Is the Canon 85mm f1.8 all it's cracked up to be?

scottduffy

scottduffy

Messages
3,348
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
I have read a few reviews and this lens seems to get favourable press. Does anyone have experience with the lens that could back this up? Also would anyone like to recommend an alternative portrait lens?
 
It is all its cracked up to be. I have experience of it and love it. There is no alternative that is anywhere near as good for the same price that I know of.

This is one lens you will never regret purchasing
 
Thanks Rick. Just out of curiosity how do you find your 430ex flash? I am the middle of a bit of an euipment splurge just now and a flash is high on my list.
 
I got a pair of them when they were new out (job lot of equipment) and sold one very quickly. I honestly don't use it much shooting mainly landscape and some nature shots. I thought about making a small studio set up and experimenting with flash/strobe but I don't really have the space so that's been put on hiatus
 
Plenty of sample shots from the 85/1.8 here....

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/adv/?le...&iso_max=none&exp_min=none&exp_max=none&res=3

I'm on my second copy. The first had horrific purple fringing and had to be returned. The second one is a peach - sharp and with fast AF. I don't shoot portraits but here are a couple of action shots taken with my 50D. The first (shot at f/2) has had a small exposure boost. The second (shot at f/4) has had a crop. Sharpening and everything else is at Lightroom defaults.

20090301_120058_4919_LR.jpg


20090401_153747_5657_LR.jpg
 
I used one a while back and I must admit that I really like it BUT I probably wouldn't buy one myself.

The bokeh is awesome but the minimum focusing distance of approximately 90 cm did not impress me much.

All in all a great little lens though but I will get one at my local lens hire outfit if I need it...which is fairly rare considering that the 70-200 can come fairly close.

Go for the ultimate dream machine...the 135 f/2 L...;)
 
scottduffy said:
Is the Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM a better lens?
Click to expand...

Not if the focal length you need is 85mm. If your lens isn't quite long enough there is the option to crop. If your lens is too long, and you can't move back further, then what do you do? At well over twice the price (nearer 3X), and with the "L" designation, it ought to be the better lens in terms of build, weatherproofing, perhaps IQ. I don't know about AF performance. But if it's too long it's too long. On full frame it might be the better choice for portraits but on a cropper (I don't know which body you have) I think it would be a bit limiting.
 
scottduffy said:
Is the Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM a better lens?
Click to expand...

not much in it in terms of image quality. I would say the 85mm at 1.8 is similar to the 135 at 2.0 by 2.8 they're identical...the difference is a certain weightyness to the images from the 135mm - it may be contrast but the images look a little different. The bokeh is about the same although the 135's focal length helps in that department. Focussing on both is pretty instant.

The 135 is a big lens though and reasonably heavy so if it isn't the ideal focal length for you it's a big lump to lug around.
 
scottduffy said:
Is the Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM a better lens?
Click to expand...
Further to tdodd's comments, which you should absolutely heed, it should be at the price. The EF 135mm f/2.8 SF also has a good reputation, and is supposed to be approximately as good as the 85mm f1.8. I've seen outdoors / nature photos taken with the soft-focus which added a very nice arty element to the picture, but with the SFF off it's reputed to be very sharp. It's far more affordable than the EF 135mm f/2 L.

tdodd said:
... I'm on my second copy. The first had horrific purple fringing and had to be returned. ...
Click to expand...
Someone else mentioned this on another thread recently, and it's made me go looking for it on mine. :suspect:
Will try to take some backlit shots at the weekend to see if I can rule it out on my copy. :cuckoo:

antonroland said:
... The bokeh is awesome ...
Click to expand...
:plusone:

antonroland said:
All in all a great little lens ... the 70-200 can come fairly close.
Click to expand...
I pulled the trigger on my 85mm f/1.8 somewhat impulsively, and I'm already lusting over the 70-200. It's really early days for me & the 85mm f/1.8, but f/1.8 seems too wide so far. Ok, I know there's really no such thing as "too wide", but at f/1.8 the depth of field has been too shallow for my subjects so far - I've been using it at at least f/2, so perhaps I wouldn't miss the extra stop if I were to get the 70-200.

The 85mm f/1.8 is a great lens for the money, though. I mean, I know it isn't helpful to you for me to air my own indecisiveness, but the 70-200 f/2.8 is three times the price. I think that if it were to come to it I'd wait until I've got the zoom before selling the prime, to be sure I couldn't justify both. Right now the 85mm f/1.8 hasn't been off my camera since I bought it, and it looks like the biggest problem with it is that it shows up the shortcomings of my technique. And the bokeh is awesome.

