Canon 85mm 1.2 or Sigma 85mm 1.4?

[Micktheexbiker]

Firstly can i hank everyone for your past advice on lens choice. All advice has been spot on and ive never regetted any choice ive made. So thanks. But, its happened again.........


Recently ive done quiet a few portrait shots using natural light. I much prefer natural light and candid shots but thats me. I use my 70-200 , 24-105 on my 1DS3 and rarly 7D. I was happy with the results but considered moving up a notch by purchasing a prime for low light shots. Poor weather seems to follow me unfortunatly. I have a strange 'L' disease which i know a lot of you suffer from so had a look at the options. Luckily ive saved some money so i had a lok at Canons offerings. 50mm 1.4 on my 1d or 7D looked a great option. Top reviews on here and pretty low cost. Then unfortunatly i was off doing some shots at a local steam railway and ran into one of the countrys top pros. I didnt know him but we got chatting and i found out who he was. He was using a 85mm 1.2. His results were excellent. He needs the best as he does photoshoots of the Queen for example! GULP! Anyway, when i thought 50mm 1.4 on both bodies would suit me and the 85mm 1.2. Then Sigma launch a 85mm 1.4!!! ARGH! Anyone used one? I dont use Sigma as ive never had a Canon lens let me down (until my 180 Macro autofocus stopped working).


Mick

[neuroanatomist]

Then Sigma launch a 85mm 1.4!!! ARGH! Anyone used one?


Probably people at Sigma have, and some selected professionals chosen to test the lens. Announced via press release ≠ launched. As it's not yet been released to the public (you can pre-order on Amazon, but there's no release date listed), you probably won't find hands-on reviews quite yet...

[Brendan7]

Whichever you can afford. For most people though the 1.2 is not worth $1000 (or whatever the difference is) more.

[Fast Glass]

I'd go for the Canon.


John.

[btaylor]

I'd go for the Canon.


John.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



So would I... if I could afford it. I'll be interested to see what the Sigma is like, 85mm would be a nice focal length for me so hopefully it performs well.

[clemmb]

I was thinking about the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM till I read Bryan's review. It sounded like a better lense than the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM till I read Bryan's comment; "Inconsistent focus accuracy is definitely the downside of this lens"


I just trust Canon lenses more than Sigma.


Mark

[neuroanatomist]

Have you considered the EF 85mm f/1.8? It's ~2/3 stop slower than the Sigma f/1.4, and a full stop slower than the f/1.2L. But it's really a stellar lens, and at less than half the cost of the Sigma and 1/5 the cost of the f/1.2L, the price/performance ratio is excellent.


The inversion of the price/performance ratio from EF 85mm f/1.8 to EF 85mm f/1.2L is pretty much the only thing holding me back from getting the f/1.2L at this point (the EF 85mm f/1.8 was the second lens I purchased, and I still use it frequently).

[Keith B]

Did my first real shoot with my 85 1.2II yesterday. Mind boggling. AD was blown away. No one in my area has anything close to it. That in itself makes the price worth it. Most folks are shooting with 2.8 zooms at best. My 35L and 85L blew them away.

[neuroanatomist]

Keith, you're not making this any easier... [:P]

[Keith B]

Oooh, sorry.


I intentionally didn't post pics because...well nevermind...


I will say this though. I was trying to blur the background as much as possible and at 1.2 I was nailing the focus on the eyes but the nose was completely lost. So I was actually shooting at 1.8 and 2.0 quite a bit.


I still wouldn't suggest the 1.2 to someone who wasn't using it to make a living with it. I definitely wouldn't recommend it to a pro in my area either.[;)]

[neuroanatomist]

I will say this though. I was trying to blur the background as much as possible and at 1.2 I was nailing the focus on the eyes but the nose was completely lost. So I was actually shooting at 1.8 and 2.0 quite a bit.


On the 5DII or the 7D? Just curious.

[Alan]

I will say this though. I was trying to blur the background as much as possible and at 1.2 I was nailing the focus on the eyes but the nose was completely lost. So I was actually shooting at 1.8 and 2.0 quite a bit.


I still wouldn't suggest the 1.2 to someone who wasn't using it to make a living with it. I definitely wouldn't recommend it to a pro in my area either./emoticons/emotion-5.gif
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Okay, so the 1.2L is a fast lens, and I agree with the last statement about the value to the users, too. But, if you're stopping the lens down, I don't see the need for this lens. The 85 f/1.8 should be more than adequate. I, for one, would be irritated if the eyes were in focus and not the nose. Especially, when I looked at the price of the lens. This would be a definite minus for owning this lens, and I doubt it would get much use even in a professional's bag of goodies.

[Sean Setters]

I, for one, would be irritated if the eyes were in focus and not the nose. Especially, when I looked at the price of the lens. This would be a definite minus for owning this lens, and I doubt it would get much use even in a professional's bag of goodies.


You have to realize that depth of field depends on your distance to the subject. If you're using an 85mm f/1.2 on a 5D Mark II, at 13 feet, you'd have a little more than 6in of sharp DOF....and 6in is certainly enough to get the eyes and nose in focus (but probably not the ears). For a close up, however, you'd need to close the aperture down.

