85 f/1.2L II is a DREAM COME TRUE!

This was the lens I always wanted for portraits. I hedged and hawed for the better part of a year over getting it, dancing around the commitment, getting the 135L twice, returning both. Getting a 70-200L 2.8 IS II - which is fabulous for its versatility and reach, and great for events, but still not what I wanted for portraits. I loved my 85 1.8 and always thought it would be enough, but finally I bit the bullet and bought it, and holy hell - why did I futz around for so long? The 85 f/1.2 II is AMAZING!!!!

Now, it's a little odd with the focus, but so what? The pictures are amazing. It's heavy - double so what - the pictures are AMAZING!!!!! So you have a 1.8 and it's basically the same thing on paper? It's not even close in real life!

So, so, so glad I pulled the trigger. So glad. Very happy. Thrilled.

I chose the Sigma 85 1.4.

Sorry, I only have baby shots. I haven't done a engagement session in a while.

facedodge wrote:

I chose the Sigma 85 1.4.

Sorry, I only have baby shots. I haven't done a engagement session in a while.

love that lens, but coulnd't afford it,

i only got the rokinon 85mm 1.4 that works both on my nikon and canon.

It's for nikon with AE chips then i used the adaptor to make it works on canon.

gatorowl wrote:

Acemetric wrote:

This was the lens I always wanted for portraits. I hedged and hawed for the better part of a year over getting it, dancing around the commitment, getting the 135L twice, returning both. Getting a 70-200L 2.8 IS II - which is fabulous for its versatility and reach, and great for events, but still not what I wanted for portraits. I loved my 85 1.8 and always thought it would be enough, but finally I bit the bullet and bought it, and holy hell - why did I futz around for so long? The 85 f/1.2 II is AMAZING!!!!

Now, it's a little odd with the focus, but so what? The pictures are amazing. It's heavy - double so what - the pictures are AMAZING!!!!! So you have a 1.8 and it's basically the same thing on paper? It's not even close in real life!

So, so, so glad I pulled the trigger. So glad. Very happy. Thrilled.

You have/had both 85s? Please share examples that illustrate the difference.

Your 1.2 must be much better than mine or your 1.8 much worst than mine because I struggle to see difference at apertures 1.8 and smaller.

i would like to see the differences too, 1.2 sure will feel good in hands

I don't think I'll ever use this lens at anything but 1.2. And therein lies the difference between it and the 1.8. It's just plain magic wide open. Just wow.

Glad you like your new lens.  I didn't like it as much as you seem to, great lens, don't get me wrong, but it seems there is almost a religious fervor for this lens at times.  It's huge/heavy, awkward, slow AF, the rear element is disconcertingly close to the mount, and it's very expensive.  The results are interesting and somewhat unique though the new Sigma 85 1.4 produces pretty similar results for a lot less cash.  Still f1.2 is unique and interesting to use.

Acemetric wrote:

Now, it's a little odd with the focus, but so what? The pictures are amazing. It's heavy - double so what - the pictures are AMAZING!!!!! So you have a 1.8 and it's basically the same thing on paper? It's not even close in real life!

To whom is this targeted?  Self-congratulatory or rubbing something into someone's face?  I get that you've owned both (I've shot both, the f1.2 pretty extensively, the f1.8 barely at all), but were you feeling oppressed by a group of f1.8 owners or something?

So, so, so glad I pulled the trigger. So glad. Very happy. Thrilled.

Cool, have fun with it!  

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

Glad you like your new lens. I didn't like it as much as you seem to, great lens, don't get me wrong, but it seems there is almost a religious fervor for this lens at times. It's huge/heavy, awkward, slow AF, the rear element is disconcertingly close to the mount, and it's very expensive. The results are interesting and somewhat unique though the new Sigma 85 1.4 produces pretty similar results for a lot less cash. Still f1.2 is unique and interesting to use.

I have seen people mention that the rear element is close to the mount before. Why is this a concern? Just curious.

Acemetric wrote:

Now, it's a little odd with the focus, but so what? The pictures are amazing. It's heavy - double so what - the pictures are AMAZING!!!!! So you have a 1.8 and it's basically the same thing on paper? It's not even close in real life!

To whom is this targeted? Self-congratulatory or rubbing something into someone's face? I get that you've owned both (I've shot both, the f1.2 pretty extensively, the f1.8 barely at all), but were you feeling oppressed by a group of f1.8 owners or something?

So, so, so glad I pulled the trigger. So glad. Very happy. Thrilled.

