# Updated Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS Specifcations



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 14, 2017)

```
We have received a few more bits of information in regards to the soon-to-be-announced EF 85mm f/1.4L IS.</p>
<p><strong>Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS Specifications:</strong> (New information in bold / weight and dimensions are approximates).</p>

<ul>
<li><strong>Minimum focusing distance : 85cm / 2.78′</strong>
<ul>
<li><em>EF 85mm f/1.2L II minimum focusing distance is 95cm / 3.12′</em></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Weight: 950g / 33.5oz</strong>
<ul>
<li><em>EF 85mm f/1.2L II weighs 1025g / 36.16oz</em></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Filter size: 77mm</strong>
<ul>
<li><em>EF 85mm f/1.2L II filter thread is 72mm</em></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Max diameter 88.6mm / 3.48″</strong>
<ul>
<li><em>EF 85mm f/1.2L II is 91.4mm / 3.6″ </em></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Length: 105.4mm / 4.15″</strong>
<ul>
<li><em>EF 85mm f/1.2L II is 83.8mm / 3.3″</em></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>4 stop image stabilization</li>
<li>Flourine coating</li>
<li>1 moulded aspherical element</li>
<li>9 aperture blades</li>
</ul>
<p>We’re still waiting to confirm USD pricing as well as the exact announcement date and availability.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
<div style="font-size:0px;height:0px;line-height:0px;margin:0;padding:0;clear:both"></div>
```


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 14, 2017)

Interesting. When Canon 'responded' (in truth, simply updated) the 35L --> 35L II, they went big: it got longer and heavier.

But here...

Length

85 f/1.8: 2.83"
85 f/1.2L II: 3.31"
85 f/1.4L IS: 4.15"
85 Art: 4.97"
85 Otus: 4.88"

Weight:

85 f/1.8: 15.0 oz
85 f/1.2L II: 36.2 oz
85 f/1.4L IS: 33.5 oz
85 Art: 39.9 oz
85 Otus: 42.4 oz

Filter diameter (as a read on entrance pupil):

85 f/1.8: 58mm
85 f/1.2L II: 72mm
85 f/1.4L IS: 77mm
85 Art: 86mm
85 Otus: 86mm

...I have to say, this is not the pickle jar I was expecting. Anyone else surprised by this?

- A


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 14, 2017)

*FLUORINE* not *FLOURINE* !!!!


----------



## hmatthes (Aug 14, 2017)

The 85/1.8 is always in my kit and is one of Canon's greatest values. "If it ain't broke..."
I have rented the 85/1.2 -- was shocked at the incredible optics  and difficulty to perfectly focus :-[.
So the upcoming 85/1.4 will have to be mind-blowing optically to replace the far smaller 85/1.8 in my kit.


----------



## Perio (Aug 14, 2017)

I believe there were some discrepant opinions regarding whether or not the number of aperture blades affects the "roundness" of out of focus spheres. The 85 1.4L has 9 blades vs. 8 blades in 85 1.2ii. Can this make a difference?


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Aug 14, 2017)

Personally I would have rather seen an update version of the already excellent 85mm 1.8USM , better control over abberations CA etc in that lens - would be happy for it to be a little heavier too - more the quality and styling of the 35mm F2 IS - but 950g ? nah not for me - carrying heavy stuff round for 12 hours is a big consideration when the image quality of the 450g 85 1.8 is already excellent , just needs a little more processing. Hopefully the specs will be wrong and it will be lighter ... cost is not a factor so much but weight is.

Wedding Photographer North East & Yorkshire Northumberland & Wedding Photographer Cumbria


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 14, 2017)

I never did think much of the 85 1.8 nor the 50 1.4. Both were very underwhelming and I sold both of them.

The 85 1.2 II is a single purpose lens. It excels at natural light portraits and is pretty much pointless for anything else. 

The 50 1.2 however is a lens I love, however it seems the inter-copy variation is enough to make many people loathe it.

