# A New 85L is on the Way [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 7, 2015)

```
We’re told that Canon is actively working on a new 85L, and we should see a replacement some time before 2016 is over, and possibly for Photokina in September of 2016.</p>
<p>The new 85L will incorporate the blue spectrum refractive element of the recently announced <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/preorder-the-new-canon-ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii/">EF 35mm f/1.4L II</a>.</p>
<p>The new lens will be weather sealed, have a new manual focus system, a faster autofocus system as well as being lighter.</p>
<p>Could the new 85L be f/1.4 instead of f/1.2? It’s possible, they went slower moving from the EF 50 f/1.0L to the 50 f/1.2L. Although, having the lens at f/1.2 does give Canon some bragging rights for DSLR lenses.</p>
```


----------



## meywd (Sep 7, 2015)

Hmm a match to the Otus with AF, that would be amazing.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 7, 2015)

The thought of that makes me drool.

I'd like to see a new 85/1.8 and a new 85/1.2L will make that come sooner.
And of course I'd like to see what such an 85L update will deliver in performance increase (IQ and AF).

Edit: I don't know how much one would miss the 1.2 instead of an 1.4 there. That's about others to tell.


----------



## NorbR (Sep 7, 2015)

Well, I'd better start saving my pennies (something tells me I'm going to need a lot of pennies for this lens ...)


----------



## JohanCruyff (Sep 7, 2015)

The Sigma 85mmm 1.4 ART should be on the "work in progress" list... Let's see.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Sep 7, 2015)

Thud ! Was that the sound of a £2500 price tag ?


----------



## distant.star (Sep 7, 2015)

.
This is news I can use, given that I'll keep my 5D3 as an alternative to my Fuji stuff.

I've been dissatisfied overall with the 85mm offerings. They all have some game-stopper drawback, and I want more than simply adequate in that important focal length. I complain to Sigma every chance I get. Since they put out the 35A it seems they've done everything they can to avoid offering an 85A.

I hadn't expected Canon to change much given the performance of their 85 1.2L. But they must be looking for a place to use their new blue tech and where better than that lens! That would make all the difference for me. Drop to 1.4 or even 1.8 if necessary and pick up the AF speed a notch, I'm all in.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 7, 2015)

Please god let it have IS. I know that's a stretch even if they drop it to f/1.4, but that's the type of ingenuity i would love to see from Canon. Sigma has a FF f/2 zoom, Tamron has stabilized f/1.8 primes. Come on Canon, give us an 85mm f/1.4 IS L. Weight savings going from f1.2 to f/1.4 should be about an even trade for the weight gain of IS mechanics.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 7, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> The thought of that makes me drool.
> 
> I'd like to see a new 85/1.8 and a new 85/1.2L will make that come sooner.
> And of course I'd like to see what such an 85L update will deliver in performance increase (IQ and AF).
> ...


I am currently shooting with the 85/1.4 Otus, having had a number of 85 1.2L, both vI and vII, before that. 85mm is probably my favourite focal length. Personally I find 1.2 on an 85mm focal length to give too shallow DOF in almost all cases though. The Otus is a fantastic lens, but it is big, heavy and manual. So, if Canon fix weight, AF speed, manual focus and CA, but go for f1.4 on the new 85, I´ll preorder on day 1.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 7, 2015)

A new 85l would be welcome. I love my Mkii but the af is so slow relative to my other lenses that I'd be totally made up with a new model.

Doesn't need is though (think of the weight) but the 135l could use an is motor.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 7, 2015)

Anything that gets rid of focus-by-wire would be welcome. Whilst I haven't had any serious interest in the 35L MkII (the 35 f2 IS is just too good) a decent 85mm f1.2 portrait lens would work well for me.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 7, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Anything that gets rid of focus-by-wire would be welcome.



Big +1 on that.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 7, 2015)

85L-next sounds so enticing... and I haven't bought anything since Nov 2014. GAS alert!


----------



## R1-7D (Sep 7, 2015)

I really hope they keep it at f/1.2.

Also, maybe this will make the current one cheaper on the used market. I'm quite fond of the current one and I have wanted to get my hands on one for awhile.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 7, 2015)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> Please god let it have IS.



+1 - it would be a serious selling point for many people especially if it was still f/1.2.


----------



## danski0224 (Sep 7, 2015)

Maybe Canon will stick the Blue Glass in everything.

All of the lenses need updating


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 7, 2015)

R1-7D said:


> Also, maybe this will make the current one cheaper on the used market. I'm quite fond of the current one and I have wanted to get my hands on one for awhile.



Often used prices go up when new lenses arrive at somewhat higher prices. Check out the drift for 35L I listings.


----------



## rs (Sep 7, 2015)

reducing the MFD will make it more useful


----------



## N2itiv (Sep 7, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> Maybe Canon will stick the Blue Glass in everything.......



Well, the L glass anyway. That would still give lower tier L lenses another good differentiator over non-L glass.
Looks like I have plenty of "save for" time.


----------



## IsaacImage (Sep 7, 2015)

That's very interesting news.
Very curious what update they can bring to the table.
1 - reduced weight ?
2 - Sharper image ?
3 - IS ?
4 - reduced MFD
5 - Faster AF speed ?


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 7, 2015)

I'm surprised it's getting an update though as it's not the oldest lens in the lien up (2006 I think) where the 35L was something like 1998.


----------



## bmwzimmer (Sep 7, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> Maybe Canon will stick the Blue Glass in everything.
> 
> All of the lenses need updating



For fast primes, Yes they can definitly benefit from less CA. Canons mkii zooms at f/2.8 or f/4 wont benefit as much from it so i onlu see them using it on 24/35/50/85/135


----------



## ford0180 (Sep 7, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Personally I find 1.2 on an 85mm focal length to give too shallow DOF in almost all cases though.



I don't understand this common view. If the DoF is too narrow at 1.2, you are too close (or just stop down). What the f/1.2 allows is shallow DoF even at greater distances which allows me to get very unique full body portraits PLUS full surroundings and still get background blur. Most other lenses can't do this. 

To me, the value of a specialty lens is what it can do that others can't.

So many times when I see reviews of f/1.2 or bigger aperture lenses, people just take closeups with a completely blurred background, and never test the limits of how far out you can still blur the background while framing a wide scene that telephotos can't frame.


----------



## switters (Sep 7, 2015)

My, oh my. Christmas came early this year. I had a brief fling with the Fuji X-T1 and a bunch of their wonderful primes, but ultimately decided that I can't live with the crappy continuous AF. (You'll have to pry the X100T out of my cold, dead, hands though!)

