Canon Lens Question....

[isaiahbrink]

While I shoot Nikon, and not trying to start a debate here between brands, this sounds like more of an f/stop question than anything else. I have a Nikkor 85mm D 1.8, and I haven't found a need myself to go below that in the time I've had it. I don't see the point of spending the extra money for a feature that you won't need. But if you feel that you need that bit of an increase of speed on a regular basis, I say go for it.

Isaiah

[CatCynic]

I see the two lenses as quite different beasts.

The f1.2L is a killer lens in a controlled environment - you can get amazingly low depth of field, and it is very sharp, but it autofocuses slowly (takes a while to push those big chunks of glass around).

The f1.8 is a more general-purpose lens. It has very fast autofocus, so you can respond to a less controlled environment quickly. It's a lot lighter, and it's still one of the fastest lenses around (there are now two f1.2s in Canon's range, and three f1.4s, but all the f1.4s are shorter than 85mm). This may not be an L series lens, but it's sharp.

I have played with the f1.2L a couple of times, but I could never justify the money. Where I am, the 85mm f1.2L costs four times the price of the f1.8. So I own (and use) the f1.8. Similarly I own the 50mm f1.4, and doubt I'll ever justify buying the 50mm f1.2L.

BTW: if you want a really awesome lens, yet one that costs a lot less that the 85mm f1.2L, have a good look at the 135mm f2L that JimmyD suggested. This is an extraordinary lens. I shot the image below at f4, 1/30 - two stops too slow for a 135mm lens, but it's still sharp.



Evil thought: you could get the 85mm f1.8 AND the 135mm f2L for less that the 85mm f1.2L...

[jimmyd]

It seems to me most everyone is focusing on two issues regarding these 2 lenses: Speed of the lens (which the two aren't far apart with) and the speed in which they auto-focus. I don't think decisions to go with "L" glass versus the rest of Canon's optical product lines are mostly about these two factors. I thought purchasing "L" glass was mostly about their superior optical qualities.

[mcherry]

I agree that its optical quality. I shoot Nikon and see difference between the 85/1.8 and the 85/1.4 (Nikon's fastest) which I own. If I shot Canon I would opt for the L glass.

The nice thing about fast glass is, even if you're shooting stopped down, you will have a much brighter viewfinder image at all times. This is a big plus to me. Also you can shoot shallower with greater sharpness. It's not that I want to shoot at 1.4 it's that I want to shoot at say 2.8 with razor sharpness...

I'm surprised to hear about the auto-focus issue - usually faster glass focuses faster (all else being equal).

Matt

[CatCynic]

Originally Posted by mcherry

I agree that its optical quality. I shoot Nikon and see difference between the 85/1.8 and the 85/1.4 (Nikon's fastest) which I own. If I shot Canon I would opt for the L glass.
The nice thing about fast glass is, even if you're shooting stopped down, you will have a much brighter viewfinder image at all times. This is a big plus to me. Also you can shoot shallower with greater sharpness. It's not that I want to shoot at 1.4 it's that I want to shoot at say 2.8 with razor sharpness...
I'm surprised to hear about the auto-focus issue - usually faster glass focuses faster (all else being equal).
Matt

This is an unusual situation - the first f1.2L was appalling slow to autofocus. The new f1.2L is still slow, but they advertise it as almost twice as fast I think the f1.2L focussing group must include one or more heavy elements.

The difference between the L and non-L is a single f-stop - the viewfinder is not all that much brighter. After all, f1.8 is hardly bad! If the lesser lens were f2.8, then I might well go for the larger lens, too.

Adding to all that, the 85mm f1.8 is an impressive lens - it's very sharp for a non-L, focuses very quickly, and scores highly on both objective and subjective tests. If it were a run-of-the-mill non-L lens, then again, I might plump for the L series lens.

This is not a normal comparison between L and non-L glass. Normally, yeah, the L glass is an easy choice. Not this time. I think the 85mm situation is unique in Canon's range.

On a similar (but distinct) note, I'm going to be reading reviews of the new 50mm f1.2L with considerable interest. Canon now have three standard lenses: f1.2L, f1.4, and f1.8. In this case there is a much bigger gulf between the f1.2L and the f1.8 - the latter is a very cheap lens (but one with many advocates). I'm going to be interested in the comparison between the f1.4 (which I have) and the new f1.2L. Unless the 50mm f1.2L is really cheap, I doubt I'll be buying it.