# 85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?



## Ozarker (May 12, 2017)

From what I think I have read, we may have a choice between two different 85mm L models in the near future. Or, maybe the soon to be announced 85mm f/1.4L IS won't be an L at all, but a lens that sort of bridges the gap between the 85 f/1.8 and the 85 f/1.2L II in the same way the 50 f/1.4 does for that focal length.

Is there really room for two 85mm L lenses? 

The reason I ask is I think I have also read that this new 85 will not replace the 85mm f/1.2L II in the lineup.

We'll know soon enough, but I am left wondering what you fine folks think.

Will there be two 85mm L lenses?


----------



## rs (May 13, 2017)

There are several L lens overlaps - two 16-35's, two 24-70's, four 70-200's, and then of course primes with two 300's and two 400'


----------



## bholliman (May 13, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Will there be two 85mm L lenses?



Both the EF 85mm f/1.8 and EF 85mm f/1.2L II are really in need of a refresh in my opinion. Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron and Samyang have all introduced excellent new lenses in this focal length for the EF mount in the past few years, and the Canon offerings are looking dated by comparison.

I hope Canon decides to add IS to the 85mm f/1.8 replacement. I'd love to see a new L as well, with similar quality to the excellent EF 35mm f/1.4L II.


----------



## Viggo (May 13, 2017)

I'm not in the market for the 85 f1.2, have had it and don't like it, but the 85 f1.4 L is HIGHLY interesting, also because of IS, I'm struggling a bit with shakey hands so the 135 I have is borderline what I can use at all. I guess there are more people like that wants epic IQ and IS that doesn't consider the f1.2.


----------



## BeenThere (May 13, 2017)

The f1.2 is a special lens that only a small percentage of photographers will want or ever buy. My guess is that Canon has probably stopped building new copies and will sell off existing stock over several years. Then, after several more years as a demand slowly builds, they may introduce a v3, or it may fade into legend.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 13, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> The f1.2 is a special lens that only a small percentage of photographers will want or ever buy. My guess is that Canon has probably stopped building new copies and will sell off existing stock over several years. Then, after several more years as a demand slowly builds, they may introduce a v3, or it may fade into legend.



The recent tour of the L lens production plant in Japan was quite revealing. It seems that as long as the tools and jigs are available for production of the lenses they can knock out pretty much any of their lenses on demand - it's not a matter of needing to produce 1000 at a time and then keeping them in storage (and as everyone knows, keeping lenses in long term storage is not something anyone wants to do.) As long as they don't run out of the injection moulded parts (which I'm sure they have plenty of) I see no reason why they won't continue to knock out 85 1.2s for as long as people want to buy them.

And the only reason that I wouldn't want to buy a new 85mm f/1.2L II is that I already have one. If it died I'd probably buy another rather than a 1.4 - unless the 1.4 happens to have as good background blur and colour rendition as the 1.2 - which I doubt. 

As for the 85 1.4 refresh, I do hope that comes next after the 135mm refresh, but I suspect we're more likely to see a 200mm f/2.8L IS after that. 

Canon don't seem to have any interest recently in updating their "Semi-pro" non L lenses. The 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 are sorely in need of an upgrade, but I am assuming that for economic reasons they're concentrating on the L lenses for now.


----------



## georgecpappas (May 13, 2017)

I would suggest that you rent an 85mm 1.2 and a sigma 85mm 1.4 Art as examples of what to expect before making your decision.

I have an 85mm 1.2 and love it..both for portraits and landscapes. At 1.2, the separation and rendition is beautiful; you don't need crisp corners. Stopped down, I have found it equal to the Zeiss Milvus and Sigma 85mm art both of which I rented and tested side-by-side.

The AF is not fast which is OK for portraits and landscapes; I did not find the Sigma 85mm ART AF speed to be that much faster though it is a very nice lens.

My guess is that the size of the glass elements make IS a real challenge though I don't know this..Sigma doesn't have it either and they do at other focal lengths.

while I suspect the 85mm 1.2 is due for another upgrade at some point, the number of users is small enough that they will wait awhile until we have 100mp sensors.....just a joke.


----------



## BeenThere (May 13, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > The f1.2 is a special lens that only a small percentage of photographers will want or ever buy. My guess is that Canon has probably stopped building new copies and will sell off existing stock over several years. Then, after several more years as a demand slowly builds, they may introduce a v3, or it may fade into legend.
> ...


Some parts can't be economically produced in small quantities after a time. That is why Canon cannot repair some discontinued lenses.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 13, 2017)

Would this be the quintessential example of a First World Problem? :


----------



## Ozarker (May 13, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Would this be the quintessential example of a First World Problem? :


Let's talk about that over a case of Yuengling. 

But, yeah it would be.


----------



## ahsanford (May 13, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> From what I think I have read, we may have a choice between two different 85mm L models in the near future. Or, maybe the soon to be announced 85mm f/1.4L IS won't be an L at all, but a lens that sort of bridges the gap between the 85 f/1.8 and the 85 f/1.2L II in the same way the 50 f/1.4 does for that focal length.
> 
> Is there really room for two 85mm L lenses?
> 
> ...



1) Yes, it will be L. That was a CR3 here some time ago.

2) All bets would be on this thing mopping the floor with the current f/1.2L II from a sharpness perspective. This would appear to be the Otus/Art-level super resolver, while the f/1.2L II will remain the bokeh beast.

3) I would be stunned to no end if this was a middle price point move. It will be L, so it will be pricey.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 13, 2017)

georgecpappas said:


> The [85 f/1.2L II] AF is not fast which is OK for portraits and landscapes; I did not find the Sigma 85mm ART AF speed to be that much faster though it is a very nice lens.



^^ This is one area they surely will improve. ^^ The 85 f/1.2L II has got to be one the slowest focusers in the L line. 

I see the 85 f/1.4L IS doing the following over the f/1.2L II...


Get much sharper throughout the frame to keep up with more recent Otus/Art sort of offerings (a certainty)


Get proper fast USM AF for event photographers, photojournos, etc. who don't want to miss a shot (a certainty)


Kill the focus by wire (hopefully)


I am not a video person, but as the first L 'standard' prime with IS, might there be an option to declick the lens? Nicer lenses from Zeiss have offered a manual declickability -- perhaps Canon follows suit? (Or will they try to protect pricier Cine lens offerings and withhold this feature?)
*
Notice 'get lighter' is not on that list.* Both The Otus and Art lenses have more groups/elements and weigh more than the f/1.2L II. Expect a big and stout lens.

- A


----------



## LordofTackle (May 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I am not a video person, but as the first L 'standard' prime with IS, might there be an option to declick the lens? Nicer lenses from Zeiss have offered a manual declickability -- perhaps Canon follows suit? (Or will they try to protect pricier Cine lens offerings and withhold this feature?)
> 
> - A



Not a video person either, so: what's *declickability*??

-Sebastian


----------



## ahsanford (May 14, 2017)

LordofTackle said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I am not a video person, but as the first L 'standard' prime with IS, might there be an option to declick the lens? Nicer lenses from Zeiss have offered a manual declickability -- perhaps Canon follows suit? (Or will they try to protect pricier Cine lens offerings and withhold this feature?)
> ...



https://thecinelens.com/2010/04/27/what-is-de-clicking-and-why-do-i-need-it/

(In fairness, for this new 85L to sing for videographers, it would need _an aperture ring to declick_, would it not? That's more a 3rd party lens move than Canon EF, one would think.)

- A


----------



## Ozarker (May 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > From what I think I have read, we may have a choice between two different 85mm L models in the near future. Or, maybe the soon to be announced 85mm f/1.4L IS won't be an L at all, but a lens that sort of bridges the gap between the 85 f/1.8 and the 85 f/1.2L II in the same way the 50 f/1.4 does for that focal length.
> ...



Yeah, it was and is CR3, but that could still be wrong.

I can absolutely see it being sharper, but I'm not too sure there would be much difference in bokeh unless in this case bokeh means the whole image must be inherently softer throughout. In that case bokeh just means soft. I think an image can have a tack sharp subject and still be a beast when it comes to bokeh. I hope so anyway.

I have to wonder whether or not this has more to do with overstock of 85 f/1.2L II needing to get sold while introducing a competing model with BR and IS. From what I understand the CA is horrible with the 85 f/1.2L II.