I'm glad I didn't sell my 5DIII... because I fully intend to pick up the new 35L and 85L. Along with the 24-70 II and 70-200 IS, I will be completely covered.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 8, 2015)

I think I'd be happier with an update to the 50L. The 85IIL is an amazing lens already. Sure the new blue refractive optics, weather sealing and non fly by wire AF would be improvements. But...as it stands, it's still an exceptional optic and unmatched in the market place by anyone else.


----------



## switters (Sep 8, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I think I'd be happier with an update to the 50L. The 85IIL is an amazing lens already. Sure the new blue refractive optics, weather sealing and non fly by wire AF would be improvements. But...as it stands, it's still an exceptional optic and unmatched in the market place by anyone else.



Can't argue with that! But I'll take what I can get, and I imagine a 50L update will be on the way soon.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 8, 2015)

switters said:


> My, oh my. Christmas came early this year. I had a brief fling with the Fuji X-T1 and a bunch of their wonderful primes, but ultimately decided that I can't live with the crappy continuous AF. (You'll have to pry the X100T out of my cold, dead, hands though!)
> 
> I'm glad I didn't sell my 5DIII... because I fully intend to pick up the new 35L and 85L. Along with the 24-70 II and 70-200 IS, I will be completely covered.



I think you mean Christmas 2016. Nothing in the rumor about 2015. Don't make buying decisions based on a far off rumor, too many things can happen to derail it.


----------



## switters (Sep 8, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> switters said:
> 
> 
> > My, oh my. Christmas came early this year. I had a brief fling with the Fuji X-T1 and a bunch of their wonderful primes, but ultimately decided that I can't live with the crappy continuous AF. (You'll have to pry the X100T out of my cold, dead, hands though!)
> ...



Ha ha. Just a figure of speech.


----------



## ford0180 (Sep 8, 2015)

dilbert said:


> At f/1.2 on 85mm, how thin is the DoF? You're almost forced to stop down just to get more than just the tip of someone's nose in focus.



Having 1.2 allows subject-background separation when the subject is far away, and you can include their surroundings in the portrait. The effect can be simply fantastic.

Sure, the DoF is too thin at 1.2 in many situations but you can stop down. Especially if you are too close.

I find it incredibly useful, and it is probably my favorite lens. It would be very sad if Canon stopped making the 85L at f/1.2.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 8, 2015)

Waiting for an 85mm F1.8 IS USM (or STM, it doesn't matter as long as there's IS). Hopefully, this will be next.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 8, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I think I'd be happier with an update to the 50L. The 85IIL is an amazing lens already. Sure the new blue refractive optics, weather sealing and non fly by wire AF would be improvements. But...as it stands, it's still an exceptional optic and unmatched in the market place by anyone else.



+1

Exactly!


----------



## Etienne (Sep 8, 2015)

ford0180 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > At f/1.2 on 85mm, how thin is the DoF? You're almost forced to stop down just to get more than just the tip of someone's nose in focus.
> ...



True, but you have to get pretty far away to fit a whole body, or even a seated person.
I wish it was the 50 1.2 getting an update.
In time I suppose


----------



## Cali Capture (Sep 8, 2015)

With the 50L f/1.2 still not on Canon's Website, I'd presume that it will be the next release. The 85L has always been reviewed higher that the 50L and there isn't much to compare it to outside a +4K Zeiss Otus. I've heard the auto focus is much slower on that 1.4 Zeiss! I would also think the 135 f/2 with IS would sell more with an update. The rumor said late 2016, if the 11-24 was aprox 6 months ago, next is 35 Mark II, I would think another red ring in between. Marketing folks are probably the ultimate source of most leaks/rumors, and it is good business to let your customers know what they can anticipate to hedge them from buying outside of Canon.


----------



## Machaon (Sep 8, 2015)

Oooh, bam!

I would be all over that lens like a rash.

Can't say that I've been a fan of the chromatic aberration produced by the current EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM, which the new blue refracting layer should fix nicely.

Only issue I can see is that this will be a seriously expensive piece of glass.

Canon's really coming out with some great lenses, I supposed pushed along by Sigma.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 8, 2015)

Machaon said:


> Oooh, bam!
> 
> I would be all over that lens like a rash.
> 
> ...



I don't believe the Canon lens division gives a damn what Sigma, Tamron, Sony or even Nikon do, lets face it the Nikon 200-400 went unanswered for 10 years, even longer if you count the manual focus version from 1983.

There is no other camera company capable or inclined to make the vast array of lenses Canon make, many of which are unmatched world beaters. DR be damned, I want cameras from a company committed to my artistic vision, a company that spends millions of dollars designing and building an 11-24, the TSE-17, a 200-400 worthy of the 50MP sensors, the f1.2's (and the f1.0!) the list just goes on and on. Diffractive Optics which they will make work one day, this new Blue Spectrum Refractive Optics already looks to have tamed my biggest problem with the MkI 35L and will obviously be used in other lenses. 

I don't love inanimate things, but I sure do like Canon at the moment.............


----------



## Dick (Sep 8, 2015)

A new 85L sounds interesting. The 85L II is maybe my favorite lens, but the CA and LoCa (or what ever) are extremely annoying. The 85L II also isn't that sharp. It feels like the 5D3 has too many megapixels for that lens.



ford0180 said:


> Having 1.2 allows subject-background separation when the subject is far away, and you can include their surroundings in the portrait. The effect can be simply fantastic.



I don't really agree. Besides, if the 85L II is set up to focus well when distances are "normal" it will not focus on distant targets.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 8, 2015)

verysimplejason said:


> Waiting for an 85mm F1.8 IS USM (or STM, it doesn't matter as long as there's IS). Hopefully, this will be next.


This is a very interesting proposal that I like a lot


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 8, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > I think I'd be happier with an update to the 50L. The 85IIL is an amazing lens already. Sure the new blue refractive optics, weather sealing and non fly by wire AF would be improvements. But...as it stands, it's still an exceptional optic and unmatched in the market place by anyone else.
> ...


Sure, the one that needs a refreshment is the 50L and probably adding IS to the 135L.


----------



## George D. (Sep 8, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> Could the new 85L be f/1.4 instead of f/1.2? It’s possible, they went slower moving from the EF 50 f/1.0L to the 50 f/1.2L. Although, having the lens at f/1.2 does give Canon some bragging rights for DSLR lenses.</p>



Reading between words a 50mm f/1.0 L Mk.2 could be on. If the BR element proves a winner Canon can really up their game. And the architecture of the lens does have that convex/concave element in-tandem for the BR.







dSLR sales are fast dropping so some real excitement is needed.


