from both are really top drawer, but the 135L is an easier lens to get great results with. I can assure you that a novice 85L user will get lots and lots of slightly off focus images until it's truly mastered. The 135L is very very easy to master and has nearly no learning curve.
I've had two copies of the 50mm f1.2 L and sold them both. I've used my 2nd photographer's copy and handled a lot of her images in my post processing workflow. I've rented a copy I needed for a specitic job...they all behave the same. They are all a little soft wide open, they all have slow and slightly inaccurate AF. In low light they are almost hopeless. They have amazing contrast, bokeh, flare control and out of focus rendering...and the lens is built like a tank. BUT they are no where near as sharp wide open as the 35IIL, the 85IIL or the 135L. I used to have a complete set of low light primes. I sold the 50L...I just didn't like it and found it frustrating to use. These days, I use my 35L and 85IIL more than any other low light prime.

 

[canikon]

I've been doing outdoor adventure/landscape photography for the past 3 years but as it's getting harder and harder to keep it profitable I'm leaning towards doing portraits/shooting for my friend's bands etc.... with that in mind I've got a already good kit with my camera's being two 1dx's and a 5ds with a 24-70 2.8 ii, 14mm 2.8 ii, 24mm 1.4 ii, 35mm 1.4ii, 50mm 1.2, 70-200 2.8ii is

But I've been thinking about adding in a 85mm 1.2 to help with portraits and maybe pair it with my 35mm 1.4 ii or the 50m 1.2 so I was wondering to those of you who have it, how do you like it? is focusing still slow even with a 1dx? and do you guys think there might be a updated version coming out soon? and how's the sharpness compared to the 50mm or even the 70-200 2.8 is ii

I have 85 1.8 and 85 1.2L, along with 50 1.2L and 135 2.0L.
Since you have the 50 1.2L, I can use that lens to make some comparison that could be useful to you.
The 85 1.2L wide open is (in the very point of focus) as sharp as the 50 1.2L is at 1.8.
So the answer is yes, it is a great lens and a great piece of engineering.
I bought it earlier this year along with the 50 1.2L and I had the same reclutancy about picking it up as a new version is probably in the making.
But I tell you that I have zero regrets picking the 85 1.2L , due to the superb results it gives to me in portriature, while I have some regrets about the 50 1.2L since it is not as sharp as one would expect from such a pricey lens.
The 85 1.2 is not perfect, it has annoying spherocromatism in the out of focus areas of reflective edges in direct sunlight, but it is miles ahead of the smaller 85 1.8 in terms of contrast, color rendition, bokeh. The images taken with 85 1.8 are somewhat dull in comparison. Keep in mind that the bokeh of the 85 1.2 is more creamy and pleasant even at equal apertures with respect to the 85 1.8.
Final thoughts, when using the 85 1.2 wide open it is mandatory to nail focus precisely, as you may imagine, since the dof is paper thin, much more so than the 50 1.2.
For me 85 1.2 II will stay in my kit forever, while the 50 1.2 may eventually go when the new version will possibly come out.

 

[Deleted member 378221]

I've used the 85/1.8 alongside the 135L for a couple of years before this year I got a good deal on a 85L. Short story, the image quality has blown me away and I'm never going to give it back.
Focus speed it acceptable on the 5D3 and 5D4, but I wouldn't use it for fast moving targets. You can use it for slower performances or if you are willing to overshoot to nail focus. But when it hits, it hits!

As a bonus it seems to have a much better transmission. Testing both the 85/1.8 and 85L at f1.8 gave me a much brighter picture with the 85L. The only drawbacks are weight and AF speed (and price). I have since sold my 85/1.8 and I'm using the 85L exclusively. I couldn't imagine going back to the non-L.

 

[Hector1970]

The 85 II can produce lovely pictures.
It's slow to focus so unless it's static it's difficult to use.
It's not a matter of practice either , it's just difficult to use.

