# Specifications & Images of the Upcoming Canon Lenses



## wockawocka (Aug 24, 2017)

Ta daaa!


----------



## hne (Aug 24, 2017)

*Re: And here's the new 85mm 1.4L IS*

Same japanese website lists:

Lens construction: 10 groups 14 pieces (1 aspherical lens)
Coating: ASC, fluorine coating
Number of diaphragm blades: 9 (circular diaphragm)
Shortest shooting distance: 85 cm
Maximum shooting magnification: 0.12 times
Filter diameter: 77 mm
Maximum diameter × length: φ88.6 × 105.4 mm
Weight: Approximately 950 g
Image stabilization effect: about 4 steps
Ring type USM


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 24, 2017)

*Re: And here's the new 85mm 1.4L IS*



hne said:


> Same japanese website lists:
> 
> Lens construction: 10 groups 14 pieces (1 aspherical lens)
> Coating: ASC, fluorine coating
> ...



Which is 'almost' the same size as the 85L. but 120grams lighter. Definitely not a monster the Sigmas 1.4 is. (Thankfully).


----------



## NorbR (Aug 24, 2017)

*Re: And here's the new 85mm 1.4L IS*

No mention of the BR stuff ... :-\

But I'm not losing hope, just because it's not listed doesn't mean it isn't there. (I even did check on my 35mm to confirm that there is no mention of BR on the barrel, so the hope is still alive.)

Looks good otherwise. Nice overall size, and I like the 77mm filter thread  BR or not, this lens is likely an instant buy for me, though I'll wait on the price to confirm.


----------



## hne (Aug 24, 2017)

*Re: And here's the new 85mm 1.4L IS*

Image doesn't seem to be manipulated more than placing the logo as watermark over the lens.
I made a size comparison based on lined-up mounts of the 85/1.8, 85/1.2L II. Quite a large lens, but not as big as I feared.

Image shows rubber gasket around mount, so weather sealed is a pretty safe bet.


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 24, 2017)

*Re: And here's the new 85mm 1.4L IS*



hne said:


> Image doesn't seem to be manipulated more than placing the logo as watermark over the lens.
> I made a size comparison based on lined-up mounts of the 85/1.8, 85/1.2L II. Quite a large lens, but not as big as I feared.
> 
> Image shows rubber gasket around mount, so weather sealed is a pretty safe bet.



Nice. It'll be hard to know it's not the 35L ii in the dark.

If I'm hopeful of anything, I hope the lens hood isn't so bulbous. I use the Thinktank Lens changer bags and the hood was a little 'snug' when putting the lens in the bag. Small issue, but annoying all the same.


----------



## hne (Aug 24, 2017)

*Re: And here's the new 85mm 1.4L IS*



wockawocka said:


> hne said:
> 
> 
> > Image doesn't seem to be manipulated more than placing the logo as watermark over the lens.
> ...



You'd probably feel the 200g difference in weight and the 8mm difference in diameter (roughly 10%) might also be noticeable, but yes, they'd be quite similar.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 24, 2017)

```
Here are the full specifications and some images of the long rumored new lenses from Canon. There’s also an image of the new macro flash that will be compatible with the new 2:1 macro tilt-shift lenses.</p>
<p><strong>Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM Specifications  </strong>(Google Translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>Lens construction: 10 groups 14 pieces (1 aspherical lens)</li>
<li>Coating: ASC, fluorine coating</li>
<li>Number of diaphragm blades: 9 (circular diaphragm)</li>
<li>Shortest shooting distance: 85 cm</li>
<li>Maximum shooting magnification: 0.12 times</li>
<li>Filter diameter: 77 mm</li>
<li>Maximum diameter × length: φ88.6 × 105.4 mm</li>
<li>Weight: Approximately 950 g</li>
<li>Image stabilization effect: about 4 steps</li>
<li>Ring type USM</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Canon TS-E 135mm f/4L Macro Specifications</strong> (Google Translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>Lens construction: 7 groups 11 pieces (2 UD lenses)</li>
<li>Coating: SWC, fluorine coating</li>
<li>Number of diaphragm blades: 9 (circular diaphragm)</li>
<li>Shortest shooting distance: 48.6 cm</li>
<li>Maximum magnification: 0.5 times</li>
<li>Filter diameter: 82 mm</li>
<li>Maximum diameter × length: φ88.5 × 139.1 mm</li>
<li>Weight: Approximately 1,110 g</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8L Macro Specifications </strong> (Google Translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>Lens construction: 9 groups 9 pieces (UD lens 1 piece)</li>
<li>Coating: ASC, fluorine coating</li>
<li>Number of diaphragm blades: 9 (circular diaphragm)</li>
<li>Minimum focusing distance: 39 cm</li>
<li>Maximum magnification: 0.5 times</li>
<li>Filter diameter: 77 mm</li>
<li>Maximum diameter × length: φ86.9 × 116.5 mm</li>
<li>Weight: Approximately 915 g</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Canon TS-E 50mm f/2.8L Macro Specifications </strong> (Google Translated)</p>

<ul>
<li>Lens construction: 9 groups 12 pieces (2 UD lenses)</li>
<li>Coating: SWC, ASC, fluorine coating</li>
<li>Number of diaphragm blades: 9 (circular diaphragm)</li>
<li>Shortest shooting distance: 27.3 cm</li>
<li>Maximum magnification: 0.5 times</li>
<li>Filter diameter: 77 mm</li>
<li>Maximum diameter × length: φ86.9 × 114.9 mm</li>
<li>Weight: Approximately 945 g</li>
</ul>

		<style type='text/css'>
			#gallery-1 {
				margin: auto;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
				float: left;
				margin-top: 10px;
				text-align: center;
				width: 20%;
			}
			#gallery-1 img {
				border: 2px solid #cfcfcf;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-caption {
				margin-left: 0;
			}
			/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */
		</style>
		<div id='gallery-1' class='gallery galleryid-30857 gallery-columns-5 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_2.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_2-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_2-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_2-225x225.jpg 225w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_2-144x144.jpg 144w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_2.jpg 500w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_4-1.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_4-1-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_4-1-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_4-1-225x225.jpg 225w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_4-1-144x144.jpg 144w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_4-1.jpg 500w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_1-1-1.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_1-1-1-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_1-1-1-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_1-1-1-225x225.jpg 225w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_1-1-1-144x144.jpg 144w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_1-1-1.jpg 500w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/DIEa9iiVoAE6DHn.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/DIEa9iiVoAE6DHn-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/DIEa9iiVoAE6DHn-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/DIEa9iiVoAE6DHn-225x225.jpg 225w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/DIEa9iiVoAE6DHn-144x144.jpg 144w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/DIEa9iiVoAE6DHn.jpg 500w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon-225x225.jpg 225w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon-144x144.jpg 144w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon.jpg 500w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><br style="clear: both" /><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_2-1.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_2-1-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_2-1-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_2-1-225x225.jpg 225w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_2-1-144x144.jpg 144w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_2-1.jpg 500w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_1.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_1-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_1-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_1-225x225.jpg 225w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_1-144x144.jpg 144w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon_1.jpg 500w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon-1-1.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon-1-1-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon-1-1-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon-1-1-225x225.jpg 225w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon-1-1-144x144.jpg 144w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon-1-1.jpg 500w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon-1.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon-1-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon-1-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon-1-225x225.jpg 225w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon-1-144x144.jpg 144w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/canon-1.jpg 500w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl>
			<br style='clear: both' />
		</div>

<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
<div style="font-size:0px;height:0px;line-height:0px;margin:0;padding:0;clear:both"></div>
```


