# Some Information About the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 12, 2017)

```
We’ve received a bit more information about the upcoming Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS.</p>
<p><strong>Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS Known Specifications:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>4 stop image stabilization (previously mentioned)</li>
<li>Flourine coating</li>
<li>1 moulded aspherical element</li>
<li>9 aperture blades</li>
</ul>
<p>We currently do not know the weight, dimensions, announcement date or how much this hotly anticipated lens is going to be.</p>

<p>We’re also going to <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/clarification-corrections-on-the-upcoming-new-lenses-from-canon-cr2/">put a [CR3] onto the tilt-shift lenses we’ve been reporting about</a>.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
<div style="font-size:0px;height:0px;line-height:0px;margin:0;padding:0;clear:both"></div>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 12, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> 1 moulded aspherical element



Interesting, and may indicate the lens will come in at a lower price than expected (although knowing Canon, maybe not  ). Canon uses four types of aspherical elements, ranging from low to high cost/quality as follows:

[list type=decimal]
[*]moulded plastic
[*]replica elements (resin layered on glass)
[*]moulded glass
[*]ground and polished glass
[/list] 
For comparison, the EF-S 18-55 kit lens has a moulded plastic aspherical element, the EF-S 17-55 has one moulded glass aspherical and two replica aspherical elements, and the 85/1.2L II has a ground/polished glass aspherical element.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 12, 2017)

I think the price will be around $1,000. I certainly don't think it's going to be north of $1,500


----------



## bereninga (Aug 13, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > 1 moulded aspherical element
> ...



The 35 1.4 II and 24-70 2.8 II also have glass-molded aspherical lenses. Those aren't cheap lenses.


----------



## MaxFoto (Aug 13, 2017)

Will it be AF? ;D


----------



## jebrady03 (Aug 13, 2017)

no mention of blue spectrum refractive optics, huh?


----------



## mclaren777 (Aug 13, 2017)

An fast prime like this would benefit greatly from BR optics technology.

I'm going to be really disappointed if Canon doesn't incorporate it into this lens.


----------



## Jopa (Aug 13, 2017)

mclaren777 said:


> An fast prime like this would benefit greatly from BR optics technology.
> 
> I'm going to be really disappointed if Canon doesn't incorporate it into this lens.



The Otus 85 doesn't have BR and it's a decent lens nevertheless


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 13, 2017)

mclaren777 said:


> An fast prime like this would benefit greatly from BR optics technology.
> 
> I'm going to be really disappointed if Canon doesn't incorporate it into this lens.



Really? Are you optics designer?

I am only physicist and no specialist in optics: In my opinion BR is helpful for HIGH APERTURE WIDE ANGLE lenses but not effective and/or efficient for tele lenses.

About weight & size: I am interested in compact lenses with moderate weight. So I would welcome a size in thre region of the existing 1.8 85 plus 2cm in length + 1cm in diameter. For ME some small penalty in IQ would be o.k.
If the development goes into the direction larger and heavier I might add a SpotMini robot + some spare batteries for it to help me lugging some lenses for extended walks  (SpotMini: https://www.bostondynamics.com/spot-mini )

About the price: 2x the 1.8 85 + 500 ($, EUR) for the IS group of a large aperture lens + 100EUR for "it's a new/unique spec combination" ... resulting in 1200 ... 1300 $/EUR ... just a guess.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 13, 2017)

...and is an affordable lens 



Jopa said:


> The Otus 85 doesn't have BR and it's a decent lens nevertheless


----------



## -1 (Aug 13, 2017)

The 85/1.8 is £330 and the /1.2 is £1777... 

https://www.parkcameras.com/c/4620/canon-lenses-ef-mount?p=1&q=4620&sz=96&by=9&v=0&me=sz&f=br:4&x=br

Don't expect the 85/1.4 to cost less than the latter since it's defacto replacement. Here is why:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=397&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1085&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## Jopa (Aug 13, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> ...and is an affordable lens
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok, how bout the Milvus 85 then?


----------



## addola (Aug 13, 2017)

mb66energy said:


> In my opinion BR is helpful for HIGH APERTURE WIDE ANGLE lenses but not effective and/or efficient for tele lenses.


