Shop's in Raleigh, I'm in Raleigh getting new tires on my car.... hrmm.... if I don't want it, I can always sell it....

mark 1 or 2? and price?

Originally Posted by subimatt

mark 1 or 2? and price?

mk 1.

the mk1 was slower af and had worse CA from what I recall. both of those arnt great on the mk2 so idk... depends on the price.

Originally Posted by subimatt

the mk1 was slower af and had worse CA from what I recall. both of those arnt great on the mk2 so idk... depends on the price.

I don't have an 85L now for some of those reasons--it's expensive, it's slow, it's a huge hunk of glass, etc. But it has also been on my wishlist for a long time, and if this one's in good shape, this would be an excellent opportunity to try it out (and continue to be a lens whore/gearfaggot like you and Ben).

Originally Posted by Markitos

I don't have an 85L now for some of those reasons--it's expensive, it's slow, it's a huge hunk of glass, etc. But it has also been on my wishlist for a long time, and if this one's in good shape, this would be an excellent opportunity to try it out (and continue to be a lens whore/gearfaggot like you and Ben).

depends on the price, gearfaggot apprentice...

yeah, what's the price?

the CA isn't that much improved from what I've read, but it's the AF that made me get the II. It's slow as is, so slower would be sloooooow.

But Mark, I bought this lens for the very reason you're saying. It's been on my wish list forever. Like 4 years? Because I had the funds during the switch I figured it was the perfect time to snag one and try it.

But yeah, HOW MUCH?!

and FYI, it's the sexiest lens I've had the pleasure of owning/using.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

It's been on my wish list forever. Like 4 years?

and FYI, it's the sexiest lens I've had the pleasure of owning/using.

so you could say is filled a hole, and in doing so has brought you pleasure?

Originally Posted by danm

so you could say is filled a hole, and in doing so has brought you pleasure?

AND it's really big

sure, something like that.

to be honest.. if it was an amazing deal, I'd probably own one. Just to fLex my interweb mus-Ls.

$1350 and it's in LN condition... yay or nay?

buy it and try it for that price, worse case you sell it on potn for profit$$.

I bought my II for $200 more than that.

Didn't like it... bought an 85 f/1.8 and a new set of legs to replace the ones I broke/be a second tripod instead. I just can't see the 85L being something that'll work for me. Fun to play with it, though.

i heart the 85 1.8. i took the two shots in my beach thread labeled as saturday night with it.

I always neglect my 85 1.8.. then I go stop it down to 2.0 shoot a few shots with it and kick myself everytime I'm in a situation that it could add value. There's something to be said for having primes that "limit" you. By limit I mean require you to smarten up and use them instead of relying on a zoom that covers their range

Originally Posted by Blazin

I always neglect my 85 1.8.. then I go stop it down to 2.0 shoot a few shots with it and kick myself everytime I'm in a situation that it could add value. There's something to be said for having primes that "limit" you. By limit I mean require you to smarten up and use them instead of relying on a zoom that covers their range

exactly! i told my self going into the shoot that i was putting the 85 on and making it work. im so glad i did, everytime i shoot with it i fall in love all over again

Originally Posted by Blazin

There's something to be said for having primes that "limit" you. By limit I mean require you to smarten up and use them instead of relying on a zoom that covers their range

ding!

the only real question here is is the 85L and 85L II worth the extra over the canon 1.8 or sigma 1.4, and what if you shoot Nikon? I went for the 1.2 this time solely because I'm on crop and want that speed in the bank for low light as it's a stop less ISO -vs- the 1.8 which with the ISOs will help me a ton -vs- FF. That, and that front element is wicked.

Yeah, for me it wasn't/isn't a prime vs. zoom thing--I just wanted another fast prime for when I need it. Now I have the 35/85/135 trio--I'd had my doubts about the 85L, and now they're confirmed. I just don't need it.... we will see if I even use the 85 that much.

I don't get the whole zoom vs. prime arguments, though, and spend time on POTN in threads of that nature. Horses for courses--you don't have to be lazy with zooms if you don't want to be, and when you can't move/change position, I'd prefer a zoom over something that's either too long or I have to crop (or carry 99 lenses around). Which is not to say I don't love my 35/135 primes, because I do, and they have a whole other set of pros and cons.

Absolutely, I'm just saying I find myself kicking myself due to sharpness. The sharpness of the 85 1.8 at 2.0 just amazes me. The only zoom I've seen match it was the tokina 11-16. OMGZ 3rd party zoom beats out Ls? Yea, I said it does bitches

I like primes because they make a 1 lens kit smaller AND better at low light.
I like primes because they help to force ME to move my feet.
I like primes because generally they're sharper.
I like wide zooms because they cover more FLs in one lens, and each 1mm is a big difference.
I like long zooms because I can't afford long fast primes with IS.

I could give a **** why you like what you like.

but I will often suggest a n00b get at least one prime so they can learn apertures and their effect faster and at least see what being forced into one FL does to your creativity, better or worse.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

but I will often suggest a n00b get at least one prime so they can learn apertures and their effect faster and at least see what being forced into one FL does to your creativity, better or worse.

