85mm f/1.2L II vs 85mm f/1.4L IS

[mjg79]

That's true but these exotic lenses were designed in the past when cameras had poor ISO performance. Thus, the need for a wider aperture was greater. Nowadays, it's more important to have better specs and functionality. Sure, some people say 200 f1.8 gives you a more pleasant 3d picture than 200 f2, but the latter is much more functional, lighter, has IS, etc. Not sure what's going to happen with 50 f1.2 and whether or not it'd be replaced with 50 f1.4 L version with IS and other improvements.

I think it's quite possible the next 50mm L lens will indeed be a well corrected 1.4 to go head to head with Sigma etc. Having said that I think it might be a while yet before they update the current one as it has a fairly dedicated following of people who love its unique rendering.

 

[YuengLinger]

That's true but these exotic lenses were designed in the past when cameras had poor ISO performance. Thus, the need for a wider aperture was greater. Nowadays, it's more important to have better specs and functionality. Sure, some people say 200 f1.8 gives you a more pleasant 3d picture than 200 f2, but the latter is much more functional, lighter, has IS, etc. Not sure what's going to happen with 50 f1.2 and whether or not it'd be replaced with 50 f1.4 L version with IS and other improvements.

I think it's quite possible the next 50mm L lens will indeed be a well corrected 1.4 to go head to head with Sigma etc. Having said that I think it might be a while yet before they update the current one as it has a fairly dedicated following of people who love its unique rendering.

Yes, those would be the abstractionists. :

 

[hne]

Speed is extremely hard to check sensibly like that, although it's painfully obvious how poor the f1.2 is. Does anybody know which body they are tested on?

The speed difference is in the accuracy as well. Focus racking from one end to the other doesn't say anything about accuracy and ability to track accurately. In that regard it can't be as bad as the 1.8 (which is awful), but they "look" nearly as fast.

Thanks for sharing the video, new info to me and that is always fun.

You find the 85/1.8 bad at AF accuracy? I was thinking that myself before getting the 5DmkIV. I'm tracking running kids at f/1.8 now, with face tracking through iTR AF and getting an astonishing hit rate.

Had a 5yo running full steam straight at me at f/2 on a heavily overcast day this summer, with all 22 shots taken in just over 3 seconds in the series being in perfect focus. Granted, that was with the kid starting out at roughly quarter image height and last frame had a 3/4 image height coverage. I rarely have focus misses unless I let the AF points slip or have severe backlight.

From the video, it looks like the 85/1.4L IS is possibly even slightly faster than the f/1.8 at focusing.

 

[Viggo]

Speed is extremely hard to check sensibly like that, although it's painfully obvious how poor the f1.2 is. Does anybody know which body they are tested on?

The speed difference is in the accuracy as well. Focus racking from one end to the other doesn't say anything about accuracy and ability to track accurately. In that regard it can't be as bad as the 1.8 (which is awful), but they "look" nearly as fast.

Thanks for sharing the video, new info to me and that is always fun.

You find the 85/1.8 bad at AF accuracy? I was thinking that myself before getting the 5DmkIV. I'm tracking running kids at f/1.8 now, with face tracking through iTR AF and getting an astonishing hit rate.

Had a 5yo running full steam straight at me at f/2 on a heavily overcast day this summer, with all 22 shots taken in just over 3 seconds in the series being in perfect focus. Granted, that was with the kid starting out at roughly quarter image height and last frame had a 3/4 image height coverage. I rarely have focus misses unless I let the AF points slip or have severe backlight.

From the video, it looks like the 85/1.4L IS is possibly even slightly faster than the f/1.8 at focusing.

It depends on which points you're using. And I find that the newer Canon bodies is extremely good when something comes straight at the camera, but in general and for all the shots I did with the 1.8 it was to all over the place. It's quick, but not accurate. I didn't expect much either considering the price, but it was even worse than I thought. I also mostly photograph kids at play.

I didn't try the 1.8 on my 1dx2, used it on the 1dx and it wasn't great to say the least. So I ended up shooting loads more shots than I should, and of course, the coolest shots were always misfocused

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I think it really depends if you already have a good copy of the 85mm f1.2 L. There's not really enough in the specs of the new f1.4 IS version to warrant having both except curiosity. If I was in the market for one or the other and I didn't already have one, then it would come down to 1) new and shiny... 2) AF speed vs f1.2 3) cost and availability.

If the new lens was lighter and smaller then there would have been more incentive to side grade. I'm really happy with my f1.2 version and I get great results from it. It's one of my bread and butter lenses. But I may rent a copy of the f1.4 LIS to try out and see how it get on with it. But on paper there's not much to warrant the side grade.

 

[Sabaki]

I've always wanted a 'bokeh monster' and the 85mm was the focal length I always set my heart on

As it is, the new 85 is what I'm looking at. I do know that the f/1.2 is a legendary lens but time has moved on and we have a new piece of kit that can write its own story now.

It'll be interesting to see which resolves better on the newer, high MP cameras like the 5DSR and so on

But photographers are in general rather educated on what they put into their kit bags. I'm sure we'll all be making decisions that fits our need, pocket and sensibilities