# Did 85L NEED to have slow focus, or just a fluke thing they were trying?



## ScottyP (Apr 3, 2015)

Everyone talks about the focus by wire system on the 85L being slow, but this is accepted as ok by people who use it for portraits, not action.

I have never heard an explanation of why they gave it that focus system rather than a more common one. Was it just something Canon was trying out, which perhaps didn't pan out, or does this unusual focus system in fact do something better for some kind of use (portraits?)? 

I know they can make big glass focus quickly, so I don't think the trade off was made for that reason. I don't get the impression it was a cost saver. I suppose it could be a space saver somehow, but it couldn't save all that much space. Anyone know the answer?


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 3, 2015)

ScottyP said:


> Everyone talks about the focus by wire system on the 85L being slow, but this is accepted as ok by people who use it for portraits, not action.
> 
> I have never heard an explanation of why they gave it that focus system rather than a more common one. Was it just something Canon was trying out, which perhaps didn't pan out, or does this unusual focus system in fact do something better for some kind of use (portraits?)?
> 
> I know they can make big glass focus quickly, so I don't think the trade off was made for that reason. I don't get the impression it was a cost saver. I suppose it could be a space saver somehow, but it couldn't save all that much space. Anyone know the answer?


It's a combination of big glass PLUS fast aperture. DOF is paper thin at f/1.2 so the AF goes slowly for accuracy sake. Also, this is probably the biggest and heaviest piece of glass Canon uses for focusing movements. The big whites use huge front elements but are rear focus and the focusing group is relatively small, especially in comparison to the 85L.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 3, 2015)

ScottyP said:


> Everyone talks about the focus by wire system on the 85L being slow, but this is accepted as ok by people who use it for portraits, not action.
> 
> I have never heard an explanation of why they gave it that focus system rather than a more common one. Was it just something Canon was trying out, which perhaps didn't pan out, or does this unusual focus system in fact do something better for some kind of use (portraits?)?
> 
> I know they can make big glass focus quickly, so I don't think the trade off was made for that reason. I don't get the impression it was a cost saver. I suppose it could be a space saver somehow, but it couldn't save all that much space. Anyone know the answer?



The focus-by-wire refers to manual focus. The focusing ring acts as an encoder to operate the USM focusing motor rather than a mechanically attached helicoil. I don't know for certain, but I imagine that the reason both versions of the 85/f1.2 have this form of manual focus is that to move this concentrated mass of glass smoothly and accurately enough for f/1.2 would require a steel helicoil gearing, which, to make it function appropriately for a lens of this calibre would add too much to the cost of the lens. 

The 'slow' auto speed of the lens will be to do with bringing that mass of glass on its roller bearings in to action and an accurate enough halt to match the f/1.2 depth of field of an 85mm lens.


----------



## ScottyP (Apr 3, 2015)

Interesting. The "focusing" goes on with the heavier front glass, compared to the big whites which move the smaller rear glass around?

I assume the Sigma Art 85mm (wherever it is) will have a different design, and will focus in a more traditional way. 

I wonder if they will be able to get the same rave reviews they had with their 35mm, or if they will be accused of having traded dreamy bokeh for sharpness and quickness, etc... 

And I assume precise focus at the faster focus speed will be a challenge for them. 

Maybe it will only be f/2.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 3, 2015)

The "slow" focus was very intentional. Canon knew that only the most discerning of portrait photographers would buy this, keeping it out of the hands of the riff-raff gearheads. We certainly don't need a pack of ninja extremists running around shooting fast-moving targets at f/1.2. Simply wouldn't do.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 3, 2015)

Lost her few months back. She is back, thanks to CPW-street Price


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 3, 2015)

That's a happy reunion - great to see it, Dylan!


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 3, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> That's a happy reunion - great to see it, Dylan!



Thanks mackguyver

Yes...she is slow, but beautiful


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 4, 2015)

NICE product photography, Dylan.

