Reading mode: Light Dark

5D and 85 1.2 L

Go to last post
Great shot Ron ..and an amazingly able lens ..... if you like I will mail you my address so that you can send a poor struggling photographer one for Xmas :)

Jokes aside other than the f1.2 dof , have you tried the 85 in its slower guises and if so how would you comapre.

Do you only use Canon lenses , or are there any others with which you have been impressed enough to shell out the cash.
 
and if you decide to comment on the difference between 85 1.2 vs 85 1.8, maybe you can insert a comment if you have any experience with 135 2
 
85/1.2L heavy +++ 5D light

TIA!
 
Ron, have you compared 85 with 70-200 f4 (at 85mm) say at F8?

I can't understand why the MTF charts on the Canon web-page show that the contrast and sharpness of the zoom lens far exceeds that of this prime.

MTF chart of EF 85mm f/1.2L USM



MTF chart of EF 70-200mm f/4L USM



or even compared to EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
85mm shoud give you something between:



and


ron purdy said:
I have recently been shooting with the 85 1.2 and I am astonished
at the detail it delivers. Better than any Canon lens I have ever
tried when stopped down. (And when wide open, of course it has a
very distinctive, beautiful look.)
I highly recommend it!

http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/52200569

http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/52200752

--
http://www.ronpurdy.com
http://www.pbase.com/r_p
Click to expand...
 
I am no expert on these things. Also, I don't really care that much, as in the real world, there is very little difference between any of these good lenses.

A couple issues with the MTF charts:

-they usually only test one lens (as we all know, these lenses vary sample to sample...)

-in these tests there is often no accounting for differences in contrast, flare, etc., which can have a big influence on how "sharp" a lens seems to be.

-the slower lenses (f4.0 zooms like the one above...) are tested "wide open" at f4 as compared to 1.2 or 1.4 on the fast primes...) and then that is averaged in to the data. It's not exactly apples to apples.

-in the real world, in order to see most of these minute differences, you would need to shoot on a tripod, stopped down and with studio strobes all the time. And even then, you'd need to make HUGE prints to see a difference.

So, that's why I don't usually pay much attention to the charts. I find that asking associates about the lenses which they have experience with gives me much more useful info. For example which lenses have issues with chromatic abberation when wide open, etc. This is a lot more important to me than which lens shows 1% more "resolution."

Best,
-ron
--
http://www.ronpurdy.com
http://www.pbase.com/r_p
 
The 85 1.2 L is a truly remarkable lens. It is quite bulky, and focuses slowly. The focusing unit gets a bit "jittery" when it gets very close to the correct focus, and starts "fine tuning".

It is so conspicuous, at normal shooting distances with the bayonet lens hood, that once, when I was doing candid street-shooting here in NYC, a subject spotted me and accurately exclaimed: "Damn bro, that is a BIG LENS!! It's like I'm looking into a TV SCREEN!!

But it is amazingly sharp, even wide open. It is better at 2.8 to 5.6 than, say, 1.4 - 2. But I don't know of any other very high speed lens that is that good wide open, including the 50 1.0 L, which is noticeably less contrasty and sharp at the widest apertures (I haven't tried Leica's Noticluxes).

Canon's 85 1.2 is even sharper at the widest apertures than Nikon's very fine 85 1.4 (which weighs almost a pound less). This surprised me somewhat, because the first auto-focus version of the 85 1.2 L I tried years ago, on film, was not particularly crisp.

Apparently, it was a bad sample. I've tried two samples of the 85 1.2L recently, and both were superb. The front optical unit of the lens does have a disconcerting tendency to unscrew part way out of the focusing unit, if you apply a fair amount of torque when tryng to remove a stubborn filter or screw in lens hood. You can screw the unit back into place and it seems to function fine then.

The Canon does appear to have a slightly "harder" looking rendition at the middle apertures than the Nikon. You may prefer one or the other.

The 135 2L is very close in sharpness, but has a slghtly different "look", not attributable solely to the flatter perspective with the longer lens. I think the transition from in focus to out of focus is somewhat more pleasing with the 85 1.2, and I also prefer the character of that lens' bokeh to the 135. The 85 1.2 is truly one of the best lenses around for bokeh. To me, the 85 1.2 also looks a little "harder" in acutance and micro-contrast than the 135, but these differences, if they do indeed exist, are small.

Despite the 85 1.2L's distinctive mechanical personality, and the relative age of the design, the only optically finer lenses made today may be a few of the more exotic lenses from Leica (such as the 90 Apo-Summicron) and perhaps a couple of teles from Canon, and probably the discontinued 200 1.8L.

Regards,

Tony
 
Canon's MTF charts are not even based upon real world testing. They are simulations based upon the theoretical performance of a lens. If you examine them carefully, you'll see, for example, that the curves for some good Canon zooms indicate that they should outperform some of Canon's most notable primes.

They are also likely simulated against an infinity target. The 85 1.2 is probably optimized for moderate to closer focusing distances because it is principally designed for portraits and indoor performances and events.

While MTF charts are a useful starting point, the many characteristics of really fine lenses cannot be reduced down to so few variables, without losing some important considerations.

I believe the best way to truly "know" the character of a particular lens is to shoot lots of pictures under a wider variety of conditions with it.