----------



## Phenix205 (Aug 24, 2017)

A beauty and a beast. Much better looking than the gigantic Sigma 85 Art. Look forward to see real world performance especially wide open IQ and AF.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Aug 24, 2017)

Smaller and lighter than the Sigma, that's very good news. Sigma's strategy in recent years has been to go flat out for IQ and it has resulted in some big lenses. My 150 OS macro is a case in point - extraordinary image quality but I wish was the size of the old version.


----------



## jdavidse (Aug 24, 2017)

Nice strategic "leak" on Canon's part to distract us from the D850 ;D


----------



## Memdroid (Aug 24, 2017)

I really hope the sharpness of the new 85mm is similar to the 35mm II. Instant buy if it is!


----------



## SPL (Aug 24, 2017)

Anyone have a guess/opinion on price?......and anyone planning on selling/keeping their 85L 1.2 II?


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 24, 2017)

Memdroid said:


> I really hope the sharpness of the new 85mm is similar to the 35mm II. Instant buy if it is!



I'd love to upgrade my trusty, old 85mm f/1.8, get a little better IQ, aka wide open sharpness and especially CA. However this would be a costly upgrade and one I'd struggle to justify. Just the same I look forward to people getting their hands on this and sharing some images showing what this lens can do!


----------



## traveller (Aug 24, 2017)

Interesting size comparison for the new 85mm f/1.4L IS. To quote Roger Cicala (which he will probably hate!): 

"If you want to get great optics and eliminate aberrations, you either need lots of pieces of glass or very expensive pieces of glass ground into very expensive shapes." [https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/mtf-tests-for-the-sigma-bbl-the-big-beautiful-85mm-art-lens/]

So, as this lens is smaller than the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art _and_ has IS, it is either going to be more compromised optically, or far more expensive...


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 24, 2017)

SPL said:


> Anyone have a guess/opinion on price?......and anyone planning on selling/keeping their 85L 1.2 II?



Same price as the 35L ii but with an extra $400 for the IS


----------



## Joakim (Aug 24, 2017)

Could someone overlay the Sigma 85 ART onto the new Canon 85 ?


----------



## The3o5FlyGuy (Aug 24, 2017)

I already know Canon is going to make this lens cost MORE than the Sigma, and not much less than its existing 85mm F1.2 II L, so I'm not looking to get this at all


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Aug 24, 2017)

I may be way off but I think this lens will be reasonably priced for a new L. I don't see anything in the specs that indicates this requires any exotic optics. It's a lens they should have released years ago along with an updated 50mm. The 100 2.8L macro sells for $800. I think they price it at $1299 at launch and they sell a good number of them. Not sure how much of a market there will be if they go well above $1500. Wishful thinking? Maybe.


----------



## tianxiaozhang (Aug 24, 2017)

SPL said:


> Anyone have a guess/opinion on price?......and anyone planning on selling/keeping their 85L 1.2 II?



Won't be cheap...


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 24, 2017)

This is just too exciting! Will be very interested to see how the quality and autofocus turns out, but I have no reason to expect it won't be excellent.


----------



## FramerMCB (Aug 24, 2017)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I may be way off but I think this lens will be reasonably priced for a new L. I don't see anything in the specs that indicates this requires any exotic optics. It's a lens they should have released years ago along with an updated 50mm. The 100 2.8L macro sells for $800. I think they price it at $1299 at launch and they sell a good number of them. Not sure how much of a market there will be if they go well above $1500. Wishful thinking? Maybe.



You make good points but I don't see this lens being cheaper than the 35 1.4L II was at intro. My best guess would be $1,499 or $1,599. Maybe even $1,699. I don't see it being more than the 85 1.2L. I think you make some excellent points. Now if it has the BR stuff, probably leaning towards $1,699 or higher. But you're right in that there is nothing ground breaking here...


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 24, 2017)

mount on new light seems like its same as original which mean no need to buy new flash brackets from RRS or others. waiting for release of that light.


----------



## Ladislav (Aug 24, 2017)

FramerMCB said:


> Graphic.Artifacts said:
> 
> 
> > I may be way off but I think this lens will be reasonably priced for a new L. I don't see anything in the specs that indicates this requires any exotic optics. It's a lens they should have released years ago along with an updated 50mm. The 100 2.8L macro sells for $800. I think they price it at $1299 at launch and they sell a good number of them. Not sure how much of a market there will be if they go well above $1500. Wishful thinking? Maybe.
> ...