I predict a huge price drop on the 85 f/1.2L II within 6 months of this new lens introduction (Christmas?). Then, discontinuance a year later.

The choice between the two lenses will boil down to superior performance vs very discounted price. I think the new lens is going to murder the old one quickly even with a much higher price once the old lens is discounted.


----------



## smicka (May 15, 2017)

Personally, I would prefer the 85 f/1.4L IS assuming it has BR. My favorite lens at the moment is the 35 f/1.4 II - CA control is out of this world amazing and sharpness is just WOW. Seeing those improvements (or at least BR for CA) in the new 85 would be a dream come true.

I can't stand CA; although the 85 f/1.2L II is great the CA is a deal breaker for me. IS on the new 85 would be great for super-low light (weddings / receptions when shooting dual cameras equipped with primes). IS would be icing on the cake for stills but very very nice for video. I currently shoot with 85 f/1.8 (begrudgingly as it is a CA monster) and can't wait to upgrade when the new 85 comes out.

I'm also hoping the 85 f/1.4L IS is more of a 35 f/1.4 II than a 35 f/2 IS in terms of build quality.


----------



## meywd (May 16, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Well if you want ultimate sharpness, ultimate bokeh, IS and AF, then it would cost like a super white, the Otus 85mm f1.4 costs more than 4k and is manual focus, how much would Canon charge for the ultimate beast?


----------



## Sabaki (May 16, 2017)

No matter how great, no matter how legendary the 85 f/1.2 L is, there comes a time for Canon to set new standards and benchmarks.

I really do hope that they will release a version II of the /1.2 but the new 85 f/1.4 IS has to set the industry standard for an 85mm. It has to outperform the f/1.2 version for everything outside of bokeh or there is no progress and signs of what is to come.

Price...it'd be brilliant if it's priced like the 16-35 f/4.0 L IS was at launch but irrespective of that, the lens will sell and even those who complain of the price may end up with a copy in their bags


----------



## Ozarker (May 19, 2017)

bholliman said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Will there be two 85mm L lenses?
> ...



Yes, and with the BR element also. I did not realize BR wasn't being used in all new lenses.


----------



## [email protected] (May 20, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



They have not been using the Blue Goo (formerly BR) technology in all new releases. I owned the 35 II, and indeed it was something to behold. But the Blue Goo is merely a tool, and sometimes a lens design requires different tools. 

With all of the new 85mm lenses released recently, it is very possible that Canon's won't be the best. It is almost certain that if it is the best, it won't be by terribly much, as the field of competitors is simply stunning. I would not begrudge any fellow photographer their choice from among Tamron, Sigma, Zeiss, and - soon - Canon.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 20, 2017)

[email protected] said:


> They have not been using the Blue Goo (formerly BR) technology in all new releases. I owned the 35 II, and indeed it was something to behold. But the Blue Goo is merely a tool, and sometimes a lens design requires different tools.
> 
> With all of the new 85mm lenses released recently, it is very possible that Canon's won't be the best. It is almost certain that if it is the best, it won't be by terribly much, as the field of competitors is simply stunning. I would not begrudge any fellow photographer their choice from among Tamron, Sigma, Zeiss, and - soon - Canon.



The best what?

The sharpest? And what does that mean, the sharpest in the center, the sharpest in the corners, the sharpest average across the field, the sharpest at close focus, the sharpest at infinity? And that is just 'the sharpest', we could do the same for CA, bokeh, distortions etc etc. How about focus accuracy, focus speed, focus consistency. 

If we learn anything from the multitude of tests and opinions available to us nowadays, biased and less so, it is that there is no 'best' as we all have different priorities.

Personally I'd only be interested in a Canon 85 f1.4 L IS, anything else and I'll go without and that includes the Canon 1.2.


----------



## SteveM (May 20, 2017)

I'd be interested in the 85mm 1.4, assuming a reasonable price, otherwise I'll stick to the 1.8. I find the 1.8 to be ok from f2.2.


----------



## LordofTackle (May 22, 2017)

SteveM said:


> I'd be interested in the 85mm 1.4, assuming a reasonable price, otherwise I'll stick to the 1.8. I find the 1.8 to be ok from f2.2.



At least here in Germany I'm pretty sure the price will be anything but reasonable 
I'm in the market for a 85 and currently waiting for the 85 1.4 L (IS) to come out..then I will decide between it, the Siggy and the 85 1.2
But knowing me, it will probably become the rumored 85 1.4 

-Sebastian


----------



## Tapcon (May 24, 2017)

I have the 1.2 and I have a love hate relationship with it. I will gladly sell it and get the 1.4 IS in a heartbeat.


----------



## PeterAlex7 (May 27, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> From what I think I have read, we may have a choice between two different 85mm L models in the near future. Or, maybe the soon to be announced 85mm f/1.4L IS won't be an L at all, but a lens that sort of bridges the gap between the 85 f/1.8 and the 85 f/1.2L II in the same way the 50 f/1.4 does for that focal length.
> 
> Is there really room for two 85mm L lenses?
> 
> ...



I think the 85mm f/1.2L II would be the bridge between the new 85mm f/1.4L IS and the 85mm f/1.8


----------



## YuengLinger (May 27, 2017)

Ok, after a fairly important photo session where some side-lit flare, and hand shake at 1/250th impacted IQ, I'm ready to try an 85mm 1.4 IS.

Lately, something about the shape of the 1.2 has been harder for me to hold steady. Or I just had a bad day. 

Doesn't happen with my 24-70mm; with the 135mm maybe I've just been more careful, as it was problematic with shake from day one, and I worked around it with higher shutter speeds and better technique. But, as said, the shape of the "grapefruit" shape of the 1.2 seems to be more of a challenge for me now than it was four years ago when first purchased.

In any event, bring on the IS.


----------



## Ozarker (May 27, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Ok, after a fairly important photo session where some side-lit flare, and hand shake at 1/250th impacted IQ, I'm ready to try an 85mm 1.4 IS.
> 
> Lately, something about the shape of the 1.2 has been harder for me to hold steady. Or I just had a bad day.
> 
> ...


As I get older (only 54) I have noticed more shake. I'd welcome IS. Honestly, I am starting to wonder about the usefulness of anything wider than f/2.8. Especially for portraits where flash is used. Depth of field is already shallow at f/2.8, so it is really starting to make me wonder.

I know the faster f stops are useful to some. Just thinking about my own uses. For me, f/2.8 might be enough.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 27, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> As I get older (only 54) I have noticed more shake. I'd welcome IS. Honestly, I am starting to wonder about the usefulness of anything wider than f/2.8. Especially for portraits where flash is used. Depth of field is already shallow at f/2.8, so it is really starting to make me wonder.
> 
> I know the faster f stops are useful to some. Just thinking about my own uses. For me, f/2.8 might be enough.



I think apertures faster than 2.8 present quite a few options I'd not want to go without. Particularly with 30-60 year old men, it's great being able to work relatively close in and have super shallow DoF. Is 1.2 necessary? Maybe not, but until recently, it seemed that to have a very sharp 1.8-2.2, starting at 1.2 was part of the design. But newer lenses are pretty close to peak sharpness at max aperture, so I wouldn't feel I'm giving up anything mystic if a new 85 1.4 IS was sharp wide open as the 35mm 1.4 II is sharp wide open.

One of my favorite master portrait artists is George Hurrell. Something understated yet majestic about shallow DoF used properly. I know he used mostly 8x10, so I don't know precisely the 135 equivalent focal lengths are, but I see a lot of 1.8 - 2.2. Cecil Beaton, whom I also admire immensely, maybe even shallower.

I've had otherwise very good very shallow DoF images "ruined" by a hand looking like a clawish blob or an ear that looks odd when too out of focus, or a jawline that blurs into a neck with unflattering results, but I persevere and feel so happy when it all works.


----------



## Ozarker (May 28, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > As I get older (only 54) I have noticed more shake. I'd welcome IS. Honestly, I am starting to wonder about the usefulness of anything wider than f/2.8. Especially for portraits where flash is used. Depth of field is already shallow at f/2.8, so it is really starting to make me wonder.
> ...



Another truism by you.

