Basil Loc: New Mexico

With the Grand Daughter about to hit 8 months, I'm thinking of investing in an 85mm. I'm torn between the Canon 85 f1.2L and the Canon f1.4L IS. I've heard nothing but rave reviews about the 1.2, but then the 1.4 has IS. I've also read that the 1.4 version focuses much faster. Would be interested to hear your thoughts - especially anyone with experience with both lenses.

out4life2016 Loc: Bellingham, Washington

To be honest I rented both lenses and shot a few shots around town and in the studio. The prices jump rather quickly when you go in that wide of an aperture. I actually ended up not spending the money and bought the 85mm 1.8 usm model for several reasons. One it was 249.00 on B&H where the others were bringing in over 1300.00. The quality of the photo was not good enough for me to warrant spending that kind of extra money. Yes the 1.2 did have a slightly better creamy background look but you can achieve that also by moving the subject away from the background instead of right against it. As far as the focus goes. I really could not tell the difference between the lenses as to which focused faster. They all seemed fast to me. I tried these lenses on a Canon 6DMarkII. In the end I believe really the choice is how much money do you want to spend. If it’s just to take photos of the grand kids then I believe I would buy the lesser and put my money into something else like possible lighting and tripods.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I have the EF 85 f/1.2L and for posed portrait work it is second to few or maybe even none. It can be a tricky lens to work with because it has extremely shallow depth of field. Doing portraiture, you shouldn't need IS and yes, it does not focus real fast, but again, for portraiture you don't need lightning fast focus, just accurate focus.
Quite frankly, if you are looking to buy an 85mm lens to take photos of your grand daughter, you may be just as well off with the f/1.8 version. It doesn't have a crimson band but it is a really good lens and costs a boat load less than the other two.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

At 8-months through the next few years, you'll have less control of the subject than in a studio environment. The f/1.4 is amazingly sharp with the IS support. The f/1.8 is amazingly sharp, with the lower price and no IS.

BebuLamar

So the OP buy the lens to use it wide open only?

User ID

Whenever hogsters discuss lenses faster than f:4.0 that does seem to be the impression one would get.

Odd thing is that they will also worry about the shape and quantity of blades in the iris :-)

FWIW the DoF on my 85:1.8 is so shallow it’s nearly useless wide open, being the same as a 50:1.1 (1.1, no typo). Funny that pancake lenses sell well enuf but the market doesn’t demand/support compact short teles like an 80:2.5. Given the small elements, it could even have OIS without growing too big.

Reeeeally love my 45:1.8 for m4/3 .... equivalent to a 90:4.0 Elmar yet even smaller and slightly faster.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Keep in mind that most of the time, portraiture emphasizes the central two-thirds or so of the image, so weakness in the corners is generally not a problem, or at least not a big problem. It can, in fact, be beneficial if you learn how to work with it. I have an older Nikkor 85mm f1.4 AF lens that I originally bought for capturing portraits.

Now I'm investigating using this lens for other applications where the short telephoto perspective and fast aperture would be beneficial. No conclusions yet, but you might also want to give some thought to whether you might use whichever lens you select for something besides portraits. It could make a difference in what you decide.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Dollar for dollar the EF 85mm f/1.8 can't be beat. For portraits it performs beautifully. Here's a review you may wish to read:
https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/85mm.htm

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Sometimes. I've used my RF 85 f/1.2 L primarily for shooting basketball games since I got it. I've taken thousands of shots at f/1.2 and only a handfull at any other aperture. That's just one instance though. I have other fast primes that I rarely shoot wide open.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

I had the 50mm f1.8 (on a different camera) and it was a pretty good lens, but with a newer camera, I upgraded to the 50mm f1.4. To be sure, the differences in IQ, bokah, etc, were not that noticable in many case. The differences were most noticable when the subject was relatively close. Also, when the backgrounds were far away from the subject, the differences in background bokah were hard to distinguish; but seems there is more of a difference in the look of the backgroud when the background is close to the subject. I mainly upgraded to the 1.4 for better low-light capability. I also felt the build quality of the 1.4 was much better than the 1.8. At this point, not that an 85 f1.8 would be a "bad" choice, but I do like to have the extra light gathering capability of a larger aperture. The fact that the 85 1.4 (Canon) has IS is a very interesting feature given the kiddo will probably be running around a lot making IS probably a handy thing to have. Admittedly there is a huge difference in price between the f1.8 vs either the 1.4 or 1.2, but based on my experience with the 50mm 1.8 vs my 50mm 1.4, I and pretty set on getting a wide aperture.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Don't confuse the 50s with the 85s, just because they have the same apertures. The EF 85 f/1.8 is a rock solid lens of similar build quality as the EF 50 f/1.4. The background blurring also is more pronounced from the longer focal length. The only drawback I've experienced with the EF 85 f/1.8 is the longish minimum focus distance. The 50 f/1.4 will focus at just under 18-inches. The 85 f/1.8 is just under 34-inches. That 'long' distance has been a big deal for me, where both the f/1.8 and f/1.4L have the same 'long' minimum focus distance. Having both the EF 12 and EF 25 extension tubes handy in your kit is needed to overcome this long minimum working distance.

The EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro is another excellent IS-enabled portrait option, expensive but much cheaper than either of the two 85mm L lens options. This macro also brings a 12-inch minimum focus distance with no extension tubes.

Here's an example of the EF 85mm f/1.8 in action hiking, at f/2.5, shot at the minimum 34-inch distance and then cropped to yield the close-up I would have shot if I'd had an extension tube in a pocket on that trip.

Colorado Wildflower by Paul Sager, on Flickr

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I'm currently testing this 85mm Tamron product for my portrait work. It's edge to edge sharpness is amazing and the build, all metal no plastic reminds me of old Leica glass. Something to consider!

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

85 mm was the recommended choice of the Masters of Photography at Kodak. Kodak made a portrait camera with a fixed 85mm. Remember, for a century Kodak was the authority of photography.

In reality, you use what you have that is closest to 85. Remember that for a "crop" sensor that a 50mm is similar to a 75mm... but is it... no, you are just trimming off some of the backgrounds the short lens distortion is still there, but of course, not as bad as a 35mm.

An interesting discussion of using lenses even longer than the wisdom endorsed 85-100mm lenses is found at:
https://www.shutterbug.com/content/whats-best-focal-length-portrait-photos-one-pros-answer-may-surprise-you-video

ELNikkor

85 is a great portrait length, but that fast of an aperture isn't necessary unless income from the photos will justify the cost. My favorite portrait lens was the Nikon 43-86 AI zoom of the '80s. Wide open was "only" f3.5, but it provided a very pleasing bokeh, and more of the face in focus than a 1.4 would have, wide open. Even if i had the 1.8, I would probably stop down to f4 just for the improved dof. That said, an active grandchild is best photographed with a tidy, light-weight zoom, such as a 24-85, or 28-100. No need for a heavy, fast lens, f5.6 would be plenty.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

My favorite lens for portraits is the 70-200 2.8. When I shot portraits for a living conditions changed constantly when working with my subjects. I found that the 70-200 allowed me to change with each location change.
That said I believe the 1.4 is perfect for your needs, if it focuses faster, than that would be good for a energetic grand daughter. Also, the 1.2 is heavier and after chasing her around for an hour your hands and arms might give you the message that the 1.2 may not have been the best choice.