buying advice: canon 85mm f1.2 II or f1.8?
- Thread starter dash2k8
- Start date
dash2k8 said:
I shot my first 4 weddings solo this year. So I'm not a expert by any means. Lots of people use and love that lens for weddings. IMO for fast moving dancing etc. I think it focuses too slow. If your quick and shoot lots of shots you'll get some but your keeper rate will be much lower than I'd like. That shallow depth of field is absolutey not forgiving then when you add the slow focus you're just not going to get every shot in focus. When you do though there awsome with that lens. The 1.8 canon does focus very fast. It's a very good lens but it's not special like the 1.2. But it's good. Why don't you rent the 1.2 go to a high school dance or something and use the 1.2 and see how it works for you. That's one lens you sure don't want to buy and shoot A wedding with before you have some time to practice with it.
Upvote
0
dash2k8 said:
While they are good at giving us a laugh, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adQHzNfvzFM#t=106 this gives a decent comparison... Fast forward to about the 7 min point. they conclude that when the 1.2 does give sharp images, they are amazing, but the big word is WHEN. If your shooting a wedding and you absolutely had to nail the first kiss, this ISN'T the lens i would rely on... the 1.8 is quite good on focusing and so far, so good...
Upvote
0
Thanks Ryan85 and awinphoto for your awesome replies. Correct if I'm wrong, if I read your responses correctly, the f1.2 does not focus fast enough to keep up with even normal-speed actions, let alone fast dancing. That was my main concern. It would make a dreamy still portrait lens, though, when we pose the groom and bride after the guests have all gone.
Upvote
0
dash2k8 said:
I would say that you are correct... I shoot studio and on-location portraiture and tried many lenses... If you've ever played with the 50 1.2, i would say it's kinda the same issue... focusing is too slow and too unreliable... and to it's defense, 1.2 is shallow... extremely shallow, so it's a lot of glass to move and not something to take lightly... So when it does nail the focus, it's very good... but, it can miss, and miss bad, especially in bad light... To me, i couldn't risk spending $2k on a lens that was a crap shoot if i would get a shot or not... the 1.8 was a lot more reliable, and fast and extremely good quality of imagery.
Upvote
0
If budget is not an issue, go for 85L II. This lens simply shine from f1.2 to f2. The creamy bokeh will make you forget about price tag.
What about AF focus speed? This is not the best lens to shoot sports. If you can maintain the distance between you and subject, AF shouldn't be an issue. Even shooting the couple walking in church. However, do avoid using from close-up to infinity.
What about AF focus speed? This is not the best lens to shoot sports. If you can maintain the distance between you and subject, AF shouldn't be an issue. Even shooting the couple walking in church. However, do avoid using from close-up to infinity.
Upvote
0
dash2k8 said:
Your welcome. I'm not going to say you can't or won't get sharp photos with the 85 1.2 with moderate to fast action but your keeper rate of sharp images will defiently be less compared to the 1.8 version. When you shoot that shallow depth of field there's know room for mistakes. Add the slow focusing its that much tougher. The 1.2 is slow to focus. If you get a chance go to lens rentals.com search the 85 1.2 & 85 1.8 and Roger Cicala the president of lens rentals gives his opion of each lens in a paragraph or two it's worth a quick read.
So if I was going to be using a 85mm for faster action in a wedding reception I'd use the the 1.8 for the faster focus. It's not the sexy choice but to me it's the lens I know I'm going to get the results I want.
Now if you decide to go with the 1.2 just practice with it a lot over a few months so you know what it can do and to get use to the razor thin depth of field.
Btw what camera body and lenses are you using now for weddings?
Upvote
0
Dylan777 said:
I respectfully disagree with you on this. This isn't a lens that's I've got the money so I'm getting it. If your going to do portraits and slow moving subjects and you want to shoot wide open, sure it's great. If you're a inexperienced photographer IMO this lens is not for you. Shooting with that shallow of depth of field is unforgiving. I'm talking like a eye in focus and the nose or other eye out of focus if your plane of focus is off. It has a low keeper rate shooting wide open. Then add the slow focus and it's tuff. Also for the OP she's wanting to use it in a wedding reception where theres going to be fast dancing and you're going to want quick candids. Add in low light and shallow depth of field and slow focus with all the action of the reception and dancing, well it's going to be tuff to get all your shots. It's just not a forgiving lens.
That being said it is a amazing lens. When you get a tac sharp image the bokeh is beautiful.
Upvote
0
Tabor Warren Photography
I want to go shoot something with a Canon...