I have the 135 f/2L and the 35 f/1.4 II. Right now I am messing up more shots than nailing. I just need to practice more.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (May 28, 2017)

Any chance the 85 f1.4 IS might accept a teleconverter? With design advances you can be sure image quality at 119 f2 would be as good or better than the old 135L. I'd sell the 135 to fund that for sure. It would be killer for gymnasium sports.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 29, 2017)

bluenoser1993 said:


> Any chance the 85 f1.4 IS might accept a teleconverter? With design advances you can be sure image quality at 119 f2 would be as good or better than the old 135L. I'd sell the 135 to fund that for sure. It would be killer for gymnasium sports.



None if past and present designs are anything to go by, and that includes new designs by third parties. Having said that that only applies to Canon TC's, don't see why third party TC's wouldn't work.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 1, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> bluenoser1993 said:
> 
> 
> > Any chance the 85 f1.4 IS might accept a teleconverter? With design advances you can be sure image quality at 119 f2 would be as good or better than the old 135L. I'd sell the 135 to fund that for sure. It would be killer for gymnasium sports.
> ...



Considering the price of the current 135mm f/2L I have no idea why anyone would want to spend the money on an 85mm lens and then put a $429 TC on it for indoor sports. Currently it doesn't work with Canon TCs anyway.

I guess third party teleconverters are less expensive, but still. Then again, it could all boil down to the individual's budget. It just doesn't make sense to me personally.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Jun 1, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > bluenoser1993 said:
> ...



I admit, reading my post again I see I didn't articulate my thoughts very well. Killer for indoor sports at f/1.4 to stop motion in volleyball, and have the ability to put the 1.4x I already own on it for the ocations I'd like to get close to the 135 focal length, still at f/2 and the benifit of IS.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 2, 2017)

bluenoser1993 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I don't know about third party teleconverters, but Canon's won't work anyway. I doubt the new 85mm will accept a teleconverter, but who knows?


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Sep 5, 2017)

Is there a case to be argued for owning both the 85mm F1.2L ii and the new 85mm F1.4?
The new F1.4 lens has some clear advantages - it is lighter (slightly), has IS, faster AF and presumably less chromatic aberration. On the other hand - although the F1.2 ii is difficult to handle it produces some remarkable images that are unlike anything I can produce with any of my other lenses.
Do I go for the F1.4 for moving subjects, outdoor use or more general photography and keep the F1.2 just for extra special studio portraits or is this just a symptom my acute GAS flaring up again?


----------



## arthurbikemad (Sep 5, 2017)

Ian_of_glos said:


> Is there a case to be argued for owning both the 85mm F1.2L ii and the new 85mm F1.4?
> The new F1.4 lens has some clear advantages - it is lighter (slightly), has IS, faster AF and presumably less chromatic aberration. On the other hand - although the F1.2 ii is difficult to handle it produces some remarkable images that are unlike anything I can produce with any of my other lenses.
> Do I go for the F1.4 for moving subjects, outdoor use or more general photography and keep the F1.2 just for extra special studio portraits or is this just a symptom my acute GAS flaring up again?



This is the question I have been asking myself.

My fear would be the new lens is so good the 1.2ii will never be used again and become worthless, or they will both have there own look and we should own both, or the 1.2ii will still be King and retain its classic look/rendition and I will have no desire for the new lens. Who knows...? Time will tell.

That said, the new 35 is just AWESOME, but then I think the reviews and test data reflect that, not sure this new 85 has hit it off like the new 35??


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 5, 2017)

I am genuinly confused about people keep talking about using IS for freezing the moment for indoor sports like valley ball. Do I miss somethjing here? The only way to "stabilise" a fast moving subject is to increase shutter speed and usually well above 1/500s. at this shutter speed therer is no need for IS at 85mm focal length.
even at 1/250s you still do not need and even at 1/125s if you shoot with a medium pixel density body.
IS is very usefull for video. 

as to the idea shooting moving subject with 85mm lens at F1.4:

I wouls suggest the DOF may be so thin that very little will be in focus at all. I mean there are some cases when you can if your object is far enough for the DOF to stay acceptably deep.

as to those special studio shots at F1.2:

not many photogs would choose to shoot wide open in studio. you need decent DOF to keep your subject in focus hence you shoot at apertures F8 and even smaller. there is no shortage of good quality light in studio. you do not need IS for that either as stobes will freese the moment for you anyway. in fact you will be better of swtiching the IS in studio off.
and finaly 85 F1.2 AF ability in low light is quite poor and some studios are quite dark.

If you shoot environmental portraiture, then F1.2 comes handy though. 





Ian_of_glos said:


> Is there a case to be argued for owning both the 85mm F1.2L ii and the new 85mm F1.4?
> The new F1.4 lens has some clear advantages - it is lighter (slightly), has IS, faster AF and presumably less chromatic aberration. On the other hand - although the F1.2 ii is difficult to handle it produces some remarkable images that are unlike anything I can produce with any of my other lenses.
> Do I go for the F1.4 for moving subjects, outdoor use or more general photography and keep the F1.2 just for extra special studio portraits or is this just a symptom my acute GAS flaring up again?


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 5, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> I am genuinly confused about people keep talking about using IS for freezing the moment for indoor sports like valley ball. Do I miss somethjing here? The only way to "stabilise" a fast moving subject is to increase shutter speed and usually well above 1/500s. at this shutter speed therer is no need for IS at 85mm focal length.
> even at 1/250s you still do not need and even at 1/125s if you shoot with a medium pixel density body.
> IS is very usefull for video.
> 
> ...



Well kinda. But you need to also factor in that the further away something is the more pronounced hand shake will be. If you've ever tried to shot a photo of the moon at 400mm without IS or a tripod you'll get me.

Then also at 1.4 the further away something is the area of focus is greater. Which is why close up portraits will blow the background but in the seats of a volleyball match the distance is beneficial.

So there's some truth in what you're hearing.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Sep 5, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> I am genuinly confused about people keep talking about using IS for freezing the moment for indoor sports like valley ball. Do I miss somethjing here? The only way to "stabilise" a fast moving subject is to increase shutter speed and usually well above 1/500s. at this shutter speed therer is no need for IS at 85mm focal length.
> even at 1/250s you still do not need and even at 1/125s if you shoot with a medium pixel density body.
> IS is very usefull for video.
> 
> ...


No - Image Stabilisation will not help with moving subjects. It simply allows you to use slower shutter speeds for hand held stills and, as you correctly point out, it is very useful for video work.
The point I was trying to make here was that the autofocus on the 85mm F1.2L is so slow that it is not possible to use it for moving subjects. The AF just cannot keep up so I never try to use my 85m F1.2L if the subject is moving. It is therefore a lens that I use mainly in the studio, for still life shots and for models that sit or stand in one place. 
Again, I rarely shoot at F1.2 because my focusing skills are just not that good and anyway, if I am shooting a portrait I usually want most of the facial features to be in focus. Occasionally I will use F1.2 to highlight a particular feature - one number on the face of a clock or an item of jewellery that the model is wearing but for general portrait work I tend to stop down to F5.6 or even F8.
So what is the point of having an F1.2 lens? Well as I said, occasionally I want to produce an arty shot where one item is in focus and everything else is blurred. However there is another, intangible quality to this lens that I simply cannot explain. It is not a lens that is technically perfect but it has produced some really lovely pictures that I could not have produced with any other lens


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Sep 5, 2017)

arthurbikemad said:


> Ian_of_glos said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a case to be argued for owning both the 85mm F1.2L ii and the new 85mm F1.4?
> ...



Let me know if you decide to buy a copy of the 85mm F1.4. I would be very interested to hear what you think of it.

Are you referring to the 35mm F1.4L ii? if so then I could not agree more. 
This lens has a remarkable quality that most of my other lenses lack and I find I am using it more and more as a general walkabout lens in preference to a zoom.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 5, 2017)

wockawocka said:


> Well kinda. But you need to also factor in that the further away something is the more pronounced hand shake will be. If you've ever tried to shot a photo of the moon at 400mm without IS or a tripod you'll get me.



yep, thats super telephoto focal length though. 85mm is not quite 400  I can handhold and get sharp images with my Sigma 120 320 Sports at the telephoto end with IS switched off on FF body at 1/500. not a hair slower. else I get shakes. the lens is kinda heavy at 3.5kg. 



