85 1.8 vs 85 1.2

[Sean Setters]

The another reason I just bit the bullet on the 1.2 is that I was concerned with feel and construction of the 1.8. It's appearance conjures thoughts of my 50 1.4 and I never liked that lens. Besides any IQ issues, it just didn't feel right in my hands. It never felt balanced.

....balance (and an aperture wider than f/1.4) comes at quite a premium, though. :-)

[Alan]

John, you're a funny guy.....


I think....


Bigger is always better, by the way. At least, with glass.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

The another reason I just bit the bullet on the 1.2 is that I was concerned with feel and construction of the 1.8. It's appearance conjures thoughts of my 50 1.4 and I never liked that lens. Besides any IQ issues, it just didn't feel right in my hands. It never felt balanced.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

It had better be constructed well. It's one whopper of an expensive lens, that's for sure.


Do you notice DOF being a challenge with it? That's the one thing that others have noticed. I would think for portraits, at f/1.2, a nose could be in perfect focus, and an eye OOF.

[Keith B]

<div>

....balance (and an aperture wider than f/1.4) comes at quite a premium, though. :-)

Yes. But is has been a dream of mine since I was a little boy.
</div>

[It had better be constructed well. It's one whopper of an expensive lens, that's for sure.


Do you notice DOF being a challenge with it? That's the one thing that others have noticed. I would think for portraits, at f/1.2, a nose could be in perfect focus, and an eye OOF.

I haven't shot real portrait type stuff yet. My GF and I aren't on speaking terms right now (has nothing to do with said lens). However I did snap a quick shot the first night I got the lens. Sunday I have a model to shoot and I plan on using this lens heavily for that. I'll post those too.


But with the dog shots I took and this one "portrait" shot, I haven't had any trouble with DOF it is shallow but I've had lots of practice with 1.4 lenses.


On this shot I think I split the difference between the eyes. She was watching TV, again. This was not intended to be a keeper.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.81/_5F00_MG_5F00_5265md.jpg[/img]


5DII 1/125 Av 1.2 ISO 1600

[Sheiky]

All this discussion about light, and the mathematics of it, and there still isn't a single image posted here. I, for one, would like to see one, or two, perhaps.


Where is this thread going?

Well it's not a real clear question I have to admit...


If it is about how much light there is more with the f1.2 compared to the 1.8 with the same settings, he could just open a picture in lets say lightroom and adjust the exposure with 1.16 and see what happens.


If it must be real-life stuff it's just waiting for someone with the 85mm 1.2 to do this.


I could do the same thing with a 50mm 1.4 but I don't see the use of it [:P]

[Cozen]

wow I didn't expect so many responses so fast. I guess as the original poster, my question wasn't that clear, but in a way that was good as it opened up a range of discussions.





I guess for myself, I'm looking for real world DOF/bokeh comparisons of the same shot, and the low light capability comparisons of 1.8 vs 1.2. However that can be compared in the real world =)





For what it's worth I'm using a 5DmkII body.

[Cozen]

Focused on one given spot with my 85 1.2 @ 1.2 = 1/125. Then bumped up to 1.8 = 1/60.


I'll let the brains figure out the decimals. I know it something over 1 stop. Obviously the 85 1.8 may expose differently.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Realizing the 1/125 and 1/60 may skew the numbers, I tried a scenario where 1.2 was 1/320 and then 1.8 turned out to be 1/160.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





This is nice to know. That is a pretty big difference. A $1500 difference? Hard to say =P

[Keith B]

Sorry. I thought we were looking for lens v. Lens and not f/stop v. f/stop.


1.2 @ 1/200


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.81/_5F00_MG_5F00_5434.JPG[/img]


1.8 @ 1/200


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.81/_5F00_MG_5F00_5435.JPG[/img]

[Keith B]

This is nice to know. That is a pretty big difference. A $1500 difference? Hard to say =P

Well, for most I'd say it is not worth it. But I think it depends on what you are using it for. I think if it is an issue between shooting at 800 or 1600, or even worse shooting at 3200 or 6400, and you are being paid for the job, the difference is worth it.


I wouldn't even say it comes down to portrait shooting. I have seen a lot of great shots from the 1.8. That said, you know all that great smooth buttery imagery you see in the Victoria Secrets catalogs and ads. They are shot by a guy named Russel James using 1Ds and the 85 1.2.


Clack, clack...SOOOLLLLLLLLDDDDDah!

[Cozen]

thanks Keith, the image comparison is good to see. The DOF doesn't seem to be that huge a difference. The blur on the 1.2 does seem to be a little more, but nothing too noticeable. I guess the biggest difference is in low light, which I tend to shoot in a lot.

[Keith B]

thanks Keith, the image comparison is good to see. The DOF doesn't seem to be that huge a difference. The blur on the 1.2 does seem to be a little more, but nothing too noticeable. I guess the biggest difference is in low light, which I tend to shoot in a lot.

No problem. I'm sure the bokeh will be different and make the DOF appear less shallow on the 85 1.8 though.