Canon 85mm 1.2 or Sigma 85mm 1.4?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micktheexbiker

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...

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

I'd go for the Canon.


John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

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.

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

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).

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.

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

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.[;)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

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.[img]/emoticons/emotion-5.gif[/img]
<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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micktheexbiker

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

---

I second that, whatever it means [:)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

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. [:^)]

<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

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).[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.81/_5F00_MG_5F00_9606sm.jpg[/img]


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

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.


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


here is f/2 shot


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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

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!!)


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


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Didn't see this before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

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. [img]/emoticons/emotion-5.gif[/img] 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. [img]/emoticons/emotion-18.gif[/img]

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greggf

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brendan7

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (!).


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan Huyer

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by <span>Jonathan Huyer

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

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

---

My pleasure and thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

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!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by btaylor

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

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.

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, 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!!