I'll be eager to see what the 85 1.4 can handle. But I am not seeing a reason as yet as to why I would want it.


----------



## jebrady03 (Aug 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Interesting. When Canon 'responded' (in truth, simply updated) the 35L --> 35L II, they went big: it got longer and heavier.
> 
> But here...
> 
> ...



You're comparing 35mm f/1.4 to 35mm f/1.4 vs 85mm f/1.2 to 85mm f/1.4. There's a half stop of aperture difference between 1.2 and 1.4.


----------



## Berowne (Aug 14, 2017)

If weight and dimensions go parallel with the Price, then this lens will be very expensive. Remember, it is similar to the Nikon 105/1.4. Guess, it can be even more expensive.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 14, 2017)

The more we learn about this lens the more likely it will be expensive and possibly even replace the EF 85mm f1.2L II after a period of time. 

Ive long thought Canon will standardise a group of high end primes at the f1.4 stop like Zeiss with the Otus or Sigma with many of the Art lenses including the 85mm. 

This lens will add too the EF 24mm f1.4L II and the EF 35mm f1.4L II, lets skip the inferior EF 50mm f1.4 which is long overdue replacement and remains a mystery only Canon can answer and the variable quality EF 50mm f1.2L. Nikon has shown a f1.4 100mm is possible so with the EF 85mm f1.4L they are on the way to a high end f1.4 series of primes. 
In the UK at least the EF 85mm f1.2L II is £ 1,767 so I don't expect the f1.4L to be too dissimilar maybe even more expensive.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 14, 2017)

Hmmm....weight is only a bit lighter....it focuses a little closer and it's a little less stubby in size....hmmm....I think I'll pass. It sounds like a poor man's 85IIL.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 14, 2017)

Perio said:


> I believe there were some discrepant opinions regarding whether or not the number of aperture blades affects the "roundness" of out of focus spheres. The 85 1.4L has 9 blades vs. 8 blades in 85 1.2ii. Can this make a difference?



Check TDP / PZ / etc. for what the bokeh looks like on various lenses with slightly different blade counts. I don't think 8 vs. 9 will be a gamechanger per se.

I think the biggest delta with 8 vs. 9 will be sunstars from the sun/streetlights/etc. when you stop the lens down. An odd number of blades doubles the number of points you see:

https://www.thewave.info/Techniques/SunStars.html

_"The number of points in the sunstar depends on the number of diaphragm blades. The number of points in the star is twice the number of blades for lenses with an odd number of blades, and equal to the number of blades for lenses with an even number of blades."_

...but that's not exactly why you buy a portrait lens.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 14, 2017)

jebrady03 said:


> You're comparing 35mm f/1.4 to 35mm f/1.4 vs 85mm f/1.2 to 85mm f/1.4. There's a half stop of aperture difference between 1.2 and 1.4.



Fully understood -- that's why I threw in the Otus/Art. Both the current 50L and 85L are not *as* huge pickle jars as a 'corner-to-corner sharpness at all cost' sort of lens would indicate. 

In other words, _if the 85 f/1.4L IS was to be like the 35L II and throw the house at sharpness, one would think it would be bigger/heavier than the specs CR just published._

- A


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 14, 2017)

It cannot replace the 85 1.2 II because the 85 1.2 is a compromise design not focused on charts or sharpness readings, but designed to make natural light portraits look amazing. I'd love it to focus faster, but I can't possibly imagine the 1.4L replacing it for my use anyway.

Now, of course, I may be wrong and it may turn out to be an incredible lens. But I suspect it'll be OK.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 14, 2017)

It may or may not contain the Blue Goo tech. the "moulded aspherical element" could mean that. You'll recall that Canon hasn't specified what state that "organic material" of their blue refractive optics is in. It seems like their marketing people have been struggling to come up with a phrase that sounds better than "moulded plastic," for their high tech element. 