[Micktheexbiker]

Remember its poor light performance im after. Its not where you live its where i live. Depth of field/bokeh is one thing, but we seem to forget shutter speed. If i want sharp shots in poor light i want lots of light. I live in a pretty dull area. I dont do studio shots.





Mick

[Jon Ruyle]

If i want sharp shots in poor light i want lots of light.


I second that, whatever it means [:)]

[Alan]

You have to realize that depth of field depends on your distance to the subject. If you're using an 85mm f/1.2 on a 5D Mark II, at 13 feet, you'd have a little more than 6in of sharp DOF....and 6in is certainly enough to get the eyes and nose in focus (but probably not the ears). For a close up, however, you'd need to close the aperture down.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Yep, I understand the issue of distance. But, even at 13 feet (more likely a studio situation), it would still make me upset that the ears weren't in focus. I've taken plenty of studio shots with the 85 f/1.8 (mostly stopped down) and have never been disappointed with the sharpness, color, contrast. I get the ears in focus, too. [;)] The price to achieve that is a fraction of the 1.2L, which wouldn't be necessary in a studio-lighting environment.


But, as Mike said, he's not interested in studio shots. Drab environment, poor lighting....I guess it's worth $1700 for that. [:^)]

[Keith B]

<div>







I will say this though. I was trying to blur the background as much as possible and at 1.2 I was nailing the focus on the eyes but the nose was completely lost. So I was actually shooting at 1.8 and 2.0 quite a bit.


On the 5DII or the 7D? Just curious.




</div>


I was shooting the 5DII solely yesterday. I have shot it on the 7D too.









Okay, so the 1.2L is a fast lens, and I agree with the last statement about the value to the users, too. But, if you're stopping the lens down, I don't see the need for this lens. The 85 f/1.8 should be more than adequate. I, for one, would be irritated if the eyes were in focus and not the nose. Especially, when I looked at the price of the lens. This would be a definite minus for owning this lens, and I doubt it would get much use even in a professional's bag of goodies.






I hate to open up this can of worms but even at f/2 the bokeh is unbelievable. Shooting head and shoulder shots at 1.2 is going to give you ridiculously shallow DOF but full length of thighs up shots are going to be out of this world.


I have seen some striking portraits where little is in focus. Style is not always about perfection.


Here is a shot at 1.2 (this is completely unedited and I may take it down shortly since I hate posting clients work)./cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.81/_5F00_MG_5F00_9606sm.jpg


Here is one I shot on the 7d a couple weeks ago at 1.2/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.81/IMG_5F00_7611s.jpg

[Keith B]

Couple more just to show the range;


This was a throw away shot at f/1.2 just to see if we could blur out the girl in the seat. This may not be the effect you want all the time, but this is power.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.81/_5F00_MG_5F00_9601sm.jpg


here is f/2 shot


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.81/_5F00_MG_5F00_9519sm.jpg

[Garrett-Grimsley]

I'd be interested to see how the new Sigma 85 performs. Their 50 f/1.4 is a little iffy and is best used on crop bodies, hopefully this one will have better corners on full frame.


If this new 85 is any good I'll gladly add it next to my current 85 f/1.8, beats cashing out for the 1.2L.





Here's what it looks like if you haven't seen it already.


http://sleekupload.com/uploads/5/sam_1005.jpg


http://sleekupload.com/uploads/5/sam_1248_(2).jpg

[ddt0725]

I hate to open up this can of worms but even at f/2 the bokeh is unbelievable. Shooting head and shoulder shots at 1.2 is going to give you ridiculously shallow DOF but full length of thighs up shots are going to be out of this world.



I want this lens sooo bad ...along withyour skill using it!!! These photos are awesome!

Denise

[greggf]

I too am waiting for the Sigma. If it has the dreamy quality that my sigma 50 has, it'll be a winner for the price!!! Not to say that the 85 1.2 isn't great, it's just EXPENSIVE!! Trying to save my budget.


Here are 2 pics with the 1.2 taken 2 weeks ago(a friend let me borrow it for the shoot((thanks,Pierre, BTW)). They are both at 1.2, shot on 5D2....let me know what you think. It is a great lens.....edit...the second shot, Houston's hair looks a little weird(I think it was the downsizing!!)


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/IMG_5F00_4783.jpg


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/IMG_5F00_4802.jpg

[Keith B]

I hate to open up this can of worms but even at f/2 the bokeh is unbelievable. Shooting head and shoulder shots at 1.2 is going to give you ridiculously shallow DOF but full length of thighs up shots are going to be out of this world.





I want this lens sooo bad ...along withyour skill using it!!! These photos are awesome!



Denise






Thanks Denise. You are way too kind. The light used was the 36" Photok Soflighter that I always tout. Obviously a lot of ambient comes into play at the wide apertures used.








Gregg


Those are great shots. The first shot is what I was talking about earlier when you back up a little you can really isolate a full length subject.

