EF 85mm f1.2 for 5DMK2

I like the 100mm 2.0 better on my 5D Mark II. You can save a lot of money if you must have the 85mm by getting the 1.8 version. I have both and find that I use the 100mm more for portraits and head shots. The 85mm 1.2 seems like a very specialized lens that does what it does well but isn't to me worth the money, the slower focus and the extra weight. The 70-200mm 2.8 makes good sense as a very versatile lens that will serve well for portraits if you can shoulder the weight. Good luck!

Jake, in my opinion there is no better "portrait lens" than the Canon 85/1.2. My copies (the EF L II, and the FD SSC Aspherical and FD L) are astoundingly sharp wide open, and have gorgeous color tonality and bokeh. The 85/1.8, while a fine lens in its own right, just doesn't deliver the same rich imagery as its faster cousin.

But if you're worried about the inconvenience of the 70-200's size (and I presume you mean the f/2.8 version), the 85/1.2 is also a beast of a lens. Also, as Gil has pointed out, the big prime is relatively slow focusing, but this might not matter for your applications.

The "hype" is true. I own the version II and it is my favourite "portrait" and second favourite street lens. Let me warn you that at f/1.2, the lens does flare a bit at certain positions relative to the sun. But, the flare is not as bad as version I from what I have read.

It's a great lens but in its own special way. It's big, it's heavy, it's slow to focus, it's HARD to focus, and the f/1.8 still gives good results at a much lower price. Admittedly the f/1.2 II is in a separate category of image quality, but that only really matters if you're making big prints or cropping heavily.

Rent first.

Jake - if you want the best image get the 85 F1.2. I have two copies of the old FD 85 F1.2, the 85 F1.8 and have used both the EF 85 F1.2 and EF 85 F1.2 II. The simple answer is that the F1.2 is a magical lens. For the money the 86 F1.8 is a great buy, a very good lens and once you get to F5.6 almost the same IQ as the F1.2 lens. The problem is the best portraits are generally taken close to wide open where the f1.2 shines. By the way the F1.2 lens is shorter than the 70-200 F4 IS but actually heavier (it is lighter and a lot smaller than the 70-200 f2.8). For general use these zooms are great (I have both) but if you only shoot portraits a prime is the way to go. By the way the new 100 f2.8 IS Macro is a very good portrait lens.

Jake,

I have no experience with the 85 f/1.2, but I can confirm that the 85 f/1.8 is an excellent lens. One thing nobody else has remarked upon is that it’s small and light. If you don’t need that extra stop, and if you’re worried about size and weight, the 1.8 would seem like the obvious choice. And, as a bonus, you’ll have lots of cash left over to spend on other lenses!

Cheers,

b&

I would agree about the 85 1.8 or indeed the 100 2.0 as being good value propositions. I would also not discount the 135 2.0. My advice is to test any lens you're considering, under your typical portrait shoot conditions.

I own the 85mm 1.2L II, 70-200mm 2.8L IS, 100mm 2.8L IS Macro, as well as several other lenses. I also shoot with a 5D II. If you can afford this lens, just get it. There is nothing better than this lens for portraits. Compared to a 2.8, the 1.2 lens can let in 6.5x more light.

I use that combo and love it. Maybe rent it to give it a whirl before spending the major bucks.
http://www.iantaylor.ca/85.jpg