Unless you consider IS and f1.4 ground breaking because there is no other lens like that in Canon lineup.


----------



## IglooEater (Aug 24, 2017)

*Re: And here's the new 85mm 1.4L IS*



hne said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > hne said:
> ...



My knee-jerk reaction was, "Wait, that's just a photoshopped 35mm 1.4L"


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 24, 2017)

FramerMCB said:


> Graphic.Artifacts said:
> 
> 
> > I may be way off but I think this lens will be reasonably priced for a new L. I don't see anything in the specs that indicates this requires any exotic optics. It's a lens they should have released years ago along with an updated 50mm. The 100 2.8L macro sells for $800. I think they price it at $1299 at launch and they sell a good number of them. Not sure how much of a market there will be if they go well above $1500. Wishful thinking? Maybe.
> ...



I was quite shure that 1500 EUR / $ is a very good estimate and I think it's shure for the street price one year after introduction. But now, considering it's weight, I think it is more on the 1700-1800 EUR / $ side at introduction because of it's weight and therefore the needed amount of special glasses.
But I im in the same order of magnitude like you.

Comparing it to the 35mm ii: In my opinion it isn't that critical to correct 85mm compared to 35mm: Less curvature, less retrofocus, less efforts to correct lateral CAs ... It has more glass and maybe the AF motors must be stronger to move a bigger lens group for the IS (if they haven't found a solution to move a thin lens/group - diameter must be around 40mm for the IS element). There is no (at the moment at least) hint on very special materials like the organic compound for the BR refractive element - this is for me a hint that they haven't the extra cost for a specialized process to produce and especially integrate a specialized material.

At the moment Canon (again my opinion) relies on their great set of lenses and keeps a lot of their customers in their camp. If I hadn't a collection of 8...9 lenses (o.k., only two L lenses but 2.0 100 or 2.8 100 Macro or 2.8 40 are definitely very fine lenses) I would have tried other companies products. And they compete with other lens manufacturers so they must keep their lens lineup attractive and cannot set prices too high.


----------



## Memdroid (Aug 24, 2017)

A sub 2000 price is wishful thinking based on their major lens releases in recent years. I won't be surprised if the 85mm comes in at $2200/€2200 maybe even more.


----------



## padam (Aug 24, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> Memdroid said:
> 
> 
> > I really hope the sharpness of the new 85mm is similar to the 35mm II. Instant buy if it is!
> ...



Patents are out for new 85/1.8 and 100/2 lenses, but it will take a few years until they will be released.


----------



## Berowne (Aug 24, 2017)

My guess is, that the pricing of new 85L will not be below 2000€, because the 35L Mk II sets the Standard, so with IS it may cost about 2500€. I am pretty curious, if Rogers law about "Big and Beautful Lenses" proves to be true, because this one isnt soo big. 

Anyway, if these pics are genuine, we will have all answers within a few days.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 24, 2017)

padam said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > Memdroid said:
> ...



Oh really? I was not aware of that. I'll be keeping my eyes open on that front as in general I've found Canon's "consumer" primes to be really good.


----------



## SV (Aug 24, 2017)

*Re: Specifications & Images of the Upcoming Canon Lenses - RT on flash photo*

If you look closely, you can see an "RT" in the macro flash photo...


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 24, 2017)

*Re: Specifications & Images of the Upcoming Canon Lenses - RT on flash photo*



SV said:


> If you look closely, you can see an "RT" in the macro flash photo...


Also looks like there is filter thread as well. Probably same 67mm filter thread found on MR-14ex II.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 24, 2017)

*Re: Specifications & Images of the Upcoming Canon Lenses - RT on flash photo*



SV said:


> If you look closely, you can see an "RT" in the macro flash photo...



Looking at the Nikon equivalent I'm not sure the batteries in each head and completely wireless wouldn't have been a stronger approach than just remote control.


----------



## Joska (Aug 24, 2017)

Should read 1:2 not 2:1 for the tilt shift lenses.


----------



## Drainpipe (Aug 24, 2017)

*Re: Specifications & Images of the Upcoming Canon Lenses - RT on flash photo*



privatebydesign said:


> SV said:
> 
> 
> > If you look closely, you can see an "RT" in the macro flash photo...
> ...



Nah. Batteries in each head would be a pain. I'd much rather only have one set of batteries to worry about.



Joska said:


> Should read 1:2 not 2:1 for the tilt shift lenses.



I wish that typo were real : I'm planning to try the 50mm TS as a run and gun macro. I love my MP-E, but I'm thinking (hoping? Praying?) that the tilt shift will add a lot of DoF to my shots.


----------



## sulla (Aug 24, 2017)

Those are not going to be cheap lenses. None of them.
Not at ~1kg each and with a red ring. This is a serious amount of glass.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 24, 2017)

*Re: Specifications & Images of the Upcoming Canon Lenses - RT on flash photo*



Drainpipe said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > SV said:
> ...



I can see advantages for both solutions, the Nikon way makes using one to four heads very easy, sure you can switch one Canon one off but that isn't the same. But the Canon method makes battery management much easier and the heads lighter.

The 50 TS-E will take a 25mm tube and get you close to 2:1.


----------



## Joska (Aug 24, 2017)

*Re: Specifications & Images of the Upcoming Canon Lenses - RT on flash photo*



> I wish that typo were real : I'm planning to try the 50mm TS as a run and gun macro. I love my MP-E, but I'm thinking (hoping? Praying?) that the tilt shift will add a lot of DoF to my shots.



(Never used a tilt/shift lens...  
I don't think you can get more DOF but change the plane of focus and thereby maybe position your DOF better.


----------



## Drainpipe (Aug 24, 2017)

*Re: Specifications & Images of the Upcoming Canon Lenses - RT on flash photo*



Joska said:


> (Never used a tilt/shift lens...
> I don't think you can get more DOF but change the plane of focus and thereby maybe position your DOF better.