> Then also at 1.4 the further away something is the area of focus is greater. Which is why close up portraits will blow the background but in the seats of a volleyball match the distance is beneficial.



yep, that I do understand perfectly hence the following statement:



> *I mean there are some cases when you can if your object is far enough for the DOF to stay acceptably deep.*



still, I would imaging 70-20 F2.8 or 120-300 F2.8 zoom would be a more versatile option for an indoor sports assignments. If you ask me what 2 of my lenses I would use on my cameras at indoor sport event:

Cam #1 : Canon 5D IV + Sigma 120-300 F2.8 Sports
Cam #2: Canon 6D + Canon 70-200 F2.8 II L


----------



## nc0b (Sep 8, 2017)

If I were shooting indoor sports, I would certainly use my 6D and 70-200mm f/2.8 II. I have no concern shooting at ISO 6400 or 12800. I do shoot indoor ballroom dancing, and it is in effect an indoor sporting event. Lots of couples on the floor, lighting usually not great, and with spin turns there is rapid motion to freeze. If I had an f/2 lens, let alone an f/1.4, I doubt I would have enough depth of field unless the couple was on the other side of the dance floor. I usually shoot at f/4 unless the lighting is just plain awful.


----------



## lucileburt (Sep 9, 2017)

Best Canon Camera Lens for Professional Photos?
Hi there, today I had a conversation with a photographer who I briefly met on a photoshoot and she suggested to buy a Sigma 50MM Lens for $120 ...She very briefly told me the details and I've tried looking them up, but have had no luck.

Instead I came across these lenses for my Canon EOS kiss x5 (T3i 600D) :
50mm ef F/1.4 USM Canon Lens
or
SIGMA 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM
Which one is better mostly? It's hard to tell, so hopefully someone who knows what they're talking about is reading this! 

I'm open to other suggestions for lenses, my aim is to get a lens that can do fantastic photography such as, portraits, modeling/whole body shots/scenic etc...., almost like studio quality. I know you get what you pay for, but I'm looking for the best in the price range for about $200 - $300 maximum. That will do professional shots for what it's worth.
Update: I just wanted to say thanks to people who have responded. I KNOW for a fact that it's the photographer and not the lens, but the lens is a tool USED to make pictures, it depends on how you use it. I know. But of course there are different lenses for different purposes. And that, is what I'm interested in knowing.


----------



## Talys (Sep 9, 2017)

lucileburt said:


> Best Canon Camera Lens for Professional Photos?
> Hi there, today I had a conversation with a photographer who I briefly met on a photoshoot and she suggested to buy a Sigma 50MM Lens for $120 ...She very briefly told me the details and I've tried looking them up, but have had no luck.
> 
> Instead I came across these lenses for my Canon EOS kiss x5 (T3i 600D) :
> ...



For 50mm value, it's pretty hard to beat the Canon 50mm 1.8. The sharpness is amazing; CA is very well controlled (much better than 50/1.4). Bokeh is very pleasing, too. And it's only a hundred bucks!

Personally, I would skip the Canon EF50/1.4. It takes lovely pictures, but the 1.8 photos are just as good in most cases, weighs a lot less, and is so cheap that it hardly matters if you somehow damage it. The only downside is no USM ring.

Also: since you're using a T3i, you probably don't want an 85mm for a whole body shot. You'd have to stand too far away from your subject. Even 50mm may be too tight; but if you want wide apertures, every other prime will cost you too much.

A zoom you might consider that is in your price range is a 18-135 Nano. It's lousy at 18 and it's lousy at 135, but it's really nice at, and around, 50mm. It might give you a lot more flexibility if you want to take upper torso, whole body, and landscapes, all within $300 than a single prime. The build quality is very good for the price, and the autofocus is extremely fast.

You can also get good isolation by getting close to your subject... just be aware that the corners are not comparable to something like a 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 -- but that might not matter if your subject is centered anyhow.

By the way, "almost like studio quality" is going to require more than a body and a lens. Lighting and environment (backdrop, the space, etc) are key, and a lot of the success will be in directing your model and using lighting to create interesting contrast. There are an endless number of light modifiers that will not only empty your wallet, but fill up your photography space


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 9, 2017)

lucileburt said:


> Best Canon Camera Lens for Professional Photos?
> Hi there, today I had a conversation with a photographer who I briefly met on a photoshoot and she suggested to buy a Sigma 50MM Lens for $120 ...She very briefly told me the details and I've tried looking them up, but have had no luck.
> 
> Instead I came across these lenses for my Canon EOS kiss x5 (T3i 600D) :
> ...



The Sigma 50 f1.4 EX is better optically than Canon 50 f1.4, but I had big problems with it's AF. The in focus pictures look very good, though. The Canon 50 f1.8 STM isn't as good optically, but is cheaper, focuses better and is lighter and smaller. All in all I believe most people will be better off with the Canon 50 f1.8 STM, but it's not a clear choice. You won't go wrong with either.


----------



## nc0b (Sep 10, 2017)

If you don't need a large aperture 50mm, don't rule out the Canon 50mm f/2.5 macro lens. It is super sharp, and has virtually no distortion. Focus is noisy, but so what, and it doesn't cost much.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 10, 2017)

Another oft-overlooked benefit of the 50mm f/2.5 compact macro is that it is one of the very few non L-lenses 
that qualifies towards CPS premium accounts.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 10, 2017)

If one is looking at the 50 f2.5, which is discontinued, have a look at the Zeiss 50 f2.0mp also, gorgeous lens, also with 1:2 macro.


----------



## mjg79 (Sep 15, 2017)

Have there been any more samples released from the 85 L IS? A quick google search didn't throw up many leads, I thought there would be some photographers Canon would have given it to to build up the hype but maybe I'm wrong.

I would love to see a head to head comparison with it and the 1.2 II.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 15, 2017)

mjg79 said:


> Have there been any more samples released from the 85 L IS? A quick google search didn't throw up many leads, I thought there would be some photographers Canon would have given it to to build up the hype but maybe I'm wrong.
> 
> I would love to see a head to head comparison with it and the 1.2 II.



+1, i can't find anything else than what was first released...


----------



## hne (Sep 15, 2017)

Viggo said:


> mjg79 said:
> 
> 
> > Have there been any more samples released from the 85 L IS? A quick google search didn't throw up many leads, I thought there would be some photographers Canon would have given it to to build up the hype but maybe I'm wrong.
> ...



I want some reasonably useful test pictures too. Something that says anything about the quality you can expect from this lens. I've got an offer on a used 1.2 II for $900 and would really like to know what way to go.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 15, 2017)

Viggo said:


> mjg79 said:
> 
> 
> > Have there been any more samples released from the 85 L IS? A quick google search didn't throw up many leads, I thought there would be some photographers Canon would have given it to to build up the hype but maybe I'm wrong.
> ...



I dare say that all the early photos we'll see after the "unboxing" vids...will be lots of ducks...in a pond...


----------



## JRPhotos (Sep 16, 2017)

My Canon 85 1.2L II is up for sale, I want to get the 1.4.


----------



## dolina (Sep 28, 2017)

If you find yourself stopping down to 1.4 then the 1.4L IS would be my choice.


----------



## tron (Sep 28, 2017)

hne said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > mjg79 said:
> ...


I believe $900 is very good price for 85 1.2 II to ignore.


----------



## -1 (Sep 28, 2017)

dolina said:


> If you find yourself stopping down to 1.4 then the 1.4L IS would be my choice.


But then you won't have 1.2...


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 28, 2017)

Ian_of_glos said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > I am genuinly confused about people keep talking about using IS for freezing the moment for indoor sports like valley ball. Do I miss somethjing here? The only way to "stabilise" a fast moving subject is to increase shutter speed and usually well above 1/500s. at this shutter speed therer is no need for IS at 85mm focal length.
> ...



I would suggest that one can use a 1.2 or 1.4 aperture for outdoor sporting events if one is parallel to the action and you want to Pan the subject to create blur (requiring slower shutter-speeds and native (low) ISO - just prefocus manually at the distance the subject will be from you...think horse racing, NASCAR, any type of event where you want to isolate the subject and create background blur. As long as you are 50 or more feet from the object, the DOF, even at 1.2 should be sufficient to capture proper focus. At the end of the day, I think both of these two 85mm offerings from Canon will appeal to pro's with slightly different needs. I can't imagine the new lens beating the rendering that the 1.2 has. In fact, the only other lens(es) that comes close (or may exceed, depending on personal preference) is the Zeiss Otus 85mm 1.4 and the new Zeiss Milvus 85mm 1.4. See Brian's review at TDP or Dustin Abbott's reviews.

