jim quist Loc: Missouri

These are straight out of the camera the only editing is that I cropped the images.

Sometimes I wonder if it is worth the extra money for a lens with a wider aperture. A wider aperture means less depth of field and are also referred to as a 'faster' lens. 1.4 is wider than 1.8

I just received the Canon 85mm 1.4 lens. The aperture ranges from 1.4 to 22.

The first image is wide open at 1.4.
Canon also has a 85mm 1.8 lens so I shot the second image at 1.8 to get a comparison of the depth of field.

There is a slight difference, but not significant.

The third image is shot at f22 for comparison.

The Canon 85 1.8 lists for $499.00 at BnH
The Canon 85 1.4 lists for $1,599.00 at BnH

Is it worth the extra $1100.00 for the 1.4? For me it is, because I take my camera out in the snow, and in misty weather.

f 1.4


f 1.8


f 22

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

You’ve confirmed what a bargain the 85 f1.8 is.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

No one should be shooting at f/22 in 2023 digital photography.

I had the EF 85 f/1.8, changing to the new EF 85 f/1.4L IS when released. If I'd known an IBIS-enabled EOS body was in my future, I would have kept the f/1.8, even though the mirrorless EOS body is still years into the future. I love the f/1.4, shooting that lens way more than I ever used the f/1.8 model. So maybe, the immediate change instead of an extended wait was the right course after all?

The f/1.8 is as sharp as any lens I've owned.

jim quist Loc: Missouri

Glad to have helped

agillot

F 1.4 or 1.8 has nothing to do with the sharpness of the lens , just the amount of light . The difference between the 2 is negligible on the amount of light in . I would go for the 1.8 . It is more difficult to make a lens with a wider opening .

nervous2 Loc: Provo, Utah

I've wondered the same thing. I have a Nikkor 1.8 85mm and have wondered if I would gain much by splurging on a 1.4. Probably there are other things I could do less expensively to upgrade my results.

profbowman Loc: Harrisonburg, VA, USA

I like the photos. Thanks for sharing.

However, if you really wanted us to review the differences, how about sharing the whop photo out of the camera and allow it to be downloaded. Also, make sure that all of the usual EXDIF data is still with the photo.

Just being an analytical physics prof, retired. --Riichard

jim quist Loc: Missouri

When I click on the photos I get the option to download. I dont know how to include the EXDIF info. Also, I dont know what whop refers to.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You attach and store an image wider than 1200px wide. If editing the image, you include the EXIF in the output file.

profbowman Loc: Harrisonburg, VA, USA

OK, you and I made me chuckle. "Whop" is a typo from my arthritic fingers and my legally blin eyes for the word "whole." Sorry about th3e confusion.

Normally, the EXIF data includes info about how the camera was used to get the picture, f-stop, timing, size or resolution in pixels, and so on. This is usually set by the camera manufacturer unless it was changed by the user.

What camera did you use--the make and model? I can try to look up then where you can go to change this in your settings menu. --Richard

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Jim lovely color harmonies latent within... the golden orange tiger lily? blends appropriately with pale emerald green background foliage...

"...Is it worth the extra $$$$..." Jim if you are a Commercial Wedding Photographer and/or a Commercial Sports Photographer who's client's kids play in dimly lit High School gyms... You simply have to ante up to remain competitive... Or even remain in the game for that matter...

i.e. it's kind of a required forced bet made to get into the game. It's required of all players... The other option is to Fold... And you seriously have to know when to Hold and when to Fold. Same pretty much holds true in shooting commercially (Weddings and Indoor Sports) At least that's been my experience, your mileage may vary.

All too often I hear hobbyist regurgitating vendor hype about how awesome their 1.2 or 1.4 fast glass is... Really?
Shoot two stops slower after stepping back two or three times further with longer glass and you'll never see a difference if you know how to effectively frame...

Jim if folks want to run with the Big Dogs then they have to meet them at parity or they're likely toast.

Below is Pro Glass on a Budget... A vintage AF 300mm f/2.8D prime at a fraction of the price for a new 1.4 85mm.
Pro Glass starts at 300mm f/2.8 and begins to get serious at 400mm f/2.8 and above.