Right! For things like spiders which like to lay flat, I'll be able to take an off-angle shot, but have the entire spider in focus, front to back. Now I focus on the eyes, which gets me the eyes, part of their mouthparts, and a little rearward of their heads.

On the one hand having the focus plane being parallel helps to isolate the eyes, but when you're trying to get all the important bits for identification in focus it kinda stinks :/


----------



## Drainpipe (Aug 24, 2017)

*Re: Specifications & Images of the Upcoming Canon Lenses - RT on flash photo*



privatebydesign said:


> I can see advantages for both solutions, the Nikon way makes using one to four heads very easy, sure you can switch one Canon one off but that isn't the same. But the Canon method makes battery management much easier and the heads lighter.
> 
> The 50 TS-E will take a 25mm tube and get you close to 2:1.



Ah more like 68mm of tubes (1.86:1). 25mm tube would be a 1:1. Unless I'm using this calculator wrong: http://extreme-macro.co.uk/extension-tubes/#calculator



sulla said:


> Those are not going to be cheap lenses. None of them.
> Not at ~1kg each and with a red ring. This is a serious amount of glass.



Right? I'm guessing $2k easy for the 50mm, and I don't even want to guess on the 135mm.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 24, 2017)

*Re: Specifications & Images of the Upcoming Canon Lenses - RT on flash photo*



Drainpipe said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I can see advantages for both solutions, the Nikon way makes using one to four heads very easy, sure you can switch one Canon one off but that isn't the same. But the Canon method makes battery management much easier and the heads lighter.
> ...



I'd be surprised if it needed that much, the assumption is you are focused at infinity and the lens' nominal focal length is 50mm, but at closest focus distance the nominal focal length will be shorter requireing less extension. But i did say close to 2:1


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 24, 2017)

Using as a reference Sigma and Zeiss, I have started associating big and heavy with great IQ and less vignette. Of course, I could be wrong. I'm now thinking the new 85mm awesomeness will be IS, not IQ. Anybody else? Being an L, the IQ will be good, but maybe not great. Anxious for test results!


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 24, 2017)

Darn it I thought I'd be interested in three of the four and the more I read about them the clearer it becomes. I am up for selling my 100L Macro and getting the 85 f1.4, the 50 and 90 TS-E's. 

Not convinced about the 135 TS-E and it is only 0.5 magnification so no better than the 90 which I know I have a use for.


----------



## e_honda (Aug 25, 2017)

For anyone thinking this is going to be priced lower than that 85 1.2, that's wishful thinking. This is groundbreaking stuff. First lens with a 1.4 aperture to have IS.

It's going to be really good and really expensive.

No BR coating, but I'll assume there's no way Canon would put this lens out with a far out price tag if it can't beat the 85 Art in CA performance.


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 25, 2017)

One thing I noted is the change in tilt indication markings - split either side of the enlarged adjustment knob (or could just be a larger add-on cap)

You can't see from the picture if the range of tilt is greater, but I do note that f/45 is available

The 135 is a distinct option for me - tubes will magnify, but the different perspective from 90mm does interest me.

However I wonder how many people will buy the 50, 90 or 135 and wonder how tilt works  
Expect a lot of queries as to how they 'give more DOF'...

Of course this means there will be a steady supply of used TS-E lenses in the used market 

Also, it looks as if the new lenses will fit brackets like the PPL I tested a wile ago


----------



## Act444 (Aug 25, 2017)

Will keep a very close eye on that 85. With IS and being lighter and smaller than the Sigma Art, I do not expect the same level of IQ - but if it is at least equivalent or better than the excellent 100L at f2.8, or maybe f2, I'll consider picking one up.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 25, 2017)

keithcooper said:


> One thing I noted is the change in tilt indication markings - split either side of the enlarged adjustment knob (or could just be a larger add-on cap)
> 
> You can't see from the picture if the range of tilt is greater, but I do note that f/45 is available
> 
> ...



It will also mean a lot more views for your relevant pages Keith, I hope!


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Aug 25, 2017)

Guess I have a different perspective on the new 85 1.4l IS. Possibly Canon as well which would be a disappointment to me. 

I see the lens more as a "daily driver" workhorse rather than an exotic like some of the lenses other folks are referencing. Canon need a solid, mid-range, fast, weather-sealed, portrait lens with spot-on AF and good to excellent IQ. IS is just icing on the cake. I never had any problems with my 135L other than the fact that somebody stole it out of my truck. An 85mm version of that lens with IS would be perfect for me. I don't ever remember looking at any image I shot with that lens and thinking "I wish the corners were sharper". I don't think they need to compete with Zeiss here. 

I don't see anything about the lens as speced that should drive up the price. Canon puts IS in almost all of their consumer lenses. But it's a 1.4 you say. Not sure why that s a big deal. I assume they haven't put IS in fast lenses because they didn't think it was necessary not because it was technically difficult. I could be totally wrong about that but I haven't heard anything yet to convince me otherwise.

A lot of folks seem to hold up the 35 1.4 II as the gold standard of Canon lens releases and I would say it's just the opposite. Although I'm sure there are photographers out there making good use of that excellent lens, for the most part it's a lens that everyone says they love but nobody bought. I don't recall ever seeing one outside of a photo store or a Canon demo booth. I don't know anyone who owns one. Canon can't be happy about that. If they price this lens well above $1500 US it'll be the same. That would really be a shame because this is a lens that could be in a lot of Canon shooters bags. If the price is bonkers I'll just replace my 135L.

Just my opinion. Worth what you paid for it.


----------



## Drainpipe (Aug 25, 2017)

keithcooper said:


> One thing I noted is the change in tilt indication markings - split either side of the enlarged adjustment knob (or could just be a larger add-on cap)
> 
> You can't see from the picture if the range of tilt is greater, but I do note that f/45 is available
> 
> ...



What I am hoping for is more _usable_ DoF. I think tubes on the 50mm will be an interesting combo. If I can tilt the image plane down but still be off angle, that will make for great spider photos. Not the same old boring top-down shots that look so... dry.