[Keith B]

Didn't see this before.






Yep, I understand the issue of distance. But, even at 13 feet (more likely a studio situation), it would still make me upset that the ears weren't in focus. I've taken plenty of studio shots with the 85 f/1.8 (mostly stopped down) and have never been disappointed with the sharpness, color, contrast. I get the ears in focus, too. /emoticons/emotion-5.gif The price to achieve that is a fraction of the 1.2L, which wouldn't be necessary in a studio-lighting environment.


But, as Mike said, he's not interested in studio shots. Drab environment, poor lighting....I guess it's worth $1700 for that. /emoticons/emotion-18.gif






I think I understand why people say these things but they still kind of get me.


Well I'll say this and accept the attacks; There is more than an f/stop of light difference between the 1.2 and 1.8. Shoot with the 1.2 sometime. I have seen many of images from the 1.8 cross my desk(top) over the years and they were great but they weren't near the 1.2.


The shots I posted above were shot with studio type light but I still used 1.2-2.0 to achieve a softer look. With the studio light I could have very well shot higher f/stop. In fact I put my 24-70 on so I could wide and tight without changing lenses and both the art director and myself were unenthused after seeing the images shot at the wider apertures. Even the 85 at 2.8 was really different than the 24-70 @70 and 2.8. Bokehs weren't even comparable.


It is nice to have a lens this fast when you get an AD that says "I want that dreamy look like this image I got off istock." It is not good when you tell someone you can't. "Yes I can" is going to bring me a lot of work that will offset the additional $1500. Believe me there are a lot of discernible art directors out there that do see the difference between the 1.8 and the 1.2. And they usually don't like hearing "I can smooth the bokeh out in post."


You don't always shoot at 1.2 but it is a powerful utility even in good light. You never have to make excuses.


I have said it before (very recently), I don't recommend it for the average shooter but for a pro I think the 1.2 is a very valuable tool.


This emperor is pretty happy with his new clothes even if some people can't see them. I know they are there.

[greggf]

Keith,


Thanks for the kind words of the above shots.


And I have to agree with him on the usage of the 85 1.2. during the same photo shoot, I also used the 70-200 2.8ll, and whilst quite awesome at blurring the background, and isolating the subject, it (the 70-200@200), still doesn't have the effect that the 85 does. Even at smaller apertures(1.4-2.5), it has a certain draw to it that is, well, just the 85 1.2!!!


That being said.....I am still looking forward to the Sigma 85 1.4. Not a huge diff between 1.2 and 1.4, but I still prefer my Sig 50 to the 50 1.2(and it has had some focus shift), and I am hoping that Sigma has avoided the focusing problems, this time around. My Sig 50 just has a look to it that begs to be duplicated...I believe that this new 85 will, too.

[Keith B]

Keith,


Thanks for the kind words of the above shots.


And I have to agree with him on the usage of the 85 1.2. during the same photo shoot, I also used the 70-200 2.8ll, and whilst quite awesome at blurring the background, and isolating the subject, it (the 70-200@200), still doesn't have the effect that the 85 does. Even at smaller apertures(1.4-2.5), it has a certain draw to it that is, well, just the 85 1.2!!!


That being said.....I am still looking forward to the Sigma 85 1.4. Not a huge diff between 1.2 and 1.4, but I still prefer my Sig 50 to the 50 1.2(and it has had some focus shift), and I am hoping that Sigma has avoided the focusing problems, this time around. My Sig 50 just has a look to it that begs to be duplicated...I believe that this new 85 will, too.









Gregg


I have been a fan of the images I have seen come from the Sig 50. Far, far more than the Canon 50 1.4. I owned the Canon and never liked using it. I think if I cave and get another 50mm it will be the Sigma. I like the images I see from the Canon 1.2. It's focusing issues don't concern me too much, I usually have pretty good luck with tough focusing lenses, but owning the 85 1.2, and the 35 1.4 I don't want to spend $1500 to fill that gap.


The Sigma 85 certainly sound interesting and looks really nice. I wouldn't be concerned about the difference between 1.2 and 1.4.

[neuroanatomist]

I hate to open up this can of worms but even at f/2 the bokeh is unbelievable. Shooting head and shoulder shots at 1.2 is going to give you ridiculously shallow DOF but full length of thighs up shots are going to be out of this world.






Even at smaller apertures(1.4-2.5), it has a certain draw to it that is, well, just the 85 1.2!!!





I hear statements like this quite frequently,and the wonderful shots you both posted (thanks!) back them up rather effectively. That makes me wonder about the rationale for this:



I have said it before (very recently), I don't recommend it for the average shooter but for a pro I think the 1.2 is a very valuable tool.


Keith, can you elaborate a little more on why you'd recommend this lens for a pro but not for an amateur?


Thanks!


--John

[Brendan7]

I have said it before (very recently), I don't recommend it for the average shooter but for a pro I think the 1.2 is a very valuable tool.


Keith, can you elaborate a little more on why you'd recommend this lens for a pro but not for an amateur?


Thanks!