Cool, have fun with it!

"To whom is this targeted? Self-congratulatory or rubbing something into someone's face? I get that you've owned both (I've shot both, the f1.2 pretty extensively, the f1.8 barely at all), but were you feeling oppressed by a group of f1.8 owners or something?"

Wow! I never intended my comment to be read with such malice, just enthusiasm. So I guess I'm a bit taken aback here. The comment you refer to addresses the reasons I chose not to buy the 1.2 early on, and were the things that kept me from buying one all this time. I would hope my words might prompt someone else who is sitting on the fence to go out and give the lens a shot.

Ok, excellent then, it's the internet, malice is always implied.    Also it's very easy to be misinterpreted, thus my request for clarification.  Again, glad for you that you are happy with the 85L.

Keith

Acemetric wrote:

"To whom is this targeted? Self-congratulatory or rubbing something into someone's face? I get that you've owned both (I've shot both, the f1.2 pretty extensively, the f1.8 barely at all), but were you feeling oppressed by a group of f1.8 owners or something?"

Wow! I never intended my comment to be read with such malice, just enthusiasm. So I guess I'm a bit taken aback here. The comment you refer to addresses the reasons I chose not to buy the 1.2 early on, and were the things that kept me from buying one all this time. I would hope my words might prompt someone else who is sitting on the fence to go out and give the lens a shot.

It's not a huge concern that would prevent me from buying a lens on its own.  It is disconcerting in that when mounting the thing you feel like you could easily scratch the rear element.

Roger at LensRentals.com has seen more than a few lenses:

"Be warned: this lens is hugely addictive. Strong photographers have wept standing in line at the post office to return it. Please don’t let your tears fall on the return label’s bar code; it slows down return shipping when the scanner can’t read it. It’s amazing."

If you shoot portraits, this is the lens.You've wasted valuable time not admitting it to yourself.

I didn't say there was something wrong with it, I was genuinely curious as to what he meant, and he clarified.  With all due respect it's easy for people to misinterpret intent on the internet.

Acemetric wrote:

I don't think I'll ever use this lens at anything but 1.2. And therein lies the difference between it and the 1.8. It's just plain magic wide open. Just wow.

Exactly.  Why buy the lens and use it stopped down?  People who ask to see comparisons don't have a clue why people wanting the 1.2.

Yes! Well said!

carlk wrote:

Acemetric wrote:

I don't think I'll ever use this lens at anything but 1.2. And therein lies the difference between it and the 1.8. It's just plain magic wide open. Just wow.

Exactly. Why buy the lens and use it stopped down? People who ask to see comparisons don't have a clue why people wanting the 1.2.

Yea I just shot a wedding with it yesterday after purchasing it the day before. I shot @ f1.2 95% of the time. Ok I might have a MUCH HIGHER hitrate with a 70-200 2.8 or 85 1.8 but the shots that did come out right are pure magic.

The AF doesn't bother me at all either. It's a bit slow but DEAD ON accurate even in the dark. In saying that I wouldn't shoot @ f1.2 with someone walking towards you expecting to get a shot.

The fact it's a great lesn does not mean it should be an easy to use lens.  No lens is but this one is particular tough with it's super thin DOF when wide open.  You have always keep the perfect focus or it will be oof where you don't want it to.

I shoot 80%+ of my 85L shots wide open.  How do I do it?  First I make sure MAF is set up perfectly for cameras that have it.  Then I never use f&r.  Not only that I never shoot in one shot mode either.  I always shoot in AI servo with the AF point kept at the object.  A slight movement of the camera or the object after focus lock, if you shoot in one shot mode, would throw the focus off.  If you still could not get sharp wide open picture with these practices then you should send your lens to the service.  Think about it, why Canon would bother to make this lens if it does not allow you go create good images at f1.2?

As usual always take a look at the user before you blame it on the equiment.

gatorowl wrote:

It is a very special lens indeed for Canon.  I occasionally shoot it at 1.2 but generally find the sweet spot for acceptable DOF to be 1.4-1.8. I shoot at 1.2 for "fun" but find most of my keepers at the smaller apertures.

Again, please share some of your 1.2 samples.  I'd love to see how you manage and exploit the incredibly narrow DOF that 1.2 produces. I suspect that I'm not the only one who could benefit from your samples.

Acemetric wrote:

I don't think I'll ever use this lens at anything but 1.2. And therein lies the difference between it and the 1.8. It's just plain magic wide open. Just wow.