Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM - too niche

The Ferrari of lenses, dubbed by a review I read online that turned out to be true (unfortunately).

I bought this the other day from Adorama $1600 after tax, and after a (quite large) micro-adjustment of -16, this lens is shocking.

Shocking in throwing out the background, shocking in image quality (minutes some fringe and CA), shocking in that glorious front element, shockingly heavy and shockingly large. You get the point.

Whichever product team at Canon designed this lens was truely inspired and blessed. The workmanship and quality is truly a masterpiece. bravo.

For my main gripe, and the reason I am returning this, I will use the analogy of a double-breasted Burberry coat that I bought and returned a couple years ago.

So, as a coat, the 85mm focal range has numerous uses. You're out looking for a new coat, something you can wear on a night out in the city. You have an idea what you want; its formal but can be worn with jeans, its a little more better quality, you want it to last, and its gotta be fashionable.

Along comes the Burberry coat. It has all the above, it keeps you warm while looking good, however its expensive, and there are two rows of buttons. In the mall, in the mirror and with the sales girl whispering in your ear how good you look, you close your eyes, swipe your card and buy it.

You come home, realize that damn this is a nice coat, but its awkward to wear, and its expensive.

You keep the coat and rarely use it, or you return it. I returned it and got a less-risky trench coat, of equal value in the end.

This review isn't about price. Its about actual usefullness of such a massive lens. It focuses slow, but I don't do sports, so thats okay. With shallow DOF you gotta take photos twice or three times to make sure you get a keeper, also not a big deal.

HOWEVER, the times you honestly need 1.2 are limited. Anything flat will be in focus, but a face isn't flat. If your subject isn't staring directly at you then you're gonna have only one eye in focus. Which actually works! It gives an artsy feel to it. But it gets old very fast.

In addition, wielding this thing is intimidating. Mostly to myself, not to my subject. I'm almost terrified to use it. I feel like beyond weddings or studio this piece of magic can't leave the house or your bag.

Street photography? nope

Landscapes? you don't need 1.2

Casual walk-around? Yes but you're too scared to let it hang from your shoulder strap.

Gosh, even mounting the lens to the camera is scary.

I really like this lens, and it does have its uses. When it is in use its phenomenal, perfect. When its not in use, you have a $1600-$2000 piece of art in your bag or at home.

I personally feel like i'm better served with the 135/2 for portrait work and a 35 or 50mm prime for general photography.

If I had a genie and could make one wish, I would wish for a 1.4 or 1.8 with the exact same workmanship and picture quality. Essentially sacrifice some DOF for a smaller size, and faster focus. Hey, I would actually be okay paying 1.6k for that.

As many manufacturers do (camera or other industry), they make an insanely good flagship prodcut for bragging rings, a way to showcase their technology. This is that item for Canon. Sometimes I think its not meant to be used, but its meant to be showcased in a glass box.

PS - I didn't bother going into tech specs, or even show images. All of that is found online.

FYI - my review generally mirrors this one, http://www.clearingthevision.com/2011/07/the-canon-85mm-f1-2-l-reviewed-ferrari-or-millennium-falcon/

I had hoped they were wrong, but I can't see myself keeping this lens. Or even using this lens. I'll be returning it to Adorama on Monday.

I did not have the same experience.

head or head and shoulder portraits. yes f 1.2 at best would render eyes in focus and every thing else soft.  but f1.2 provides plenty of DOF for full body portraits.  I never found the size intimidating, nor I found the AF objectionable in any way.  I also love the color and contrast of the lens.

I have taken the lens travelling with me, and to parties.  I dont walk around a ton, so cant say much about that.

I owned the 135L2.  Stellar lens.  however, I decided I would rather have the IS and zoom capability of 70-200 2.8 IS, over size and extra stop of light of 135 f2.

here an example a shot at f 1.2 that keeps all I want and need in focus.

Refreshing review of the 85L. I guess we had enough reviews about the technical capabilities...

I'm seriously interested though what motivated you to buy that lens. Was it pictures from others you liked? Was it G A S? I was actually looking into that lens as well, but between all the other lenses I have I did not find enough reason yet to have it.

I love guys who check out gear, and then sell them like new again. That's where I got most of my as new stuff with a very nice discount 

amd wrote:

Refreshing review of the 85L. I guess we had enough reviews about the technical capabilities...

I'm seriously interested though what motivated you to buy that lens. Was it pictures from others you liked? Was it G A S? I was actually looking into that lens as well, but between all the other lenses I have I did not find enough reason yet to have it.

I love guys who check out gear, and then sell them like new again. That's where I got most of my as new stuff with a very nice discount

He bought it for 1600 from Adorama, which probably means their ''open box'' campaign... So twice used.

Wonderful lens wide open as well as stopped down and very versitale - I never used a lens with more accurate AF.

