Canon L glass

[Evertking]

Man, why oh why is it Sooo expensive??? Is the image quality worth the price. I mean is the 85 mm 1.2 really that much better than the 85 1.8?

 

[EIngerson]

Ummmm, the 85 1.2 is exactly the same as the 85 1.2......

 

[Evertking]

There, now maybe you might be able to answer the question.

 

[john.margetts]

Because most of the buyers would not be interested if they were cheap. By putting the price way up, Canon create perceived value above actual value and attract the must-have-the-best crowd.

If you need weather-proofing and the ability to drop the lens on the ground, then they are much more rugged than cheaper lenses - so essential for those working outside in unfavourable conditions. Not everything is about image quality.

 

[zombiesniper113 13]

If you need weather-proofing and the ability to drop the lens on the ground, then they are much more rugged than cheaper lenses

Please list these unicorn lenses.

To the OP. A lot of the higher end lenses Canon/Nikon/A few Sigmas have hand polished glass and each individual lens goes through QA inspections where the smaller more inexpensive lenses are completely machine polished and usually only a few from a batch are inspected. In short more people/time involved = more money.

 

[EIngerson]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 1.8. Its a fantastic lens. The 1.2L glass is unmatched but honestly, if it doesn't match your budget it's not worth going into debt for.

You'll get amazing image quality with the 1.8 and if you can notice a difference between that and 1.2 you're a depth of field genius. LOL. I can't see where you'd go wrong buying the 1.8.

Good luck.

 

[ronlane]

I'd second that about the 1.8, even if I had the money, I don't know if I would spend it for the 1.2. For my needs that 1.8 would be just fine.

 

[fmw]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 1.8. Its a fantastic lens. The 1.2L glass is unmatched but honestly, if it doesn't match your budget it's not worth going into debt for.

You'll get amazing image quality with the 1.8 and if you can notice a difference between that and 1.2 you're a depth of field genius. LOL. I can't see where you'd go wrong buying the 1.8.

Good luck.

Theoretically, a faster lens of the same focal length should be softer. Perhaps not much softer but a little. An 85mm f1.2 would be a specialty lens for low light photography or extremely narrow depth of field. It shouldn't provide better image quality assuming similar quality.

 

[table1349]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 1.8. Its a fantastic lens. The 1.2L glass is unmatched but honestly, if it doesn't match your budget it's not worth going into debt for.

You'll get amazing image quality with the 1.8 and if you can notice a difference between that and 1.2 you're a depth of field genius. LOL. I can't see where you'd go wrong buying the 1.8.

Good luck.

Theoretically, a faster lens of the same focal length should be softer. Perhaps not much softer but a little. An 85mm f1.2 would be a specialty lens for low light photography or extremely narrow depth of field. It shouldn't provide better image quality assuming similar quality.

I own both the 1.8 and the 1.2. They are two different pieces of glass with two distinctly different purposes. The 1.8 is fast glass with fast focus and an nice quality to the background blur. It is a great all around lens. It is one of my goto lenses for indoor sports.

The 1.2 on the other hand is very much a portrait lens. I doubt I have ever shot it wide open. I didn't buy it for the low light capabilities. I bought it for portrait work. The quality of the background blur is second to none. It produces the kind of bokeh that most people strive for in portraits. Only my 300 f2.8 and 400 f2.8 give me the same quality of bokeh and both are a little inconvenient for studio portrait work. The focus speed is average, not on par with the 1.8 but then that particular point does not matter to me.

Both are excellent lenses for their particular purpose.

 

[EIngerson]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 1.8. Its a fantastic lens. The 1.2L glass is unmatched but honestly, if it doesn't match your budget it's not worth going into debt for.

You'll get amazing image quality with the 1.8 and if you can notice a difference between that and 1.2 you're a depth of field genius. LOL. I can't see where you'd go wrong buying the 1.8.

Good luck.

Theoretically, a faster lens of the same focal length should be softer. Perhaps not much softer but a little. An 85mm f1.2 would be a specialty lens for low light photography or extremely narrow depth of field. It shouldn't provide better image quality assuming similar quality.

I own both the 1.8 and the 1.2. They are two different pieces of glass with two distinctly different purposes. The 1.8 is fast glass with fast focus and an nice quality to the background blur. It is a great all around lens. It is one of my goto lenses for indoor sports.