If it has the Blue Goo, and it has similar effects as it does on the 35 II, then no one will be complaining about IQ, despite the new lens being a half pound lighter than the Sigma/Zeiss versions.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 14, 2017)

With 77mm filter size vs 86mm on Zeiss / Sigma one would expect Canon lens to be smaller and lighter. Will that translate to elevated vignetting levels and softer corners wide open remains to be seen. It's all about compromises else, your example of Optus 85 size, heft and price.


ahsanford said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > You're comparing 35mm f/1.4 to 35mm f/1.4 vs 85mm f/1.2 to 85mm f/1.4. There's a half stop of aperture difference between 1.2 and 1.4.
> ...


----------



## jebrady03 (Aug 14, 2017)

I've decided to give the Sony E mount system a try and this lens was the one thing making me consider staying with Canon. I grew tired of waiting and bought the Zeiss Batis 85mm f/1.8 (which is stabilized and weather sealed) and paired it with the A7r2 (which also has in-body) and with Eye AF, the results are incredible. Also, it's half the weight of the 85mm f/1.4L IS and I bought it for $850 (used but essentially new). So, yeah, I'm missing out on 2/3 of a stop of aperture, but the AF accuracy, small size and weight, and low-cost make it more than worth it. 
I know Canon won't even know about me to even consider shedding a tear, but I'm really happy with the Sony combo. And as a bonus, I actually prefer the Sony skin tones because my wife and son are both orange-heads (I don't know why we call people like them "red heads", they're not) and the Canon colors wreaked havoc on their hair and skin. The Sony colors represent them accurately. FINALLY!!!


----------



## TomDibble (Aug 14, 2017)

Perio said:


> I believe there were some discrepant opinions regarding whether or not the number of aperture blades affects the "roundness" of out of focus spheres. The 85 1.4L has 9 blades vs. 8 blades in 85 1.2ii. Can this make a difference?



The blades will almost certainly be shaped so that "wide open" the aperture (or one near it) is perfectly circular. However, the blade can not be cut so that it is perfectly round at f/1.4 *and* still at f/2.8. The number of blades in play affects how close it can get as it is stopped down. At the same time, as the number of blades increases the "trueness to round" as the aperture stops down becomes less apparent: going from a triangle to a square is incredibly noticeable, while going from a octagon to a nonagon is not going to be noticed unless you are really looking for it.

So, the disparate opinions on the matter are going to be if the effect - after stopping down - is going to be noticeable, and I think that is not something we can offer a scientifically precise answer. There is a difference, we just can't say if it will be noticed by you in particular. And what you see will not be the same as what your neighbor sees, and will differ from image to image.

Further, of course, this assumes that the "target aperture" for the lens is f/1.4. It is possible that Canon expect the lens to be used more often at f/1.8 and so make 1.8 "perfectly round" at the cost of 1.4. Such an approach would allow more stopped-down apertures to benefit as well.


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 14, 2017)

I probably sound like a broken record, but Canon keeps making this easier for me as a big fan of zooms-- I already own plenty of 77mm filters, and am now rather surprised that it wasn't the typical 72mm prime filter size. 


Also, looking at other lenses for reference for size, the lens is about exactly the same diameter as the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, and only 14mm shorter in length.(vs retracted 24-70, of course.) 

It's also exactly the same length as the 35mm f/1.4L II interestingly, but 6mm wider in diameter.

That's a pretty nice size for a lens. So excited to see this get revealed.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 14, 2017)

I have a good few nice Canon lenses, 200/2, 135/2, 85/1.2ii and so on, BUT I'd have to say the 35/1.4ii that I got a little while back is one awesome lens, I'd go out and say I may well class it as one of the best I own.