Am I imagining this right? Or am I going to be sorely disappointed? ;D


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 25, 2017)

I'm willing to bet this new 85 comes in at the same price as the existing 85 1.2L. Smaller lens, less glass, but with IS. $1899 or thereabout is what I'm thinking. The IS being the obvious tradeoff for less glass and less bokeh machine. People can pick which option in a very popular focal length they would prefer.


----------



## PeterAlex7 (Aug 25, 2017)

So, the 85L IS body will extend when focusing?


----------



## padam (Aug 25, 2017)

PeterAlex7 said:


> So, the 85L IS body will extend when focusing?


Probably not.

The price may be similar to the existing 85/1.2.
And a new 85/1.2 III is probably in the works (patents exist), will probably come within a few years time, but it will cost a lot more.


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 25, 2017)

padam said:


> PeterAlex7 said:
> 
> 
> > So, the 85L IS body will extend when focusing?
> ...



Agreed, high probability it'll be internal focusing. Zooms are more that way inclined.


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 25, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> keithcooper said:
> 
> 
> > One thing I noted is the change in tilt indication markings - split either side of the enlarged adjustment knob (or could just be a larger add-on cap)
> ...



Yes 

I feel an article coming on about using tilt and extension tubes - I can use my current TS-E90, but if I get a 135, it would make it easier to test & compare

Like most of the notes I've written, they come about when I realise I don't understand the details of something well enough to explain it to someone ;-)


----------



## hne (Aug 25, 2017)

PureClassA said:


> I'm willing to bet this new 85 comes in at the same price as the existing 85 1.2L. Smaller lens, less glass, but with IS. $1899 or thereabout is what I'm thinking. The IS being the obvious tradeoff for less glass and less bokeh machine. People can pick which option in a very popular focal length they would prefer.



At 3mm smaller diameter but 21mm longer length and 5mm larger filter thread, I wouldn't call it "smaller".
I really hope for the Graphic.Artifact's "daily driver lens" scenario. A reasonably affordable lens for pro photographers. Like the 35/1.4L (still current according to canon), 135/2L, 200/2.8L. All to be had new around $1000. There's a nice gap for similarly affordable lenses at 50 and 85 mm.


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 25, 2017)

Drainpipe said:


> keithcooper said:
> 
> 
> > One thing I noted is the change in tilt indication markings - split either side of the enlarged adjustment knob (or could just be a larger add-on cap)
> ...



Yes, it does, but it's the sort of thing where you can quickly come up against the maximum tilt and limitations of the razor thin DOF. It can give ugly OOF areas as well.

I have stacked tilted shots to get a thicker focal plane, but it can be fiddly to set up - not for anything alive...


----------



## Bognirab (Aug 25, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> Here are the full specifications and some images of the long rumored new lenses from Canon. There’s also an image of the new macro flash that will be compatible with the new 2:1 macro tilt-shift lenses.



Shouldn't that read 1:2, if the maximum magnification is 0.5 times?


----------



## Drainpipe (Aug 25, 2017)

keithcooper said:


> Yes
> 
> I feel an *article coming on about using tilt and extension tubes* - I can use my current TS-E90, but if I get a 135, it would make it easier to test & compare
> 
> Like most of the notes I've written, they come about when I realise I don't understand the details of something well enough to explain it to someone ;-)



Yes I would like this a lot!


----------



## rfdesigner (Aug 25, 2017)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I don't see anything about the lens as speced that should drive up the price. Canon puts IS in almost all of their consumer lenses. But it's a 1.4 you say. Not sure why that s a big deal. I assume they haven't put IS in fast lenses because they didn't think it was necessary not because it was technically difficult. I could be totally wrong about that but I haven't heard anything yet to convince me otherwise.



f1.4 means lens diamaters in the middle of the lens increase A LOT compared to f2.8, one might expect double.. but it's more complitated than that as you also have to allow for the full field of view too. That extra diameter does two things.. 

it increases mass a fair bit

it substantially increases rotational intertia as all that additiaonal weight is way beyond the centre of mass of each lens element.

assuming you're wiggling flat glass

f2.8-> f2.0, double the glass, and around 4 times the inertia
f2.0 -> f1.4 same again.

That poor little IS motor now needs to be 16 times as strong.. but that makes it bigger.. and increases it's inertia... so it needs to be even bigger.

oh wait the motor's now 20~30 times the volume and mass of the cheap consumer ones, the cost is unlikely to be the same.

Clearly the real answer to making an IS unit in an F1.4 lens is to get the weight and rotational intertia of the optics you intend to wiggle down to the absolute minimum, then everything else becomes substantially easier.


Any way you look at it I think Canon will have done well to get IS into an F1.4 lens.


----------



## mjg79 (Aug 25, 2017)

Quite fascinating to read all the speculation. Normally we would have a much better idea - I mean if there is a new 70-200 2.8 IS coming out we would know exactly what its role is.

To me the big question is: "What does the 1.4 signify?"

Is it that they decided that having the 1.2 aperture made no real difference and going to 1.4 allowed them to chase optical perfection and this is to be their new top of the line 85mm lens, a halo product that every wedding photographer wants, with a no compromises approach to quality and rendering? In which case I am sure it will cost more than the current 85 L II. This would be like replacing the 200/1.8 with the 200/2.0 IS.

Or is it that they wanted to make something a bit more "reasonable" in the same way the 50/1.2 replaced the 50/1.0 - at the extremes of lens design every small increase in aperture has a big impact on weight, size and cost etc. This would be a lens perhaps more like Nikon's 85 1.4 - very high quality but not chasing the optical perfection that Zeiss and recently Sigma have done.

Right now I think we are all just guessing - Canon has taken different approaches for different lenses over the years. I expect it will come down to whether they ever plan to bring a 85 1.2 III. If they do, even years down the line, they will probably make the 1.4 L a more "moderate" design at a more "reasonable" price. But if this is to be the new "top of the line" and fully replace the 1.2 models then I am sure they will have thrown everything at it - they know people will complain about the removal of 1.2, they know people adored the 85L's rendering and there is no way they will release anything that isn't an amazing lens.


