OK, I currently shoot with the 24-70 2.8L and the 70-200 2.8L. I would like a really top notch portrait prime lens. I find the above lens' are great multi porpose lens', but lack a little oomph for formal portraits. I'm deciding between the 50 1.2L and the 85 1.2L. Take into consideration that it will be on a 1.6X crop 30D. What are your thoughts?

<br /><br /><br />
I have both & love them both. The 85 will give you the most insane images you have ever seen, but it focuses waaay slower than the 50. If speed is what you need, then the 50 is the way to go. If you can take your time when shooting portraits, then go with the 85. You can't lose either way.

I agree with what David said... 85 fo sho (especially individuals and couples) unless you need to be wider to do group shots then the 50.

Get both

The 50 is nice, but it does have a documented focus issue under certain conditions. The 85 mk. II isn't all that slow to focus, for small adjustments. The 85 is sharper than the 50, especially wide open. But the 85 might be a bit long on the 30D ... the 50 is a nice lens, with great colors and contrast, and if you're comfortable working around it's issues, it's a good choice.

I like the 50, especially if you are shooting on a cropped camera like the 30D or 40D (Love mine!).

I tired the 85 Mark II a couple of times and it's still way too slow for my liking.

Sean

You don't need an L - particularly on a crop factor camera. You're paying a huge amount of money for an extra stop or two that you'll never use for portraits - and you're paying for edge sharpness at those apertures that is being cropped off.

Get a 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 or 100 2.0. The image quality is just as good if not better than the Ls. (Because the Ls are designed for those big apertures.)

I use the extra stops all the time.

The 85 f/1.8 is almost as good, but it's not. Same with the 50 f/1.4 (the color and contrast on the L blows away the f/1.4 ... much moreso than the 85 vs. 85L).

The difference isn't huge, and it's not worth it to a lot of people. But it is to some.

Not many. For most it's like having a turbocharger on their car - only useful when there's no traffic on the road.

i'm really in a quandry over this. i really want to get the 851.2L, surely with a $1400 difference in price over the 1.8, there has to be quality, sharpness, etc. that is noticeable? jessica said melody used her 1.2 and quickly went out and bought it and sold her 1.8. ??????

When comparing 4 very similar lenses, I think it's important to look at the MTF Charts.

Here is a link to a luminous landscape article explaining how to read them

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial...nding-mtf.shtml

Also, check out the charts on canon's website

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...fcategoryid=152

The above article will explain things much better than I can, but the general idea is that the higher the lines are the better.

Blue lines show f/8.0, black lines show wide open.

Big dips in the graph indicate worse quality at the corners. So, this is an issue for full frame sensors and film, but not for a 1.6 crop factor camera.

Just a thought with regards to the crop factor - I like to have my money in the glass, so I purchased the L series lenses recognizing that the L might be too much for a 1.6 sensor. Eventually (maybe sooner than later) I am going to be shooting on a full-frame sensor. At that point I doubt that I am going to want to go back and put the time and money into ugrading the lenses so that I can get acceptable image quality. Just my two cents though...

that's sorta my philosophy too.

I agree with that, which is why I say away from EF-S lenses, however, to me, it doesn't make sense to spend an extra $1450 on the 85 1.2L when the 85 1.8 will give similar results considering the crop factor.

Say you buy the 85 1.8 for $340 now. You should be able to sell that for at least $200 at some point, probably more. And thats assuming that you do upgrade to a full frame, and that the 1.8 will be unacceptable on a full frame.

If considering the 1.2L, you need to know what that $1450 is buying you. You should go to a shop with your camera and laptop, take test shots, and try to spot a difference. If thats not possible, rent or buy from a place with a liberal return policy. You may or may not be able to see differences.

Zoom lenses are worth the extra money, simply because you cannot get a non L zoom lens with a constant 2.8 aperture. With zooms, your buying into the usability as well as image quality.

Then again, 1.2 is one full stop faster than 1.8, so if that is worth $1450, then i'd say go for it.

I use the 24-70L for group photos but am not very happy with the distortion at the edges of the frame.

actually an empty road is when some, perhaps many, people would find a turbocharger very extraneous - fun but useless. Maybe it's only useful when there is traffic on the road. it helps you pass, weave, etc.

point is, neither of us can decidedly validate those statements. a turbocharger and an L series lens are subjectively useful products.

Gabe, there are many different thoughts, opinions, schools, theories, etc. and I think what matters is what you like on your camera (sticking with jkantor's car analogy)when you are going down the road, foot on the gas or using cruise control.



+1
I would take the input from this thread and your 30D down to a camera shop, try on the different lenses one after the other to get a feel for each one, and take the same pictures with each lens to compare later. I did that when I was looking at a 20-35 and the 16-35 L and it helped out a lot. I learned that I really wanted that 16-35 L but I couldn't fit it in my budget:) Good luck and have fun playing with the lenses.

Thanks everybody. I did a maternity shoot today and used my 70-200 2.8L for great DOF. It worked but man I had to stand far away to use 200mm to get great DOF. I'm going to take the advice and try the 85 1.2L on my 30D and see if it's worth it to me. NOTE: Then I have to justify the money to my wife. Thanks again, Gabe

I just got the 85 1.2 and not sure I made the right move. It will be on the Mk3. Should I of got the 50 1.2insted of? I have time to make the switch. The B thinks I would be better off with the 50. Any thoughts?

Hmmmm... I'm curious, what is it about 85 1.2 that you don't like? Just rented the 50 1.2 for weddings this weekend, we'll see if I like it enough to purchase. I'll let y'all know what I think for what it's worth although it will be on a full frame 5D.

row

Jim,

This whole topic has been discussing that question, so make sure you scroll up and read all the replies to Gabe's original question. Also what other lenses do you have and what is your average range? An 85 allows you to be a bit farther from your subject and give them a comfort zone when shooting portraits, but you haven't said for what you are going to be using the lens.

Re: the 85 f/1.8 vs. the f/1.2L, only you can decide if it's worth the (mucho) extra money. The L might be a bit sharper, but probably not much. Color and contrast are better, so is build quality. The AF is decidedly slower than the f/1.8, but it's fast enough to get the job done (almost everyone who says it isn't, hasn't used the L, at least not much).

Between the 50L and 85L, I think you have to pick which focal length you like better. It's tough to say, on the Mk. III, but I'd probably go with the 50. It's not as sharp, and AF goes wacky at f/2.8-4 when you're shooting up close, but it's a great lens.