How sharp is the Canon 85mm f1.8 wide open?

I have seen many mixed opinions and samples from this lens ranging from tack sharp wide open, to soft, to horrible CA in any sort of backlit situation. What is your experience? I would be using this on my 24mp Sony A7II, most likely with an MC-11 adapter. I found some samples recently on Flickr that show excellent results wide open (f1.8-f2.5). It looks just slightly soft at f1.8 but tack sharp at f2. If these results are the norm I will definitely be picking one up. Are the results below in line with what you have experienced?:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123382894@N04/29735471580/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123382894@N04/25541439310/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123382894@N04/27005617505/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123382894@N04/26333298714/

All credit to Claudio Murolo for the stunning photographs.

My copy is lovely at 2.8 amd good below that. We each have our acceptable performance opinions. My 135 l is better. Hard to beat the 85 1.8 for the price though.

There ar other factors to get the most from your lens. The images you linked seem like studio style shots with great lighting....they were also resizer. If you want to see some images check out pixelpeeper, you can specify the camera, the lens, and show inly full res images...it data mines flickr very useful.

SonyArtisan wrote:

I have seen many mixed opinions and samples from this lens ranging from tack sharp wide open, to soft, to horrible CA in any sort of backlit situation. What is your experience? I would be using this on my 24mp Sony A7II, most likely with an MC-11 adapter. I found some samples recently on Flickr that show excellent results wide open (f1.8-f2.5). It looks just slightly soft at f1.8 but tack sharp at f2. If these results are the norm I will definitely be picking one up. Are the results below in line with what you have experienced?:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123382894@N04/29735471580/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123382894@N04/25541439310/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123382894@N04/27005617505/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123382894@N04/26333298714/

All credit to Claudio Murolo for the stunning photographs.

Stopping down, even a little, does help.  Looking back on my old shots I seemed to use it f2-f4 mostly because that was the DoF I wanted. As for CA, yes it can be a problem if shooting into the light.

I had one of these and sold it after a few years, partly because I wasn't shooting much portrait stuff and had the 100 macro in a similar focal length which was more versatile (MFD on the 85 and most other 85s isn't great for doing tighter shots). Although I am actually considering picking one up again as I will probably be doing more portraity stuff in time. If you shoot to its strengths then it produces some great results. As others have said, its an absolute bargain in terms of bang for buck.

I can't speak to using it on a Sony, but my 85mm f/1.8 is so-so sharp in the center when used wide open. The 85mm f/1.8 is pretty long in the tooth and the optical design isn't up to modern Canon standards, but the price is right.

It was a key lens back in the film era when we were desperate to get anything recorded, and quite useful for portraits and basketball. Honestly, mine sits in the trunk of my car these days and I haven't used it for several years.

SonyArtisan wrote:

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

My copy is lovely at 2.8 amd good below that. We each have our acceptable performance opinions. My 135 l is better. Hard to beat the 85 1.8 for the price though.

There ar other factors to get the most from your lens. The images you linked seem like studio style shots with great lighting....they were also resizer. If you want to see some images check out pixelpeeper, you can specify the camera, the lens, and show inly full res images...it data mines flickr very useful.

Thanks for the reply. I checked out PixelPeeper but there appears to be very limited samples for the 85mm from f1.8-f2 on 20-20mp full frame bodies. Only 32 total for both the 5DIII and 6D combined, most don't look as sharp as the others I posted previously, and not many portraits to assess.

Looking at the images I posted, the second two specifically as I believe they are higher resolution, would you say your copy is equally sharp at f2-f2.5? I would rarely use the lens anywhere but f1.8-f2.5 so what I'm trying to find out is if the copy/photos I linked are outliers or the norm. The problem when viewing samples online is that there are so many variables with camera bodies, sensor resolution/performance, and uploaded resolution/compression that it's tough to tell actual lens performance. While individual feedback is subjective I'm hoping that I can get some responses comparing the images above or offering similarly sharp samples taken by members here at full resolution on 20-24mp bodies from f1.8 f2.5. Do you have any samples in this range you could post? Portraits would be most useful. Thanks

Here are a few from my 85 f1.8, you can view the original size, so 100%.