What do you mean by "high" aperture. Did you mean "large", as in f/1.4, or did you mean high aperture as in high f-number, like f/16? I don't know much about BR (other than it is what they used in the 35L II). 



mb66energy said:


> About the price: 2x the 1.8 85 + 500 ($, EUR) for the IS group of a large aperture lens + 100EUR for "it's a new/unique spec combination" ... resulting in 1200 ... 1300 $/EUR ... just a guess.



I think it will be higher. My guess is 3x the 85/1.8 + 500, resulting in about $1600-$1700, but even then it would be priced similar to the competition pricing for 85 f/1.4 with no IS.

Nikon 85/1.4 : $1600
Sony 85/1.4 GM : $1800
Sigma 85/1.4A : $1200

I don't think it will be priced like the Sigma. Canon "can" sell it for much higher if the quality is superb. The 35L II is about twice the price of Sigma 35 Art (1700 vs 900)

I am interested to know why do you guys think it won't be priced over $1500?


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 13, 2017)

yeah, another affordable and fast focusing lens 



Jopa said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > ...and is an affordable lens
> ...


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 13, 2017)

addola said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion BR is helpful for HIGH APERTURE WIDE ANGLE lenses but not effective and/or efficient for tele lenses.
> ...



This was bad "translative thinking" - in germany Hoch / high means "wide open" for optics. Sorry for that - I mean large.

One property of glass and other optical media is that they have different refractive capability for different light colors (wavelengths). A single lens optics always provides different focal planes for different colors resulting in colored edges of details in the image (chromatic aberration). A simple countermeasure is to combine two lenses with different "color behaviour": one lens counteracts the chromatic aberration of the other.
As always in (material) physics: You are limited by the available types of optical glass - the BR material is an organic material which introduces additional possibilities because it has a totally different "color behavior" compared to existing materials. This CAN be helpful in a lens design but it is not THE solution for ALL problems.



addola said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > About the price: 2x the 1.8 85 + 500 ($, EUR) for the IS group of a large aperture lens + 100EUR for "it's a new/unique spec combination" ... resulting in 1200 ... 1300 $/EUR ... just a guess.
> ...



I think it is much easier to design a very good light tele lens compared to a wide angle lens. A highlarge aperture wide angle @35mm must be a strong retrofocus construction involving a lot of elements and strong "bending of light". An 85mm large aperture lens profits from the fact that the focal length is much higher than the depth of the mirror box where no lens elements have to be.

Another reason is that Canon has to be competitive against Sigma / Zeiss / Nikon (1.4 100) / Tamron (1.8 85 stabilized) because Canon lenses are a primary reason to stay with Canon for a lot of people (besides ergonomics + support).


----------



## Yasko (Aug 13, 2017)

jebrady03 said:


> no mention of blue spectrum refractive optics, huh?



May be due to the focal length. Chromatic aberrations increase when the field of view increases, so wider prime lenses *typically* (not necessarily) suffer more from chromatic aberrations than longer ones. Thus, this might be a feature which will predominantly be implemented into wider focal length prime & zoom lenses. Actually the 24-70 mk II does not have this specific feature, does it?
I thought the 35L USM II was the first one to bring us blue refractive optics (in other terms just a more dispersive element).


----------



## Viggo (Aug 13, 2017)

I, for one, certainly hope this will not sit between the f1.8 and the 1.2 qualitywise. I hope this will be like the 35 L II, absolutely stellar in every way. I think this will be a 2000 dollar lens for sure.


----------



## jebrady03 (Aug 13, 2017)

addola said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion BR is helpful for HIGH APERTURE WIDE ANGLE lenses but not effective and/or efficient for tele lenses.
> ...



High and large are interchangeable, although in American-English "high" is an unusual choice of words, because aperture is a fraction where "f" is the focal length. So aperture should be written f/#. So with large aperture lenses, the number is higher.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2017)

Yasko said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > no mention of blue spectrum refractive optics, huh?
> ...



Both Canon 85mm primes suffer from pretty bad longitudinal CA.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 13, 2017)

Sigma 85 Art is not any better in that regard. Plenty of CA wide open but easy to correct. It is interesting how some posts on this page suggest that 85mm primes are easier to design than 35mm ones. 85mm primes are much larger that 35mm primes. That's for reason. 