If you read the Fred Miranda user reviews you will find some very positive comments about the 85mm f/1.8.

Stroller.
 
HI folks, opinions are exactly what i am looking for so thanks for all that you've posted. I actually put a thread on here yesterday asking which version of the 70-200 i should go for but having spoken to my wife last night i don't think i will be getting the 70-200 (any version) as well as the 85mm. It will be one or the other so i think i might go for the 70-200 as it will serve me better for multiple situations rather than just portrait pictures. I still have no idea which one though but i am sneakily thinking of the 70-200 f4 Non IS and then i might be able to stretch to the 85mm f1.8 too.
 
I also have the 70-200/2.8 IS. They are quite different beasts really. Both are superb, in their own way. My 70-200 is great for the longer focal lengths for weddings and makes a very flexible outdoor (or even indoor) sports/action lens. It is also a terrific choice for portraits too. But relative to the 85/1.8 here are the downsides....

- Expensive;
- Heavy;
- Large;
- Obtrosive (non-subtle, non-covert, draws attention)
- Slower max aperture;

Then again, the 85/1.8....

- Doesn't zoom;
- Doesn't have IS;
- Doesn't make you look like a "pro", and won't buy you respect/elbow room that a big white lens might in a crowd;
- Is not an effective defensive weapon in an attempted mugging

For a wedding I'd use the 70-200, for the flexibility and the IS for handholding, unless I just had to have a faster aperture than f/2.8. For sports/action/portraiture, if 85mm would do the trick I'd value the weight saving and compact size of the little lens over the big white lump. Like I said, both are terrific, but both have their own niche talents.
 
tdodd said:
Plenty of sample shots from the 85/1.8 here....

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/adv/?le...&iso_max=none&exp_min=none&exp_max=none&res=3

I'm on my second copy. The first had horrific purple fringing and had to be returned. The second one is a peach - sharp and with fast AF. I don't shoot portraits but here are a couple of action shots taken with my 50D. The first (shot at f/2) has had a small exposure boost. The second (shot at f/4) has had a crop. Sharpening and everything else is at Lightroom defaults.

20090301_120058_4919_LR.jpg


20090401_153747_5657_LR.jpg
Click to expand...

Links to your pics don't work for me Tim. I've heard about purple fringing with the 85/1.8 - is this axial CA do you think? I'd be interested to see any examples from your first copy :)

Another thought, the EF 100mm f/2 is almost identical to the 85/1.8 in every respect. This lens seems to be a little overlooked and while I've never used one I strongly suspect it is superb.
 
I had one and whilst an admirable performer decided that I much prefered my EF100 Macro for portraits. Yes it is a stop and a third slower, but to be honest I have never noticed that that has made that much difference. It is also a lot more versatile offering 1-1 macro too!
 
HoppyUK said:
Links to your pics don't work for me Tim. I've heard about purple fringing with the 85/1.8 - is this axial CA do you think? I'd be interested to see any examples from your first copy :)

Another thought, the EF 100mm f/2 is almost identical to the 85/1.8 in every respect. This lens seems to be a little overlooked and while I've never used one I strongly suspect it is superb.
Click to expand...

There is some sort of problem that only recently started occuring, that makes my images only display at random. You can try clicking direct links to the images I posted above. If that doesn't work either you may need to copy the links and open them in a new tab. I'm sorry about the inconvenience. Hopefully normal service will resume soon...

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_4_R8TkwT74w/SdyLqG4xsxI/AAAAAAABCSI/9hTzPOqRTTI/20090301_120058_4919_LR.jpg

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_4_R8TkwT74w/SdyLqpHkREI/AAAAAAABCSQ/UCQxVRqM-t0/20090401_153747_5657_LR.jpg

I'm afraid I binned the really duff photos from my first copy. I've only got a handful of images from that particular lens. The worst case example I still have doesn't show PF, just CA, even on areas that are close to blown but not actually blown. This is the whole image....

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_4_R8TkwT74w/SdzMEUXLcHI/AAAAAAABCUo/lTxn3TmlLos/20081206_144357_3339_LR.jpg

100% crop of the worst of the CA....

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_4_R8TkwT74w/SdzMGD1p-4I/AAAAAAABCUw/4euEo8Ti4U8/20081206_144357_3339_LR-2.jpg

It's worth noting that the PF is worst when wide open, and since I wanted the f/1.8 for its f/1.8 speed that was no good to me, not when photographing brides in wedding dresses.