--John





I think what he meant was that for an amateur, the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4/f/1.8 isn't a difference big enough to justify the difference in cost (But heck, if you have $1900 and feel like losing it buy the 1.2!!!). But for a pro who needs/is dependent on/could profit easily from the larger aperture, the 1.2 lens becomes a better value.

[Fast Glass]

Also due *probably* from the very shallow DOF off/1.2. But f/1.8 aint exactally deep DOF either. An ameture will think. Geez, and I can't even get the whole face in focus. Even my kit lens can do that![:D]


Also to make this lens really shine it needs to be on a FF, which most ametures do not have.


John

[Keith B]

I have said it before (very recently), I don't recommend it for the average shooter but for a pro I think the 1.2 is a very valuable tool.


Keith, can you elaborate a little more on why you'd recommend this lens for a pro but not for an amateur?


Thanks!


--John





I think what he meant was that for an amateur, the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4/f/1.8 isn't a difference big enough to justify the difference in cost (But heck, if you have $1900 and feel like losing it buy the 1.2!!!). But for a pro who needs/is dependent on/could profit easily from the larger aperture, the 1.2 lens becomes a better value.









Pretty much what Brenden said. I would never tell someone not to get it, but at the same time I hate gushing over how really awesome the lens is and be the factor that throws someone over board to make an investment they won't really reap the benefits of. It has nothing to do with ability just cost justification. I know there are thousands + with more ability than me, I'd never be so bold.


Like A LOT of folks base the quality and value of a lens on sharpness and the 1.8 will definitely give you that. The 1.2 gives you sharpness and a lot of character not found in other lenses (not saying the 1.8 doesn't have any character). If sharpness is all you crave then the 1.2 may be a waste of $1500. A lot of folks have said stopping this lens down to 1.8 is a waste of $1500 but I will tell this lens at f/2 created an unreal dreamy bokeh like I have never seen before. Even f/4 is still unbelievably smooth. The sharpness is undeniably there, but sharpness is what it is. A lens is either sharp or it isn't. The 1.2 is a mind boggling combination of sharpness and buttery softness that can make you brain hurt from sensory overload.


If you have the cash and it won't make you miss a car or mortgage payment. If you have a deep down body need for super shallow DOF and really can see the bokeh difference between the 1.2 and 1.8 at comparable f-stops (it is substantial, but some don't see it), then buy the lens. you won't hate it. I guarantee that.

[Jonathan Huyer]

This forum is very timely, since I just got the lens as a birthday present. I am definitely one lucky guy! Here's a shot from the Calgary Zoo (I love the zoo). I kept the lens at f/1.2 the whole time I was there, since it was so much fun. The only "problem" I encountered was not being able to capture a shot in bright light conditions, because the exposure was requiring a shutter speed faster than the camera limit of 1/8000s (!).


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.37.25/IMG_5F00_2132.jpg

[Keith B]

The only "problem" I encountered was not being able to capture a shot in bright light conditions, because the exposure was requiring a shutter speed faster than the camera limit of 1/8000s (!).






That is funny, I have actually used the L ISO (50 ISO) setting on my 5DII just so I could continue shooting at 1.2. I guess maybe a good ND filter may be needed. I think most people get them for lower shutter speeds not wider apertures.

[wickerprints]

Regarding the ISO 50 setting on the 5D2, it is not a "real" sensitivity change. It is equivalent to ISO 100 overexposed one stop, then pulled back one stop from RAW. So you are not actually realizing a true decrease in sensitivity in the highlights.

[Keith B]

Regarding the ISO 50 setting on the 5D2, it is not a "real" sensitivity change. It is equivalent to ISO 100 overexposed one stop, then pulled back one stop from RAW. So you are not actually realizing a true decrease in sensitivity in the highlights.






Yeah I know, I guess I should have said "I resorted to using..."

[neuroanatomist]

The only "problem" I encountered was not being able to capture a shot in bright light conditions, because the exposure was requiring a shutter speed faster than the camera limit of 1/8000s (!).


As Keith suggested, a good ND filter is what you need. I ran into this "problem" shooting outdoor portraits with my EF 85mm f/1.8, which is why I now have a B+W ND #103 (0.9/3-stop). I find that to be sufficient (although I also have a #110/3.0/10-stop for long daylight exposures). Obviously, you can just go out on a bright day and stop down the lens to determine what strength of ND filter you need. Going a stop too far on the ND filter is not really an issue, IMO, since there's really no penalty going from ISO 100 to ISO 200 to get the stop back.



Like A LOT of folks base the quality and value of a lens on sharpness and the 1.8 will definitely give you that. The 1.2 gives you sharpness and a lot of character not found in other lenses (not saying the 1.8 doesn't have any character). If sharpness is all you crave then the 1.2 may be a waste of $1500.


Well, I like sharpness and that's one of the characteristics I use to judge lens performance - but it's only one characteristic of several. From reviews, the 85mm f/1.2L is not less sharp than the 85mm f/1.8 at the same apertures across the range; the same cannot be said of the 50mm f/1.2L, where it's lesser brother and it's distant, poor cousin both best it stopped down. But again, that's bested in terms of sharpness, which was (if I recall the way Daniel described) intentionally sacrificed in the optical design of the 50L, in favor of a more pleasing bokeh.