That blue magic defo seems to do the trick, if the new 85 is anything close I may well be a little cheesed..haha


----------



## jdavidse (Aug 14, 2017)

I have been holding off for a while buying the 85mm f1.2L II because I don't want to deal with the focus misses or the focus by wire mechanism. I would have bought the Sigma had this new lens not been rumored. I am personally very excited about the specs- it seems a 1.4 as a compromise to achieve better focus and optics is a great trade. And the IS will just be icing on the cake. I don't expect it to be cheap, but for anything less than $2k, count me in. 

In the meantime, I noticed it is the exact same length as the 35mm f/1.4L II, and the exact diameter of the 24-70mm f/2.8L II.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 14, 2017)

Perio said:


> I believe there were some discrepant opinions regarding whether or not the number of aperture blades affects the "roundness" of out of focus spheres. The 85 1.4L has 9 blades vs. 8 blades in 85 1.2ii. Can this make a difference?


Yes - if you are a bokeh freak (I am). Rounded blades also help. ;D


----------



## Larsskv (Aug 14, 2017)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Hmmm....weight is only a bit lighter....it focuses a little closer and it's a little less stubby in size....hmmm....I think I'll pass. It sounds like a poor man's 85IIL.



Yep! I might have been tempted if it were less than 800 grams, but this one seems to come in very close to the 85LII. One good reason not to "upgrade".

Focusing speed is ok with the 85LII on the 1DXII, as long as you don´t have to focus from near to far away very often. Hopefully it will focus as accurate as the 85LII.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 14, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> It cannot replace the 85 1.2 II because the 85 1.2 is a compromise design not focused on charts or sharpness readings, but designed to make natural light portraits look amazing. I'd love it to focus faster, but I can't possibly imagine the 1.4L replacing it for my use anyway.
> 
> Now, of course, I may be wrong and it may turn out to be an incredible lens. But I suspect it'll be OK.



At the risk of reopening a rather rancorous debate on another thread a few months ago, and while I agree that the 85L can of course produce amazing portraits (and reportedly was designed with that in mind before anything else), I don't think under most circumstances, in a blind test, most people would be able to tell it apart from this new lens when shot wide open.

I expect the new 85 will be a little sharper, especially off centre, and hope it'll have less chromatic aberration, which I found too strong in the 85LII. With IS and especially if it has real manual focus, it will be a much more obliging beast for most, although the 85L(II) will retain its cachet and bragging rights as the widest aperture 85mm lens.



jebrady03 said:


> (I don't know why we call people like them "red heads", they're not)



The colour term 'orange' is a relative latecomer to the English language, named for the fruit, so things we'd use that word to describe now were often considered 'red', cf. robin red-breast (the British bird which originates the name is decidedly orange), red deer, etc.



Maiaibing said:


> Perio said:
> 
> 
> > I believe there were some discrepant opinions regarding whether or not the number of aperture blades affects the "roundness" of out of focus spheres. The 85 1.4L has 9 blades vs. 8 blades in 85 1.2ii. Can this make a difference?
> ...



I may be wrong, so please someone inform me: I thought wide open, all lenses had a circular aperture, the aperture blades only kick in when stopped down, in which case the more there are, the better, and rounded is better than straight. Odd versus even numbers of blades also affects 'sunstars' differently.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Aug 14, 2017)

It is surprising how much longer it is. However, going with the 77mm standard for filter size is a plus. All five of my lenses happen to be 77mm which makes using my polarizer so much easier. Addition of IS is also a huge plus.

However I have Sigma 85 f1.4 (the version prior to new Art) that works great, so I have no need to change. I am not a portrait shooter but love it for low light (city, late zoo openings, etc), so it is not ONLY a portrait lens.


----------



## Cory (Aug 15, 2017)

I sincerely believe that with this lens on my 6D that I'll be able to get chicks.


----------



## Jopa (Aug 15, 2017)

Cory said:


> I sincerely believe that with this lens on my 6D that I'll be able to get chicks.



I think Canon should include this statement to their marketing materials!