----------



## vscd (Sep 8, 2015)

> Going to f/1.4 is sensible. At f/1.2 on 85mm, how thin is the DoF? You're almost forced to stop down just to get more than just the tip of someone's nose in focus.



I think most people just have a too short view on f-stops. It's not all about Depth of Field. a bright f1.2 lens gives you a bright viewfinder, which is important on low light AF. You can also use Teleconverters, which gives you for example a nice 150mm f2 with an 1.7x Kenko. A 85mm f1.2 stopped down to f1.8 is quite fantastic, I won't give that description to any f1.8 lens wide open.

And f1.2 with IS? Hmm, I don't think that would happen because the additional lensegroup would most likely vary the focallenght, so you have to build a formula for an 85mm f1.0 to get back to f1.2 IS. That's also the reason why centralshutter-lenses have no aperture-records. The shutter needs space...


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 8, 2015)

What my bag needs is a bokeh monster and a new 85mm f1.2 will fit that bill perfectly!

No experience with the f/1.2 versions but I had mucked about with the f/1.8 version and I reeeeally liked it lots.

My ear is to the ground now


----------



## sanj (Sep 8, 2015)

It will be f1.2 (Yes!)
It will not have IS (I wish it did)


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 8, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Going to f/1.4 is sensible. At f/1.2 on 85mm, how thin is the DoF? You're almost forced to stop down just to get more than just the tip of someone's nose in focus.



The 85mm f1.2 II L is a precision tool (almost surgical) for a precise photographer. It took me years to master and I rarely get a misplaced focus spot with it. For "head and shoulders" portraiture, there is nothing quite like it. But yes, the 135L or 70-200 f2.8 LIS is a much easier tool to use. But I prefer the lower telephoto compression with the 85mm lens. But it's not an easy lens to use and as a skill, it needs to be regularly sharpened. 
With the 5DII or 6D...swap out the view finder screen for a fine focus screen. That way you can see exactly where the point of focus is and how reliable it is. With a 5DIII...use spot focus and be VERY careful where that point lands.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 8, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told that Canon is actively working on a new 85L, and we should see a replacement some time before 2016 is over, and possibly for Photokina in September of 2016.</p>
> <p>The new 85L will incorporate the blue spectrum refractive element of the recently announced <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/preorder-the-new-canon-ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii/">EF 35mm f/1.4L II</a>.</p>
> <p>The new lens will be weather sealed, have a new manual focus system, a faster autofocus system as well as being lighter.</p>
> <p>Could the new 85L be f/1.4 instead of f/1.2? It’s possible, they went slower moving from the EF 50 f/1.0L to the 50 f/1.2L. Although, having the lens at f/1.2 does give Canon some bragging rights for DSLR lenses.</p>


Just a vagueness in the title: 
"85L IS (Image Stabilized) on the way" or "New 85L on the way?"


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 8, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The 85mm f1.2 II L is a precision tool (almost surgical) for a precise photographer. It took me years to master and I rarely get a misplaced focus spot with it. For "head and shoulders" portraiture, there is nothing quite like it. But yes, the 135L or 70-200 f2.8 LIS is a much easier tool to use. But I prefer the lower telephoto compression with the 85mm lens. But it's not an easy lens to use and as a skill, it needs to be regularly sharpened.
> With the 5DII or 6D...swap out the view finder screen for a fine focus screen. That way you can see exactly where the point of focus is and how reliable it is. With a 5DIII...use spot focus and be VERY careful where that point lands.



Hey GMC 

When shooting macro, I go hand held, whilst 'walking into' my subject. As the DOF is razor thin at macro levels, I have developed muscle memory of sorts using this technique.

Would my macro technique stand me in good stead if I were to shoot with an 85mm at f1/.2?


----------



## dolina (Sep 8, 2015)

Canon should these lenses first

Primes
1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM

Zooms
1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 8, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Edit: I don't know how much one would miss the 1.2 instead of an 1.4 there. That's about others to tell.
> ...


Thanks, Eldar for your impressions. 
As I said, I am more the 85/1.8 type. But sharp and without CA, please.


----------



## infared (Sep 8, 2015)

This seems like the perfect "next choice" to incorporate the blue glass on. Yum!!!! Canon...stop all other production and work on this only!!! 
(Although...I do like the dreamy quality of my current f/1.2L II...It's quite special just the way it is!
Also, I can always close it down to f/1.4 or f/1.8 if I need more DOF).


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 8, 2015)

ford0180 said:


> [quote author=Maximilian]
> Personally I find 1.2 on an 85mm focal length to give too shallow DOF in almost all cases though.



I don't understand this common view. 
...
[/quote]
Just for the records:
ford0180 didn't quote me but Eldars opinion. Just some copy/erase error.
I do not own and never used a lens faster than F1.4, so I cannot tell.
But I'd like to


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 8, 2015)

Dick said:


> A new 85L sounds interesting. The 85L II is maybe my favorite lens, but the CA and LoCa (or what ever) are extremely annoying. The 85L II also isn't that sharp. It feels like the 5D3 has too many megapixels for that lens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I found this an interesting comment. Is it you find the 85L II not that sharp at F1.2 or in general.
My own thoughts on the old 85MM 1.2L was that it is a great portrait lens. Very flattering at F1.2
Under studio lights I took many session of portraits at F8 and I have been stunned at how sharp it is.
If so sharp that every skin and teeth flaw shows up. 
I couldn't questions it's sharpness stepped down at all.
At F1.2 I might see that point of view. It's tricky but worth the effort.
I guess each copy can be different and at its current price it's not like you'd be trying too many copies.
I expect a new version of this to be very expensive.
If it's 1.2 they have to solve the focusing. 
The focusing in studio is fine where you have an opportunity to be precise.
Handheld out and about its very hard to lock focus on an object even with the slightest movement.
The focusing is the slowest by far of any lens I own.


----------



## Chapman Baxter (Sep 8, 2015)

dolina said:


> Canon should these lenses first
> 
> Primes
> 1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
> ...



I very much doubt we'll ever see a new 200mm f/2.8L (unless it's a macro with IS to replace the 180mm), nor replacements for the non-stabilised 70-200mm pair. I guess the others are more plausible, though I wonder how many would choose a new 400mm f/5.6 IS over the 100-400mm II.

(Apologies for being off-topic. Carry on).