neuroanatomist said:


> Yasko said:
> 
> 
> > jebrady03 said:
> ...


----------



## Mika (Aug 13, 2017)

There's been some discussion on the optical design of the objective in this thread. I'm an actual optical designer, but not involved with Canon in any other way than that I just happened to select Canon's camera (20D) in 2006 and have been on that path ever since.

The most straight-forward objective type to design is the normal focal length, that is to say, objective focal length is approximately the same as the sensor diagonal (43.2 mm in full-frame). No doubt you can make it harder with some extra requirements like macro and low F-number, but typically this tends to work out so.

Telephotos are easier in a sense you typically need less elements and aspheres (barring telephoto zooms that can become quite complex), but the difficulty lies in the material requirements and centering tolerances. Two typical aberrations to combat against are spherical aberration and longitudal color; that's where calcium fluoride comes in to play. The focusing mechanism is also occasionally difficult as the mass moving should be minimized, and this is not easy to do always. Telephoto is a bit more stringent in the mechanics and assembly, but somewhat more easier to design optically.

Rectilinear wide-angles are demanding in a sense that there's usually no-avoiding aspheres, and the shorter the focal length, the harder it gets to correct for the distortion. Add in lateral color correction, and ultra-wide primes can become very challenging to design and require a lot of design and optimization time. Ultra-wide zooms are then another tale to tell.

However, the departure from 50 mm to 35 mm or 85 mm is not yet massive. These are still relatively normal focal lengths where the other requires a bit more positive power in front of the aperture stop, and the other a bit more negative.

I do believe the EF85/1.4 IS will be more expensive than EF85/1.2 II. I'm guessing 1.5x - 2x the current objective price. The reason lies in the image stabilizer; 85 mm objective at F/1.4 with a stabilizer is no easy feat, specifically if Canon is upgrading the objective resolution - which they'll likely do. Hopefully the its bokeh remains good, that seems to suffer with stabilized objectives. It does make me wonder whether EF85/1.4 IS is going to be focus by wire. Whether 85/1.4 includes BR remains to be seen.


----------



## IglooEater (Aug 13, 2017)

So much talk of the Blue Refractive optics. Has Canon advertised it in any other lens than the 35mm 1.4L? I can't recall any mention of it. Canon certainly succeeded in their marketing of that one aspect/feature... other stellar lenses have come out since without any mention of BR


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 13, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> So much talk of the Blue Refractive optics. Has Canon advertised it in any other lens than the 35mm 1.4L? I can't recall any mention of it. Canon certainly succeeded in their marketing of that one aspect/feature... other stellar lenses have come out since without any mention of BR


Some information on Canon's BR and where they use it:

https://petapixel.com/2016/03/10/canons-new-blue-spectrum-refractive-lens-technology-works/


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 13, 2017)

Can I just note that the lens has a 'fluorine' coating, not a 'flourine' coating. At least I hope it's not coated in flour.


----------



## tianxiaozhang (Aug 13, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> I think the price will be around $1,000. I certainly don't think it's going to be north of $1,500



That would be ideal... I'd probably go for one on day 1...


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 13, 2017)

If it's optically stellar, and why would they release an L lens that isn't, then I would say ~$2K is in the cards.


----------



## Act444 (Aug 13, 2017)

Looking at the prices of the other 85 1.4s, I think such a lens from Canon will be AT LEAST $2K - especially since IS is being rumored. If it can match or come real close to the performance of the Sigma 85 Art though, I think it will be worth every penny.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 13, 2017)

At the end of the day it all comes down to image quality. The 35mm f/1.4 II justified its cost by it's incredible performance over the older lens. Ditto with the 100-400 II.

But, we don't have anything directly comparable - we can't really compare with either the 85mm 1.8 or the 85mm 1.2 as neither are really the same thing. 

If canon can come out with an 85mm with stellar performance then I'm sure they'll price it as high as they absolutely dare. 

But, I'm not so optimistic. If it's just good enough, better than the 85 1.8 (which isn't hard) and maybe comparable to the Sigma 85, albeit with VR, then it's unlikely to be priced higher than the 1.2, which will remain the specialist portrait lens.

After the 24-105 II and the 6D II, I'm not convinced that "highest quality regardless of the price" is on the agenda.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 13, 2017)

$2199 USD when first released. And for a year or so after. Save up.