An issue I've noticed is that hobbyist seem to be allergic to Monopods... I hundred bucks for Two Stops? That's an awesome deal that I've found to be true over the years... the image below (Lifestyle Millinery: Retro Panama Straw Fedora) is via an old used beat up monopod that is still cranking them out after many years.

Oh, next time please store the image for download... then (and only then) can a realistic comparison be made.

Thanks for sharing Jim... Really Looking forward to what you're able to achieve with that stellar 1.4 85mm prime!
Albeit maybe start shooting people moving forward, flowers don't pay, people do...
Just saying. Cheers!

AF 300mm f/2.8 prime on a monopod... Ambient illumination with a 72" silver reflector assist to fill in the face

(Download)

machia Loc: NJ

I had an f1.4 lens and compared it to the f1.2 also available in that mm. The f1.2 Rokkor 58mm had a bit nicer bokeh, the price difference in my opinion was not worth it. Larger aperture openings do have an effect on image, but sometimes only subtle differences can be noticed, important however to some.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"...had a bit nicer bokeh, the price difference in my opinion was not worth it..." machia like many hobbyist you labor under a naive delusion that "visual esthetics" is the sole primary attribute "Fast Glass" brings to the table.

btw you fail to offer any imagery in support of your inference, also a quick review of the limited work you've posted on UHH reveals (that least in my mind's eye) it may not be reflective of a successful commercial photographer skilled at supporting themselves in a highly competitive marketplace.

machia one of the primary reasons commercial sports photographers pony up for IF (Internally focusing) Fast Glass is to be able to capture their client's sons/daughters in challenging illumination scenarios i.e. the failing twilight of an outdoor sporting event.

Why IF? Pumpers are notorious for being unwieldy on a monopod... as their focal length changes so does their CG (Center of Gravity)... If you are working back to back soccer matches during a long 12 hour summer day you will begin to cherish what IF Glass brings to the table... Not only that the "Extra" Stop or two can have (and does have) a HUGE difference in your camera's AF sensors ability to "Lock" focus in a timely manner. Which in Action Sports needs to be virtually instantaneous!

Oh, I forgot to mention Pumpers are pretty much disposable... they soon become contaminated with all the particulates they suck in while being zoomed in/out. Don't believe me? Check out what vendors are charging to rehab a pumper. Soon that stellar price savings is gone out the door...

Also Bokeh is primarily about aesthetics and typically championed for it's subject isolation which is so easily duplicated by increasing your subject to sensor distance. Seems that many naive hobbyist fall under the sway of vendor hype on the aforementioned aesthetics...

However many commercial shooters purchase Fast Glass in order to "Get the Shot" for their client(s).

Wishing both you and agillot much joy and happiness on your photographic journeys...
However moving forward please document your inferences with imagery, k?

The image below was taken in the last fleeting seconds of sunlight as that solar orb slipped below the horizon...
My client loved it! Enough said...

League Soccer: Match play Girls U18 (High School) Nikon D810 with an AF-S 200mm-400mm f/4G; at 1/2000; f/4 (WB: adjusted in Camera RAW)

(Download)

profbowman Loc: Harrisonburg, VA, USA

Assuming that we are comparing lenses with the same focal length (50 mm, in the examples below) but different maximum diameter of the opening, then here i s the comparison oof surface area and thus the ratios of light entering the camera.

_f/stop_ _diameter_ _light gathering area_

1.8 ----- 27.78 mm ----- 606 mm^2 (100%)
1.4 ----- 35.71 mm ---- 1002 mm^2 (165%)
1.2 ----- 41.67 mm ---- 1364 mm^2 (225%)

At least with this data, one can decide on purchasing a lens based on the difference in light gathering power. --
Richard

machia Loc: NJ

Yes of course, a larger opening gathers more light. That’s one of the reasons why I like prime lenses. But for the extra smoothness in bokeh that the f1.2 offered over the f1.4 that I was considering for purchase in 1973 was not worth the extra money, not for my applications, which was photo documentation for a construction firm, real estate photography and concert photography for a NJ shore band. With flash when necessary and with available light the f1.4 performed well. I still use it when I occasionally shoot with film.