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Anything that gets rid of focus-by-wire would be welcome. Whilst I haven't had any serious interest in the 35L MkII (the 35 f2 IS is just too good) a decent 85mm f1.2 portrait lens would work well for me.



There is nothing indecent about the current one bud.


----------



## kubelik (Sep 8, 2015)

Chapman Baxter said:


> I very much doubt we'll ever see a new 200mm f/2.8L (unless it's a macro with IS to replace the 180mm), nor replacements for the non-stabilised 70-200mm pair. I guess the others are more plausible, though I wonder how many would choose a new 400mm f/5.6 IS over the 100-400mm II.
> 
> (Apologies for being off-topic. Carry on).



yeah, which is why Canon should make it a 500mm f/5.6 IS instead. come on, you gotta admit, a reasonably-priced 500 f/5.6 IS ... you'd get one 

back on topic... if my choices were a slow-focusing, heavy 85mm f/1.2 versus a quicker-focusing, lighter 85mm f/1.4 ... I'd get the f/1.4, for sure. I know there's an incredible quality that you get from the extra f/0.2, but I don't think I'd trade all the other important functional aspects of a lens for it.

makes you wonder though, if Canon made a price-no-object weight-no-object 85mm f/1.0 ... how much would it cost, and how many people would buy it anyway? no matter what, it couldn't possibly be as large as or weigh as much as a 70-200 f/2.8, so it'd have some modicum of usability. if they made it, I'd rent one to play with, but it sounds like plenty of other folks would actually use it on a regular basis.


----------



## infared (Sep 8, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Anything that gets rid of focus-by-wire would be welcome. Whilst I haven't had any serious interest in the 35L MkII (the 35 f2 IS is just too good) a decent 85mm f1.2 portrait lens would work well for me.
> ...



+1 It is unique and a quite wonderful arrow to have in your quiver!!!!


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 8, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > Waiting for an 85mm F1.8 IS USM (or STM, it doesn't matter as long as there's IS). *Hopefully, this will be next.*
> ...



I think Tamron will deliver a lens with these general specs, a 60 or 65 mm lens between the 45mm and that 85mm.


----------



## riker (Sep 8, 2015)

I want to see new verions of these:
EF 28/1.8
EF 50/1.4 (small and light version like the current one, not like stupid Sigma and Otus!!!)
EF 85/1.8

It's very important to have fast primes even when price/weight/size matter.
If they make a 85/1.4L, then 85/1.8 will never get updated or will become an f/2 (

Btw I would have already bought the 35/2 IS if it would be an f/1.8.


----------



## moreorless (Sep 8, 2015)

The issue I'm sure is the different target market, an 85mm F/1.2 is going to be aimed mostly at pros who will pay a hefty premium for the best possible performance. A lot of the other lenses being mentioned at aimed at users on a tighter budget and Canon probably thinks that the advantage of the old lenses is that there cheap.

The old EF 50mm F/1.4 right now for example only costs $350, almost a 1/3rd the price of the Sigma 50mm F/1.4 ART, if a new version costs say $600 is a bit better but still not as good as the Sigma are people going to be interested?


----------



## Dick (Sep 8, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> Dick said:
> 
> 
> > A new 85L sounds interesting. The 85L II is maybe my favorite lens, but the CA and LoCa (or what ever) are extremely annoying. The 85L II also isn't that sharp. It feels like the 5D3 has too many megapixels for that lens.
> ...



I mainly use it wide open. Maybe I get the impression of it not being sharp from that. Either, like said, it's likely still my favorite lens. Sharp enough especially after some PP sharpening. Definitely not my sharpest lens, but it still produces the best shots.


----------



## chromophore (Sep 8, 2015)

Everyone has a different standard of what constitutes "sharp," and different photographers have different shooting styles and subjects of interest. The EF 85/1.2L II is "sharp" to some, and not sharp to others because of this.

Another aspect of this lens that makes it interesting is that it performs well in the middle of the visible spectrum, but relatively poorly in the red portion (in terms of the resolving power off axis). Should its design be updated with BR technology, it could very well mean a lens that is dramatically sharper.

I personally find it to be an acceptably sharp lens wide open, but only in certain use cases. Of course, stopped down to f/2.8 or slower, it is very sharp. But I don't even remember the last time I used it stopped down.

For portraiture, I find that it is not helpful to use macro shooting techniques to achieve precise focus. In macrophotography, the depth of field is very small, but you are typically focusing wide open and then the shot is taken stopped down. With the 85L, the shot is taken wide open, and critical focus is too hard to observe through the viewfinder due to the fact that the focusing screen is not sensitive to f/1.2 marginal rays. What you see in the viewfinder has more depth of field than the resulting image. Live View focusing results in the loss of postural stability by having to hold the camera at a distance.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 9, 2015)

Dick said:


> A new 85L sounds interesting. The 85L II is maybe my favorite lens, but the CA and LoCa (or what ever) are extremely annoying. The 85L II also isn't that sharp. It feels like the 5D3 has too many megapixels for that lens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dick, not one statement you've made regarding this lens is true in my copy of it. Other than focusing speed and MFD being a bit longer than I like, this is a flawless portrait lens.


----------



## Dick (Sep 9, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Dick said:
> 
> 
> > A new 85L sounds interesting. The 85L II is maybe my favorite lens, but the CA and LoCa (or what ever) are extremely annoying. The 85L II also isn't that sharp. It feels like the 5D3 has too many megapixels for that lens.
> ...



So you have a copy that doesn't produce those annoying (and commonly known as issues of the lens) red and green edges around subjects that are out of focus?

It is indeed a great portrait lens, but one must also know its limitations. This is why I said that it is not a lens that should be used to focus on distant subjects. If used on distant subjects wide open for subject seperation, it produces an ugly mess, because even the "sharp" bits look quite bad. There are better lenses for that kind of use, whereas the 85L II is the greatest lens when used for portraits for example.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 9, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Dick said:
> 
> 
> > A new 85L sounds interesting. The 85L II is maybe my favorite lens, but the CA and LoCa (or what ever) are extremely annoying. The 85L II also isn't that sharp. It feels like the 5D3 has too many megapixels for that lens.
> ...



Yeah, the "doesn't focus on distant targets." is simply untrue, it may apply to your copy, but then it's faulty.

It's slow to focus, but unless subjects move its very precise. 

What bothers me is the CA and distortion in the corners, they bend quote a bit. And sharpness wide open, although better than the 50 L, the 50 Art has spoiled me a lot.


----------



## BL (Sep 9, 2015)

LOCA on the 85II is pretty awful. Not to mention the really long MFD.

Fix those two and I'd look hard at the mkIII...