----------



## Jopa (Aug 15, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> *FLUORINE* not *FLOURINE* !!!!



Flour + urine? Gross! Stupid Canon!


----------



## grainier (Aug 15, 2017)

Wow, a kilo?


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 15, 2017)

mppix said:


> I may be wrong, so please someone inform me: I thought wide open, all lenses had a circular aperture, the aperture blades only kick in when stopped down, in which case the more there are, the better, and rounded is better than straight. Odd versus even numbers of blades also affects 'sunstars' differently.


Correct - wide open there are no blades to interfere.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 15, 2017)

grainier said:


> Wow, a kilo?



85 f/1.2L II: 36.2 oz
85 f/1.4L IS: 33.5 oz
85 Art: 39.9 oz
85 Otus: 42.4 oz

Additionally:

Samyang 85 f/1.2: 1.05 kg
Zeiss Milvus 85 1.4: 1.28 kg

So yes, they generally run heavy. However, a host of older/3rd party lenses are in the 500-700g range. Somehow the Nikon 85 f/1.4G is shockingly under 600g, which either means a lot of plastic or a very simple design, but I don't know much about it. 

- A


----------



## pwp (Aug 15, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> grainier said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, a kilo?
> ...



And the little old 85 f/1.8 specs:

Weight 0.93 lb / 425 g
Maximum diameter 3.0 in / 75.0 mm
Length 2.8 in / 71.5 mm
Filter diameter 58 mm

The new 85 f/1.4 sounds like a good one, but is unlikely to challenge the 70-200 f/2.8isII for a spot in my bag.

-pw


----------



## hne (Aug 15, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> grainier said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, a kilo?
> ...



I was really, really hoping for something closer to the Nikon. I'm not so sure I'd be toting another brick around in my handbag (crumpler pretty boy xl). 5D+35/1.4+85/1.8 is already a bit on the heavy side at about 2kg on one shoulder for a whole day. Adding another 524g? Nah, then I'd have to take a backpack. I guress I won't be selling my 85/1.8 even if I'm getting the /1.4L IS.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 15, 2017)

85 F1.4 IS lens is likely more suited for studio photography and outdoor portraits shot wide open. Having said that, I used 85 F1.4 glass for shooting portraits at dimly lit venues wide open when flash photography was not an option. I know quite a few wedding togs shooting entire wedding with 2 cams and 35 F1.4 and 85 F1.4. 




pwp said:


> The new 85 f/1.4 sounds like a good one, but is unlikely to challenge the 70-200 f/2.8isII for a spot in my bag.
> 
> -pw


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 15, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> mppix said:
> 
> 
> > I may be wrong, so please someone inform me: I thought wide open, all lenses had a circular aperture,
> ...


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 15, 2017)

Nice specs.

But I've said it before and it needs saying again. L series up the 1.8 and it'll be a nifty performer at half the weight of the current 85L.


----------



## tapanit (Aug 15, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> mppix said:
> 
> 
> > I may be wrong, so please someone inform me: I thought wide open, all lenses had a circular aperture, the aperture blades only kick in when stopped down, in which case the more there are, the better, and rounded is better than straight. Odd versus even numbers of blades also affects 'sunstars' differently.
> ...



Yes. That means it's possible to have perfectly round aperture at two settings, wide open and at one selected smaller aperture (say, f/1.8 or f/2.8 or whatever Canon wants). At all other settings there'd be corners.


----------



## ScottyP (Aug 15, 2017)

I somehow never really warmed to my 85mm f/1.8. I've been thinking of selling but there were few nibbles on my Craigslist and everyone wanted to pay peanuts so I kept it. I think it is a combination of the focal length being just a little too long or short somehow, and the photos not being as contrasty as my 70-200. I also find that at a longer FL like this f/2.8 gives about as narrow a DOF as I really want. Any narrower and you get OOF ears, which I find makes people look weird; like they are doing a back float with ears underwater. I find despite the weight I go for the IQ and versatility of the 70-200 over the shallower dof and the1 1/3 stop of light of the 85. 