Definitely a hard lens to even contemplate living without.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Apr 4, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> Lost her few months back. She is back, thanks to CPW-street Price


Congrats Dylan! I bet you missed it a lot.


----------



## Maiaibing (Apr 4, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> The "slow" focus was very intentional. Canon knew that only the most discerning of portrait photographers would buy this, keeping it out of the hands of the riff-raff gearheads. We certainly don't need a pack of ninja extremists running around shooting fast-moving targets at f/1.2. Simply wouldn't do.



It was certainly not intentional. Canon made it clear that they tried to make the lens focus much faster than the original and Canon indeed continues to advertise the 85L II as both a sports action lens and a portrait lens. 

I suggest you read the original press release and current Canon sales advertising.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 4, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > The "slow" focus was very intentional. Canon knew that only the most discerning of portrait photographers would buy this, keeping it out of the hands of the riff-raff gearheads. We certainly don't need a pack of ninja extremists running around shooting fast-moving targets at f/1.2. Simply wouldn't do.
> ...



And once again sarcasm flies completely over the head of another forum participant.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 4, 2015)

I think the slow focus and fragility of this lens warrants a redesign for a couple of reasons.

First straight up studio portrait and fashion photographers mostly use narrow apertures with controlled lighting. So f/1.2 is often not the most useful to them.

If you do portraits outdoors, then you might use the thin DOF since you may not have control of the background
. But this lens is not weather sealed, it is fragile, and thus not the ideal choice for outdoors conditions.

Finally, if you want f/1.2 for low light events like weddings, the slow autofocus can get in the way for things like entrances, and other times where people are moving faster.


Based on all this I think the lens warrants a redesign. It has great output but IMO too many functionality sacrifices were made for that output. If a redesign means f/1.4 to fix the functionality issues, I would be in support of that.


----------



## danski0224 (Apr 4, 2015)

How is this lens considered fragile?


----------



## Ruined (Apr 4, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> How is this lens considered fragile?



The motor that drives the front element forwards and backwards is prone to failure, especially as the front element extends outside the lens barrel when focusing; most designs like that are less reliable as accidentally not retracting the element in 100% and storing the camera lens down as most do can potentially cause damage/failure over time due to the weight/pressure being put on the focusing motor instead of the outer lens barrel. While some might call that careless, in the field or at an event things can get hectic and not retracting the front element 100% accidentally can happen more often than you'd think; the 50mm f/1.4 focus motor has similar reliability issues for the same reason. To make it worse, the 85L II barrel can't even be retracted unless the camera is turned on, so if you do make this error you have the hassle of turning the camera on/off just to dismount the lens properly. Also, the rear element is more exposed than any other in-production Canon lens I am aware of, exacerbated by the fact that the lens is not the easiest to mount in the field due to its giant rear barrel width; recall damage on the rear element is more likely to show up in the photo than damage to the front element. Finally, the lens is not weather sealed like most other Canon L lenses.

All of that combined adds up to a more fragile lens in the field to me that requires more babying compared to say a 24 f/1.4L II or 50L f/1.2L (weather sealed + no extending barrel when focusing + protected rear element) or 85 non-L/135L (not weather sealed, but still less vulnerable to damage due to barrels that do not extend when focusing and more protected rear elements).

Frankly, if Canon released an 85mm f/1.8 IS that fixed up some of the old 85mm f/1.8 minor issues (improved lens hood design, curved aperture blades, updated coatings, etc) I would probably forget about the 85mm f/1.2 line altogether - unless it was revamped to correct its functionality shortcomings in the field where I mostly shoot.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 4, 2015)

Ruined said:


> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > How is this lens considered fragile?
> ...



85L II is the only lens I have hood installed at all time. If you can avoid focus from infinity to close-up, AF is fast. Maintain your distance. I don't see a need for Canon to upgrade current version. I'm sure many don't mind having faster AF and a bit lighter in replacement, however, current version IQ is excellent. For 100mm or shorter primes, I prefer larger aperture over IS. I will take f1.2 over f2 with 4-stop IS.