If you have a deep down body need for super shallow DOF and really can see the bokeh difference between the 1.2 and 1.8 at comparable f-stops (it is substantial, but some don't see it), then buy the lens.


I can certainly see it in others' shots, although I've never shot at f/1.2 myself. However, I have used my EF 85mm f/1.8 for several months - while I have some wonderful shots with that lens, I'm bothered by the purple/green fringing in some of my favorite shots, I find the bokeh a bit 'rough', and I've been in quite a few situations where one more stop of aperture would have really helped.



If you have the cash and it won't make you miss a car or mortgage payment.


Not an issue. Thus my "wallet full of $100's" post - my camera gear budget comes from outside consulting that I do, in addition to my day job as a scientist. The day job pays for the house, the cars, the other essentials, and 'little things' like the wood floors we had put in several downstairs rooms earlier this week - and the pair of iPhone 4's that will be pre-ordered soon. Although I don't spend too much time on theon-the-sideconsulting, it pays $200-300/hour, and that means despite buying a 100-400mm in March, a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II in April, and a 24-105mm f/4L in May, the wallet is bulging again...


Thanks, Keith, for your comments and helpful advice, and to you and others for posting excellent examples!

[ddt0725]

As Keith suggested, a good ND filter is what you need. I ran into this "problem" shooting outdoor portraits with my EF 85mm f/1.8, which is why I now have a B+W ND #103 (0.9/3-stop).


I just received the same ND filter in the mail today ...it's actually my first ND filter so I will see how I like it tomorrow.


the wallet is bulging again


I can imagine how uncomfortable that must be so since I have a severe obsession with this lens, I truly will not mind helping you find some comfort by letting you buy one for me while you are at it!! [;)] Hmmm, probably not, huh?


Well, since I FINALLY completed my miscellaneous list of this that and everything, I am completely focused again on my lens wish list! The 85mm 1.2L is at the top of it followed by the 70-200mm f/2.8 ...depending of course on what Canon comes out with in September since I won't be able to buy another lens until probably next spring! [:'(]

Denise

[Keith B]

Thanks, Keith, for your comments and helpful advice, and to you and others for posting excellent examples!






My pleasure and thanks.









Not an issue. Thus my "wallet full of $100's" post - my camera gear budget comes from outside consulting that I do, in addition to my day job as a scientist. The day job pays for the house, the cars, the other essentials, and 'little things' like the wood floors we had put in several downstairs rooms earlier this week - and the pair of iPhone 4's that will be pre-ordered soon. Although I don't spend too much time on theon-the-sideconsulting, it pays $200-300/hour, and that means despite buying a 100-400mm in March, a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II in April, and a 24-105mm f/4L in May, the wallet is bulging again...





I wish I had your problems [;)].


I use to be an art director for a magazine and they paid me separate for my photo work so all the extra cash went to photo gear while my regular pay went to bills and savings. Due to lots of mismanagement and the economy, back in November my magazine got shut down leaving me with out any income.Since, I have been kicking scratching to make a living at photography. The graphic design industry is so upside down, especially in FL, I have all but given up on that.


The first 5 months were some of the scariest of my life but the last 2 months I have made close to what my old job would have paid with out the photography money. I took a little risk purchasing the 35L and the 85L but I really wanted to define a style for myself, something that would separate myself from the local masses.


My years as an art director, seeing many, many different photographer's shots by hundreds of different lenses and cameras has made me very aware of the minute and not so minute differences between them.(Off topic)At the time the 5D had some of the best images I had ever seen, now surpassed by the markII. The Nikon D3 wasn't out long I only saw a handful of images from it but any Nikon before it was a joke. I did see some D700 and wan't too impressed but the photog that used it was sort of a hack.


(Back on topic) I had never had anyone supply images shot with the 85 1.2II or even the MKI, but one photographer (who only worked with natural light) did use the 85 1.8. When I first saw her images, they were differentbut I actually didn't care for the images. The images were shot at 1.8 and were very different since most photographers were using 2.8 zooms (usually shot at higher f/stops). The bokeh on the 85 1.8 to my eye is not smooth and somewhat distracting. I have seen Sean's images shot at higher f/stops and it does take a very nice sharp portrait, I just don't like it wide open.


To get back on track with the OG topic, I have been very impressed with the images shot with the Sigma 50 1.4 and most folks I have talked to first hand have not had the focus or bad copy issues. So I'd wait and at least see what the Sigma 85 1.4 can do before committing $1900 to the Canon.

[btaylor]

Well, since I FINALLY completed my miscellaneous list of this that and everything, I am completely focused again on my lens wish list!


Sounds like you have bulging wallet syndrome too Denise! You've accumulated more gear in the last 6 months than I have since starting out with my old Minolta Maxxum 7000 in 1995!!!