5d3 + 85 f1.8 @ f2.5

https://www.flickr.com/photos/22781076@N03/19745399638/in/album-72157655828601178/

5d3 + 85 f1.8 @ f2

https://www.flickr.com/photos/22781076@N03/19933515315/in/album-72157655828601178/

5d3 + 85 f1.8 @ f1.8

https://www.flickr.com/photos/22781076@N03/29420984983/in/dateposted-public/

5d3 + 85 f1.8 @ f2

https://www.flickr.com/photos/22781076@N03/22464247329/in/album-72157660141282077/

SonyArtisan wrote:

Thank you very much. Just a bit soft for my taste below f2.5 but beautiful bokeh and hard to complain for the price. Still not sure if it's worth it for me since I'd also need the MC-11 adapter for AF, running into the $500-600+ territory where there are more options. Hmm.

Yeah, it would make sense if you expect to get other EF lenses as well, thus taking the adapter cost and spreading it out over lenses. Not sure which sony camera you use, but the lack of AA filter might make images from the combo appear a bit sharper. Honestly I can't imagine when the images I posted would be too soft to be usable, even in large print.

Sigma's new 85 f1.4 Art might be an option if you want to spend the money. There are certainly better performing 85s available, but of course they cost more.

Probably not as sharp as resent designs, but for shallow DOF portraiture, I'd say plenty sharp : http://www.acapixus.dk/photography/24_to_105_5D/85.htm

hotdog321 wrote:

I can't speak to using it on a Sony, but my 85mm f/1.8 is so-so sharp in the center when used wide open. The 85mm f/1.8 is pretty long in the tooth and the optical design isn't up to modern Canon standards, but the price is right.

Of course, it's worth noting that the 85mm sits in your trunk because in its place you are using an L zoom that costs 4 times as much  

It was a key lens back in the film era when we were desperate to get anything recorded, and quite useful for portraits and basketball. Honestly, mine sits in the trunk of my car these days and I haven't used it for several years.

-- hide signature --

photojournalist
http://craighartley.zenfolio.com/

Too hard to know if you'll be disappointed because everyone has a different threshold.  Mine is a little soft at f1.8, but is usable.  I prefer it at f2 and above.  CA can definitely be an issue, but for the price, this lens is very very hard to beat.  If you have deep pockets, there are better options probably

Results like those in the photos you originally posted are obtained by very skilled post processing. If you expect those results SOC from the canon lens you will be very disappointed.

Interesting, the images are nice enough but I don't see them as being significantly sharper than even the 85mm shots that I posted (viewer matters too maybe)? There are a lot of reasons to like the Canon 85 f1.8, it's small, light, inexpensive, has solid performance, and fast AF. It's a nice lens, not my favorite Canon lens, but certainly a nice one. For the record my personal favorite is the 135L, if you were wondering.

If the Sigma 85 art lives up to the rest of the line it might be quite interesting. More affordable than the alternatives with great performance. Certainly the 35 and 50 are quite well regarded, all of these are listed as mc-11 compatible as well on Sigma's site.

Thanks for the link. I think it may be simply from the low resolution 5D (12mp?) but these results look downright awful compared to what I'm used to.

Stated on the intro page :"Sharpness was set to 0 (no sharpening) and no other post processing has been applied to the images" - I suppose I should have included that in the original post

clark321 wrote:

Results like those in the photos you originally posted are obtained by very skilled post processing. If you expect those results SOC from the canon lens you will be very disappointed.

They were also down sampled (resized), so those images tell you little about native resolution.

I finally sold my 85mm a while back.  It was an awesome lens on my original 4 MP 1D, and I shot it wide open often.  Having said that, you can see a lot of improvements by stopping down to f/2.2-f/2.5 even on low res cameras.  Nowadays on higher resolution cameras, the 1:1 pixel view shows the lens limitation easily, and I do not like it until I see f/2.8.  I personally like the 100mm f/2 better, and I use it wide open.

This is very interesting. I have gone back and forth between the 85mm and 100mm about a million times and I'm not sure I've seen two lenses with such a variance of opinion. Most of what I've seen suggests that the 85mm is notably sharper at F2 than the 100mm (including DXO) but I also come across people that state they found the 100mm sharper wide open. Do you happen to have any wide open samples from either or both?

My opinion is from thousands of frames, seat of pants, "feel", so I will not argue with lab results.  I actually own the 85mm twice, bought it back after selling it, and that's how much I liked it.  My 100mm that I bought used is better than both copies of my 85mm.  Did I get very lucky and got a golden copy of 100mm?  Who knows...