The 1.2 on the other hand is very much a portrait lens. I doubt I have ever shot it wide open. I didn't buy it for the low light capabilities. I bought it for portrait work. The quality of the background blur is second to none. It produces the kind of bokeh that most people strive for in portraits. Only my 300 f2.8 and 400 f2.8 give me the same quality of bokeh and both are a little inconvenient for studio portrait work. The focus speed is average, not on par with the 1.8 but then that particular point does not matter to me.

Both are excellent lenses for their particular purpose.

Agreed, but a casual user that's not making their living off of their photos really isn't going to notice. I say that as a caution, because once you become a red ring snob, you just won't be happy until you're broke. LOL. Take it from a broke guy.

 

[table1349]

I'm not a red ring snob, just an IQ snob if you like. I realize there there is a member or two that do not get the concept that I can take a razor sharp image and soften it down in post. I can't take a soft image and make it razor sharp.

I have only one 50mm and it is now the Sigma f1.4. I have shot the Canon f1.2 and while a really nice lens, it is to limited in its use for me and I am not fond of 50mm for portrait work. I have the room to shoot the 85mm in studio.

Frankly the Canon 50mm f1.4 is a good piece of glass, but to me the Sigma is better.

 

[TCampbell]

While many of the L lenses are simply "better" -- some turn out be "different".

For example... the EF 85mm f/1.2L USM is slow to focus, but creates gorgeous results. The EF 85mm f/1.8 USM is much snappier to focus.

If you were doing studio portrait work (or any type of work where you are shooting posed subjects and/or can take the time to compose & focus) then the f/1.2 produces results that you'll probably be very happy with. But if you're shooting candids, subjects in motion, etc. any type of style where you are shooting on-the-fly then you definitely do not want the f/1.2... you want the 1.8 for that.

This is not a generalization that applies to all L series lenses... the 50mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 have this reputation (better images, but require more deliberate and careful use -- not lenses to be used if you are in a hurry).

Most other L series lenses that I can think of are fairly snappy (and often the very fastest) to focus. Most (but not all) are weather sealed (read the info to be sure... some lenses require a filter on the front to "complete" the weather sealing. (e.g. a clear glass or other filter). Many (probably most) are built like a tank (more durable).

There's no one-thing that gets them the "L" designation. It's often a combination of lots of factors and can vary from lens to lens.

 

[beagle100]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 1.8. Its a fantastic lens. The 1.2L glass is unmatched but honestly, if it doesn't match your budget it's not worth going into debt for.

You'll get amazing image quality with the 1.8 and if you can notice a difference between that and 1.2 you're a depth of field genius. LOL. I can't see where you'd go wrong buying the 1.8.

Good luck.

right, the 85 1.8 is great but you have the budget and want f 1.2 go for it

 

[TamingRoman]

I started with Kit lenses and made good money with that. Eventually, I got some "real lenses". Justs take time and money. Hang in there. But good lenses are your bread and butter.

 

[Overread16 4]

If you need weather-proofing and the ability to drop the lens on the ground, then they are much more rugged than cheaper lenses

Please list these unicorn lenses.

To the OP. A lot of the higher end lenses Canon/Nikon/A few Sigmas have hand polished glass and each individual lens goes through QA inspections where the smaller more inexpensive lenses are completely machine polished and usually only a few from a batch are inspected. In short more people/time involved = more money.

Actually machines are used for polishing even on L lenses; although yes at the assembly stage they likely go through more rigorous quality control tests; but in general I rarely hear of out of the box bad kit lenses to the number that suggests that there's any production/quality control problems.


Don't forget that optical glass is expensive and the bigger the maximum aperture the bigger that quality glass has to be. That directly increases material and production costs as well as complexity. Furthermore high end are likely to have more fancy or high end/high tech optics as well as coatings. In addition the barrel is generally all metal as opposed to plastics. So you're looking at a lot of areas where those L lenses have higher production costs which quickly drive the price up.


Much has been said about the value of L lenses already and I agree that they are great options; but not always the best or the only option for ones situation. For example of all my lenses I've only 1 L - the rest are Sigma because canon doesn't make a 70mm macro; a 35mm macro; a 150mm macro (granted they make a much heavier 180mm macro) etc.. Some super wide angle lenses for crop sensor cameras are also not L in designation because L is only used on EF (fullframe) lenes; but those EFS lenses are still top range in optical quality