The Canon 85mm f/1.2L II is t/1.5-1.6 (copy variation), while, for example, the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is t/1.6-1.7, and the Canon 85mm f/1.4 IS appears to be about t/1.6 as well. (Further testing of the Canon 1.4 is required on my end, and I'd like someone else to test it too, for confirmation.) The Tamron 85mm is obviously slower since it's f/1.8, but as it's only t/1.9, it's actually the most accurate transmission of the bunch.Ian_of_glos said:With the remark about bragging rights - I was really referring to other photographers not models or family members. Apparently some camera manufacturers don't have an 85mm F1.2 lens available at all, and it is always fun being able to claim that the extra 1/3 stop has made all the difference, allowing me to take a shot in almost complete darkness.
On top of that there are diminishing returns with digital sensors' light gathering beyond f/1.6, so even if you had a perfectly t/1.2 vs t/1.4 comparison, the t/1.2 lens still wouldn't be a full third stop brighter, but more like a fifth of a stop brighter, or a quarter for some extra-sensitive sensors.
So... yeah. That f/1.2 isn't really getting you a third of a stop more exposure. Compared to the f/1.4 options around, a quarter of a stop is the most you can expect to gain, and in many cases you'll be getting less. In fact it's very possible that, thanks to copy variation, a dodgy Canon f/1.2 delivers less light to the sensor than a good copy of any of the f/1.4 lenses.
As long as you get the frame you want, it's all fine. Just, yeah, those "bragging rights" really only fly with other photographers who are very specifically big enough gear-nuts to care about what lens you have but not big enough gear-nuts to know how these things actually work. (Which, actually, does appear to be 90% of commenters on these kinds of rumour & news sites, so....)
Upvote
0