Just guessing.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 13, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> So much talk of the Blue Refractive optics. Has Canon advertised it in any other lens than the 35mm 1.4L? I can't recall any mention of it. Canon certainly succeeded in their marketing of that one aspect/feature... other stellar lenses have come out since without any mention of BR



http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-600mm-f4-do-br-at-canon-expo/


----------



## Jopa (Aug 14, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> yeah, another affordable and fast focusing lens
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Funny  But... MF focus speed completely depends on you!

Concerning affordability - I believe it's about the same price as the 85/1.2 II, so it's definitely comparable.


----------



## iowapipe (Aug 14, 2017)

mb66energy said:


> mclaren777 said:
> 
> 
> > An fast prime like this would benefit greatly from BR optics technology.
> ...



Hmm, I'm a PhD in Astrophysics (Physics degree with a specialization in Astronomy) with a reasonable understating of optics, but not highly compound systems found in camera lenses... and I don't feel the need to spout my degree or LACK OF UNDERSTANDING of an area of optics I've never studied.... 

Please note I only replied in kind (with capitalizations, like yours) to illustrate my point. Citing a degree in an area unrelated to the one being discussed is no way to engage in a discussion other than to attempt to cow people who may feel intimidated and therefore not offer their opinions or insights.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 14, 2017)

I find it interesting that a lens that (most of us) would peg north of $1500 now has some rumored component/element 'tells' that imply it may not be that expensive.

My gut still says:


It's an L prime, and not a 'slow' one like the relatively inexpensive 100mm f/2.8L Macro, 200mm f/2.8L II, 400 f/5.6L, etc. Fast L primes are historically quite pricey.


An f/1.4L IS lens is an industry first for a FF system (if I'm not mistaken), so there's a strong cachet of 'have your cake and eat it too' best-ness for the money-is-no-object crowd. Consider: this would not be unlike an EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS surfacing, which Canon would surely ask around $2k for.


It will (likely, speculating) have modern ring USM with FTM mechanical focusing -- not focus by wire -- so it's AF speed and handling will likely entice current 85 f/1.2L II users.


It's a 50+ MP world these days and it's a very competitive world these days. I don't think Canon will pump out a 'meh' staple professional tool like an 85 f/1.4. If this was only an enthusiast-grade tool to sit behind the f/1.2L II on the prestige ladder, I don't think it would be an L lens -- I think they'd have just made an 85mm f/1.8 USM II in that case.

...and that would (in my mind) trump any tells that Canon found a way to keep the elements reasonably priced. I'm still expecting a pricey lens here -- north of $1500 -- but I could be wrong.

- A


----------



## Yasko (Aug 14, 2017)

I think I'm not out on a limb when I say that the new lens might very well be around 2000$. Definitely more expensive than the f/1.2... didnt I read something like the build is similar to the 35 f/1.4? So I guess the price will be, too.

Especially as an optics designer said, that 35 and 85 is pretty much the daily bread and not too far away from the normal focal length which is around 40-50 cm on full frame.

Have a nice monday (I'm out of salt... .)


----------



## Viggo (Aug 14, 2017)

The 35 L II was nearly twice the price of the 35 L. And it doesn't have IS... I'm thinking this lens, if built and priced similar to 35's will be way north of 2K. The 85 L is $1900 after all these years, are we looking at 2799 on launch here?

I could certainly see it in Norway for close to $3500.


----------



## hne (Aug 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I find it interesting that a lens that (most of us) would peg north of $1500 now has some rumored component/element 'tells' that imply it may not be that expensive.
> 
> My gut still says:
> 
> ...



I previously wrote that I don't dare guess the price of a Canon EF 85/1.4L IS, but that I fully expected it to be more expensive than the 35/1.4L II.

$1200-$1600 is the price range of lenses that are long in the tooth or even had a replacement released. Like 50/1.2L, 100-400L, TS-E 90, 70-300 DO, 300/4L IS. That's no bracket of lenses I see Canon releasing new lenses in. Especially nothing world-first like an f/1.4 with image stabilizer. No, either a price in the $1000-$1200 range or $1800-$2200 is my guess. If it is truly coming in between the 85/1.8 and the 85/1.2L, it'd put a bet on just over $1000 and my piggy bank would cry, but if it is anything close to the image quality of the last few L lenses (except perhaps the 24-105/4L II) then definitely we'd be looking at a $2000 lens and me selling a fair chunk of gear to finance a new lens.