The new 1.4 from Canon will definitely have a market - I'm guessing it will have a balance between the uber sharpness of the Sigma 85 Art and the rendering of the current 1.2 from Canon. And even Sigma here has begun to deliver more with the overall rendering from their Art series - especially with the brand new 135mm.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 28, 2017)

The new 1.4 from Canon will definitely have a market - I'm guessing it will have a balance between the uber sharpness of the Sigma 85 Art and the rendering of the current 1.2 from Canon. And even Sigma here has begun to deliver more with the overall rendering from their Art series - especially with the brand new 135mm.
[/quote]

The Sigma Art 135mm is alleged to be one of the sharpest lenses on the planet (see lenstip review). I don't own the lens, but if this is true, then Sigma did not give up any sharpness to achieve the overall rendering of this lens. Canon on the other hand may be willing to sacrifice some sharpness for other lens qualities (like weight).


----------



## mjg79 (Oct 2, 2017)

I googled this lens again to see if we have had any updates and found this video from August:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujXKLUD9OuI

Is that Vietnamese? Can anyone here translate?

I found no updates or sample images - I still find it strange that we aren't seeing more hype. There was definitely more hype of the 35L II with some samples appearing on flickr etc. but I can't find anything for this lens. I am beginning to think Canon might have been honest when they said that this isn't intended to replace the 85/1.2 as the flagship. That might explain why the price wasn't as over-the-top as many expected and of course the price it starts at will decline after a while. 

The question has to be whether the price being lower than expected is simply because 1.4 is so much easier to build than 1.2 or whether they have cut corners somewhere else. I struggle to imagine an L lens in such a popular focal length, one with IS too, that surely Canon will be hoping to sell huge numbers to wedding photographers and other professionals, will be anything less than amazing. But if that's so it still seems odd that they are continuing to sell the 1.2 (and at a higher price than the new lens) and aren't showing off more samples from the new lens.

I suppose we will know soon enough!


----------



## Viggo (Oct 2, 2017)

mjg79 said:


> I googled this lens again to see if we have had any updates and found this video from August:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujXKLUD9OuI
> 
> ...


I absolutely think can mean to sell it in between the two other 85's, the price alone is proof of that. A new top 85 would be more expensive. 

I also wonder why there is no info other than the initial stuff. I'm buying one, but the wait gets crazy long when I have anything to check out while I'm waiting ;D


----------



## mjg79 (Oct 2, 2017)

Viggo said:


> I absolutely think can mean to sell it in between the two other 85's, the price alone is proof of that. A new top 85 would be more expensive.
> 
> I also wonder why there is no info other than the initial stuff. I'm buying one, but the wait gets crazy long when I have anything to check out while I'm waiting ;D



That makes sense but I still struggle with something - given the advances that we have seen in lenses over the last decade and combined with the fact it should be easier to make a better corrected 1.4 lens than a 1.2 lens, I think it's a fair bet the new 85 1.4 will be in virtually every sense superior to the old lens - it should have less chromatic aberration, much much faster focus, IS, sharper corners - it strikes me the only real downside will be going from 1.2 to 1.4 but that won't make any visible difference. So all that begs the question - who will buy the 1.2 lens for the higher price? I would expect their sales to collapse.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 2, 2017)

mjg79 said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > I absolutely think can mean to sell it in between the two other 85's, the price alone is proof of that. A new top 85 would be more expensive.
> ...



I read somewhere that the 1.2 is sharper stopped down and the 1.4 is sharper wide open. but how they compare at f1.4 and f2.0 (where I'll be using it) doesn't seem all that clear. 

I have no doubt, color, contrast will be better with the 1.4, but what I'm really hoping for is no distortion and a very minimal vignetting. And bokeh is a question still...


----------



## mjg79 (Oct 3, 2017)

Viggo said:


> I read somewhere that the 1.2 is sharper stopped down and the 1.4 is sharper wide open. but how they compare at f1.4 and f2.0 (where I'll be using it) doesn't seem all that clear.
> 
> I have no doubt, color, contrast will be better with the 1.4, but what I'm really hoping for is no distortion and a very minimal vignetting. And bokeh is a question still...



Interesting to hear what others hope for - distortion and vignetting never even come into my mind with a fast 85 but just shows how many different sides to lens design there are.

The bokeh and rendering issue is likely to be the big one especially as so many wedding photographers etc love the 85L though again, unless the new 85L IS has a really ugly rendering, which seems unlikely, I suspect that autofocus performance and sharpness at 1.4 will win out. 

We saw that with the Sigma 50 Art - it was sharper than the old "Sigmalux" 50/1.4 but lost the lovely bokeh and rendering of the old lens but that didn't stop people from buying it.

I really think this is a fascinating situation and it will be interesting to see what the outcome is. Ultimately I suspect the new 85 is to be the flagship and the 85/1.2 will just be sold until stock runs out. However if Canon genuinely intends to keep selling both with the old lens being quite a bit more expensive it strikes me as quite unusual. I wonder if there might then be a 85 1.2 III if Canon now sees a market for two different fast 85s.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 3, 2017)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > mjg79 said:
> ...



What the duck???!!!


----------



## Viggo (Oct 3, 2017)

mjg79 said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > I read somewhere that the 1.2 is sharper stopped down and the 1.4 is sharper wide open. but how they compare at f1.4 and f2.0 (where I'll be using it) doesn't seem all that clear.
> ...



To me distortion and rendering go hand in hand. If I correct distortion, the pop just disappears and the shot goes flat. So I buy lenses with the least amounts of disortion as possible. 
Vignetting doesn't really matter in portraits as I normally shoot with my own light and at iso 100 so correcting doesn't damage the shot. But in low light where I REALLY need all the light I can get, heavy vignette ruins the corners.


----------



## mjg79 (Oct 20, 2017)

Viggo said:


> To me distortion and rendering go hand in hand. If I correct distortion, the pop just disappears and the shot goes flat. So I buy lenses with the least amounts of disortion as possible.
> Vignetting doesn't really matter in portraits as I normally shoot with my own light and at iso 100 so correcting doesn't damage the shot. But in low light where I REALLY need all the light I can get, heavy vignette ruins the corners.



I hadn't really thought of it in that way though thinking back I have noticed it - I have a copy of the Samyang 14mm 2.8 and the distortion is very odd - in most cases I leave it but when I have tried to correct it it does seem to diminish the photo.

Here we are 2/3 through October and I still can't find any new samples online. I really thought a new 85 L would see Canon really using a lot of famous photographer to drive up hype but still nothing. I still find it hard to believe this will be anything less than a great lens but I'm beginning to think they really are going to keep the 1.2 II as the flagship (I know they had said that but I assumed that was just empty words while they ran down the stock).


----------



## Viggo (Oct 20, 2017)

mjg79 said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > To me distortion and rendering go hand in hand. If I correct distortion, the pop just disappears and the shot goes flat. So I buy lenses with the least amounts of disortion as possible.
> ...



Yeah, the Samyang has the dreaded moustach distortion, saw that somewhat with the Zeiss 21 also, I would rather have barrel distortion tbh.

I’m also a bit puzzled that there’s still nothing new, I don’t get it....


----------



## mjg79 (Oct 21, 2017)

Viggo said:


> Yeah, the Samyang has the dreaded moustach distortion, saw that somewhat with the Zeiss 21 also, I would rather have barrel distortion tbh.
> 
> I’m also a bit puzzled that there’s still nothing new, I don’t get it....



I suppose at least with those two they are usually used for landscapes so it's less of an issue.

With the 35L II Canon released some quite decent official sample images at the end of August for the release in mid October so about 6 weeks before. I had thought it was earlier than that but I just googled it. I believe the 85L IS is expected mid November so they certainly are a bit later/slower this time.

I am probably just being impatient. The 85L was the key reason I ended up shooting Canon. I think it's an astonishing lens with a beautiful rendering. So the thought of Canon making a modern 85 and with IS really is exciting. Strangely I would have been happier if it was more expensive, sure then they were aiming at creating the best 85 they could. The fact it comes priced below the 1.2 II still makes me wonder what their strategy is. A brief glance on eBay suggests the 1.2 II's values are dropping fast and that was to be expected. I doubt I will ever sell mine unless the 1.4 really offers a better rendering, which I do think is possible - 1.2 v 1.4 is invisible in most circumstances. I don't think I've felt this excited about a new lens release before so I really just want some nice, high-res samples to look at!