----------



## Dick (Sep 9, 2015)

Viggo said:


> Yeah, the "doesn't focus on distant targets." is simply untrue, it may apply to your copy, but then it's faulty.



I have 2 copies. After setting the AFMA to work with portrait distances, they won't nail the focus on distant subjects.


----------



## Pookie (Sep 9, 2015)

I've read this entire thread and I am sure this forum is mostly hobbyist based in experience and knowledge. Either that or everyone here has by most unfortunate circumstance picked up the worst copies of this lens ever. No lens is perfect but this lens is stellar for portraiture (what it was made for). If you know how to use, it it will shine like none other. It's a money maker for sure... all day, everyday.

No matter how much you spend, or buy the latest and greatest... nothing will make up for poor technique and lack of experience.


----------



## infared (Sep 9, 2015)

The "know it all" egos in this thread are really revolting.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 9, 2015)

Some of the most mindblowing photographs I've seen were made using the EF 85mm f/1.2 L. These might fit into a niche, but there is nothing wrong with that in my mind. 

Would I welcome an update with some of the draw-backs fixed? Yes I surely would! 

Would I want to compromise on the amazing images the lens is able to produce (in its niche)? No I would not, since for me this was the reason the get the lens in first place...


----------



## niels123 (Sep 9, 2015)

romanr74 said:


> Some of the most mindblowing photographs I've seen were made using the EF 85mm f/1.2 L. These might fit into a niche, but there is nothing wrong with that in my mind.
> 
> Would I welcome an update with some of the draw-backs fixed? Yes I surely would!
> 
> Would I want to compromise on the amazing images the lens is able to produce (in its niche)? No I would not, since for me this was the reason the get the lens in first place...



Agreed. I just ordered the 85L II last week and I can't wait to receive it ;D


----------



## Viggo (Sep 9, 2015)

Dick said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, the "doesn't focus on distant targets." is simply untrue, it may apply to your copy, but then it's faulty.
> ...



Calibrate at 4250 cm and it will work on all distances.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 9, 2015)

niels123 said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > Some of the most mindblowing photographs I've seen were made using the EF 85mm f/1.2 L. These might fit into a niche, but there is nothing wrong with that in my mind.
> ...



It's great lens, but very hard to fully master. I can imagine that a manual focus Otus would be really hard to use with a viewfinder that is DOF limited to f2.8. The 135L is far more forgiving with it's DOF and a lot easier to use. But the 85II has a look and feel to it's images which are beautiful. I like it's less telephoto compression for portrait work and it's good to consider this lens a primarily a portrait lens.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 9, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> niels123 said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



Hear, hear.

If a new 50mm 1.2 performed optically the same, I'd buy it. I'm sure the new lens coatings will only improve things. 

Excellent image all around, GMCPhotographics! Knowing which parts of an image should be sharp and which OOF is an art, elusive to those who stodgily insist on f/16 for everything.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 9, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> ... I can imagine that a manual focus Otus would be really hard to use with a viewfinder that is DOF limited to f2.8 ...


I can confirm that. In fact it does not work, unless you stop it down. On my 1DX I use Canon´s Ec-S precision focusing screen and on the 5DIII I have a custom made S-screen from Focusing Screen (Taiwan). With those I get a good keeper rate, even at f1.4. But the process is a bit slow and whatever you´re shooting, better stay still. 

If the new Canon 85mm deliver what we´re hoping for, I´ll order as soon as possible.

This is shot handheld with 5DIII, Otus 85/1.4 @f1.4


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 9, 2015)

Dick said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, the "doesn't focus on distant targets." is simply untrue, it may apply to your copy, but then it's faulty.
> ...



I'm afraid I had the same issue on my 6D. Perfect within portrait distances after AFMA, but focus issues at longer distances.

I will have a go and try to calibrate at 425 cm, as Viggo suggested. (or did you actually mean 4250 cm, Viggo?)


----------



## sanj (Sep 9, 2015)

I love this lens as is and would be delighted to see it improved.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 9, 2015)

Larsskv said:


> Dick said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



I did write 4250 cm 8) 4,250 meters or 50x focal length.


----------



## meywd (Sep 9, 2015)

Viggo said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > Dick said:
> ...



you mean 4250mm


----------



## Viggo (Sep 9, 2015)

meywd said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



LOL! Yes I do...


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 9, 2015)

Viggo said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Dumb European metric (International) System of Units 
Always so distracting while calculating 8)


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Sep 9, 2015)

;D


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 10, 2015)

can0nfan2379 said:


> ;D


Thanks for your support ;D
I think I'll have to keep this great graphic. 
Should help me arguing next time as I am from the SI system party.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 10, 2015)

can0nfan2379 said:


> ;D



I used to travel in and out of the USA very regularly, there was a customs form I filled in that had month, day, year on one side of the form and on the other, where you had to fill out the same information, it was formatted day, month, year.


----------



## vscd (Sep 10, 2015)

Drugs have made more for the metric system than any university or science in the states


----------



## LonelyBoy (Sep 11, 2015)

can0nfan2379 said:


> ;D



I will grant you that we do dates in the wrong order, but so does the rest of the world - only YYYY-MM-DD makes sense for sorting, so that's the way it should be done.

Why does 0* make sense as the starting point for temperature? Because water freezes there? It's not the base - living in the cold regions teaches you that in a hurry! If we're talking about "sense" it should be Kelvin.

And, if base 10 is so clearly awesome, why does everyone in the world use 24 hours in a day, then base-60 from there? Clearly we ought to base-10 that as well. Oh, it'll be painful, but of course it'll be worth it, just like switching the US to the portions of metric the rest of the world uses.

And the bicycle industry, which is dominated by Asia (and Europe to a lesser extent) still uses the inch as the length of a link in the chain because it's too painful to switch and obsolete a bunch of things at once... which is why the US will not change.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 14, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> ... because it's too painful to switch and obsolete a bunch of things at once... which is why the US will not change.


Of course you are right with your aruments and of course nobody expects the US to change. 
But* the earlier* one does a change *the cheaper* it'll be. 
Otherwise we still would have to refer to e.g. the "Ell" with about 20 to 100 different lengh units depending on where you are.

And I suppose that until then we'll always have to check our formula because 655 million total loss is painful as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter


----------



## LonelyBoy (Sep 14, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Of course you are right with your aruments and of course nobody expects the US to change.
> But* the earlier* one does a change *the cheaper* it'll be.
> Otherwise we still would have to refer to e.g. the "Ell" with about 20 to 100 different lengh units depending on where you are.
> 
> ...