----------



## Larsskv (Aug 14, 2017)

Given the seemingly low number of expensive lens elements, and the competition from the new Sigma 85ART, I would not be too surprised if it is released at a "lower price point", at least lower than the 35LII. To justify a higher price than the 35LII, it should be both better and smaller and lighter than the Sigma, which must be a difficult task. The IS will trigger a premium, but IS could be to some degree defend it from being less sharp than the Sigma, and therefore not raise the price as much as it will if it matches the Sigma in terms of sharpness.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 14, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> Given the seemingly low number of expensive lens elements, and the competition from the new Sigma 85ART, I would not be too surprised if it is released at a "lower price point", at least lower than the 35LII. To justify a higher price than the 35LII, it should be both better and smaller and lighter than the Sigma, which must be a difficult task. The IS will trigger a premium, but IS could be to some degree defend it from being less sharp than the Sigma, and therefore not raise the price as much as it will if it matches the Sigma in terms of sharpness.



I will gladly pay $1500 extra to have working AF ;D


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 14, 2017)

You're all fools!

The price of this lens will be determined by two factors.

1) Cost of manufacture

2) The price the market will bear.


The first is fixed, the second depends on what people EXPECT they should have to pay for the lens.

So every time someone mentions in a public forum that they think this lens will be expensive, it's another point towards Canon raising the entry price.

Of course it's too late now, Canon will have committed to the launch price already.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 14, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> You're all fools!
> 
> The price of this lens will be determined by two factors.
> 
> ...



So guessing the price is driving up the price? Interesting.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 14, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> So guessing the price is driving up the price? Interesting.



You can be pretty certain that someone at Canon has assembled a spreadsheet with every single price prediction for this lens posted on here and other open forums. 

It'd be quite stupid for Canon to sell it for any less than the average of that.

Thats why I think it'll cost about $40


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 14, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > So guessing the price is driving up the price? Interesting.
> ...



Sounds like a good time to use the old "tail wagging the dog" expression.


----------



## BillB (Aug 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I find it interesting that a lens that (most of us) would peg north of $1500 now has some rumored component/element 'tells' that imply it may not be that expensive.
> 
> My gut still says:
> 
> ...



I think you are right about a price north of $1500, and suspect that that it may well be more than $2000. The big question in my mind is the size and weight. It isn't going to be small, but I doubt that Canon will put something out in pickle jar territory. Maybe it will be comparable in quality and size to the 35LII.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 14, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Sounds like a good time to use the old "tail wagging the dog" expression.



;D I already said it was too late  

But it's interesting. Everyone is expecting this lens to be expensive. I'd like to hope we are pleasantly surprised, but the lens will cost however much Canon think they can get away with charging. They are in the business of keeping their shareholders happy, not their customers.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 14, 2017)

I'm not a lens designer but work closely with one in the field of motion picture lenses. A good 85mm such as the Zeiss 85mm T1.4 Master Prime is a much more complex lens than many have presumed here. Optics have advanced considerably but so have coatings and its is in this area that subtle but important changes have been made. CNC machining and CAD design have also meant tighter tolerances can be kept in the final assembly with less adjustment required for each lens mechanically. 
So complex glass types & coatings increase costs but modern manufacturing techniques reduce cost especially assembly. 
The cost will be dependent on many factors R&D, materials, complexity,assembly time, marketing, distribution, after care and importantly sales volumes. Price too high and volumes are lower and unit costs higher, price too low and profit is left on the table and / or cost recovery is extended. 
Until we see finished lenses and know the optical qualities putting a price on the lens & estimating the premium is near impossible and just a guess.