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 31, 2017)

Viggo said:


> mjg79 said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Hi Viggo,
I have the 35mm f/1.4L II and the DOF is soooooo shallow (thin?). That is the fastest lens I have and the only one faster than f/2. I can't imagine how shallow the DOF is on an 85 f/1.4. I assume the DOF is even thinner than that of the 35mm.

I'd like to ask: If you use the 85mm for portraits do you shoot wide open? How far back do you need to stand at that f stop. This just fascinates me. All my camera gear has shipped out of state since right after I got the 35mm so I have not had much time to check out a DOF that thin. I'll be reunited with my gear in December, so I can have some fun then.

Thanks!


----------



## Viggo (Oct 31, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > mjg79 said:
> ...



I mainly shoot wide open and often up close. I’ve shot plenty with the 200 f2 at 1.9 meters, just love it. Kids tend to have less depth in the face, so I don’t have to go that far back to have the nose and both eyes sharp. But I also like to frame quite wide with 85 and 200 wide open


----------



## James Larsen (Nov 1, 2017)

I'd personally go with the new 85mm f/1.4 with the IS. I find the IS, new design and build, and better focusing to be bigger advantages then the 1/3 stop of light.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 1, 2017)

Viggo,

200mm lens at F2.0 and 1.9 meters to subject will produce DoF of only 5 millimeters in front of the focal plain and 6 millimeters behind. 11 millimeters total DoF. there is no chance in getting anything in focus with such a thin DoF unless you shoot _flat_ subject. 




Viggo said:


> I mainly shoot wide open and often up close. I’ve shot plenty with the 200 f2 at 1.9 meters, just love it. Kids tend to have less depth in the face, so I don’t have to go that far back to have the nose and both eyes sharp. But I also like to frame quite wide with 85 and 200 wide open


----------



## Viggo (Nov 1, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Viggo,
> 
> 200mm lens at F2.0 and 1.9 meters to subject will produce DoF of only 5 millimeters in front of the focal plain and 6 millimeters behind. 11 millimeters total DoF. there is no chance in getting anything in focus with such a thin DoF unless you shoot _flat_ subject.
> 
> ...



«Anything”, isn’t quite right though. 1,1 cm dof is plenty for me. But at that distance I don’t shoot traditional portraits either. Same thing with the Zeiss 100 f2 at “macro-distances” it’s very unique, perhaps not for everybody, but I don’t shoot for everybody ;D


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 1, 2017)

got it. makes sense then 



Viggo said:


> it’s very unique, perhaps not for everybody, but I don’t shoot for everybody ;D


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 1, 2017)

The 85mm 1.4 I'm sure is a great lens but it will never be special.
The 1.2 is harder to use, slow focusing etc but when it's good it's special.
It's such a specialised focal length.
If you want a good 85mm lens buy a 70-200mm F2.8 - it's more flexible.
If you want something special buy the 1.2 (but it will frustrated from time to time).


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 1, 2017)

it is more flexible but massive 2 full stops slower. there is an important reason why many wedding togs shoot with 35 F1.4 and 85 F1.4 combo. it allows you to shoot at ISO less than 3200 instead of 10000+ and being a well stabilised lens, it will allow me to slow my shutter speed by additional half a stop at least.. priceless...
85 F1.2 is a fine lens with less than optimal low light AF abilities. 



Hector1970 said:


> The 85mm 1.4 I'm sure is a great lens but it will never be special.
> The 1.2 is harder to use, slow focusing etc but when it's good it's special.
> It's such a specialised focal length.
> *If you want a good 85mm lens buy a 70-200mm F2.8 - it's more flexible.*
> If you want something special buy the 1.2 (but it will frustrated from time to time).


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 1, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> it is more flexible but massive 2 full stops slower. there is an important reason why many wedding togs shoot with 35 F1.4 and 85 F1.4 combo. it allows you to shoot at ISO less than 3200 instead of 10000+ and being a well stabilised lens, it will allow me to slow my shutter speed by additional half a stop at least.. priceless...
> 85 F1.2 is a fine lens with less than optimal low light AF abilities.
> 
> 
> ...



Good point! Most people pick a zoom lens due to it’s flexibility. Personally, I often appreciate the aperture flexibility in a prime, over the focal length flexibility that I get from a zoom. Therefore, I will often choose a 35 f1.4 or 50 f1.2, over a 24-70 f2.8 zoom. 

What’s more important to you? Aperture or focal length flexibility?


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 1, 2017)

Maybe it's different in different countries but I happen to know a lot of wedding photographers as I do abit of it myself self but the most common combinations here are 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8.
They may carry a fast lens like a 35/50/85 but the bulk of the shots are taken with the zooms.
You certainly wouldn't pick the 85 1.2 as a first choice if you are doing normal wedding but if you had a couple who had some patience you'd get unique photos.




8


SecureGSM said:


> it is more flexible but massive 2 full stops slower. there is an important reason why many wedding togs shoot with 35 F1.4 and 85 F1.4 combo. it allows you to shoot at ISO less than 3200 instead of 10000+ and being a well stabilised lens, it will allow me to slow my shutter speed by additional half a stop at least.. priceless...
> 85 F1.2 is a fine lens with less than optimal low light AF abilities.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## scottgoh (Nov 2, 2017)

i got myself a second 85L 1.2 because its so good at low light


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 2, 2017)

scottgoh said:


> i got myself a second 85L 1.2 because* its so good at low light*


----------



## edoorn (Nov 2, 2017)

From my first findings, the AF speed of the new 1.4 smokes the 1.2.

Seems to be accurate too, also in low light (need to do further testing).

For events and such this might be of concern.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 2, 2017)

edoorn said:


> From my first findings, the AF speed of the new 1.4 smokes the 1.2.
> 
> Seems to be accurate too, also in low light (need to do further testing).
> 
> For events and such this might be of concern.



Thanks for confirming the AF, I think many of us are expecting a 35L II in the 85mm focal length _optically_, but lost in the mix I personally presumed a much much faster AF over the rather famously slow (vs. other USM lenses) f/1.2L II. 

LR's Roger Cicala pointed out that a nice use for an 85 prime is indoor sports -- basketball, v'ball and such -- and he always recommended the 85 f/1.8 USM over the f/1.2L II solely because of the AF speed differences. 

- A


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 2, 2017)

thank you for sharing this information. is there any chance that you will be able to take a photo of an open book close up and angled?
I am curious to know how bad CA level really is? here is an example ( by Dustin Abbott)








edoorn said:


> From my first findings, the AF speed of the new 1.4 smokes the 1.2.
> 
> Seems to be accurate too, also in low light (need to do further testing).
> 
> For events and such this might be of concern.


----------



## edoorn (Nov 2, 2017)

I'll see what I can do today! Using it on a group portrait assignment later this morning. 

AF seems to be top tier level, more like 35 II than 85 1.8. That's the reason I got it. The Tammy I have is no slouch but lacks in pure AF speed (in particular tracking) and low light accuracy.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 2, 2017)

many thanks. outer AF points accuracy is another important factor. Sigma 85 Art is quite accurately focusing with central AF point but is a total mess with outer AF points on 5D IV body.


----------



## edoorn (Nov 2, 2017)

yeah I've heard that from a fellow pro photog who had the sigma (now has the tamron but wants this one). I played with his lens for a morning and although sharpness is great and center AF generally fine, I experienced issues with outer point too. 

From my very initial findings, this 85 does great on outer points. 

edit: added tripod wide open shot of Canon vs Tamron (focussed in LV, 2 second timer and adjusted shutter for 1.8 vs 1.4 - 100% crop with my default LR preset and sharpening; Canon of course has not yet a lens correction profile yet)


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 2, 2017)

thank you very much. yeah.. a fair amount of LoCA present in Canon image. 



edoorn said:


> edit: added tripod wide open shot of Canon vs Tamron (focussed in LV, 2 second timer and adjusted shutter for 1.8 vs 1.4 - 100% crop with my default LR preset and sharpening; Canon of course has not yet a lens correction profile yet)


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 2, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> thank you very much. yeah.. a fair amount of LoCA present in Canon image.



No, not for an f1.4 wide open and without a lens profile.

And again, it is very easily removed.


