I am thinking about adding one of these lens to my line up.  I have Canon 85 1.8.  Would appreciate any one who has used either lens.  I shoot anything that comes my way as in weddings, portraits, and sports.  It would be used with a full frame camera.

Thanks,

I know I'm about to be torn apart for this, but I don't like the new Zeiss lenses. Not on a Canon, anyway. The new ones are a lot more contrasty and Magenta than the old ones. That works fine on a green camera like a Nikon, but not so hot on a red Canon.

The 85 1.2 is also very red, and just as inaccurate. But it's consistent with your other Canon glass. It also autofocuses. I have no problem with MF lenses(I actually prefer them), but if I'm giving up AF, I want to get something in return.

The Zeiss is sharper - especially in the corners, and stopped down. But you're not buying an 85 1.4 so you can get edge to edge sharpness at f/5.6.

If you were a Nikon or Sony user, I think the Zeiss would be great. As a Canon user, I think you'll prefer the Canon lens.

Manually focusing at 85mm & f/1.4 on a DSLR is a nightmare. You're not gonna see a real world difference in sharpness between the 85L and the Zeiss, since at wide apertures not much will be in focus anyway. The 85L is my favorite lens and if I could only have one lens that would be it. Keep your 85 1.8 though, it's better for sports and to have as a beater / backup.

Thank you both for the input.

Not that anyone gives a rat's ass, but I love my 8.5cm Summarex f/1.5 from E. Leitz for the 1936 Olympic. I use the silver version, not the black edition. It goes on the Olympus body. But I do not understand, I can see it slip in and out of focus easily when I focus on the Olympus.

Also, there is the 50mm f 1 Noctilux, but there is also an 85mm f 1.4 Noctilux, I used one and the images were gorgeous.

I'll state up front that I am a Nikon user and have no experience with Canon lenses. I am making an assumption that they are on par with Nikon lenses. With that as an assumption, I can offer that Zeiss lenses offer a higher level of sharpness comparing similar focal lengths/magnification. I now have 2 Zeiss lenses: the 85 f1.4 ZF.2 which is essentially the same as what you are asking about and I also recently got the 55mm f1.4 Otus lens.

The 85 reminds me very much of the CF/T* series of Hasselblad lens that I used on my film cameras. Very sharp and the coatings seem to give them more resistance to flare. The Otus, as reported, is even sharper and greater flare control. Both give greater sharpness (when in focus) than several of the Nikon lenses that I own. Only my 85mm PCE (tilt/shift, also manual focus) and the 105mm DFC come close. I have taken to the Otus even more than I thought I would to the point that I don't really like shooting with anything else unless the focal length dictates it. I'm actually considering getting the 85mm Otus as well.

Manual focus is a big deal if you have years of experience with only AutoFocus. It was something that I wanted to stay in touch with, so possibly it wasn't as big of a deal for me. To some it would be a deal breaker. I don't find it impossible to focus.  I never found AF to be effortless anyway. I use the electronic focus indicator in the viewfinder heavily. I also have one body with a magnifying lens in the eyepiece. I believe the OP mentioned sports, unless you are constantly doing follow-focus practice with video or never adopted AF I think you would find Zeiss lenses frustrating for sports. I'm more beauty/fashion/portrait and therefore more often in control of my shooting and can take the time to focus manually.

Have you considered the Sigma Art 85 1.4? I've been using the Canon 85 1.2 for a couple of years, and I don't like the slow focusing or the purple fringing, so for the past few months I've been trying out the Sigma. Much more responsive and gives the Canon a run for its money at about half the cost. I rarely shoot either of them wide open, which is the idea especially behind the Canon, so you can get the spectacular bokeh, but some reviews note that the Sigma bokeh isn't as good as the Canon's. The other thing you tend to hear about the Sigma is its inconsistent focusing, but at a moderate aperture i haven't been able to see a lot of problems in that regard. HTH.