Canon 85mm 1.8

ROCKMORE

ROCKMORE

Veteran
It looks like a good value for the price, and a focal length and speed I don't have.
I do have a 50mm 1.4 and 1.8, 85-250mm f5 zoom, 35-70mm f4 zoom, 70-150mm f4 zoom.
Is this lens going to make enough difference, or am I just beating my head against a wall? Any hands on user comments?
 
Last edited:
See if you can find a used one or rent one. I think you need one. I am selling my 90mm 2.8 elmarit R and stepping up to a90 f2 summicron R, but I like manual focus
 
ROCKMORE said:
It looks like a good value for the price, and a focal length and speed I don't have.
I do have a 50mm 1.4 and 1.8, 85-250mm f5 zoom...
Click to expand...

Hi Rockmore,

I don't have the Canon 85mm 1.8, but it looks like a good price on a decent lens. One advantage with the lens is you have auto focus if you need it for stills.

Since I don't shoot stills professionally, I have gone done the route of vintage manual focus lenses. My first 85mm was actually brand new. It was the Rokinon 85mm 1.4, which is faster than the Canon, but no auto focus for stills. The Canon is about $100 more, but as long as you don't need auto focus, it was a great lens for the money.

After I got the Rokinon I discovered old Zeiss lenses. The new ones are great, but pricey. I got an older Zeiss Planar T 50mm 1.4 and absolutley loved it. So I added a Zeiss Planar T 85mm 1.4. This is one of my favorite lenses. If you look hard and are patient, sometimes you can find them around $500, so it is more than the Canon, but the Zeiss Planar T is in a totally different league and well worth the extra $125+.
 
Mark Von Lanken said:
Hi Rockmore,

I don't have the Canon 85mm 1.8, but it looks like a good price on a decent lens. One advantage with the lens is you have auto focus if you need it for stills.

Since I don't shoot stills professionally, I have gone done the route of vintage manual focus lenses. My first 85mm was actually brand new. It was the Rokinon 85mm 1.4, which is faster than the Canon, but no auto focus for stills. The Canon is about $100 more, but as long as you don't need auto focus, it was a great lens for the money.

After I got the Rokinon I discovered old Zeiss lenses. The new ones are great, but pricey. I got an older Zeiss Planar T 50mm 1.4 and absolutley loved it. So I added a Zeiss Planar T 85mm 1.4. This is one of my favorite lenses. If you look hard and are patient, sometimes you can find them around $500, so it is more than the Canon, but the Zeiss Planar T is in a totally different league and well worth the extra $125+.
Click to expand...

Since you have owned both, how would you compare the Zeiss 85 1.4 to the Rokinon? Both for stills and for video. I have a Zeiss Jena Biometar 80 f 2.8 (medium format) which I use mainly for stills (portraits), but I think I'd need the extra stops for low light portraiture. From the online reviews it appears that the Rokinon plays in the Canon EF 85 1.2 L league, so it appears to be the best value for money hands down.
Thanks.
 
Mark Von Lanken said:
Hi Rockmore,

I don't have the Canon 85mm 1.8, but it looks like a good price on a decent lens.


I got an older Zeiss Planar T 50mm 1.4 and absolutley loved it. So I added a Zeiss Planar T 85mm 1.4. This is one of my favorite lenses. If you look hard and are patient, sometimes you can find them around $500, so it is more than the Canon, but the Zeiss Planar T is in a totally different league and well worth the extra $125+.
Click to expand...

I shot with the Zeiss 85 f1.4 Planar on a 5D last month and it's a fantastic lens. You got a good deal for $500.
I tested the 85 Canon 1.8 last week and I think for the price it's a nice piece of glass. I will almost surely add that lens to my kit in the future.
I'm new to the auto focus world. For video I always shoot manual focus, but for stills auto focus is great to have in a fast changing scene.
Something else to consider is weight. I work very fast with a small crew (maybe none) and every extra pound to pack and carry is becoming an issue these days so the lighter new lenses with auto features and sharp glass are part of the decision. What ever get's the job done is the best option.
 
kostas said:
Since you have owned both, how would you compare the Zeiss 85 1.4 to the Rokinon? Both for stills and for video. I have a Zeiss Jena Biometar 80 f 2.8 (medium format) which I use mainly for stills (portraits), but I think I'd need the extra stops for low light portraiture. From the online reviews it appears that the Rokinon plays in the Canon EF 85 1.2 L league, so it appears to be the best value for money hands down.
Thanks.
Click to expand...

Hi Kostas,

While I owned both for a short period, I never did a shootout between the two. My bad and since I don't shoot stills professionally, I really can't compare the two for stills.

The focus and aperture rings on the Zeiss are much better than the Rokinon. I am practically in love with the focus ring on both of my Zeiss lenses and since I shoot live events, focusing on the run is really important. Having said that, the Rokinon was really sharp and for someone needing a fast 85mm, there is probably not a better lens, that is if price is very important, while still having a good lens. Since I already had the Zeiss 50mm 1.4, I really wanted a matching 85mm 1.4. I have heard great things about your Jena Biometer, but at 2.8, it is limiting in low light.
 
I have the Canon EF 85/1.8 and it's probably one of the best bargains in the Canon line. It's very well built, fast AF and sharp wide open.

It's a great portrait lens on my 1Ds (stills), and on my 7D, it's a great candid shots lens, great for picking up expressions in a crowd. I used it for both stills and video recently in a wedding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top