Maybe I just need to leave the 85 on the camera for a month and force myself to get my head around it. Then maybe this new lens will appeal more strongly to me.


----------



## jebrady03 (Aug 15, 2017)

mppix said:


> .. so with Sony, your family is desaturated?



You'd call this image I took of my son last night desaturated?






I didn't touch the vibrance or saturation sliders and I actually desaturated the greens by -10. I reduced the luminance on the orange and yellow sliders and I only increased the saturation of the orange slider by +10 (I overexposed slightly and had to correct it).

I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about because you haven't actually used the equipment, hence your link to something other than your own work.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 15, 2017)

Scotty,

Let me share my thoughts. the hidden benefits of shooting 85 F1.4 or F1.8 lens stopped down to F2.8 are: much lower levels of CA and vignetting, better corner sharpness So there is definitely a point in shooting with a wide aperture prime stopped down.Or even step back a bit for increased DoF and shoot full body portrait.
The DoF, when shooting with 85mm lens at F1.8 and 5m to subject, is quite reasonable being 18cm in front of and 18cm behind the subject.



ScottyP said:


> I somehow never really warmed to my 85mm f/1.8. I've been thinking of selling but there were few nibbles on my Craigslist and everyone wanted to pay peanuts so I kept it. I think it is a combination of the focal length being just a little too long or short somehow, and the photos not being as contrasty as my 70-200. I also find that at a longer FL like this f/2.8 gives about as narrow a DOF as I really want. Any narrower and you get OOF ears, which I find makes people look weird; like they are doing a back float with ears underwater. I find despite the weight I go for the IQ and versatility of the 70-200 over the shallower dof and the1 1/3 stop of light of the 85.
> 
> Maybe I just need to leave the 85 on the camera for a month and force myself to get my head around it. Then maybe this new lens will appeal more strongly to me.


----------



## BillB (Aug 15, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Scotty,
> 
> Let me share my thoughts. the hidden benefits of shooting 85 F1.4 or F1.8 lens stopped down to F2.8 are: much lower levels of CA and vignetting, better corner sharpness So there is definitely a point in shooting with a wide aperture prime stopped down.Or even step back a bit for increased DoF and shoot full body portrait.
> The DoF, when shooting with 85mm lens at F1.8 and 5m to subject, is quite reasonable being 18cm in front of and 18cm behind the subject.
> ...



If you are ok with the size weight and visibility of the 70-200, the shallow DOF of the 85 may not be a big enough deal to give up the flexibility of the zoom. I like the light weight and the unobtrusiveness of the 85, especially paired with the 16-35 or the 40 pancake. Either choice gives great IQ. Using the 85 did require me to relearn how to zoom with my feet.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 15, 2017)

unless the venue is so dark that you are forced to shoot at 1/60s, F2.8 and ISO 3200 with your zoom lens. Which I do routinely. with 85 F1.4 prime the ISO is down to very reasonable 1600 level and shutter speed increased to 1/125s at the same time. Thanks to F1.4 prime 2 stop aperture advantage. it works for me  

p.s.: attached photo was taken with Sigma 35 F1.4 wide open.





BillB said:


> ...the shallow DOF of the 85 may not be a big enough deal to give up the flexibility of the zoom.


----------



## hne (Aug 15, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Scotty,
> 
> Let me share my thoughts. the hidden benefits of shooting 85 F1.4 or F1.8 lens stopped down to F2.8 are: much lower levels of CA and vignetting, better corner sharpness So there is definitely a point in shooting with a wide aperture prime stopped down.Or even step back a bit for increased DoF and shoot full body portrait.
> The DoF, when shooting with 85mm lens at F1.8 and 5m to subject, is quite reasonable being 18cm in front of and 18cm behind the subject.