Is the 85L incredible? Yes, and it is what I would recommend, hands down. We use it for every portrait event, BUT not every wedding, it is just... too... slow...
That being said; I did use it for the bride walking down as well as various dancing shots at a wedding we had this July. http://photosbytabor.smugmug.com/Tulsa-Wedding-Photography/Lisa-Isaiah/i-R6GPLb2/A
Since I had displaced a rib just a few days before, I updated their wedding to a 3 photographer event, (myself essentially being the third photographer). I figured, what the heck, I'll see how the 85L will handle action. I was wonderfully surprised actually. One of the many things that helped me during their wedding was a great deal of ambient light, wonderful shadows, and I would prefocus my shots just before I would focus/shoot, (basically I would focus quickly, twice, and then fire). This helped save my keep rate, but it is not something I would recommend everyone try, especially at a wedding.
For stills/portraits, it's incredible in essentially every aspect. For weddings, there are so many better options, most notably the 70-200 f/2.8L ii. Though not as wide, amazing, amazing, wedding lens. We used all of our lenses during that wedding, (apart from the 17-40 so look around the gallery (or galleries if you keep going), and use the info button in the bottom right to see if the shots you like were taken with the 85L.
As always, you could rent the thing, but yes it is well worth the money, just maybe not as a dependable, moving target at a wedding, lens.
Cheers!
-Tabor
That being said; I did use it for the bride walking down as well as various dancing shots at a wedding we had this July. http://photosbytabor.smugmug.com/Tulsa-Wedding-Photography/Lisa-Isaiah/i-R6GPLb2/A
Since I had displaced a rib just a few days before, I updated their wedding to a 3 photographer event, (myself essentially being the third photographer). I figured, what the heck, I'll see how the 85L will handle action. I was wonderfully surprised actually. One of the many things that helped me during their wedding was a great deal of ambient light, wonderful shadows, and I would prefocus my shots just before I would focus/shoot, (basically I would focus quickly, twice, and then fire). This helped save my keep rate, but it is not something I would recommend everyone try, especially at a wedding.
For stills/portraits, it's incredible in essentially every aspect. For weddings, there are so many better options, most notably the 70-200 f/2.8L ii. Though not as wide, amazing, amazing, wedding lens. We used all of our lenses during that wedding, (apart from the 17-40 so look around the gallery (or galleries if you keep going), and use the info button in the bottom right to see if the shots you like were taken with the 85L.
As always, you could rent the thing, but yes it is well worth the money, just maybe not as a dependable, moving target at a wedding, lens.
Cheers!
-Tabor
Upvote
0
The camera body on which you intend to use the lens is an important factor in your decision.
I have owned the 85/1.8 and currently own the 85/1.2L II. I shoot on a 5D2 presently.
Let's break this down step by step:
1. At the same f-numbers, the 85/1.8 and 85/1.2L II will produce substantially similar images, provided that the copy of the 85/1.8 that you get is a good one. You will have a tough time picking apart the two results, and any minor differences in color rendition are too small to be of concern after a typical post-processing workflow.
2. The 85/1.2L II is very tempting to use wide open all the time. Ever since i got it, I estimate about 99% of my shots with this lens have been between f/1.2 - f/2, and 50% are shot at f/1.2. It is nice to have but...
3. At f/1.2, critical focus is extremely challenging on a dynamic scene. This is where the camera body comes into play: if you have a 1DX, 5D3, or similar AF system with responsive and precise focusing, then your accuracy will be better than with an antiquated AF system as found in the 5D2. You'll also have slightly faster AF drive with a 1-series body. Remember how I said 50% of my shots are at f/1.2? The vast majority of those shots were taken while the subject was stationary. I wouldn't dream of trying to nail a critical shot of a moving subject with this lens unless they were moving parallel to the image plane, or they were reasonably far away that the DOF is not quite so thin.
4. The 85L is a low-light portraiture lens. It's a specialist design, slow to focus, difficult to achieve focus accuracy, and extremely heavy. It's also awkward to switch out due to its fat, round shape and exposed rear element. It also lacks any weather sealing (although the 85/1.8 lacks it too). You can mitigate this somewhat by using the lens hood, but the hood itself is even fatter and awkward than the lens, and I always find it difficult to fit it in my camera bag.
The bottom line is that the 85L, if used for wedding photography, is for a very *specific* use case, such as e-sessions, or shots where the subject is very still, the lighting minimal, and the use of flash prohibited. It's not for capturing quick action, even if you have a good AF system (which only increases the keeper rate somewhat). Yes, there are photographers who show off their 85L ninja skills and show shots of dragonflies landing on a speeding motorcycle in a hailstorm and the veins on the wings are crystal clear at f/1.2, but let's face it: your goal is not to impress other photographers with your one-in-a-hundred keeper, but to get the shot when it counts, and to capture the best source material you can for your client.