I'm not sure why the 85 1.2 would necessarily increase you income but maybe you have a mass market on your doorstep. You have the 70-200 which is good for portraiture.
I'm wondering if you'd be better off doing different styles as opposed to buying gear.
I wonder at times here do people actually own the gear they are talking about.
Technique and ideas are more important than lens gear. The Canon 85mm 1.8 is a much more useable lens and way cheaper. The 1.2 has something special about.
Canon must be due to bring out a new 1.2 85mm with better focusing soon.

 

[Pookie]

The 85 II can produce lovely pictures.
It's slow to focus so unless it's static it's difficult to use.
It's not a matter of practice either , it's just difficult to use.

I'm not sure why the 85 1.2 would necessarily increase you income but maybe you have a mass market on your doorstep. You have the 70-200 which is good for portraiture.
I'm wondering if you'd be better off doing different styles as opposed to buying gear.
I wonder at times here do people actually own the gear they are talking about.
Technique and ideas are more important than lens gear. The Canon 85mm 1.8 is a much more useable lens and way cheaper. The 1.2 has something special about.
Canon must be due to bring out a new 1.2 85mm with better focusing soon.

I wonder that too. As much bad as I hear about the 50 1.2 or any other lenses I truly believe not many actually use the lenses they talk about here on this site. Many balk at the expense and say, "you don't need this or that" but if you are a working photographer they are all just tools. I loathe the statements made in thread like the one above... the 85 1.2 is useless unless static. Well, if you shoot any fast lens wide open it will be soft and harder to focus. Try stopping it down and yes you can use your 85L for moving subject.Portraiture is my business, either weddings or gen portraits I use these lenses daily. It's why I make sure I post an image using said gear... not to show off but to show that yes indeed... I own and use this equipment.

 

[shotkit]

The 85 1.2 produces stunning results which can't be replicated with any other lens (when shot wide open). However, the trade offs are: heavy, slow, expensive. Also at f/1.2, the dof is razor thing, but obviously this isn't specific to this lens, but it is exacerbated since it's a relatively long focal length.

I'd second many peoples' opinions here that you should look at the 85mm 1.8. It's lightweight, faster to focus and much more affordable. It's actually sharper too.

 

[turtle]

There are some very different opinions here, but also copy variations. Here is my view and I have both lenses and have shot with four different copies of the 85 f1.8.

The 85mm f1.8 is stunning value. If you have a decent copy and it is micro-adjusted fine, it is very sharp indeed from wide open. Very. It makes a superb landscape lens a few stops down also. Its only weakness is CA, which is pretty bad. Character? Very pleasant, but nothing to write home about. I can only describe my personal copy as a sensational general performer for the money. However.....

The 85mm f1.2 L II is a completely different beast. It is slower to focus, but I have always found it a total non issue for portraits as the lens is only having to keep up with very small movements of the subject. Portraits aint sports, unless you are dealing with animals or kids Regarding image quality, mine is a very sharp lens indeed right from f1.2, where a face will fall within the frame. I could not care less about the edges and corners at f1.2 as this is only ever used for people. There is a gentleness to the rendering at f1.2, but this is most likely spherical aberration. The lens is still resolving plenty of detail. By f1.6 the contrast has picked up noticeably, vignetting reduced and it is a more technically 'clean'. But.... the look this lens produces is IMHO sensational. Bokeh is buttery way past f2.8 and even at f2.8-4 this lens has a look that is just great for people at all apertures. There are so many technically perfect lenses around now and I own some of them, but none come close to the big fat 85 1.2 L II for 'human' rendering in my view. My 85mm f1.8 EF doesn't and neither does my 85mm Zeiss Batis. This last lens is technically better at f1.8, with more contrast, more saturation etc, but its people pictures feel much less human and less organic.

Its up to the individual to decide how much these subtleties matter, but for me, I cannot think of a lens I would rather use for taking musicians' portraits than the 85 1.2 L II....