----------



## chromophore (Apr 5, 2015)

Ruined said:


> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > How is this lens considered fragile?
> ...



To be clear, it isn't the *motor* that gets damaged. The USM in this lens is simply two rings, and there's no mechanical contact between them. It's not something that is prone to being damaged.

What can get damaged with this lens, like any other lens with a sub-barrel that extends during focusing, is the sub-barrel and cam assembly. With sufficient force, you could damage the components that hold the focusing group in place. You'd have to smack the front of the lens pretty hard when it's extended. I don't think that qualifies as "fragile"--any lens can be abused if you don't treat it with care.

That said, the design of the EF 85/1.2L necessitates extra attention in attaching the lens to the body (or else the rear element could be scratched), and remembering to set the focus back to infinity before removing the lens from the body (or else the barrel is stuck in an extended position, making the aforementioned damage more likely). Furthermore, the lens is fat, round, and very dense. It's one of the few Canon EF lenses in which the outer barrel was given a special textured finish that makes it less slippery and easier to grip, precisely because it is so easy to drop.


----------



## chromophore (Apr 5, 2015)

The EF 85/1.2L II uses the largest diameter USM in Canon's EF lineup, at 77mm. The only other lenses that use the same USM are the super-telephoto designs (300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, etc). This gives you the first clue as to the demands of this particular fast-aperture design.

Foremost, the 77mm USM was selected because of the need to fit the glass inside, as well as the focusing cam and diaphragm assemblies for such a fast aperture. So even if this lens could be redesigned to use fewer elements in the focusing group (e.g., an internal-focusing design), the diameter of the USM cannot be reduced.

The other reason to use this motor is to facilitate as much torque as possible. The focusing group consists of eight individual elements--all but the last element which is fixed. That's a lot of glass to move quickly and precisely. A large-diameter USM is needed to make this happen.

The very thin DOF of this lens also means that the lens CPU must be more responsive to the AF system on the camera body to adjust the focus. The previous EF 85/1.2L had older electronics that were updated in the EF 85/1.2L II to improve the focusing speed somewhat. Some owners of the first version have reported that when their lens was repaired, the AF speed was noticeably improved, quite possibly because Canon no longer manufactured the old circuit board, so used the board now in the II.

There are also power considerations for the USM in this lens. 1-series bodies, with more juice and a more powerful AF system overall, can use this lens to better effect than, say, an entry-level Rebel.

From this information, I think it is reasonable to infer that Canon designed this lens to have as responsive AF as possible given the design considerations. I don't think they deliberately needed to slow down the AF in any way. That is to say, there is no need for the body to slow down the AF (as is the case with the use of an extender on super-telephoto lenses) just to ensure precise focus. The reason extenders need to slow down the AF is because the image magnification of the combination is increased but the focusing helicoid of the parent lens remains the same, and thus is not designed with a finer pitch to account for the extender use. Newer EF lenses like the 200-400/4 + 1.4x, or the 300/2.8L II, 400/2.8L II, 500/4L II, and 600/4L II in conjunction with the newer III extenders, have the benefit of being "smarter" in their CPUs to permit less conservative AF speed reductions. But as this pertains to the 85L design, the focusing helicoid of this lens was designed for this lens, to have the focusing characteristics it does. If it could AF faster, it would.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 5, 2015)

chromophore said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > danski0224 said:
> ...



My wish is for Canon to make an f/1.4L version that will retain 95% of the 85L II f/1.2 IQ awesomeness but rectify all of the issues that result in slow focus and lens fragility. The slightly narrower aperture should allow for less glass that will allow for a reduction in size and hence overall functionality issues with the lens. That would make it a lot more usable in the field, events, and pretty much in general. This is a lens I have wanted but constantly passed over every single time because it is nowhere near as field/event friendly as most of the other L lenses. I just don't trust the longevity given the potential ways it can be easily damaged, be it rear element or extending front element.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 5, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> 85L II is the only lens I have hood installed at all time.