At 5m distance, the CoC diameter for +- 18cm would be roughly 40 micrometer. Having that as resolution limit (since you say your outer ends should still seem sharp) means roughly 600x900 pixels on a FF sensor equivalency. As long as you never view your 4x6 inch prints at a distance closer than arms length, I agree with you.

I'm normally calculating for 2.5 times resolution needed or a 4x6 at no nearer than 25cm (international definition of visual acuity, in case someone's interested).

On the other hand, I don't mind slightly blurry ears, so I find 85/1.8 fully open to be tolerable down to about 3m distance, which makes for a nice loosly framed horizontal head+shoulders. Opening up to 85/1.4 would allow the same transition to out of focus (in object space) at a 10% longer distance. 85/1.2 increases that distance to almost 3.5m. Not a big deal, but quite handy at times to get a similar transition speed at a longer distance. Someone mentioned having DoF priority on the mode wheel. I'd agree. Set it at f/1.2 at 3.5m and if you refocus to 3m distance the camera stops down the lens to f/1.8. That would be handy!


----------



## scyrene (Aug 15, 2017)

tapanit said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > mppix said:
> ...



Thanks!


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 15, 2017)

I'm sure at 1.2 on FF the 50L and 85L clip the bokeh when wide open.

So I think the 1.4 version should give perfect bokeh wide open and no clipping at the edges. Worth a 1/2 stop of light loss imho.


----------



## The Supplanter (Aug 15, 2017)

jebrady03 said:


> You'd call this image I took of my son last night desaturated?
> 
> I didn't touch the vibrance or saturation sliders and I actually desaturated the greens by -10. I reduced the luminance on the orange and yellow sliders and I only increased the saturation of the orange slider by +10 (I overexposed slightly and had to correct it).
> 
> I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about because you haven't actually used the equipment, hence your link to something other than your own work.



I'm pretty sure no one on this forum cares that you use Sony, or what your son looks like. Absolutely no one.

This topic is about the upcoming 85mm lens from Canon - not about your Sony equipment, nor your son.


----------



## ScottyP (Aug 16, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> unless the venue is so dark that you are forced to shoot at 1/60s, F2.8 and ISO 3200 with your zoom lens. Which I do routinely. with 85 F1.4 prime the ISO is down to very reasonable 1600 level and shutter speed increased to 1/125s at the same time. Thanks to F1.4 prime 2 stop aperture advantage. it works for me
> 
> p.s.: attached photo was taken with Sigma 35 F1.4 wide open.
> 
> ...


I agree. I love primes and I particularly love that Sigma 35 Art, which is my walk around lens responsible for at least 60% of my shots. I think the 35mm focal length is more versatile than 85mm and it also is more generous with the DOF.


----------



## jebrady03 (Aug 16, 2017)

The Supplanter said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > You'd call this image I took of my son last night desaturated?
> ...



Mmmmmm... If only I cared what you think! 

My initial post was my disappointment with how long Canon took to come out with an 85 I liked and by the time they had, I had already decided to bail for tech that better serves me. The picture of my son was in *response* to the assertion that Sony colors were desaturared.


----------



## Jopa (Aug 16, 2017)

jebrady03 said:


> The Supplanter said:
> 
> 
> > jebrady03 said:
> ...



Great picture. That's the only thing that actually matters 

The Batis 85 is probably one of the best quality/size lens made for the A7 platform (unlike the 85GM grinder). Sony colors are somewhat different from Canon's. Sony picks up greens everywhere, Canon - reds.

Here is my favorite A7r2/Batis shot:


----------



## Phenix205 (Aug 16, 2017)

Are we sure this is going to be an L lens?


----------



## hne (Aug 16, 2017)

wockawocka said:


> I'm sure at 1.2 on FF the 50L and 85L clip the bokeh when wide open.
> 
> So I think the 1.4 version should give perfect bokeh wide open and no clipping at the edges. Worth a 1/2 stop of light loss imho.



