The 85L II is pure indulgence

Strange how those who own 1.2L lens think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread even with its faults and those who don't insist that you can get the same thing by spending far less on either the 1.8 or the Sigma. Each side seems eager to justify the purchase of whichever one they have decided upon.

I've done extensive shooting with the 1.2 II and with the 1.8 and here are some observations;

- Build quality of the 1.2 is far better than the 1.8, no contest. Some may feel that this alone is worth the extra money.

- The lens produces softer contrast and also has a way of blending different contrast levels and color together differently than any other lens I have ever used. It's hard to explain but it's real and easily seen in side by side comparisons between the two lenses.

- Though not QUITE as sharp wide open as stopped down to at least f1.8 or f2, it is still pretty darn good wide open.

- Corner sharpness with the 1.2 lens is superb, among the best of any lens I have used.

- While the slow focus is real, it is often exaggerated. It is not that bad and frankly no worse than a lot of AF lenses from just a few years ago. Yes, the 1.8 focuses faster and I wish the 1.2 was the same, but again, it's exaggerated and not that bad.

- The 1.8 is sharp yes, but a lot of this is actually the result of higher overall contrast which the lens produces. No it is not as sharp a lens as the 1.2 but it does have more contrast. Inspecting both side by side, will show the 1.8 to actually have a sort of artificial sharpness as a result. This is something MANY lens manufacturers do to obtain sharpness. To the casual observer this looks like it makes for a great lens  (and this works for it) but in reality it is no better or worse than a real good consumer grade lens. The 1.2 on the other hand has some real advantages and produces some amazing sharpness without boosting contrast and as a matter of fact does it while keeping contrast low. This in turn is one of the reasons why it is such a special lens for portraiture. It has amazing sharpness while keeping contrast very flattering for skin tones.

- The 1.8 is very light and small in comparison. Many will find this an advantage.

While there are those who just do not see the justification in spending almost $2000 more for the 1.2, there IS a definite difference and the old adage, "you get what you pay for" does apply. Only thing is, that difference may or may not be noticed by a lot of people and it may not be worth the extra cost. To me, I kind've categorize the 1.8 as a better than average consumer/semi pro grade lens while the 1.2 is something special and unique.

It's like high end audio equipment where one can spend 2 or 3 thousand on a system and another can spend 20 or 30 thousand on a system. The one who spends 2 or 3 may question anyone spending 30,000 for such a small upgrade in performance, but to the one spending the 30,000 that slight extra performance makes all the difference in the world.

To each his own.