OMFGITSNIKO wrote:

The Ferrari of lenses, dubbed by a review I read online that turned out to be true (unfortunately).

(...)

I personally feel like i'm better served with the 135/2 for portrait work and a 35 or 50mm prime for general photography.

Spot on.

The 135L and 85 L II are very close when it comes to output. Both suffer when used wide open, but still create spectacular pictures. The key difference is that its a lot easier to get good results with the 135L than the 85L when you shoot them wide open.

Because the 135L is far cheaper, so I always recommend it over the 85L unless people are sure they really need the f/1.2. If you need f/1.2 (I did for some time) its the lens to go. Also, 135mm may be too long if you shoot a crop-camera and do not have shorter primes.

When Canon promoted the 85L II as a sports lens hopes were very high. However, it proved to be a marketing gimmick. If it could focus fast enough for action shots I would have it now.

So Canon: let the 85L III be more LandCruiser and less Ferrari.

Meanwhile I continue to hope a Sigma 85 ART will emerge.

maiaibing wrote:

OMFGITSNIKO wrote:

The Ferrari of lenses, dubbed by a review I read online that turned out to be true (unfortunately).

(...)

I personally feel like i'm better served with the 135/2 for portrait work and a 35 or 50mm prime for general photography.

Spot on.

The 135L and 85 L II are very close when it comes to output. Both suffer when used wide open, but still create spectacular pictures. The key difference is that its a lot easier to get good results with the 135L than the 85L when you shoot them wide open.

Because the 135L is far cheaper, so I always recommend it over the 85L unless people are sure they really need the f/1.2. If you need f/1.2 (I did for some time) its the lens to go. Also, 135mm may be too long if you shoot a crop-camera and do not have shorter primes.

When Canon promoted the 85L II as a sports lens hopes were very high. However, it proved to be a marketing gimmick. If it could focus fast enough for action shots I would have it now.

So Canon: let the 85L III be more LandCruiser and less Ferrari.

Meanwhile I continue to hope a Sigma 85 ART will emerge.

Recommending the 135 over the 85mm is like recommending a 85mm to someone

looking for something wide.

The only thing the lenses have in common is that both get used for portrait (the latter especially among budget conscious amateurs).

I would always recommend the 70-200 2.8 II (or other version) over the 135mm 2.0

Fog Maker wrote:

common is that both get used for portrait (the latter especially among budget conscious amateurs).

I would always recommend the 70-200 2.8 II (or other version) over the 135mm 2.0

You can recommend whatever you like. Be my guest(???).

OP wanted that special look you can get with the 85L. So my point is that the 135L takes pictures that look a lot like the 85L wide open.

Your suggested zoom does not. At all.

I agree with fogmaker.

my 85lii was stellar. Great wide open but even more fantastic stopped down...

My 135l well very good but the 72isii is sharper, faster AF and more contrast...

and of course far more flexible and IS .... so 135l had no use and had to go.

reading these forums over last few years I notice a lot of people thought same and did same.

There is an answer - get both the 135 and the 85 

I did.

Spotted Cow wrote:

At least in my experience, it's very easy to pick out 85mm shots from the 135mm shots on the computer.

I trust you are not making the claim you can blind test between the two shot wide open?

expro wrote:

I agree with fogmaker.

my 85lii was stellar. Great wide open but even more fantastic stopped down...

My 135l well very good but the 72isii is sharper, faster AF and more contrast...

and of course far more flexible and IS .... so 135l had no use and had to go.

reading these forums over last few years I notice a lot of people thought same and did same.

I dealt with this before: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/38050793

Fine if the zoom works for you. Can you get the same results wide open? No.

neil holmes wrote:

AlephNull wrote:

There is an answer - get both the 135 and the 85

I did.

For less money if you want both you can get the 135 f2 L and the Mitakon 85 1.2 manual focus lens in EF mount.

I would love to have both the EF 85 1.2 L ii and EF 135 f2 L but am very happy with the 135 and an old FD 85 1.2 L. (used adapted on mirrorless).

Nope. Manual focus doesn't work for me, cheaper or not.

Some people (not pointing at you in particular) seem obsessed with cheaper - like there is something wrong with buying the right thing if there's something else that's cheaper (whether it's a good substitute or not).

A lot of the time I'd rather get the right thing. I don't mind saving money if something is genuinely just as good, but cheaper, but I won't overlook a shortcoming just because it's cheaper.

Hope that doesn't sound as inarticulate as it seems

Since u didn't know what to do with the lens or how to use it, commenting on the same saves time for every one.

The burberry coat is a fine piece of outer wear. Exquisitely made and well insulated with fine fabric. It is light, serves its purpose & has good looks. The double breasted design belong to the ubiquitous British design.
Design, quality & service are great.