----------



## Drainpipe (Aug 25, 2017)

keithcooper said:


> Yes, it does, but it's the sort of thing where you can quickly come up against the maximum tilt and limitations of the razor thin DOF. It can give ugly OOF areas as well.
> 
> I have stacked tilted shots to get a thicker focal plane, but it can be fiddly to set up - not for anything alive...



Oh I definitely agree on the stacking, no good way to do it in the field. I'm a big fan of stacking at the microscopic level. I have a specimen manipulator setup that I use. 

Something I'm considering is that if I add extension tubes to this theoretical 50mm lens, it's inevitably going to get darker with the increased magnification ("effective f-stop" I think?). I'm going to be using the MT-24EX (and I'm guessing an adapter?) to compensate.

Right now my solution with the MP-E 65mm is to set the lens up at 1x to give me the results I want, and with increased magnification I open up on aperture. Usually this is somewhere between f/11-f/14, ISO200, and between 1/160 and 1/200 shutter at 1x. On the way up to 5x, the aperture changes but nothing else does. This has fairly repeatable results for almost any situation, and the only thing you have to worry about is killing your background and turning it all black. Sometimes the background being blacked out looks ok, but more often than not you'd like to have a nice colored backdrop. Examples of both:












To give an example of where I am thinking (possibly incorrectly) that this new lens will benefit me is a shot like this. A gorgeous spined assassin bug that I was only able to have enough DoF for his large right forearm and head. Since I am angled down, would this shot not benefit from tilt so that the abdomen is in focus as well? He stands less than 1cm tall, and from the DoF calculators that I am looking at this lens should have just under 2cm in focus at the minimum focusing distance at f/13.






I have read up on your discussion and articles of tilt shifts, and I'm assuming if I have my J and all that lined up correctly, with some extension tubes I should be able to lay the focus plane flat. I also understand that with the increased magnification I am going to lose DoF.

Basically I am REALLY looking forward to an article from you on tilt shift macro ;D


----------



## mjg79 (Aug 25, 2017)

Drainpipe said:


> keithcooper said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it does, but it's the sort of thing where you can quickly come up against the maximum tilt and limitations of the razor thin DOF. It can give ugly OOF areas as well.
> ...



Most of that goes over my head, I know nothing about macro photography or the use of tilt shift lenses for macro work but just wanted to say those are wonderful photographs, the colours in the first one are great but I really love the second one. Was that spider dead? Or just sitting very still.

I'm mainly a landscape photographer and have over the years used the 17 and 24 TS lenses a lot and come to love them - so nice to have trees stay straight! 

It really makes me think that Canon are being smart to bring out these new TS lenses - whether it's landscape or architecture or macro or product photography I think there is a lot of demand out there.


----------



## DigiAngel (Aug 25, 2017)

Compared to the 135 2.0 (rather light and compact, really sharp wide open, maybe the fastest AF when it was released, extremely reliable focusing even wide open on moving subjects) i never understood why the 85 1.2 was such a slow, fat and hesitant monster. hope they fixed it with the new version, however i guess the price will be astronomical and way above 2000€/$.


----------



## Drainpipe (Aug 25, 2017)

mjg79 said:


> Most of that goes over my head, I know nothing about macro photography or the use of tilt shift lenses for macro work but just wanted to say those are wonderful photographs, the colours in the first one are great but I really love the second one. Was that spider dead? Or just sitting very still.
> 
> I'm mainly a landscape photographer and have over the years used the 17 and 24 TS lenses a lot and come to love them - so nice to have trees stay straight!
> 
> It really makes me think that Canon are being smart to bring out these new TS lenses - whether it's landscape or architecture or macro or product photography I think there is a lot of demand out there.



That spider was actually a very active mother that was protecting a clutch of eggs! She stayed still for at least 1/160th ;D

And that's my other plan: buy this as a landscape lens and macro if it works.


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 25, 2017)

Drainpipe said:


> mjg79 said:
> 
> 
> > Most of that goes over my head, I know nothing about macro photography or the use of tilt shift lenses for macro work but just wanted to say those are wonderful photographs, the colours in the first one are great but I really love the second one. Was that spider dead? Or just sitting very still.
> ...


When it comes to spiders Jumping spiders are the worst subjects(unless you are out photographing on cold morning). Right now I have few tarantulas and trapdoor spiders from western ghats to photograph and they sit still with flash firing 20-30 times while I am taking photos for stacking. In my experience butterflies, some flies and jumping spiders are literal pain to get good stack series unless you are taking benefit of cold winter mornings.


----------



## Act444 (Aug 25, 2017)

Actually now that I think about it, it's *possible* that it would be like the 16-35 line; this may be a more intermediately priced offering, with an updated version of the 1.2 also in the works to sit atop the 85mm line and have the best optical performance. I would fully expect a hefty price increase in that case. 

Although, on the other hand, the difference between 1.4 and 1.2 is less significant than the difference between 2.8 and 4...and with the 5DSR I would take 1.4 and IS over 1.2 without thinking twice...


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 25, 2017)

Act444 said:


> Actually now that I think about it, it's *possible* that it would be like the 16-35 line; this may be a more intermediately priced offering, with an updated version of the 1.2 also in the works to sit atop the 85mm line and have the best optical performance. I would fully expect a hefty price increase in that case.
> 
> Although, on the other hand, the difference between 1.4 and 1.2 is less significant than the difference between 2.8 and 4...and with the 5DSR I would take 1.4 and IS over 1.2 without thinking twice...



Canon have to be careful though, the 16-35 F4 is on par in sharpness to my 35L mkii. The more expensive and faster glass would have to justify the fee other than light gathering ability.


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 25, 2017)

Drainpipe said:


> ...
> 
> I have read up on your discussion and articles of tilt shifts, and I'm assuming if I have my J and all that lined up correctly, with some extension tubes I should be able to lay the focus plane flat. I also understand that with the increased magnification I am going to lose DoF.
> 
> Basically I am REALLY looking forward to an article from you on tilt shift macro ;D



The problem may well be that you likely won't get the tilt you want at macro magnifications

The tilt tables (and J distance) become increasingly difficult work out and to apply at close focus distances, and I use the iterative method I also describe for focusing with tilt.