So, unlike many, I won't steer you toward any specific recommendation. I'm not saying don't get the 85L. I am simply telling you what to expect when you use it, and how I personally think it would fit into your photographic needs. The best thing to do is to rent one and see how well it works for you in a somewhat lower-stakes situation before committing to it. The 85/1.8 is a snappy lens but at a full stop slower and lacking IS, it too has its limitations.
I have owned the 85/1.8 and currently own the 85/1.2L II. I shoot on a 5D2 presently.
Let's break this down step by step:
1. At the same f-numbers, the 85/1.8 and 85/1.2L II will produce substantially similar images, provided that the copy of the 85/1.8 that you get is a good one. You will have a tough time picking apart the two results, and any minor differences in color rendition are too small to be of concern after a typical post-processing workflow.
2. The 85/1.2L II is very tempting to use wide open all the time. Ever since i got it, I estimate about 99% of my shots with this lens have been between f/1.2 - f/2, and 50% are shot at f/1.2. It is nice to have but...
3. At f/1.2, critical focus is extremely challenging on a dynamic scene. This is where the camera body comes into play: if you have a 1DX, 5D3, or similar AF system with responsive and precise focusing, then your accuracy will be better than with an antiquated AF system as found in the 5D2. You'll also have slightly faster AF drive with a 1-series body. Remember how I said 50% of my shots are at f/1.2? The vast majority of those shots were taken while the subject was stationary. I wouldn't dream of trying to nail a critical shot of a moving subject with this lens unless they were moving parallel to the image plane, or they were reasonably far away that the DOF is not quite so thin.
4. The 85L is a low-light portraiture lens. It's a specialist design, slow to focus, difficult to achieve focus accuracy, and extremely heavy. It's also awkward to switch out due to its fat, round shape and exposed rear element. It also lacks any weather sealing (although the 85/1.8 lacks it too). You can mitigate this somewhat by using the lens hood, but the hood itself is even fatter and awkward than the lens, and I always find it difficult to fit it in my camera bag.
The bottom line is that the 85L, if used for wedding photography, is for a very *specific* use case, such as e-sessions, or shots where the subject is very still, the lighting minimal, and the use of flash prohibited. It's not for capturing quick action, even if you have a good AF system (which only increases the keeper rate somewhat). Yes, there are photographers who show off their 85L ninja skills and show shots of dragonflies landing on a speeding motorcycle in a hailstorm and the veins on the wings are crystal clear at f/1.2, but let's face it: your goal is not to impress other photographers with your one-in-a-hundred keeper, but to get the shot when it counts, and to capture the best source material you can for your client.
So, unlike many, I won't steer you toward any specific recommendation. I'm not saying don't get the 85L. I am simply telling you what to expect when you use it, and how I personally think it would fit into your photographic needs. The best thing to do is to rent one and see how well it works for you in a somewhat lower-stakes situation before committing to it. The 85/1.8 is a snappy lens but at a full stop slower and lacking IS, it too has its limitations.
Upvote
0
Now that you are asking a specific precise question, the answer is no.dash2k8 said:
I used it on two weddings and keeper was around 50% during the walking down the aisle and bouquet tossing.
For these two specific moments you better go with the 70-200 2.8. No joking during these two moments. Please don't take your chances during wedding. It is a one in a lifetime moment.
Upvote
0
chromophore said:
I agree. Depth of field is so shallow that it's not going to work well, i.e., not reliably. For walking down the aisle, bouquet toss, people dancing, etc. ... you'll get some shots but you'll also get a lot of misses (assuming 1.2 aperture is used).
Upvote
0
awinphoto said:
I love good bokeh, but sometimes it's too much of a good thing. With an 85mm, f/2.8 and f/4 can look great too.
Upvote
0
Very hard to add to the excellent, thorough advice here, but I can share my experience.
First, the CA on the 1.2 has never reared its head in any significant way even when I'm shooting wide open, but it is clearly there on the 1.8 in many situations. Easily correctable with LR5.
Second, I still own both lenses, 1.2 and 1.8. My 1.2 is clearly superior in sharpness, creaminess, color, and contrast all the way to 2.8, at which point even pixel peeping, they are equal in sharpness. I still see a better "glowy" or luminous feel to images shot with the 1.2 in window light or outdoors with reflectors all the way to f/5.6.