Sure, I totally get this. I just don't understand why some people (no, not talking about anyone in this thread, actually) construct this whole "I must only shoot primes OR zooms, but not both" thing, like they have to be mutually exclusive. I can understand that it's cost prohibitive, but that's about it. If one suits you more than the other, good. If they both suit you, good. I just don't get why people get so pedantic about something that's pretty trivial.

Anyway, that's another tangent for another thread and another day.

I'm happy to have upgraded my legs/ballhead for the same price as my older, crappier legs alone.

Originally Posted by Markitos

I'm happy to have upgraded my legs/ballhead for the same price as my older, crappier legs alone.

What'd you get?

Originally Posted by Blazin

What'd you get?

Just the next up Bogen legs with the next up Bogen head... the medium size ones... I like them because they're taller than the 190XB's that I have (broken), they have a bubble level built in, and they are obviously beefier/sturdier. They also had some used Gitzo CF legs for $500, but I don't hike with/use a tripod enough for that.

yeah, the whole primes -vs- zooms and being exclusive deal, look at my sig... Zooms where they make the most sense $ wise and primies where I can afford them (and I know 2 of my primes aren't cheap).

for landscaping purposed someone could argue a zoom would be easier in the mid range, and it would be, but for personal shooting I prefer/need the speed of primes and I can't afford both.

i actually used my tripod the other day. it was the weirdest feeling, i am free handing it 99% of the time.

^ I would be too for what you shoot. But try holding still for 30 seconds...

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

^ I would be too for what you shoot. But try holding still for 30 seconds...

i cant hold still for 1/40 of a second

right, but you also don't need to either.

with the 7D/toke, 1/15th is basically 1/FL...

Originally Posted by danm

i actually used my tripod the other day. it was the weirdest feeling, i am free handing it 99% of the time.

This is me, too. But I figured for the same price as my cheapo legs, I might as well have some better legs for the occasional landscape... and I DO shoot them every once in awhile.

All this talking about lenses is sort of weird for me at the moment, though, because I've hardly had my camera out enough to use anything. I was thinking about it on the way home--I haven't shot the 24-70 in a pretty good while, I shot the 70-200 for the first time in awhile last week, and I have used the 35L, 135, and 16-35 most recently. So I'm not sure yet where the 85 will fit in, but I think I'll actually use it in most of the situations where I've been using the 135L, and use it as an opportunity to get a little bit closer.

it'll be interesting to see if you end up liking/keeping both the 85 and 135.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

it'll be interesting to see if you end up liking/keeping both the 85 and 135.

yeah, doubt I'll keep both...

Originally Posted by Markitos

yeah, doubt I'll keep both...

yep, that's basically me and the 50/85 right now.

Originally Posted by Markitos

yeah, doubt I'll keep both...

yep, that's basically me and the 50/85 right now.

Ben and/or Matt--one question about the 85L--do yours have really loose/easy to turn focus rings? That was one of the weird things about the one I tried in the store--that and the rotating front element.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

I bought my II for $200 more than that.

It's still a pretty good price for the mkI and I certainly wouldn't have lost money on it... was just browsing CL and saw it. I've had my fair share of good lens deals (my mint 24-70 for $850 and the 135L for $650, to name two).

yes, super loose focusing. It's electronic. The front element on the II DOES NOT SPIN. It's in/out and the red ring and most of the front of the lens spins (including where the test is) but the element and threads themselves don't move. Also, because it's electronic, once it's off the camera it doesn't move the lens. So if it's focused close and you take it off, it's extended until you put it back on the camera.

As for deals, yeah, that was the fun in switching back for me. I made sure I got prices I'd set in my head before jumping on anything. Makes it easier to justify expensive lenses when they're much less than retail. Having gone through the issue with the 24G this was a priority for me. But the 85 could still get sold because it's so expensive, nothing is ever safe in my kit, but so far I'm liking it a lot.

weve got an 85L V1 and its not that bad. you cant use it for basketball but brides coming down the isle its fine. I have the 85 1.8 though, its so much smaller / lighter / cheaper, and we do NOT need 2 85L's. I am lusting after the 50 1.2L or the siggy 1.4, or the canon 50 1.4II if they would annouce it. Course I have a pentax 50 1.4 and canon 50 1.4 already lol

Originally Posted by SlvrScoobie

weve got an 85L V1 and its not that bad. you cant use it for basketball but brides coming down the isle its fine. I have the 85 1.8 though, its so much smaller / lighter / cheaper, and we do NOT need 2 85L's. I am lusting after the 50 1.2L or the siggy 1.4, or the canon 50 1.4II if they would annouce it. Course I have a pentax 50 1.4 and canon 50 1.4 already lol

well, I already have a 135L which is faster (AF, not optically) and has similar bokeh. The extra length doesn't bother me much because I've been shooting with it for awhile and I'm used to it. I just couldn't see myself using the 85 f/1.2 much realistically, so the f/1.8 was a more practical choice. Not even sure if I'm going to keep it, but it's a nice little lens.

yeah, i keep thinking if the 50 1.4II comes out, ill get that and the 135L. That should round out my primes - 35L, 50 1.4II 85 1.8 and 135L. Course I already have a 135 1.8 its hella fast but the contrast is pretty weak sauce...