Only L lenses? or not necessarily ?

[abik]

Hi

i am considering buying an 85 mm canon 1.8 for shooting portraits and some close ups.

i have seen very good reviews about this lens some even said that it is better than their L lenses in many ways.

my question is does someone agree and really we dont have to spend so much for good and nearly perfect results? or the L lens is a different league and cant be compared with "simple" lenses?

 

[jowensphoto]

Everything about an L series lenses is higher quality (the parts that make it up, how it's constructed, etc). That being said, there are lenses that produce almost/as good results. Unless you just hit the lottery, I wouldn't suggest sinking that much money into an L lens when you're just starting. The 85 1.8 is a great lens to start with. The nifty 50 is another good beginner prime.

 

[abik]

thanks

the 50 mm​ 1.8 i have already.

 

[EIngerson]

If you want to get a great "L" lens at a great price checkout the 70-200 F4 L. I'm warning you now……If you buy it, you will be a red ring snob for life. lol

 

[abik]

for the moment i am only using prime lenses and i am very happy with them. i have 24 mm , 50 mm 1.8, and soon 85 mm 1.8

 

[usayit]

The 85mm f/1.8 is a great lens worthy of a place in any bag. For me, the primes I chose:

24 f/1.4L, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 135mm f/2L, 300mm f/4L

The L designation of any Canon lens is a pure marketing strategy to indicate a product placed in a higher tier. It shouldn't be the only indicator of what you buy or not buy. On one hand, there are good reasons to buy an L lens because it is a higher tiered lens; often means higher quality and more features. On the other hand, there are L lenses that I would pass on.

 

[Overread]

Note that the 50mm f1.8 is a very low grade lens; the build quality on its very cheap (which is why its so cheap to buy). Even a normal Canon lens in a good tier is far better made without even getting to the L grade optics.

 

[runnah]

To me its the question of "is the performance worth the extra price?" In the case of the 85mm 1.8, no the L version is stupid expensive for slight performance upgrades.

Other cases like the 70-200 eric mentioned is well worth the extra money.

Do your homework, read reviews and watch videos.

 

[keyseddie]

If you want to get a great "L" lens at a great price checkout the 70-200 F4 L. I'm warning you now……If you buy it, you will be a red ring snob for life. lol

That lens is always on one of my bodies as I wander around. In 3 1/2 decades, I have never needed a fast lens.

 

[keyseddie]

Abik, refer to your other thread re your shot with the 24mm lens. If you believe the responses, and you should, you need to work on your abilities and knowledge before you can justify pissing away shekels for expensive equipment.

 

[Ido]

David Platt is a professional wedding photographer. I watched a video of him once, showing the gear he has. It was two 5D Mark III bodies, 50mm f/1.2L, and some other expensive L lenses. But he doesn't have an 85mm f/1.2L, he has the f/1.8. He calls it his "secret weapon", if I remember correctly. The f/1.2L is very expensive, while the f/1.8 is quite affordable, yet it's a great performer, to say the least.
If you want that an autofocus 85mm lens, get the f/1.8. Unless you need to shoot with that focal length in extreme low light, the f/1.2L won't give you that much more. Unless you also need to shoot in the rain, then the L's weather sealing (I believe all of them have it) comes in.

 

[runnah]

[h=3]Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens - $369.00[/h][h=3]Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Lens - $2,199.00[/h]Price Difference - $1830.00

 

[Ido]

CanonEF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens - $369.00

CanonEF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Lens - $2,199.00

Price Difference - $1830.00

That certainly tells it all. Use that $1,830 on lighting.

 

[minicoop1985]

Don't discount Tamron or Sigma. Excellent lenses, fraction of the cost. You're getting similarly good glass with some minor sacrifices (plastic in some spots that would be metal, etc) for, in some cases, less than half the price of the L. In fact, there's some cases where the Tamron is cheaper than a standard kit quality lens (Sony's 18-55 f3.5-5.6 SAM II vs Tamron 17-50 f2.8, for example).

 

[runnah]

Don't discount Tamron or Sigma. Excellent lenses, fraction of the cost. You're getting similarly good glass with some minor sacrifices (plastic in some spots that would be metal, etc) for, in some cases, less than half the price of the L. In fact, there's some cases where the Tamron is cheaper than a standard kit quality lens (Sony's 18-55 f3.5-5.6 SAM II vs Tamron 17-50 f2.8, for example).

The thing with sigma and tamron is that for every great lens they make 3 bad ones. You really have to do your homework.