I've been experimenting with the TS-E 90 and 65mm of extension (and the 24 and 17) and this is my desk after quite a few different settings. The lines near the pencil are the focal planes at ∞ with and without full tilt and focus adjustment - note that the tilt doesn't give that much effect at 90mm. The magnification with the tubes is not quite 1:1 (nearer 0.75 x)

If I get a chance I'll do a write up over the weekend, but my suspicion is that the obtainable effects are not going to be as pronounced as many might wish...


----------



## Act444 (Aug 25, 2017)

wockawocka said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually now that I think about it, it's *possible* that it would be like the 16-35 line; this may be a more intermediately priced offering, with an updated version of the 1.2 also in the works to sit atop the 85mm line and have the best optical performance. I would fully expect a hefty price increase in that case.
> ...



You've a good point - I had version II of the 16-35 2.8 lens, wasn't thrilled with it but kept it anyway...fully planned to upgrade to version III until the f4 IS version came out. Ended up trading in my old 2.8 for the f4 IS version, now I find it good enough for my needs and have not (yet) seen a need to pick up or upgrade to the 2.8 III.


----------



## Tapcon (Aug 25, 2017)

I for one am looking very forward to this lens. I sold my 85mm 1.2L II in anticipation for this one. I primarily shoot with my Sigma 135mm 1.8 Art (which I absolutely love), but there have been times where I wish I had the 85mm for tighter situations.


----------



## Ladislav (Aug 25, 2017)

So 50 TS-E will extend when focusing? That is a disappointment. I expected same design as 24 TS-E II which does not extend.


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 25, 2017)

Ladislav said:


> So 50 TS-E will extend when focusing? That is a disappointment. I expected same design as 24 TS-E II which does not extend.



I'd hazard a guess that this is related to .5x max magnification, in a similar way that the 24-70 F/4L IS extends to provide additional macro magnification. I'd be curious to see if it zooms during the entire focus cycle, or only when you approach max close focus. I'm also curious to see if the 90 and 135 extend. 

I'm not really the target audience for these tilt shifts, but I'm interested to see the results and how they work out. It wouldn't hurt to be able to pile both a macro lens and a tilt-shift lens into one specialist lens, rather than buying a macro and a tilt-shift for both effects.

I think Canon has totally sold me on the new 85mm if they can keep the price somewhat reasonable though. I wouldn't be surprised if the 85mm ends up in my hands by Christmas. (Is there a rumor yet about the release date?)


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 25, 2017)

Ladislav said:


> So 50 TS-E will extend when focusing? That is a disappointment. I expected same design as 24 TS-E II which does not extend.


The clue would, I suspect, be in the name - Macro ... that and the longer focal length.

The 24 and 17mm are retrofocus designs (they don't work at all well with extension tubes)

The current 90 and 45 are very different designs, so I'd expect the 50 to be broadly similar. The 90 ad 135 both extend in the latest pics

What's the issue with extension?


----------



## padam (Aug 25, 2017)

Ladislav said:


> I think Canon has totally sold me on the new 85mm if they can keep the price somewhat reasonable though. I wouldn't be surprised if the 85mm ends up in my hands by Christmas. (Is there a rumor yet about the release date?)



Based on the 35/1.4II pictures and release, it will probably be announced early next week and ship in late September.

Another picture:


----------



## mjg79 (Aug 25, 2017)

DigiAngel said:


> Compared to the 135 2.0 (rather light and compact, really sharp wide open, maybe the fastest AF when it was released, extremely reliable focusing even wide open on moving subjects) i never understood why the 85 1.2 was such a slow, fat and hesitant monster. hope they fixed it with the new version, however i guess the price will be astronomical and way above 2000€/$.



I've often wondered that myself. Both the 50/1.0 and 85/1.2 suffered with that strange and slow focus - could a more modern system nowadays make such a lens perform better or is there an inherent limitation with such extreme apertures? I suppose the size and weight will be unavoidable. But it is an alluring prospect - imagine an 85/1.2 that focused like the 135.

The 135L is an example of when a manufacturer finds a near perfect formula and just hits it out the park. It happens from time to time - other examples would be the Zeiss 21mm/2.8, the Nikon 14-24, the Contax/Rollei Zeiss 35/1.4, the Nikon Noct, Canon's 24mm TS-E - just lenses that perform so perfectly for their intended role. The 135L is very much in that category which is why after all these years it is still for most people the best choice for a 135mm lens.

Many people would put the 85L in that category of special lenses of course and in terms of image quality it deserves to be but its overall use is hurt by the auto focus I think. Perhaps the coming 1.4 lens is an admission that a 1.2 lens will always be compromised? I don't know enough about lens design to be able to say. Has anyone else ever made a full frame lens faster than 1.4 that has fast autofocus?


----------



## littleB (Aug 25, 2017)

keithcooper said:


> The clue would, I suspect, be in the name - Macro ... that and the longer focal length.
> 
> The 24 and 17mm are retrofocus designs (they don't work at all well with extension tubes)
> 
> ...


 I own the TS-E 45 and it does not extend when focusing.


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 25, 2017)

littleB said:


> keithcooper said:
> 
> 
> > The clue would, I suspect, be in the name - Macro ... that and the longer focal length.
> ...



Ah - good to know, since it's a few years since I tried one.

Looks as if the 50mm extension is likely for the macro aspect then


----------



## padam (Aug 25, 2017)

mjg79 said:


> DigiAngel said:
> 
> 
> > Compared to the 135 2.0 (rather light and compact, really sharp wide open, maybe the fastest AF when it was released, extremely reliable focusing even wide open on moving subjects) i never understood why the 85 1.2 was such a slow, fat and hesitant monster. hope they fixed it with the new version, however i guess the price will be astronomical and way above 2000€/$.
> ...