----------



## edoorn (Nov 2, 2017)

I don't know much about the technical stuff, but the LoCA is what you see in the letters, the slight purple cast? To be fair, the Tamron doesnt show this, also when lens profile correction is off. However, manually setting the defringe amount in LR to a setting of 1 eliminates it.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 2, 2017)

edoorn said:


> I don't know much about the technical stuff, but the LoCA is what you see in the letters, the slight purple cast? To be fair, the Tamron doesnt show this, also when lens profile correction is off. However, manually setting the defringe amount in LR to a setting of 1 eliminates it.



How close was these shot? For example using the 50 L up close is horrible, but much better at a bit of distance.

So, it doesn’t seem that great then?


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 2, 2017)

F1.8 was the shutter speed, apparently:

...adjusted shutter for 1.8 vs 1.4...

but you are right, correctable. but here is this bit:

"... There is pretty massive difference between the amount of purple fringing on the Sigma 85 Art compared to the Tamron 85 VC, and *as a result the Sigma results look softer even though it is technically sharper.* This is also *bad news* for wedding photographers – all of those shiny surfaces you want to shoot at shallow depth of field are definitely going to show some CA. While just clicking the “Remove Chromatic Aberrations” box didn’t remove the CA, I was able to use the eyedropper and successfully clear it up. *There is some resulting loss of contrast, though, which makes the end result suffer when compared to the Tamron result*. You can see the comparison before correction with the Tamron, the comparison of the result before correction with the corrected image, and then a final comparison with the Tamron that illustrates the loss of contrast due to the correction of the CA...."

and

"... I also followed up the CA test by shooting text and comparing it with a similar shot taken with the Otus 85mm. The purple fringing is clearly evident, and I feel that it is robbing the lens of some “micro contrast”, which I feel is backed up in my field results..."

and

"... Frankly, *I’m disappointed* after more closely examining these issues. It seems strange that such a huge lens would actually come up a bit short in focal length (_A.M.: 83mm instead of 85mm, big deal apparently_) , *and equally strange that a lens so clearly designed around optical performance would have so much chromatic aberration*. ...

and finally Otus 85 vs Sigma 85 Art.

now replace "Sigma 85 Art" with "Canon 85 F1.4 IS" and apparently LoCA level does matter. At least according to Dustin Abbott review. Dustin is disappointed, he felt Sigma 85 Art is somewhat compromised due LoCA levels while they are still correctable. yes, correctable but at cost of IQ loss - that what Dustin said. right?

Does the statement of Dustin "strange that a lens so clearly designed around optical performance would have so much chromatic aberration" still applies to Canon 85 F1.4 IS? I believe it does. Canon is also twice more expensive : Sigma at A$1,050 (with discount) vs Canon 85 F1.4 IS at over A$2,000

I am not saying that Canon isn't an excellent lens. I am saying : not a clear winner in my book. that's all.


https://dustinabbott.net/2016/12/sigma-85mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-review/








privatebydesign said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > thank you very much. yeah.. a fair amount of LoCA present in Canon image.
> ...


----------



## edoorn (Nov 2, 2017)

I guess then there is no 85 winner at all and it’s a compromise. But as someone that has used about all autofocussing 85’s (canon 85 1.2 II, canon 1.8, old sigma 1.4 and sigma art, tamron 1.8 vc and now this) I think this might the best allrounder yet


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 2, 2017)

edoorn said:


> I guess then there is no 85 winner at all and it’s a compromise. But as someone that has used about all autofocussing 85’s (canon 85 1.2 II, canon 1.8, old sigma 1.4 and sigma art, tamron 1.8 vc and now this) I think this might the best allrounder yet



+1 _in theory_ but I'll wait for reviews.

On paper, the new one should win on a host of fronts (sharpness, having IS, much faster AF, mechanical manual focusing, etc.) while the magic / bokeh / light falloff may remain better with the f/1.2L II. But we need reviews to suss that out. 

But if that turns out to be the case, most of us should choose the new one over the old one (if money is no object):

Dedicated portraiture with ample time to chimp, adjust, etc. --> f/1.2L II (or the 85 Otus?)
Bokeh fanatic enthusiasts who say things like "You only buy this to shoot it wide open" : --> f1/2.L II
Video --> f/1.4L IS
Events --> f/1.4L IS
Weddings --> f/1.4L IS
Sports (pretty rare need for a prime like this, but if you did) -- f/1.4L IS
Reportage --> couldn't tell you
Product --> couldn't tell you (do folks _use_ non-tilt-shift / non-macro 85-90 primes for product?)
Street --> f/1.4L IS
Landscape --> either (or neither, honestly, a zoom would be more useful and just as sharp at landscape apertures)

- A

(P.S. Sorry if this is a repost to this thread, forgot if I posted this here before.)


----------



## edoorn (Nov 2, 2017)

Well, for me personally not just in theory but in practice - having used them all now. 

YMMV as you already say. For people shooting only portraits the 1.2 look might be a reason to get that, and for others seeking a fair balance in price vs performance the Tamron, for instance. Or for a bit more, a great sigma art copy that is working fine AF-wise (there sure seem to be copies out there)

I think this lens is indeed targeted at those shooting events, weddings, etc. It would have been great if the lens would have had the BR optics like the 35 but I can live with it and clean up CA in post. Just wonder why they didn't add it..cost?


----------



## Jopa (Nov 2, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> edoorn said:
> 
> 
> > I guess then there is no 85 winner at all and it’s a compromise. But as someone that has used about all autofocussing 85’s (canon 85 1.2 II, canon 1.8, old sigma 1.4 and sigma art, tamron 1.8 vc and now this) I think this might the best allrounder yet
> ...



_Y U NO_ mention the Sigma 85A? It's not worse than the Otus 85 (the CA is correctable).


----------



## Jopa (Nov 2, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> and finally Otus 85 vs Sigma 85 Art.
> 
> now replace "Sigma 85 Art" with "Canon 85 F1.4 IS" and apparently LoCA level does matter. At least according to Dustin Abbott review. Dustin is disappointed, he felt Sigma 85 Art is somewhat compromised due LoCA levels while they are still correctable. yes, correctable but at cost of IQ loss - that what Dustin said. right?
> 
> Does the statement of Dustin "strange that a lens so clearly designed around optical performance would have so much chromatic aberration" still applies to Canon 85 F1.4 IS? I believe it does. Canon is also twice more expensive : Sigma at A$1,050 (with discount) vs Canon 85 F1.4 IS at over A$2,000



The Otus is nice, but it's a real pain to shoot it even on a Sony body (with focus peaking + IBIS). I pretty much never use it after getting the Sigma. I feel if I get this Canon I will probably give up the Sigma: IS + fast and reliable AF = convenience. No one wants to have extra pain if it can be avoided IMHO.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 2, 2017)

Jopa said:


> _Y U NO_ mention the Sigma 85A? It's not worse than the Otus 85 (the CA is correctable).



Yeah, I regret even putting the Otus down as this rebuttal would be inevitable. 

If you need AF and it cannot miss, it's a choice between the two Ls. If you don't, the Sigma Art should 100% be considered.

- A


----------



## Jopa (Nov 2, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > _Y U NO_ mention the Sigma 85A? It's not worse than the Otus 85 (the CA is correctable).
> ...



True. Also, it could be just me - but I had quite a few misses with the 85II. I think the AF motor just couldn't keep up...


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 2, 2017)

Jopa said:


> True. Also, it could be just me - but I had quite a few misses with the 85II. I think the AF motor just couldn't keep up...



I'm not saying an large aperture L lens _won't ever_ miss. But Canon lens' AF routines/communication with Canon bodies surely is more reliable/consistent/responsive than third party offerings. 

I welcome an AF hit rate and AF speed test of any and all 85 primes on a Canon body. I'll be brave and say the new 85 f/1.4L IS will will be top of the heap on both fronts (speed for sure, accuracy/consistency we'll have to see).

- A


----------



## awair (Nov 18, 2017)

*Review*
I may have missed a few posts in the discussion since it started, so I'll stick to factual observations in my mini-review/first impressions.

*Background*
I picked up my lens in Sydney yesterday, it had been shipped in earlier in the day. I had hoped to 'test' the lens in store, before 'deciding' to buy, but the truth is I had already decided several months ago when I first heard about launch - despite already owning the 1.2.