85 f/1.8 is worth keeping lens hood installed all the time as well simply because it is non-reversible and a pain to attach 

This is a fairly decent solution to the lens barrel issue, though this lens + hood on all the time surely must take up a ton of bag space I'd imagine... 



> If you can avoid focus from infinity to close-up, AF is fast.



Reception entrances + AI servo can equal disaster if you mistrack for a moment with this lens due to the slow focus. For non-moving or slow moving subjects, it is adequate but would love to see it improved.



> Maintain your distance. I don't see a need for Canon to upgrade current version. I'm sure many don't mind having faster AF and a bit lighter in replacement, however, current version IQ is excellent.



No complaints about IQ, but I would tradeoff a slight bit of max aperture say in an f/1.4L version if it meant I could have a lens that is faster focusing, no perilous rear element, and no extending lens barrel when focusing. I value IQ and love the bokeh of f/1.2 on this lens, but I'd sacrifice just a bit for a lens I could use with more confidence in more situations.




> For 100mm or shorter primes, I prefer larger aperture over IS. I will take f1.2 over f2 with 4-stop IS.



85mm is kind of the borderline for me. 50mm larger aperture, no contest. But 85mm you need to do 1/125 without IS to be safe to get max resolution especially in an event when things move fast and you may have to fire off some shots with less than perfect technique. With IS you could probably get away with 1/80-1/100 and still avoid both motion blur and camera shake for everything but fast moving subjects.

So if a 85mm f/1.8 IS does surface, I'd have to take a long hard look at that.


----------



## pwp (Apr 5, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...


 ;D That's funny...yes I can just see the design team setting out to make a lens with nice slow AF. Let's call it the "glacial" brief. 

I had an 85L I back in the 1Ds days. Glacial AF? You could make coffee while it thought it all out. It was quickly on-sold as my portrait shooting style never involves subjects in a 100% static pose. Maybe technically perfect but not enough life-force. When it did catch focus it was 85L quality as advertised. A rented 85L II was certainly a big improvement, but nowhere near enough AF zip for this photographers style. 

-pw


----------



## Ruined (Apr 5, 2015)

pwp said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



pw, what do you use for 85mm primarily? I have the 85 f/1.8 and 70-200 f/2.8L II IS. Both pretty great for different situations.

I know many think this lens is far off from replacement, but I would not be surprised to see a new version of the 85L in the next couple of years. There is a lot of value that can be offered by fixing the focusing and other quirks, and this FL is extremely popular. If they can manage a more field-friendly design and autofocus speed comparable to the 50mm f/1.2L, I will ditch my 85 f/1.8 for the new version of the 85L.


----------



## pwp (Apr 5, 2015)

Ruined said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > ;D That's funny...yes I can just see the design team setting out to make a lens with nice slow AF. Let's call it the "glacial" brief.
> ...



Based on the 85L 's reputation, I bought it as a primary portrait lens. While I was somewhat aware of the slow AF, nothing prepared me for how slow it really was. My loss rate in portrait shoots regardless of aperture made it an epic fail for my business. The 70-200 f/2.8isII is far and away my most used portrait lens, with a very high keeper rate and happy clients. 

In hindsight I may have been better off with the lens you bought, the EF 85 f/1.8. It has a vastly different look to the 85L, but at least it has viable AF.

-pw


----------



## Neutral (Apr 5, 2015)

pwp said:


> <•••>
> Based on the 85L 's reputation, I bought it as a primary portrait lens. While I was somewhat aware of the slow AF, nothing prepared me for how slow it really was. *My loss rate in portrait shoots regardless of aperture made it an epic fail for my business. *The 70-200 f/2.8isII is far and away my most used portrait lens, with a very high keeper rate and happy clients.
> 
> In hindsight I may have been better off with the lens you bought, the EF 85 f/1.8. It has a vastly different look to the 85L, but at least it has viable AF.
> ...



I have this lens for many years, since it was released and this is one of my lenses that I enjoy most of all.
Never ever had any issues with AF precision with my previous 1Ds m3 and then with current 1Dx.
More than 90% of shots are perfectly sharp. Almost never had any shot that is not sharp.

