85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?

[SecureGSM]

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.

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:

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]

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.

 

[lucileburt]

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.

 

[Talys]

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

 

[Larsskv]

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.

 

[nc0b]

If you don't need a large aperture 50mm, don't rule out the Canon 50mm f/2.5 macro lens. It is super sharp, and has virtually no distortion. Focus is noisy, but so what, and it doesn't cost much.

 

[jolyonralph]

Another oft-overlooked benefit of the 50mm f/2.5 compact macro is that it is one of the very few non L-lenses
that qualifies towards CPS premium accounts.

 

[Viggo]

If one is looking at the 50 f2.5, which is discontinued, have a look at the Zeiss 50 f2.0mp also, gorgeous lens, also with 1:2 macro.

 

[mjg79]

Have there been any more samples released from the 85 L IS? A quick google search didn't throw up many leads, I thought there would be some photographers Canon would have given it to to build up the hype but maybe I'm wrong.

I would love to see a head to head comparison with it and the 1.2 II.

 

[Viggo]

Have there been any more samples released from the 85 L IS? A quick google search didn't throw up many leads, I thought there would be some photographers Canon would have given it to to build up the hype but maybe I'm wrong.

I would love to see a head to head comparison with it and the 1.2 II.

+1, i can't find anything else than what was first released...

 

[hne]

Have there been any more samples released from the 85 L IS? A quick google search didn't throw up many leads, I thought there would be some photographers Canon would have given it to to build up the hype but maybe I'm wrong.

I would love to see a head to head comparison with it and the 1.2 II.

+1, i can't find anything else than what was first released...

I want some reasonably useful test pictures too. Something that says anything about the quality you can expect from this lens. I've got an offer on a used 1.2 II for $900 and would really like to know what way to go.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Have there been any more samples released from the 85 L IS? A quick google search didn't throw up many leads, I thought there would be some photographers Canon would have given it to to build up the hype but maybe I'm wrong.

I would love to see a head to head comparison with it and the 1.2 II.

+1, i can't find anything else than what was first released...

I dare say that all the early photos we'll see after the "unboxing" vids...will be lots of ducks...in a pond...

 

[JRPhotos]

My Canon 85 1.2L II is up for sale, I want to get the 1.4.

 

[dolina]

If you find yourself stopping down to 1.4 then the 1.4L IS would be my choice.

 

[tron]

Have there been any more samples released from the 85 L IS? A quick google search didn't throw up many leads, I thought there would be some photographers Canon would have given it to to build up the hype but maybe I'm wrong.

I would love to see a head to head comparison with it and the 1.2 II.

+1, i can't find anything else than what was first released...

I want some reasonably useful test pictures too. Something that says anything about the quality you can expect from this lens. I've got an offer on a used 1.2 II for $900 and would really like to know what way to go.

I believe $900 is very good price for 85 1.2 II to ignore.

 

[-1]

If you find yourself stopping down to 1.4 then the 1.4L IS would be my choice.

But then you won't have 1.2...

 

[FramerMCB]

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

I would suggest that one can use a 1.2 or 1.4 aperture for outdoor sporting events if one is parallel to the action and you want to Pan the subject to create blur (requiring slower shutter-speeds and native (low) ISO - just prefocus manually at the distance the subject will be from you...think horse racing, NASCAR, any type of event where you want to isolate the subject and create background blur. As long as you are 50 or more feet from the object, the DOF, even at 1.2 should be sufficient to capture proper focus. At the end of the day, I think both of these two 85mm offerings from Canon will appeal to pro's with slightly different needs. I can't imagine the new lens beating the rendering that the 1.2 has. In fact, the only other lens(es) that comes close (or may exceed, depending on personal preference) is the Zeiss Otus 85mm 1.4 and the new Zeiss Milvus 85mm 1.4. See Brian's review at TDP or Dustin Abbott's reviews.

The new 1.4 from Canon will definitely have a market - I'm guessing it will have a balance between the uber sharpness of the Sigma 85 Art and the rendering of the current 1.2 from Canon. And even Sigma here has begun to deliver more with the overall rendering from their Art series - especially with the brand new 135mm.

 

[BeenThere]

The new 1.4 from Canon will definitely have a market - I'm guessing it will have a balance between the uber sharpness of the Sigma 85 Art and the rendering of the current 1.2 from Canon. And even Sigma here has begun to deliver more with the overall rendering from their Art series - especially with the brand new 135mm.
[/quote]

The Sigma Art 135mm is alleged to be one of the sharpest lenses on the planet (see lenstip review). I don't own the lens, but if this is true, then Sigma did not give up any sharpness to achieve the overall rendering of this lens. Canon on the other hand may be willing to sacrifice some sharpness for other lens qualities (like weight).

 

[mjg79]

I googled this lens again to see if we have had any updates and found this video from August:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujXKLUD9OuI

Is that Vietnamese? Can anyone here translate?

I found no updates or sample images - I still find it strange that we aren't seeing more hype. There was definitely more hype of the 35L II with some samples appearing on flickr etc. but I can't find anything for this lens. I am beginning to think Canon might have been honest when they said that this isn't intended to replace the 85/1.2 as the flagship. That might explain why the price wasn't as over-the-top as many expected and of course the price it starts at will decline after a while.

The question has to be whether the price being lower than expected is simply because 1.4 is so much easier to build than 1.2 or whether they have cut corners somewhere else. I struggle to imagine an L lens in such a popular focal length, one with IS too, that surely Canon will be hoping to sell huge numbers to wedding photographers and other professionals, will be anything less than amazing. But if that's so it still seems odd that they are continuing to sell the 1.2 (and at a higher price than the new lens) and aren't showing off more samples from the new lens.

I suppose we will know soon enough!

 

[Viggo]

I googled this lens again to see if we have had any updates and found this video from August:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujXKLUD9OuI

Is that Vietnamese? Can anyone here translate?

I found no updates or sample images - I still find it strange that we aren't seeing more hype. There was definitely more hype of the 35L II with some samples appearing on flickr etc. but I can't find anything for this lens. I am beginning to think Canon might have been honest when they said that this isn't intended to replace the 85/1.2 as the flagship. That might explain why the price wasn't as over-the-top as many expected and of course the price it starts at will decline after a while.

The question has to be whether the price being lower than expected is simply because 1.4 is so much easier to build than 1.2 or whether they have cut corners somewhere else. I struggle to imagine an L lens in such a popular focal length, one with IS too, that surely Canon will be hoping to sell huge numbers to wedding photographers and other professionals, will be anything less than amazing. But if that's so it still seems odd that they are continuing to sell the 1.2 (and at a higher price than the new lens) and aren't showing off more samples from the new lens.

I suppose we will know soon enough!

I absolutely think can mean to sell it in between the two other 85's, the price alone is proof of that. A new top 85 would be more expensive.

I also wonder why there is no info other than the initial stuff. I'm buying one, but the wait gets crazy long when I have anything to check out while I'm waiting ;D