Abstract said:f/1.2? Dang, would that even be useful? I can't imagine myself taking many photos at f/1.2.
Abstract said:f/1.2? Dang, would that even be useful? I can't imagine myself taking many photos at f/1.2.
homerjward said:one's an L series and costs several times more, and focuses slower from what i've heard. take this with a grain of salt as i've never used either.
here's a comparison/review: http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/
wilburdl said:Well the difference comes down to features and with a lens there are a couple of features that you look for. The most obvious feature would have to be image quality. The 85 1.2 is one of the premier L lenses Canon has. The weight is noticeable. I have the 1.2 (not 1.8) so I can attest to this.
The speed is definitely not there and you can forget focusing in low-light. On the other-hand, The look of the image at 1.2 is phenominal. The plus side to this is that they've issued an update (version II) to address this problem specifically, of course, in doing so, they've raised the price even higher.
I'll post some samples later.
Mike Teezie said:Great shots wilburdl.
Do you have a website or any place we could see some more of your work?
jared_kipe said:People people, for the price of an 85mm 1.2 you could have
Canon 50mm 1.4 +
Canon 85mm 1.8 +
Sigma 30mm 1.4 +
$500
I certainly know which way I would go...
jared_kipe said:People people, for the price of an 85mm 1.2 you could have
Canon 50mm 1.4 +
Canon 85mm 1.8 +
Sigma 30mm 1.4 +
$500
I certainly know which way I would go...
jared_kipe said:People people, for the price of an 85mm 1.2 you could have
Canon 50mm 1.4 +
Canon 85mm 1.8 +
Sigma 30mm 1.4 +
$500
I certainly know which way I would go...
What exactly is that supposed to mean?snap58 said:I think everyone on this forum already knows which way you would go with out posting anything. : )
carletonmusic said:If you are shooting pro, a 1.2 may be justified.
From what I've seen the 85mm 1.2 and 1.8 are very similar at 1.8, the 1.8 version being slightly behind in the corners. And they both have very similar performance near their peak at f4. The 1.8 is just a little lower in the corners at 1.8 and 2.8 which is no so necessary for the kind of portraits on your site.wilburdl said:I have the 50 1.4 and it's optical quality isn't as good as the 1.2. That said, it's a lot easier for me to use when I'm shooting fashion as it isn't as sharp and is a hell of a lot faster focusing. There are different tools for different looks.
Thanks. It's due for an update.carltonmusic said:wilburdl, I'm lovin' your site -- nice job!
mcarnes said:Quote: Originally Posted by carletonmusic If you are shooting pro, a 1.2 may be justified.
If you're a shooting pro the 1.8 is more justified because pro photographers make so little money.
jared_kipe said:From what I've seen the 85mm 1.2 and 1.8 are very similar at 1.8, the 1.8 version being slightly behind in the corners. And they both have very similar performance near their peak at f4. The 1.8 is just a little lower in the corners at 1.8 and 2.8 which is no so necessary for the kind of portraits on your site.
That combined with the slower focusing speed of the 1.2 makes me seriously question the price difference for that 1 stop of light. Even for a pro. But the 1.2 is a very serious looking lens.
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_85_18/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_85_12/index.htm