The MCO incident could have been prevented by doing the whole thing in SAE units. That's an argument against even letting SI in your building.

Standardization of units (to SI or SAE) was always going to happen with the move to a modern world. SAE can clearly be standardized just as well as SI; that's not a reason to switch. Measurements being different in different towns was just a factor of poor communication and little to no inter-city commerce, not something intrinsic to SAE.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 14, 2015)

What a sad death for this thread.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 15, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> What a sad death for this thread.


Yes! You're right and I apologize for making a joke that went down someones wrong pipe.
And when it came to serious arguments I wasn't able to stop earlier. Sorry again.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Sep 15, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > What a sad death for this thread.
> ...



Alright, I'll apologize too... but it had been nearly a week since there was any actual discussion of a hypothetical new 85L. Not like it was an active thread at the time that got derailed.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 15, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...


He he, there is a limit to how long a thread about a rumored lens can get, without some diversions. I think this is one of the funnier ones. The only thing missing was for someone to drag in all the additional British peculiar units.

But to be serious; An updated 85/1.2 or 85/1.4, with weather sealing, no CA, same bokeh, improved sharpness and fast (not-by-wire) AF ... Awesome!


----------



## LonelyBoy (Sep 15, 2015)

Eldar said:


> He he, there is a limit to how long a thread about a rumored lens can get, without some diversions. I think this is one of the funnier ones. The only thing missing was for someone to drag in all the additional British peculiar units.
> 
> But to be serious; An updated 85/1.2 or 85/1.4, with weather sealing, no CA, same bokeh, improved sharpness and fast (not-by-wire) AF ... Awesome!



Speaking of, does anyone know _why_ the 85L has focus-by-wire? It wasn't common then, to my knowledge.


----------



## chromophore (Sep 16, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > He he, there is a limit to how long a thread about a rumored lens can get, without some diversions. I think this is one of the funnier ones. The only thing missing was for someone to drag in all the additional British peculiar units.
> ...



Actually, focus-by-wire was the primary way autofocusing was implemented in fast-aperture EF prime lenses when the EF lens mount was first developed. For example:

EF 50/1.0L
EF 85/1.2L
EF 200/1.8L
EF 300/2.8L
EF 600/4L

are *all* focus-by-wire designs. The EF 85/1.2L design has always been focus-by-wire. Optically, this design is a direct descendant of the FD 85/1.2L.

Why use it? Because the bottom line is that for the 85/1.2L design, a mechanical focusing mechanism linking to the focusing ring would add more diameter to the already fat and short lens.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with focus-by-wire. The reason why AF is slow with this lens is not for this design choice. It's because the optical design of the lens has the focusing group consist of every element except for the last, and all that glass is VERY heavy to move. As I mentioned, this lens was descended from the FD version, and that was designed before autofocusing technology was implemented in SLR lenses. Focus-by-wire gets a bad rap for slow AF but this is not really true. It's only true when the focusing group consists of a lot of elements.

Personally, I don't care about the AF speed as long as AF acquisition is *accurate*. People want to make the 85L be a "do-it-all" lens. I say it should not have to sacrifice f/1.2 or anything else just for the sake of being more versatile to use. If people want a fast-focusing 85mm prime, use the 85/1.8. I don't want an 85/1.4L and I don't want Canon to think that slapping IS on every lens they update with a slower aperture is going to magically make up for losing a stop of light.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 16, 2015)

chromophore said:


> Optically, this design is a direct descendant of the FD 85/1.2L.



Not really. They are very different within the context of the Double Gauss design, which is the basis for thousands of lenses.

In particular the aspherical element is very different in the two designs.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Sep 16, 2015)

chromophore said:


> Actually, focus-by-wire was the primary way autofocusing was implemented in fast-aperture EF prime lenses when the EF lens mount was first developed. For example:
> 
> EF 50/1.0L
> EF 85/1.2L
> ...



Thanks for the explanation! I didn't say FBW was a bad thing, and don't actually believe it is - at the entirely other end of the market, I adore my 18-135 and 55-250 STMs. SOME people, however, clearly dislike it (lack of a focus window, for one, which I've never used). Notably, out of the lenses you listed, only the 85L is in (relatively) common use; I've read a thread or two about the 50/1.0 but its FBW design never sank in apparently, and I've never seriously looked at the other three on your list.

Until the STMs, FBW was quite rare in the Canon lineup.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 18, 2015)

I've never found my 85mm f1.2 II L particularly slow. Sure if it's set infinity and needs to rack back to MFD...but how often does that happen? What I do find is that the AF ring spins freely and has very little friction. Unless the lens has power (ie on a camera and switched on) then the AF ring doesn't move the AF elements. I've found the 85IIL to be very accurate in it's focus and tracks well. I find it way better then the 50mm f1.2L which is slow and inaccurate. The 35mm f1.4L and 135mm f2 L are both faster in focus lock but just as accurate.


----------



## vscd (Sep 20, 2015)

> Speaking of, does anyone know why the 85L has focus-by-wire? It wasn't common then, to my knowledge.



Focus by wire on the 85L is caused, in my opinion, for the huge amount of glas to be moved. It provides a smoother feeling because mechanical it would be quite difficult to move the kilogram of elements.


----------



## mknight (Sep 2, 2016)

I'm guessing since I don't see this on the list of announcements for photokina, that this ended up not being true?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 3, 2016)

mknight said:


> I'm guessing since I don't see this on the list of announcements for photokina, that this ended up not being true?



I can confirm that Canon will certainly releasing a new version of this lens...some day.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 3, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Going to f/1.4 is sensible. At f/1.2 on 85mm, how thin is the DoF? You're almost forced to stop down just to get more than just the tip of someone's nose in focus.



Hi Dilbert. I know you posted this a long time ago, but I just got an app for my Kindle that I've been playing with the past couple of days. Of course you are right.

85mm @f/1.2 and a distance of 10 feet equals a DOF of just .31' At 15' it equals .69' and at 20' the DOF is 1.22'.

So, if the app is correct, one can use f/1.2 but must stand back about 15-20' to get a whole head in focus. 15' ought to be just enough to get both eyes, nose, lips etc. in focus with a slightly turned head.

Yeah, I'm a little over excited about the app. I'm having a load of fun with it and I think it will help me a whole lot.

Great fun! Now you know just how (un)exciting my life is.


