Posted 08 December 2011 - 09:35 PM
There are some gems in the lineup that aren't L, and 85/1.8 is one of them.....
I've shot with that lens and both versions of the 85/1.2L. Optically the L lenses are gorgeous, and 1.2 is nice, though very tricky to focus, if actually shooting at 1.2.....
I've shot w/ an 85/1.2 II - I agree that it's gorgeous when used for it's intended purpose (wide-ish open portrait lens). It's wicked sharp in the center, but it falls off pretty quickly, and it has some barrel distortion to it (not a lot - nothing you'd notice in a portrait, but you can see it in photos w/ straight lines).
Never shot w/ the 85/1.8, but it's the one I'd buy if I wanted a general purpose lens...
On the other hand, autofocus only (really) works on the 1.8 lens. AF speed on the other two could be best measured with a sundial or one of those hourglasses with sand....
The 85/1.2 II that I shot with had reasonable AF ability, but I wouldn't call it quick (the 17-40/4 that Dave has is faster). It wasn't sundial slow, either, though - the older version apparently was pretty appalling - still, I'd rather it be faster for a lens that I spent that much on... It might have something to do with speed of AF on the camera itself, as well - the 1DMkIII I shoot with is fairly snappy in that regard...
I'm probably showing my sports -- read basketball in lots of atrociously dark high school gyms -- bias here as well. The 85/1.2s were never fast enough focusing in less than ideal conditions....
The second version was much improved, but the 1.8 would run circles around it, at ~ 1/4 of the price.....
If I go digital camera again, it will be on my must have list.
Nik
You're shooting Steel like an A class shooter. Why are you shooting the Paper so slowly? ---- Dave Marques, Production Nationals, 2005
This is a game of high-speed precision. If you don't precisely plan what you want to happen, there's not much chance that it will. ---- Brian Enos, 2004