[ddt0725]

Sounds like you have bulging wallet syndrome too Denise! You've accumulated more gear in the last 6 months than I have since starting out with my old Minolta Maxxum 7000 in 1995!!!



LOL! Hardly, it's just I am extremely low maintenance otherwise and all my kids are grown! After the house and car payment, my 3 dogs are my biggest expense and they are the ones that my $ has to go toward for awhile. Dogs are just as expensive as having kids but at leastwith the kids, I had medical insurance!

Denise

[Alan]

Well, since I FINALLY completed my miscellaneous list of this that and everything, I am completely focused again on my lens wish list! The 85mm 1.2L is at the top of it...
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Me, too.


After reading Keith's excellent posts, seeing the images, understanding the reasoning behind why this lens is so distinct, I've also placed this lens on the top of my list.


Even though I don't rely solely on photography to make money, this lens offers more than enough differences to justify having it in my kit.

[greggf]

Everybody always want to buy this lens. For those people whom can't afford it, there is always the rental side, too!! I have rented several lenses over the years from Lensrentals.com ("/forums/AddPost.aspx/), and they are always great!!! They have almost every conceivable lens for almost every application. And their prices are very reasonable!! always an option if you can't afford to buy, or if you want to test a lens before buying, which I plan on doing with the Sigma 85 1.4 before buying. If the sigma is anywhere as close as the 85L, then I will be going down that route, so save me $900, or so. Just a thought!!

[greggf]

And another thing!! This lens has a pretty singular purpose...you can use it for others, but it is really THE portrait lens to have. In that respect, if you can't afford it, renting is a very viable option, if you know your dates for rental(or photo shoot, photo op) in advance.

[Fast Glass]

And for those that can'tafford or aren't willing to spend the money on the Sigma, you can get the Bower 85mm f/1.4 manual focus lens new for about $350. Ken Rockwell has a nice review on the Vivtar version, which is just a re-branded version ofthis lens.


John.

[neuroanatomist]

I still wouldn't suggest the 1.2 to someone who wasn't using it to make a living with it.


I've been thinking more on this, and I guess I have the opposite opinion (maybe not diametrically opposed, but opposite in principle). When I buy a microscope at work, I need to justify the purchase for business purposes, and if I need the $130,000 Zeiss scope, I need to justify why that is required instead of the $90,000 Nikon or Olympus equivalents.


I would assume the same would be true of a professional photographer buying a new lens - a cost/benefit analysis for the purchase of the 85mm f/1.2L, especially compared to something like the 85mm f/1.8. Now, it might become apparent from such an analysis that the revenues returned from the investment would justify the expense, but it might not. On the other hand, someone for whom photography is a hobby just has to answer two simple questions: 1) can I afford it?, and 2) will shooting with enhance the enjoyment of my hobby?


Just my 2&cent;. (Or 186,900&cent;, as the case may be...)

[StapledPhoto]

I still wouldn't suggest the 1.2 to someone who wasn't using it to make a living with it.


I've been thinking more on this, and I guess I have the opposite opinion (maybe not diametrically opposed, but opposite in principle). When I buy a microscope at work, I need to justify the purchase for business purposes, and if I need the $130,000 Zeiss scope, I need to justify why that is required instead of the $90,000 Nikon or Olympus equivalents.


I would assume the same would be true of a professional photographer buying a new lens - a cost/benefit analysis for the purchase of the 85mm f/1.2L, especially compared to something like the 85mm f/1.8. Now, it might become apparent from such an analysis that the revenues returned from the investment would justify the expense, but it might not. On the other hand, someone for whom photography is a hobby just has to answer two simple questions: 1) can I afford it?, and 2) will shooting with enhance the enjoyment of my hobby?


Just my 2&cent;. (Or 186,900&cent;, as the case may be...)
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I would have thought that you are only buying more cost-effective equipment than you'd want because it's not your money. You need to have the purchase approved and justify the expense. While any self-employed photogs buy their own equipment and also use that equipment for their hobby photography. I guess I could see a staff photographer purchasing with your concerns in mind. I don't think the government is questioning anyone's small business $2000 lens write-offs as being of unnecessarily high in quality.

[Jon Ruyle]

I've been thinking more on this, and I guess I have the opposite opinion


Yeah, I agree. If you're doing it just for fun, who cares how much it costs, as long as you can afford it. If you're doing it to make money, you want to be sure you will get a return on your investment.



and if I need the $130,000 Zeiss scope,


Uh, $130,000 for an optical microscope? I didn't know they were that much. You could get a lot of fun toys for that, you know.

[Micktheexbiker]

Its certainly been an interesting post this one. Since i posted this ive had my paws on a 50mm 1.4 which does the job. And ive decided that since i love the shots from my 1DS 3 much more than my 7D as i find the shots less noisy, less grainy and they have an "x" factor, im saving for the 85mm 1.2, Ive had a look at another one and was tempted to swap it for my wife but she wouldnt play ball.