The 85mm f1.2 L II is lens that does not exist in any other system and probably never will. Poeple buy stats. People buy MTFs. Building a lens that is anything less than as perfect as possible is likely commercial suicide now. Look at the new Nikon 105 f1.4. Amazing performer, but hasn't got anywhere near the character of the Canon 85 1.2. I think its the best in production portrait lens in the world, but then again I have not used the Sony GM 85 1.4.

 

[Larsskv]

There are some very different opinions here, but also copy variations. Here is my view and I have both lenses and have shot with four different copies of the 85 f1.8.

The 85mm f1.8 is stunning value. If you have a decent copy and it is micro-adjusted fine, it is very sharp indeed from wide open. Very. It makes a superb landscape lens a few stops down also. Its only weakness is CA, which is pretty bad. Character? Very pleasant, but nothing to write home about. I can only describe my personal copy as a sensational general performer for the money. However.....

The 85mm f1.2 L II is a completely different beast. It is slower to focus, but I have always found it a total non issue for portraits as the lens is only having to keep up with very small movements of the subject. Portraits aint sports, unless you are dealing with animals or kids Regarding image quality, mine is a very sharp lens indeed right from f1.2, where a face will fall within the frame. I could not care less about the edges and corners at f1.2 as this is only ever used for people. There is a gentleness to the rendering at f1.2, but this is most likely spherical aberration. The lens is still resolving plenty of detail. By f1.6 the contrast has picked up noticeably, vignetting reduced and it is a more technically 'clean'. But.... the look this lens produces is IMHO sensational. Bokeh is buttery way past f2.8 and even at f2.8-4 this lens has a look that is just great for people at all apertures. There are so many technically perfect lenses around now and I own some of them, but none come close to the big fat 85 1.2 L II for 'human' rendering in my view. My 85mm f1.8 EF doesn't and neither does my 85mm Zeiss Batis. This last lens is technically better at f1.8, with more contrast, more saturation etc, but its people pictures feel much less human and less organic.

Its up to the individual to decide how much these subtleties matter, but for me, I cannot think of a lens I would rather use for taking musicians' portraits than the 85 1.2 L II....

The 85mm f1.2 L II is lens that does not exist in any other system and probably never will. Poeple buy stats. People buy MTFs. Building a lens that is anything less than as perfect as possible is likely commercial suicide now. Look at the new Nikon 105 f1.4. Amazing performer, but hasn't got anywhere near the character of the Canon 85 1.2. I think its the best in production portrait lens in the world, but then again I have not used the Sony GM 85 1.4.

I agree very much with what you state above. I have had the 85 f1.8 and have the 85 f.1.2.

I saw a comparison between the 85L f1.2 and Sony GM 85 f1.4. The Sony appeared a tiny bit sharper at f1.4, than the Canon at f1.2, but not by much - and the Canon was shot on a 5D2, and the Sony on A7R2!! Color, depth, bokeh and overall look on the Canon, was very much more pleasing to my eye, even when looking at YouTube on an iPad.

It is a reason so many of us love that 85LII.

 

[mackguyver]

I think you have everything you need if your concern is about money. The 85L is a stunning lens as Pookie demonstrates, but so is the 50L as he also shows. You already have similar lenses and unless you really NEED it, I think you're better off spending some $$$ on lighting or stuff like that if you don't have that covered. That will make a much bigger difference in your portraits.

 

[hawaiisunsetphoto]

I'll take the 85 1.2 any day of the week... consistent money maker in my portrait/wedding business. I use it with strobes, low light in churches & stage and well, everything.

Here is another thread where the b5L made me a ton of dough and showed up on billboards here in the bay area fro months... http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26177.msg583020#msg583020

The 85mm f/1.2L II is the classic portrait lens, along with the 200mm f/2L -- especially when paired with the 1Dx. Go for it.