I've never tried the 100/2 but I have read it is extremely similar to the 85/1.8 in all regards except those slight tweaks on focal length and aperture. For my main objective in buying the lens - as a low light wedding lens - the 85/1.8 and its extra 1/3 stop of speed was the logical choice.
 
Thanks Tim. CA is a tricky monkey, but that's not the usual pink/green you tend get at the edges. So I guess it's axial/longitudinal CA, which I believe is more easily reduced by stopping down than the regular stuff.

It's also noticeable in your 100% crop that the areas surrounding the brightest bits are worst affected. Do you think it's possible this is a sensor effect?
 
I did wonder about the sensor but I honestly don't know what the problem is. I do not see it with my other lenses, so I put it down to that lens. I think basically it was a wrong'un.

Here's an example that has blown areas - same camera, different lens (a zoom!) - and no hint of a problem as severe as that old 85/1.8. This is a 100% crop from my 70-200 @ f/4....

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_4_R8TkwT74w/SdzmnrJV0MI/AAAAAAABCVQ/AHlV4bZ9buY/20081025_150223_0195_LR.jpg

and here's one from my 100-400 @ f/5.6. This is a screen print of a 100% view with highlight clipping indicators turned on....

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_4_R8TkwT74w/S...QvhfChiQ/s800/MWSnap 2009-04-08, 19_15_48.jpg

There are none of those nasty discoloured edges from these lenses.
 
HoppyUK said:
Links to your pics don't work for me Tim.
Click to expand...
Weirdly, they work for me if I right click on the blue question-mark (which is how non-loading images show in Safari) and choose "open in new window", then refresh this forum page.

I suspect the problem may be Picassa (??) setting their servers not to display "hot-linked" images?

Stroller.
 
Sorry about the pictures. Now they are not loading for me either. It looks like Picasaweb is completely borked. I'm going to have to find a different free host that works properly. It's a shame because Picasaweb has worked perfectly for me for over two years. It is only in the last 1-2 weeks that it's been playing up. Flickr is no good because the free accounts are too limited. Any recommendations for a free image hosting site?
 
For what it's worth, over the years I've owned and used the 85/1.8, 100/2, 100/2.8 macro, 135/2L, 70-200/2.8L and 70-200/4L (don't ask - I'm a self-confessed equipment junky! :cuckoo:) They are all optically superb lenses and I would have no hesitation in recommending any of them.

From my perspective, I tend to leave the heavier stuff at home, so the 70-200/2.8L soon got moved on due to limited use as it's way heavier than any of the others. The 85/1.8 is light and easy to carry, and produced some wonderful shots for me. The advantage of the L lenses tends to be that they are better at full aperture than the non-L lenses, so I would have no issue using the 135/2L at f2, but might stop the 85/1.8 down a stop to improve the edge definition. So it then comes down to which focal length you prefer using, and for me it was the slightly longer one, so the ones I've stuck with are the 135/2L and 100 macro, plus the 70-200/4L for when I need the flexibility.
 
I have the 85mm 1.8, the 100mm 2.8 macro, and the 70-200mm 2.8. All are used on my 5D
My 70-200 is my most used lens but for studio portraits its my 85mm every time.

Two examples from my 85mm 1.8 ...

2548537862_425e89d1b7_o.jpg


2470024071_cf5f1c630e_o.jpg
 
That's cheating InaGlo. With a great subject and the right light, almost any lens will do ;) Nice pics :)
 
have you taken any pics since that second one Glo :p

the 85mm is a nice lens, like others have said they can suffer a bit from purple fringing though.
 
scottduffy said:
I have read a few reviews and this lens seems to get favourable press. Does anyone have experience with the lens that could back this up? Also would anyone like to recommend an alternative portrait lens?
Click to expand...

Can't help you on the question, but you are doing the right thing by not relying on reviews alone.
 
dod said:
have you taken any pics since that second one Glo :p

the 85mm is a nice lens, like others have said they can suffer a bit from purple fringing though.
Click to expand...

Does it? I have seen this before, and Tim has posted an example above, but has concluded that this was a sample fault.

If it does have a bit of CA, would Canon's DPP aberration correction software do the trick? Here's what it can do for the lowly 18-55mm kit lens, where it has cleaned up the CA very effectively.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-55_3p5-5p6_is_c16/page4.asp

Anyone want to give it a go?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top