Canon 85mm 1.2 or Sigma 85mm 1.4?

[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.

[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.[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.

[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...)