Maybe there are some issues with other cameras but for 1Ds M3 and 1Dx this lens was always the perfect match. And now also on Sony a7S this is just so good.

I think that EF85 f/1.2 requires some understanding from the user to get desired results.
First of all DOF at 1.2 is so thin so that just slight movement of the model or photographer after getting focus (half button press) and shutter release would result in the focus shift and focus will be at the wrong point.
The other thing is using proper focus point selection and focus mode selection.
So when using EF85 L/1.2 m2 with 1Dx when shooting at f1.2 I mostly use continious shoting mode with continious AF mode with focus priority for the first and next shots. Focusing and then pressing release button to get at least 3 shots. Then in LR i can select the most sharp image, though most frequently they are all more or less the same. Trick here is that continious AF compensates for slight focusing distance changes when making the shot and continious shooting mode would allow to get best image from the sequence.
Maybe this is not very suitable for non 1D bodies which do not have so avanced AF as 1Dx and battery power is lower resulting in slower AF.
With EF85 F/1.2 m2 and 1DX I also had no issues with objects moving not very fast when using method described above.

And I also enjoy this lens very much on Sony A7S for low light capabilities of this combo.

Focusing manually at f1.2 using focus peaking on A7S is so easy and much more enjoyable than on 1Dx as I can focus perfectly at almost full darkness without using focus assist light. 

With 85F/1.2 on A7S I just do manually prefocus quickly and then just shift my body slightly back or forward to get required part of the object to be most sharp. It is just fun to use 85 f1.2 on A7S.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 5, 2015)

If I had to choose what to change with the 85 L II, it wouldn't be AF on top of that list, but purple fringing and sharpness wide open along with distortion.


----------



## Neutral (Apr 5, 2015)

Viggo said:


> If I had to choose what to change with the 85 L II, it wouldn't be AF on top of that list, but purple fringing and sharpness wide open along with no distortion.



Maybe in some future with ver 3 of this lens?
As a matter of fact purple fringing is not too much of the issue for portraits or indoor shots where there is no high contrast transitions between light and dark details.
This is mostly visible for night street shots but this lens is not for this.
A bit of softness wide open is acceptable.

For someone who want almost perfect 85mm lens wide open there is manual Zeiss Otus 85 f1.4 available though its cost is much higher compared with Canon one.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 5, 2015)

Neutral said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > If I had to choose what to change with the 85 L II, it wouldn't be AF on top of that list, but purple fringing and sharpness wide open along with no distortion.
> ...



Yeah, no it's no just shooting a street light in the night that shows the weaknesses of this lens.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 5, 2015)

Viggo said:


> If I had to choose what to change with the 85 L II, it wouldn't be AF on top of that list, but purple fringing and sharpness wide open along with distortion.



If they dropped the lens to f/1.4 aperture in version 3, all of those issues would likely be easier to manage.


----------



## ScottyP (May 2, 2015)

Neutral said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > If I had to choose what to change with the 85 L II, it wouldn't be AF on top of that list, but purple fringing and sharpness wide open along with no distortion.
> ...



I am keenly interested in what the Sigma 85 Art will bring. 

I have the Sigma 35mm (and I love it) so I will skip the 50 as too similar, and go for the 85mm if it looks good. It won't be f/1.2 but I wonder if it will be another f/1.4 offering. Fine with me; DOF at 85mm is pretty darn thin at 1.4 or even 1.8.


----------



## d (May 2, 2015)

*FW to retract the focus group on power-down would be handy*

It would be handy if there were a firmware feature in the Canon bodies that allowed an option so that when the camera was switched off, lenses that are focussed by wire (the 85L, the 40mm 2.8 etc) would be automatically focussed back to their retracted state.

It would be akin to the option to have the sensor perform it's self-cleaning process when power switch is turned to off.

Not a big deal, but would be a thoughtful little feature to have.


d.


----------