The store denied the request to try the lens before purchase. A little unusual, but I would rather that no-one else is allowed to try 'my' lens before I buy it.

*Equipment*
I brought my 1DC with me on this trip, along with the 85/1.2. The 1DC is fitted with an L-bracket. This is not a travel combination!

*Ergonomics*
I have always found the 1D/1.2 combination awkward to hold, and a little un-balanced. This isn't helped by the L-bracket, but that's not the sole cause. In contrast, the 85/1.2 on the 6D felt much better.

With the 1.4 being significantly longer, and uniform diameter, this is a much better combination (for me) on the 1D series. It's also considerably easier to mount than the 1.2.

The pouch LP-1219(?), same model as the the 1.2, has a noticeably larger aperture - which actually makes it usable! Returning the 1.2 & hood to the pouch was always a real fiddle.

Whether it was the ergonomics, or the shoot, I have hardly used the 1.2 in the 2 years I have owned my ’dream' lens.

*Auto-Focus*
I have not taken enough images yet to genuinely determine an improvement, but it does feel to be a massive improvement, which I will need for indoor sports. This was the main reason for my upgrade.

*Image Quality*
Again I don't have enough samples to determine the 'better' lens, but I am attaching some samples and will link the original RAW for those who wish to peep!

*Caveat*
The shots wil the 1.4 were taken first, and the camera/lens combo was easy to hold.
The shots with the 1.2 were up to 30 minutes later, and I had a little difficulty holding steady.
Also the 1.2 needs(?) AFMA, which I applied after the aircraft shot...
... and it seems I didn't stand in exactly the same place for the comparison shots...
No tripod was used in the execution of what was intended to be a private review.

*Summary*
I would be hard pushed to pick between these images, but ergonomically the 1.4 is the winner.

I expect that IS performance and AF acquisition will push me to sell the 1.2 without remorse.


----------



## awair (Nov 18, 2017)

85/1.2 @ 1.2


----------



## awair (Nov 18, 2017)

85/1.2 @ 1.4


----------



## awair (Nov 18, 2017)

85/1.4


----------



## awair (Nov 18, 2017)

85/1.2 (before AFMA)


----------



## awair (Nov 18, 2017)

That's it from me for now, it seems the iPad doesn't allow me to submit smaller images. Sorry if this slows down your browsing.

Since these are full-res, I won't post the RAW except on request.

These images are all straight from the camera, manual exposure with Auto-ISO. Metering is from active AF spot.

Apart from a hint of camera-shake(?) with the 1.2, I think they provide a reasonable illustration of quality, but if you are a 1.2L owner even thinking of the 1.4, I would say go ahead! If you disagree - my 1.2 will be available 

Hope this helps.


----------



## awair (Nov 28, 2017)

Used the 85 on my 2nd camera at a recent gala - it's a great addition as a sports lens!

[Cropped only to meet the 5MB posting limit.]


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 5, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Canon is also twice more expensive : Sigma at A$1,050 (with discount) vs Canon 85 F1.4 IS at over A$2,000



Isn't the Canon $1,599?  That's before any future rebates, bundles, and sales. I would take the Canon all day long at that price differential. 

Does anyone know whether the Sigma suffers from mirror box clipping like the Canon does?


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 5, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is also twice more expensive : Sigma at A$1,050 (with discount) vs Canon 85 F1.4 IS at over A$2,000
> ...



Updated that for you, for emphasis. Not everyone is granted the tasty new product pricing we enjoy in the States.

- A


----------



## hne (Dec 5, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Does anyone know whether the Sigma suffers from mirror box clipping like the Canon does?



It does.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 5, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > SecureGSM said:
> ...



At today's exchange rate (AU vs US) the $2,099 lens in Australia = $1,597 USD. The Sigma is far less money there compared to here if their price is converted to USD. So not as tasty as one might think. Though in Australian $ the difference is double. I would still take the Canon.

Their per capita income is also much higher. But, means nothing for this discussion.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 5, 2017)

The difference between the Art and 85 IS here is 423 USD, which I consider a very small difference.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 5, 2017)

Viggo said:


> The difference between the Art and 85 IS here is 423 USD, which I consider a very small difference.



It’s a reasonable price to pay for AF you can rely on for off-center large aperture work. 

(The same logic applies for getting the 35L II over the 35 Art)

- A


----------



## Viggo (Dec 5, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > The difference between the Art and 85 IS here is 423 USD, which I consider a very small difference.
> ...



And weather sealing, IS , and 3d pop 

The difference between the 35 Art and the 35 L II is 1700 USD here ;D


----------



## bereninga (Dec 6, 2017)

Viggo said:


> The difference between the Art and 85 IS here is 423 USD, which I consider a very small difference.



A very small difference? It's like 35% more for the 85 IS vs the Art. That's not that small.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 6, 2017)

bereninga said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > The difference between the Art and 85 IS here is 423 USD, which I consider a very small difference.
> ...



Actually it’s more like 29% and considering what I get more with the Canon it’s no brainer for me at least.


----------



## kaihp (Dec 6, 2017)

Viggo said:


> The difference between the Art and 85 IS here is 423 USD, which I consider a very small difference.


Interesting. When comparing Norwegian vs Danish prices, 85A is more expensive (+23.4USD), and the 85L is less expensive (-113.5USD), which makes the difference here climb to 553USD.

Still, the price difference for the 85L won't pay for a trip with the boat up to Oslo to buy it.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 6, 2017)

kaihp said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > The difference between the Art and 85 IS here is 423 USD, which I consider a very small difference.
> ...



From me to Hirtshals with car it’s around 10-15 dollars ;D


----------



## kaihp (Dec 6, 2017)

Viggo said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...


Ah, that doesn't include a bunk because it's a daytrip right? Copenhagen-Oslo is an overnight trip and the bunks are a ripoff. It's probably cheaper to take Norwegian to Gardermoen than the DFDS boat. Or just drive up there.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 7, 2017)

kaihp said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > kaihp said:
> ...



Yup! Used to live in Oslo, and I’ve done more trips to Denmark in a year now than a life time from Oslo, lol. Sometimes we just take a daytrip just to eat at “Flammen“ ;D

I think we went off topic here


----------



## LiveBackwoods (Dec 13, 2017)

Just got the 85mm 1.4 IS a week ago. Amazing for video and sharp at 1.4. Never had the other version though.


----------



## JRPhotos (Jan 18, 2018)

I'm late to the thread but am really happy with my lens, 85 1.4 ISL. It's much sharper then my 85 1.2II and much faster. I haven't had too much opportunities yet to use it for portraits, mostly just playing around with it right now. I could never get this much detail out of my 1.2II in a photograph such as this:






https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4660/39053423814_b0e3c9f12a_k.jpg
Shot @ 1.4, I used Canon's DPP Lens tool to sharpen.


----------



## mariuspavel (Jan 27, 2018)

Hi. All I can say... this is a superb lens. Leave aside super comparation between this one and Sigma or Zeiss. This is the best one for me at least.
You can see some pictures here with my daughter and Canon 85 1.4 L IS + 5D4.
https://www.mariuspavel.ro/sedinta-foto-bebe-craciun-brasov/


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 23, 2019)

I know this is an old story. I purchased the EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM and shot with in on Saturday along with the EF 85mm f1.2L II. 
Its so much better at focusing and that image stabiliser really improves the keeper rate when shooting with models. The bokeh is different to the f1.2L but still a really nice look. Add in the lighter weight (although it is not a light lens) and its hard to think about using the f1.2L over the 1.4L. 
It really is a prefect portrait lens.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 23, 2019)

1.4 to 1.2 is only 33% brighter and at 85mm there's not much difference in bokeh.

Considering how poor the old 85L mkii was and considering how heavy the RF85 is I'm sticking with my 1.4 IS.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 23, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> 1.4 to 1.2 is only 33% brighter and at 85mm there's not much difference in bokeh.



If T stops are proportional, I guess.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 23, 2019)

I still love my 85mm 1.2 II. Yes its tricky on the focusing on 1.2 but results are great when it hits the mark. 
I think it makes you more careful about taking the photograph.
With care and attention its sharp. I've found it extremely sharp with flash.
For reliability and accuracy the 70-200mm 2.8 II is a great lens for portraits. I use it when it has to work.
When I have a little more flexibility and need to be creative I choose the 85MM 1.2 II.


----------