Third, my AF, though slow, is amazingly accurate on the 1.2, even at MFD.
I use mine only for portraits. But I've assisted an excellent wedding/portrait/commercial photographer who brings it on all her shoots and uses it for spontaneous, quickly posed portraits and for detail shots. I don't believe she uses it during any kind of action because her go to lenses for that are the 24-70 2.8 II and the 70-200 2.8 II.
My 1.8 I gathering dust, though if I ever get back to some street photography, I'll put it on my 60D. It is lightning fast, reliable, and very light.
If money is no object and you can get the wisely recommended 70-200, you'd be leaving too much good IQ and creative possibilities on the table by going with the 1.8.
First, the CA on the 1.2 has never reared its head in any significant way even when I'm shooting wide open, but it is clearly there on the 1.8 in many situations. Easily correctable with LR5.
Second, I still own both lenses, 1.2 and 1.8. My 1.2 is clearly superior in sharpness, creaminess, color, and contrast all the way to 2.8, at which point even pixel peeping, they are equal in sharpness. I still see a better "glowy" or luminous feel to images shot with the 1.2 in window light or outdoors with reflectors all the way to f/5.6.
Third, my AF, though slow, is amazingly accurate on the 1.2, even at MFD.
I use mine only for portraits. But I've assisted an excellent wedding/portrait/commercial photographer who brings it on all her shoots and uses it for spontaneous, quickly posed portraits and for detail shots. I don't believe she uses it during any kind of action because her go to lenses for that are the 24-70 2.8 II and the 70-200 2.8 II.
My 1.8 I gathering dust, though if I ever get back to some street photography, I'll put it on my 60D. It is lightning fast, reliable, and very light.
If money is no object and you can get the wisely recommended 70-200, you'd be leaving too much good IQ and creative possibilities on the table by going with the 1.8.
Upvote
0
I owned both...
When I got my 70-200, I sold my 100L. I replaced it with an 85 f 1.8. And I really liked the lens
I didn't like the minimum focusing distance of 3 ft... Do I eventually wound up selling the f1.8 and buying the 100 L again. Then I got the 85L mkii and right now it is my favorite lens for all things. 3 ft mfd, don't care. It is such a beautiful lens that I'm perfectly content working around its flaws... And when I miss the focus while shooting at f1.2, I accept the blame...
Both have chromatic aberrations-_-but they are readily enough resolved in post.
Smooth beautiful bokeh... It is really worth it. To me at least.
When I got my 70-200, I sold my 100L. I replaced it with an 85 f 1.8. And I really liked the lens
I didn't like the minimum focusing distance of 3 ft... Do I eventually wound up selling the f1.8 and buying the 100 L again. Then I got the 85L mkii and right now it is my favorite lens for all things. 3 ft mfd, don't care. It is such a beautiful lens that I'm perfectly content working around its flaws... And when I miss the focus while shooting at f1.2, I accept the blame...
Both have chromatic aberrations-_-but they are readily enough resolved in post.
Smooth beautiful bokeh... It is really worth it. To me at least.
Upvote
0
I had both, only the 85L II right now.
If money is not an issue buy both. Seriously. These lenses are often compared because they're the same focal length but beyond that they handle very, very differently.
If you're shooting above f/1.8 there is almost no reason to get the 85L. Only get the 85L if you need f/1.2 to f/1.8. Of course you can't get this range in the other lens so there is no comparison at these apertures.
To answer another question, it does not focus fast enough to shoot motion at f/1.2. This is not an indictment of the lens, but rather the DOF is going to be so thin that subject will have moved by the time you shoot. The closer you get, the worse the effect. If you're shooting a more environmental portrait and have a subject distance far enough to have a deeper DOF then yes, it might work. But in this situation a 70-200 IS is going to be a much more versatile lens.
If money is not an issue buy both. Seriously. These lenses are often compared because they're the same focal length but beyond that they handle very, very differently.
If you're shooting above f/1.8 there is almost no reason to get the 85L. Only get the 85L if you need f/1.2 to f/1.8. Of course you can't get this range in the other lens so there is no comparison at these apertures.
To answer another question, it does not focus fast enough to shoot motion at f/1.2. This is not an indictment of the lens, but rather the DOF is going to be so thin that subject will have moved by the time you shoot. The closer you get, the worse the effect. If you're shooting a more environmental portrait and have a subject distance far enough to have a deeper DOF then yes, it might work. But in this situation a 70-200 IS is going to be a much more versatile lens.
Upvote
0