I think i want it for the creamy backgrounds, the low light ability and myL disease i cannot cure. And im no pro but as in recent posts, it makes my hobby better and i can afford it. Except ive just finished university which my job made me do. 7 years study for 40 dollars a week more and i find the same guys doing the same job just up the road from me doing %50 less work are getting a massive pay increase of over 10,000 a year. And what did i say to my boss? 'Do you know how many lens's i could buy with that'. My boss didnt understand my logic. I feel you guys will. Sorry to rant.


Mick

[neuroanatomist]

Uh, $130,000 for an optical microscope? I didn't know they were that much. You could get a lot of fun toys for that, you know.


LOL, yeah, I know. Basic scopes, no - the one I have at home was only a couple of thousand. But high end optical microscopes, yes. Some of the planar apochromatic lenses run over $10K just for one objective. Add in fluorescence capability, motorization for automated image acquisition, etc., and it adds up.


The camera runs ~$15K - and get this, it's got a 1.5 megapixel CCD sensor (6.5 &micro;m pixels). Sounds overpriced, but it's 'gimmicked' to go up to 13.5 megapixels in a rather neat way. You probably know that because of the microlenses over each pixel and the gaps between the pixels themselves, there's an effective 'sweet spot' in the center of each pixel. The CCD is piezo-driven, and can move in subpixel increments to compile an image from either a 2x2 (for 6 megapixels) or a 3x3 (13.5 megapixels) array, moving that sweet spot around to increase resolution. It also moves in full-pixel increments, so each pixel gets a separate exposure through the Bayer filter, mimicking a 3 CCD system by eliminating the interpolation. Of course, I'm not a victim of the 'megapixel myth' and that's especially true for microscope objectives - the most optical resolution one can deliver is about 150 Lp/mm, meaning 5 megapixels is all that's required to capture the optical resolution. That's actually with low power lenses (1.25x, 2.5x) - the high power lenses (100x oil immersion) can have all of their optical resolving power adequately captured even by VGA resolution.


Anyway, enough shop talk - it's the weekend!


Happy Father's Day to you, Jon - enjoy the time with your family!

[ddt0725]

But high end optical microscopes, yes. Some of the planar apochromatic lenses run over $10K just for one objective. Add in fluorescence capability, motorization for automated image acquisition, etc., and it adds up.


The camera runs ~$15K - and get this, it's got a 1.5 megapixel CCD sensor (6.5 &micro;m pixels). Sounds overpriced, but it's 'gimmicked' to go up to 13.5 megapixels in a rather neat way. You probably know that because of the microlenses over each pixel and the gaps between the pixels themselves, there's an effective 'sweet spot' in the center of each pixel. The CCD is piezo-driven, and can move in subpixel increments to compile an image from either a 2x2 (for 6 megapixels) or a 3x3 (13.5 megapixels) array, moving that sweet spot around to increase resolution. It also moves in full-pixel increments, so each pixel gets a separate exposure through the Bayer filter, mimicking a 3 CCD system by eliminating the interpolation. Of course, I'm not a victim of the 'megapixel myth' and that's especially true for microscope objectives - the most optical resolution one can deliver is about 150 Lp/mm, meaning 5 megapixels is all that's required to capture the optical resolution. That's actually with low power lenses (1.25x, 2.5x) - the high power lenses (100x oil immersion) can have all of their optical resolving power adequately captured even by VGA resolution.



Totally ...I knew that! [*-)]






Happy Father's Day to you, Jon - enjoy the time with your family!



Ok, so this is reallythe only part Iunderstood....Have a great Father's Day guys!! [:D]

Denise

[Jon Ruyle]

You probably know that because of the microlenses over each pixel and the gaps between the pixels themselves, there's an effective 'sweet spot' in the center of each pixel.


Sorry for being dense, but... how can one part of a pixel be "sweeter" than another? Are you saying light transmission is better in some spots than others?



The CCD is piezo-driven, and can move in subpixel increments to compile an image from either a 2x2 (for 6 megapixels) or a 3x3 (13.5 megapixels) array, moving that sweet spot around to increase resolution. It also moves in full-pixel increments, so each pixel gets a separate exposure through the Bayer filter, mimicking a 3 CCD system by eliminating the interpolation.


Wild. I can't understand, though- if you're going to do three exposures, why not just change filters (instead of having them built in)?



Of course, I'm not a victim of the 'megapixel myth' and that's especially true for microscope objectives - the most optical resolution one can deliver is about 150 Lp/mm, meaning 5 megapixels is all that's required to capture the optical resolution.


Quite so. And if you're photographing still objects, sensitivity probably isn't that important either. In light of the fact that the laws of physics severely limit resolution at high maginfication, I've often wondered why super expensive optics are necessary. Sure, you want good contrast (probably paramount with microscopes) and low CA. But the glass is so *small* :)


Actually, though $10K is a lot for a tiny objective, that price does not surprise me. Very nice Zeiss 1.25" telescope eyepieces cost about $500 each (and they are *very* nice).


Okay, sorry for going so OT. Lemmie just say that if I wanted an 85mm lens faster than my f/1.8, I'd get the canon f/1.2 [:)]











Happy Father's Day to you, Jon - enjoy the time with your family!