Yes, the two current Canon f/1.2 lenses clip bokeh in two ways. First off, the lens barrel gets in the way for the corners, causing "cat eye" shaped out of focus hilights. Secondly, the mirror box gets in the way for top and bottom at some angles, causing out of focus hilights to look chopped off (bottom part at image top, top part at image bottom). A surprising source of well presented information on what makes bokeh balls look the way it does can be found in the features list of a tool used to simulate lens aberrations in 3D renders:

http://richardrosenman.com/shop/dof-pro/


----------



## camerone (Aug 16, 2017)

Phenix205 said:


> Are we sure this is going to be an L lens?



yes


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 16, 2017)

Cory said:


> I sincerely believe that with this lens on my 6D that I'll be able to get chicks.



Only if you take it to the tattoo shop and get a barbed wire tattoo all the way around it.


----------



## sulla (Aug 17, 2017)

hmatthes said:


> I have rented the 85/1.2 -- was shocked at the incredible optics  and difficulty to perfectly focus :-[.


So were my thoughts when I rented a 85 1.2 II and used it on a 5D1. Focus was not easy to achieve always. I also borrowed a 85 1.8 from a friend of mine, but did not like the images too much.
Later on, I bought a 85 1.2 II used, because - like Mr. Wilde - I just couldn't resist temptation. f/1.2 is sooooo much more light than f/1.8. DOF-shallowness also. While focus is still on the slow side, I find it not difficult to achieve perfect focus with the excellent AF system of my 5D3. Focus by wire becomes the new standard with STM lenses anyway, and I got used to it. Yes, it feels strange.
Since, I have just fallen absolutely in love with that lens. It is amazing.

the IS in the new 85 1.4 lens will be a game changer, I believe. Probably that lenses greatest asset. A real advantage over the 1.2. The rest (build quality, image rendering, colour rendering) remains to be seen, however.

PS: With the 1.2, you can get even more chicks!


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 17, 2017)

jebrady03 said:


> I've decided to give the Sony E mount system a try and this lens was the one thing making me consider staying with Canon. I grew tired of waiting and bought the Zeiss Batis 85mm f/1.8 (which is stabilized and weather sealed) and paired it with the A7r2 (which also has in-body) and with Eye AF, the results are incredible. Also, it's half the weight of the 85mm f/1.4L IS and I bought it for $850 (used but essentially new). So, yeah, I'm missing out on 2/3 of a stop of aperture, but the AF accuracy, small size and weight, and low-cost make it more than worth it.
> I know Canon won't even know about me to even consider shedding a tear, but I'm really happy with the Sony combo. And as a bonus, I actually prefer the Sony skin tones because *my wife and son are both orange-heads (I don't know why we call people like them "red heads", they're not)* and the Canon colors wreaked havoc on their hair and skin. The Sony colors represent them accurately. FINALLY!!!



Orange was the last color that we currently identify from the others to be distinguished and named. This occurred after the term "red-head" was coined.

There are other cultures (I believe certain indigenous cultures in Mexico) that don't distinguish between blue and green.

The more you know!


----------



## suburbia (Aug 17, 2017)

Cory said:


> I sincerely believe that with this lens on my 6D that I'll be able to get chicks.



Is that what you call it?


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 17, 2017)

The Supplanter said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > You'd call this image I took of my son last night desaturated?
> ...



I'm sure you are an abrasive goon.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Aug 21, 2017)

Not in the market for this lens as I love my 100 macro IS lens. Recall how I used to love a 85 f2 Rokkor lens. Very compact, and, by my standards f2 is a fast lens.


----------



## sowlow (Aug 22, 2017)

I think i will probably upgrade my 85 1.8


----------



## scottgoh (Aug 26, 2017)

this is awesome. love to get the 85 IS. but too bad its not 1.2

Scott
www.scottgohphotography.com.au


----------