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 14, 2017)

Okay, I'm changing my guess to $500. Mark you spreadsheet Canon.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 14, 2017)

For me and my shooting needs...as much as I love my 85L...its a big lump of glass to lug around a wedding all day. I don't want to replace my 85L, but a lighter option to take over my existing 85's current duties would be well welcomed. I may even be able to ditch my 100 L Macro from my bag if the short focus distance and IS unit are good enough to shoot ring shots. Maybe even with a short 25mm tube on the new 85 LIS would make this a workable option.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 14, 2017)

GMCPhotographics said:


> For me and my shooting needs...as much as I love my 85L...its a big lump of glass to lug around a wedding all day. I don't want to replace my 85L, but a lighter option to take over my existing 85's current duties would be well welcomed. I may even be able to ditch my 100 L Macro from my bag if the short focus distance and IS unit are good enough to shoot ring shots. Maybe even with a short 25mm tube on the new 85 LIS would make this a workable option.



About that -- its apparently only 10% lighter:
http://www.canonrumors.com/updated-canon-ef-85mm-f1-4l-is-specifcations/

And I'm a little surprised that it is. One would presume a huge pickle jar (longer/heavier/larger outer barrel diameter) is needed to get more/better glass in the corners to improve off-center resolution like the Otuses and Arts of the world.

- A


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > For me and my shooting needs...as much as I love my 85L...its a big lump of glass to lug around a wedding all day. I don't want to replace my 85L, but a lighter option to take over my existing 85's current duties would be well welcomed. I may even be able to ditch my 100 L Macro from my bag if the short focus distance and IS unit are good enough to shoot ring shots. Maybe even with a short 25mm tube on the new 85 LIS would make this a workable option.
> ...



Yep...I'll pass. It's a poor man's 85IIL and not enough size / weight /MFD reduction to warrant the sticker price if I already have a fine copy of the 85IIL.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 14, 2017)

GMCPhotographics said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



"A poor mans 85 L II", really? I'll take proper AF, corner quality and IS over the bendy cornered Ca-ridden soft heavy with useless AF one aaaany day


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 14, 2017)

Vigo,

GMCPhotograpics copy of the lens qualities of which you have just described is "a fine" one, you see. It resolves on high resolution bodies just fine,I take it, and totally magical from corner to corner.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 14, 2017)

Reading between the lines of a few posts, nobody I'll single out, I can already hear the drumbeats: 

BUT. IT. WON'T. HAVE. THE. MAGIC. OF. F/1.2. AND. MY. MOJO. WILL. BE. STOLEN!

If it has the qualities of the 35mm f/1.4 and IS, a new era of Canon portrait work will be issued in. Oh, yes.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 14, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Vigo,
> 
> GMCPhotograpics copy of the lens qualities of which you have just described is "a fine" one, you see. It resolves on high resolution bodies just fine,I take it, and totally magical from corner to corner.



Hehe, yeah it's not that long in between I read "My copy of the 50 f1.2 L dosen't have focus shift" 8)


----------



## Jopa (Aug 15, 2017)

GMCPhotographics said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



What if it costs $4k+?


----------



## Khalai (Aug 16, 2017)

Viggo said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Vigo,
> ...



But my 50L really does not suffer from visible focus shifting 8)


----------



## Viggo (Aug 16, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > SecureGSM said:
> ...



LOL


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 17, 2017)

no, it does not... until you take your sunglasses off and look at that image again ;D ;D



Khalai said:


> But my 50L really does not suffer from visible focus shifting 8)


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 18, 2017)

GMCPhotographics said:


> For me and my shooting needs...as much as I love my 85L...its a big lump of glass to lug around a wedding all day. I don't want to replace my 85L, but a lighter option to take over my existing 85's current duties would be well welcomed. I may even be able to ditch my 100 L Macro from my bag if the short focus distance and IS unit are good enough to shoot ring shots. Maybe even with a short 25mm tube on the new 85 LIS would make this a workable option.



Word. I'll gladly take a half stop of light loss in exchange for less CA, sharpness across the aperture, IS and finally, and more importantly, fast AF. 1.2 is nice but it brought a whole lot of other baggage with it.


----------



## sulla (Aug 18, 2017)

As some pointed out, the EF85 1.2 II does have optics and AF that are not easy to use. Such were my thoughts when I rented a 85 1.2 II and used it on a 5D1. Focus was not easy to achieve always and it was slow. I also borrowed a 85 1.8 from a friend of mine, that was way easier to handle, 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 still 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 (AF-speed, build quality, image rendering, colour rendering, price) remains to be seen, however.

I doubt I will ever sell my 1.2 II, but if I didn't have one already...


----------