----------



## turtle (Sep 26, 2016)

Its going to be interesting, but I fear the new lens will be so optically outstanding that it will make less appealing portraits than the current lens. With all manufacturers being forced to produce 'optical lasers' (because that's what the market demands), lenses that produce a more organic, human rendering are going to get harder to find. When the new lens is introduced might be the perfect time to buy the old one


----------



## zim (Sep 26, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> So, if the app is correct, one can use f/1.2 but must stand back about 15-20' to get a whole head in focus. 15' ought to be just enough to get both eyes, nose, lips etc. in focus with a slightly turned head.



So it is actually perfect for portraiture then! ;D

What app are you using? I have dof droid which is OK, I like the graphics but it could be way better if the graphics were interactive so always on the lookout for something better.
Apologies for the OT.


----------



## Mancubus (Sep 26, 2016)

turtle said:


> lenses that produce a more organic, human rendering



That's the most creative excuse for a poor performing lens I've ever seen. There is nothing human/organic about a piece of glass/metal, whether it's made in the 50's by Leica or in 2016 by Zeiss.

Give me a sharper lens over old technology optics any day.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 26, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > Optically, this design is a direct descendant of the FD 85/1.2L.
> ...



VERY different...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > Optically, this design is a direct descendant of the FD 85/1.2L.
> ...



It all depends on how you define 'direct descendant'. For example, one could argue that my Zeiss multiphoton microscope is a direct descendant of Antonie van Leeuwenhoek's microscope. 












Well, I'm off to look at some animalcules.


----------



## Alex_M (Sep 26, 2016)

I like your light meter ( at 1 o'clock top, right). Is that a new Sekonic that was just anounced at the Photokina? Can you also share a photo of the battery pack that powers the beast?


----------



## addola (Sep 26, 2016)

That would be interesting, and I guess they need to keep it at f/1.2 because that sits it apart from competitors that don't offer any FF lenses with f/1.2 that has autofocus. I guess this is the merit of having a larger mount than Sony & Nikon. 

However, I think the 135L needs to be upgraded with that BR optics thing. It's performance would probably beat Zeiss's 135s. I wouldn't be amazed if a new 85L gave Otus-like quality at half the price. 

I better start saving!


----------



## turtle (Sep 28, 2016)

Why do you see it as an 'excuse', rather than an articulation of why some people prefer certain types of optics for certain applications? Perhaps this is because you assume everyone wants the sharpest possible lens with loads of contrast etc. You may - fair enough - but not everyone does, especially when it comes to photographing people. 

With regard to rendering, you misunderstand: I am not talking about the lens as an end result, but its effect on the end result: the photo. Lenses differ and this affects the rendering of _the image_. We can use whatever subjective terms we like to describe real observable differences in image characteristics and the lens that gets us to the desired result most quickly and easily is surely the tool we choose.

Would I prefer a low flare Zeiss to a 1940s Leica lens for night photography? It depends on what I am trying to achieve, right?

This is not a case of 'the new lens vs. the old lens: there can only be one winner'. I'm sure the new lens will be outstanding in many respects. Whether everyone prefers it for all applications remains to be seen. Going by recent trends in optical designs, some people will continue reaching for slightly (or much) older designs. Just ask Paolo Roversi.



Mancubus said:


> turtle said:
> 
> 
> > lenses that produce a more organic, human rendering
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2016)

turtle said:


> Why do you see it as an 'excuse', rather than an articulation of why some people prefer certain types of optics for certain applications? Perhaps this is because you assume everyone wants the sharpest possible lens with loads of contrast etc. You may - fair enough - but not everyone does, especially when it comes to photographing people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



People like evaluating lenses based on sharpness because it's easily measured, quantitative, and can be represented (albeit poorly) by a single number. Most people have little to no comprehension of optical technology, and therefore fail to understand the compromises that must be made in other, more subjective aspects of optical performance in favor of maximal sharpness. 

Put bluntly, a simple criterion is a good match for a simple mind.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 28, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> turtle said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you see it as an 'excuse', rather than an articulation of why some people prefer certain types of optics for certain applications? Perhaps this is because you assume everyone wants the sharpest possible lens with loads of contrast etc. You may - fair enough - but not everyone does, especially when it comes to photographing people.
> ...



Then there's getting in the horrible position of having an extremely sharp lens that female subjects hate you for. That's probably my ineptitude with Photoshop more than the len's fault, but still... sometimes things can be too sharp for certain subjects. Especially if the smile lines run far too deep and are too numerous to handle.

Then again, some people don't want to accept the fact that they are aging, and maybe not gracefully.

Looking forward to the new 85L.

Now when will we get a body with auto wrinkle eliminator?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Then there's getting in the horrible position of having an extremely sharp lens that female subjects hate you for. That's probably my ineptitude with Photoshop more than the lenses fault, but still... sometimes things can be too sharp for certain subjects. Especially if the smile lines run far too deep and are too numerous to handle.


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 28, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> turtle said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you see it as an 'excuse', rather than an articulation of why some people prefer certain types of optics for certain applications? Perhaps this is because you assume everyone wants the sharpest possible lens with loads of contrast etc. You may - fair enough - but not everyone does, especially when it comes to photographing people.
> ...



I have read this article a couple of times. The author claims complex modern high performance lenses doesn't render depth as well as older lens designs, and I think he may have a point.

http://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/

I've examined pictures from different lenses I've had, and found the the Sigma35ART makes somewhat flat looking images. The much simpler Canon 28 f2.8 IS on the other hand makes pictures with more depth in them, I think. 

The problem is that it is hard to replicate results that shows differences in depth rendering between lenses. Light, distance, shadows, focal lengths and aperture comes into play. Even so, I found especially that 28 f2.8 to make images with a lot of depth in them, compared to many other lenses. 

I didn't agree to the article at first, but after looking at my own pictures, I changed my mind, and now find the article to be very interesting. I don't know if his theory is correct, but i think he is on to something.


----------



## NancyP (Sep 28, 2016)

Some of the old lenses render very well. That article makes the common sense observation that not all lenses are perfect for all types of shooting.

I am curious about the Laowa 105 apodization lens, myself.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Then there's getting in the horrible position of having an extremely sharp lens that female subjects hate you for. That's probably my ineptitude with Photoshop more than the lenses fault, but still... sometimes things can be too sharp for certain subjects. Especially if the smile lines run far too deep and are too numerous to handle.



Ahhhhh.... the Fountain of Youth! Thanks!


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 29, 2016)

NancyP said:


> Some of the old lenses render very well. That article makes the common sense observation that not all lenses are perfect for all types of shooting.
> 
> I am curious about the Laowa 105 apodization lens, myself.



Thanks for that Nancy. I'm putting that on my list right below my triopan dream. I'd love some extra cash right now.