As a further example, Leica's 35 1.4 ASPH Summilux M does not typically peform well in MTF testing, falling behind or barely equalling the old design consumer equivalents from other manufacturers. But, compare them on slow slide or black and white film and you'll see results that contradict the MTF curves.

Regards,

Tony
 
SG2 said:
Ron, have you compared 85 with 70-200 f4 (at 85mm) say at F8?
I can't understand why the MTF charts on the Canon web-page show
that the contrast and sharpness of the zoom lens far exceeds that
of this prime.
Click to expand...
looking at the difference in sharpness at f8 between one of the best L zooms and a prime is really nothing but splitting hair - they both are very very good I bet you would not be able to figure out which is which looking at real life pics taken at f8. According to photodo 85/1.2 at f8 is slightly better than 70-200/4 at 70mm and f8 (0.87 vs. 81), at 135mm and f8 the zoom reaches its "sweet spot" and is just as sharp as the corresponding L prime (135/2) at f8...
But, the reason why people buy fast primes is not their performance at f8!

Therefore it would make more sense to compare them wide open. Well, let's look at the charts: The line on the bottom represent MTF of the lens wide open so naturally 70-200 f4 at f4 looks better because wide open (at f4) it is way better than 85/1.2 wide open (at f1.2) !
According to the Photodo it is 0.61 vs. 0.81
http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/CaEF85_12LUSM-108.shtml
http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/CaEF70-200_4L-918.shtml
However, if you compare both lenses at f4, the prime wins: 0.86 vs. 0.81

So not only 85/1.2 is better than 70-200/4 at f4 (which is "wide open" for this zoom) but it also may be openen all the way to f1.2 and still produse sharp pics!

Conclusion: PRIMES RULE !!!
 
Anthony, I know this question has been asked about five million times. I own 85/1.8 and 135/2 and I have been agonizing over getting 85/1.2... I almost ordered one once but after reading William Castleman's review
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm

I changed my mind... However every time somebody starts raving over that lens my credit card starts vibrating in my vallet :)

Well I know those questions became "classic" (like "is Canon 70-200/2.8 better than Sigma or "do you really need IS", ETC) but will you be so nice to answer:
1) is 85/1.2 is really better than 85/1.8 at f2?
2) is 85/1.2 has more accurate focus?
3) is it true that 85/1.8 has better contrast?
an again, sorry for being so annoying :)



Voland
 
Hi Voland:

Unfortunately, I don't currently own an 85 1.8. The last time I had one was almost a dozen years ago when I was still shooting film : )

I am probably going to buy one in the next few months. As you know, optical quality isn't the only thing to consider when choosing our tools. Usability and practicality are important too. Witness the rise of high quality zooms and the lack of substantial introduction of top quality primes during the last 10 years. The 85 1.2 is a beast, and sometimes it's simply too much trouble to drag around.

A number of people with very discerning eyes (such as William Castleman and our own Andy Williams) have commented that the practicality of the 85 1.8 outweighs any minor optical advantages of the 1.2L. This is particularly so in the age of digital and post processing, which often can compensate for optical differences of small magnitude.

That said, the consensus of many reviewers is that the 85 1.2L outperforms the 1.8 until about f/4, at which point they become very close. Post processing also cannot compensate for differences in bokeh and the subtle character of focus transitions.

And, I still believe that there is an important place for really well designed prime lenses, such as the 85 1.2L. The differences are small in an absolute sense, but that has always been the case with the differences between excellent and superb. Beyond a certain point, you can't compensate for detail that isn't there in the first place, or fundamentally change the bokeh or even the micro contrast of a lens. These are just some of the under appreciated qualities of really good lenses, that are often lost in the more superficial debates over "sharpness" only.

But, then again, take my ramblings with a grain of salt. I shot film since I was 6 years old. In the days of film, it was a lot more important to get it "right" in the first place.

Regards,

Tony
 
you've been very helpful. I know exactly what you mean - the same William Castleman produced graphs that show that 70-200/2.8 is just as good as 135/2 yet we know that there is an elusive magic in the images produced by the 135/2 that the zoom does not have. I think I'm getting close to just getting 85/1.2 and ending this agony. As Oscar Wild said "we can resist everything, except temptation"...

Voland
 
Hi Voland:

I hope I haven't encouraged you to stray into an unnecessary expense : )

One last suggestion....keep the 85 1.8. The two lenses are different enough that both may well find regular use from you. The 1.8 shines where portability and agility are paramount virtues.

But, where absolute optical quality, and wonderful out of focus effects are unconstrained by other considerations......

Best of luck and enjoy shooting !

Regards,

Tony
 
Sharp as a tack and the only lens I would never part with. That was my walk around lens by the way on my F1 (new)

I got another copy some time later (sold the first one) but I don't think it was as good as the first one.

My first was tack sharp and so was my 50 macro

George
 
Hi Georgi:

Yes the F1(n) plus the 85 1.2L FD (manual focus) was my absolute favorite combination in my film/manual focusing days.

The EF autofocus version is similar, but not identical optically. Both are really special lenses though. Canon's engineers pulled out all stops to create a "look at what we can do" lens.

Regards,

Tony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top