Ok, so this is reallythe only part Iunderstood....Have a great Father's Day guys!! /emoticons/emotion-2.gif





Thanks, Denise, and likewise John. I spent all afternoon in the hot tub. We ate bbq, drank beer, and had homemade peach pie for desert. I hope everyone had as nice a day yesterday as I did :)

[neuroanatomist]

Sorry for being dense, but... how can one part of a pixel be "sweeter" than another? Are you saying light transmission is better in some spots than others?


Nope - just that not all of the pixel actually collects light, although I didn't explain it very well. The photodiode (which detects the light) occupies only about 40% of the area of the pixel. The microlenses on Canon's sensors are one approach to solve that problem - as illustrated on the left below. The newer gapless microlenses are more effective, since nearly all of the light covering each pixel area is focused on the photodiode (right, from Canon's 1DIV info). Zeiss' approach is to raster the sensor around, instead. Obviously, you need really fast exposures - or a completely immobile subject - to make that work. Fixed specimens don't move much...


http://www.digitalbirdphotography.com/microlens.jpg http://www.usa.canon.com/uploadedimages/FCK/Image/2009/EOS-1D Mark IV Sensor/Gapless Microlenses.jpg



I can't understand, though- if you're going to do three exposures, why not just change filters (instead of having them built in)?


That's how some microscope cameras work, either with a filter wheel in front of the camera or one in front of the light source. I suppose the advantage here is choice - if you want to take a faster picture, you can choose to take a single exposure and interpolate for color with the Bayer mask.



In light of the fact that the laws of physics severely limit resolution at high maginfication, I've often wondered why super expensive optics are necessary. Sure, you want good contrast (probably paramount with microscopes) and low CA. But the glass is so *small*.


It's small, yes. But recall that in photography, macro lenses suffer from an apparent reduction in maximum aperture with close-focusing distance. Because of that sort of effect, microscope objectives need to have significant light-gathering capability - that's what you're paying for. The relevant lens spec is called numerical aperture (NA), and although it's different than f-number, the two can be approximately related as f-number = 1/(2NA), for air lenses. So, my 20x/0.75NA objective would be equivalent to f/0.67. Air actually limits the NA to &lt;1 (the index of refraction for air), which is why high-power objectives use oil between the lens and the slide (index of refraction of immersion oil is ~1.56, meaning higher NA and thus greater possible resolution). The NA of a good (=expensive) oil immersion lens is 1.4, which translates to approximately f/0.55 once the correction for the index of refraction is applied. Even though the amount of glass is tiny (since the focal length is so short - 0.19mm working distance), the high NA and the associated difficulty of construction and high degree of precision required are presumably what translate to cost. Also, the actual glass is different - the glass used camera lenses doesn't transmit UV wavelengths all that well, and transmits IR even less well. For fluorescence, microscope objectives need to transmit UV and IR as well as visible light. Of course, it could just be that Zeiss is making one heck of a profit. [:P]



I hope everyone had as nice a day yesterday as I did


Sure did, and I hope all the other dads out there did as well!

[btaylor]

Hi guys,


I

[Rocco]

Really glad you bumped this thread. I enjoyed reading it. The 1.2 has also been on my wishlist and I hadn

[Jonathan Huyer]

Here is a link to a comparision between the two lenses, done by a professional wedding photographer:


darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/.../sigma-85mm-f1-4-vs-canon-85mm-f1-2l-ii ("http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/sigma-85mm-f1-4-vs-canon-85mm-f1-2l-ii/)


It is quite thorough and appears to be brutally honest, which is nice.

[btaylor]

Yep there

[Rocco]

Bryan has done a review as well, comparing it to the 1.2 quite a bit. Seems like focus accuracy was his main gripe.

[greggf]

I think right now, having rented the Sigma previously, that I really liked it. And I have used the 85L, too. But, after my recent experience with the Rokinon 35 1.4, I will now be trying the Rokinon(Samyang) 85 1.4! For a meager $271 it should have a chance, and I plan to let it. Granted, it is manual focus with no confirmation, but my recent shooting has left me using manual focus much, much more...so in this regard, and for most who can't afford the Sigma of L, this is a really viable option!! I'll let you know...it'll (the Rokinon) be here on Friday, and I will give some examples, shortly thereafter!!


Gregg

[Fast Glass]

Once you get bit by the MF bug you can't stop! $1000 takes you a long way in the MF world.


John.

[btaylor]

Thanks Gregg. Not sure about the manual focus side of things for me though but if the IQ is outstanding the I

[greggf]

Okay...I just got the Rokinon 85 1.4 yesterday. I've played around with it a little while delivering(on my lunch), and my first impressions were really good. It is fairly small, maybe the size of the Canon 85 1.8...it is NOT a brick like the 85 1.2L or my Zeiss Distagon ZE 35 1.4 !! It fits very well on my 1DIV. I will post some samples in another thread here in the next couple of days...


Gregg

[Micktheexbiker]

I eventually bought the Sigma 85 1.4. Can i say it focus