----------



## Refurb7 (Sep 29, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > turtle said:
> ...



Of course, many factors go into lens quality, not just sharpness. No one knows that better than Canon. Even so, I find that article to be silly and amateurish. His "lens intention diagrams" don't describe anything real. He is a pretend lens "expert" who sees what he wants to see and who then lords his pretended expertise over those who disagree with him.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Sep 29, 2016)

*Tamron 85mm F/1.8*

I got tired of waiting and picked up the new stabilized Tamron 85mm F/1.8. 

It's noticeably sharper than the Canon 85mm F/1.8 that I used for a few years and way lighter than the Canon 85mm F/1.2 L that I rented. Not to mention much less expensive than the 85 L!

Focus performance is excellent on my 5D3.

As for rendering, I'm not completely sure about that yet. It does have a different look, but I'm not sure how to describe it.

So if you are in need of a medium priced 85mm lens, don't forget to look at the Tamron.

https://www.amazon.com/Tamron-AFF016C700-85mm-Lens-Black/dp/B01CIXJLI8/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1475109274&sr=1-2&keywords=tamron+85mm+1.8

Also... don't forget the lowly Canon 85mm F/1.8 either. Stop it down 2/3 of a stop and you get good subject/background separation. Add in the excellent autofocus, light weight and low price and you have a great value. What's a little chromatic aberration among friends?


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 29, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



That was my initial impression too, but my own research supports much of what he is claiming. As I said, I don't think he has it all correct/right, but there are definitely differences in how different lenses renders depth, and the sharp Sigma lenses seems to be bad in that regard.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 30, 2016)

turtle said:


> Its going to be interesting, but I fear the new lens will be so optically outstanding that it will make less appealing portraits than the current lens. With all manufacturers being forced to produce 'optical lasers' (because that's what the market demands), lenses that produce a more organic, human rendering are going to get harder to find. When the new lens is introduced might be the perfect time to buy the old one



Tip:

1) In the old days we used to smear vaseline on the front of the lens to create an artistic effect - try it if you need to

2) Today software is your friend - no need for unsharp lenses anymore


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 30, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> I have read this article a couple of times. The author claims complex modern high performance lenses doesn't render depth as well as older lens designs, and I think he may have a point.
> 
> http://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/
> 
> ...



Is that about focal length of the lens or is that about the glass materials and/or the coatings? Would a comparison of different 35mm/28mm have the same result?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> Today software is your friend - no need for unsharp lenses anymore



Let me repeat, with emphasis. 



neuroanatomist said:


> People like evaluating lenses based on sharpness because it's easily measured, quantitative, and can be represented (albeit poorly) by a single number. Most people have little to no comprehension of optical technology, and therefore fail to understand *the compromises that must be made in other, more subjective aspects of optical performance in favor of maximal sharpness*.



Do you believe the current 50L and 85L are a bit soft wide open is because Canon couldn't figure out how to make them sharp? They are not maximally sharp wide open because spherical aberration was deliberately left undercorrected in the optical design, in favor of improved bokeh. 

Here's a good read: http://toothwalker.org/optics/spherical.html

In a contest between optical physics and software, optical physics will win.


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 30, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > I have read this article a couple of times. The author claims complex modern high performance lenses doesn't render depth as well as older lens designs, and I think he may have a point.
> ...



According to the article, it has a connection with the amounts of glass elements that is used to correct different aberrations. The theory seems to be based upon a claim, that older and simpler lens designs, preserve/create a better depth rendition than never and more complex designs. 

Personally I found the images from the 24-70 f/2.8LII to have a lot of depth to them, contradicting the theory in the article. Further, my 35LII also render depth in a very good way, so the number of glass elements cannot tell the whole story. 

The biggest thing for me personally is that I have been more aware of the rendering of depth from my various lenses, but I wonder why it is so.


----------



## Alex_M (Sep 30, 2016)

in support of Neuroanatomist's statement that the compromises must be made in other, more subjective aspects of optical performance in favour of maximal sharpness:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/28/first-test-pics-of-sigma-50mm-f-1.4-put-it-on-par-with-zeiss-otus-55mm-f1.4

"... Something we were told by Sigma president Kazuto Yamaki cued us to take a closer look, though. In discussing lens-design tradeoffs with IR founder Dave Etchells, Mr. Yamaki said they chose to make a very small compromise on sharpness in order to deliver significantly better local contrast..."


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 30, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



That linked article is a bit of joke. It talks about "flat noses" where it means out of focus noses. A flat nose is either a result of a boxing punch or a very very long lens compressing features. Yes there's a relationship between micro contrast / bokeh/ fore ground or background rendering/ CA and critical sharpness. But this article takes assumption and ridicule to a new level. Not every muppet with a web site and an opinion is worth reading or listening too.


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 30, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



I agree with you to some extent, but have a look at your own pictures. I do believe you will find that some of your lenses generally render depth better than others, and you may find some truth in the claim, that simpler lens design generally show more depth than complex ones.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 30, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



As it happens I regularly review my portfolio of work. Depth is rendered by depth of field and angle of view...not by a reduction in the number of elements within the lens. This is utter gibberish to think otherwise. If this crazy opinion were true then the height of lens construction would be a pin hole camera... 
The only lens that I could never use for portraiture is my 400mm f2.8 LIS. That's because it's rendering would be unflattering in portraiture due to the 400mm focal length (it's compression effects) and not because of the number of elements. The link that was posted is full of bro-science and pseudo science. A lot of pretty charts and diagrams that have no baring on truth or lens design science. To say that a 35mm f1.4 L renders flat and uninteresting images is laughable...compared to my portfolio, usage and the lens' reputation with in professional circles. 

At the end of the day, all photography is an abstraction. It's a 2 dimensional representation of a three dimensional object in a 3D world. What we are trying to achieve as photographers is a pleasing rendition, which in it's self may or may not be truthful. Or it is trying to make a statement or narrative. If I choose to use a particular lens because I believe that it can render a flattering image...then it's my prerogative to use what I wish. As I have done for many many years as a professional photographer.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 30, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



I used to have the "flat nose effect" in my portrait work all the time. It was frustrating as hell. Since my Korean girlfriend dumped me the problem has disappeared too.


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 1, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



With your reasoning, bokeh is only determined by focal length, aperture, sensor size and distance to subject, and every 35mm f/1.4 lens would produce the same bokeh, if used in the same situation and with the same settings? We all know that´s not the case. How can you be so sure when it comes to rendering the impressions of depth?


----------