It is all in the design, it is actually derived from the old FD 85/1.2 formula (1976), but heavily changed (the EF Mk1 which is not too different to the Mk2 still dates back to 1989). The EF mount opening is just enough for the glass needed. And with this formula, it is the front group that has to move, which is really big and heavy (and can't really be moved mechanically, needs electronic coupling for manual focus).

So yes, they can do something completely new with a clean sheet design. But those development costs will have to be embedded in the price as well.

By the way, looking at examples with the latest focusing systems, in some situations when it is already locked on the target it can track fairly well, it really doesn't seem that bad overall considering its design.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FgYrB-DYQY


So a fast glass with fast (and precise) autofocus is really not that easy to make and there are other considerations regarding the type of glass used.

For instance, the Nikkor 105/1.4 existed in a more compact form using fluorite glass instead of ED, it may have been smaller and lighter, but the price would have been astronomically high (just like that Canon 50/1.0L)

Look at the Sigma 50 1.4 ART compared to the Canon 50 1.2 L. Yes, it is (truly) internally focusing, but it is also double the size and weight, and it is still not super quick at focusing.
Same with the Sony Zeiss FE 50 1.4 ZA and Leica Summilux-SL 50 1.4 both are huge and heavy, and they are not even SLR lenses.

Yes the 135/2 is still an impressive lens (135mm lenses seem to be a lot easier to design), but compared to the Sigma 135/1.8 it starts to show its age (even though the latter is - again - huge and heavy and probably not quite as good with AF).


----------



## Jopa (Aug 26, 2017)

Must have the precious. When???????????


----------



## Drainpipe (Aug 26, 2017)

keithcooper said:


> The problem may well be that you likely won't get the tilt you want at macro magnifications
> 
> The tilt tables (and J distance) become increasingly difficult work out and to apply at close focus distances, and I use the iterative method I also describe for focusing with tilt.
> 
> ...



If I am looking at this right, the sensor plane vs focal plane has about a 30° angle between them, correct? To me I think that would make a huge difference. To be honest that is about the result I was expecting. I'm not expecting these lenses to be miracle workers ;D


----------



## littleB (Aug 26, 2017)

H. Jones said:


> I'm also curious to see if the 90 and 135 extend.



Have a look a 50, 90, and 135 pictures near the front lens. 50 and 90 show some closed barrel, will extend.
135 looks solid, will not extend.


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 26, 2017)

Drainpipe said:


> keithcooper said:
> 
> 
> > The problem may well be that you likely won't get the tilt you want at macro magnifications
> ...



Not quite - there are two tilt indicators on either side of the knob - tilt is 10º for the 135 and 8º for the 50mm


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 26, 2017)

*Using tilt and tubes for macro*

If it's of interest for those looking at the macro features of the new lenses, especially if you want more magnification, I've written up some quick experiments about the sorts of effects you can get.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/tilt-tubes-macro/

The new lenses won't change this very much, but should still be capable of some interesting results in areas where the current 90mm for example shows its age.

Hope it's of some interest to those less familiar with such lenses?


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 26, 2017)

littleB said:


> H. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > I'm also curious to see if the 90 and 135 extend.
> ...



135 could extend as the current 90mm does, i.e the whole section beyond the DOF scale moves forward


----------



## littleB (Aug 26, 2017)

keithcooper said:


> littleB said:
> 
> 
> > H. Jones said:
> ...


Yeah, could be the case. Can't tell this from pictures.


----------



## Drainpipe (Aug 26, 2017)

*Re: Using tilt and tubes for macro*



keithcooper said:


> If it's of interest for those looking at the macro features of the new lenses, especially if you want more magnification, I've written up some quick experiments about the sorts of effects you can get.
> 
> http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/tilt-tubes-macro/
> 
> ...



The article helped me wrap my head around this a little more. Seriously appreciated!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 26, 2017)

A bit off topic but relating to macro. How difficult might it be for Canon to add a macro feature to say the 400 DO F4 II? I've had tubes on the 300 2.8 but the magnification is not great. For walk around butterflies etc. a longer telephoto is advantageous and MFD as it stands is poor.

Jack


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 27, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> A bit off topic but relating to macro. How difficult might it be for Canon to add a macro feature to say the 400 DO F4 II? I've had tubes on the 300 2.8 but the magnification is not great. For walk around butterflies etc. a longer telephoto is advantageous and MFD as it stands is poor.
> 
> Jack


tubes have more effect at shorter focal lengths, whilst supplementary lenses work better at longer ones - the problem is that long white lenses have big front elements. See this from Canon

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/close-up_lenses.do


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 27, 2017)

keithcooper said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > A bit off topic but relating to macro. How difficult might it be for Canon to add a macro feature to say the 400 DO F4 II? I've had tubes on the 300 2.8 but the magnification is not great. For walk around butterflies etc. a longer telephoto is advantageous and MFD as it stands is poor.
> ...



Thanks Keith. I am aware of this and since there is no option for a close up lens that only leaves tubes and having used them as you say the magnification is minimal. Could Canon alter the lens internally to have a closeup option available or is that a physical impossibility? I have the 24-70 F4 so that's kind of where the macro idea came from. Even though it's not great I do like having that; it's handy at times but with the 400, oh that would be super handy since MFD is poor.

Jack


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 27, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> keithcooper said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



With any long optical design, the MFD is essentially given by how much movement of groups you are prepared to devote to focus range for the design. This goes against the desire to make the long whites shorter/lighter for their main market.

The 300/2.8 has gone from an MFD of 3m to 2m over its 3 versions so there is an improvement - to 1.5m with the f4 IS [ http://www.eflens.com/ef-lenses/ef_300_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm.html ] compare this to the design of the 180/3.5 macro [ http://www.eflens.com/ef-lenses/ef_180_f35l_macro_usm.html ]


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 27, 2017)

Thanks Keith. I guess the answer is it's not feasible. I'm not knowledgeable in optics but wondered if there was some internal trick that would accomplish what a close up lens does.

Jack


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 27, 2017)

Jack
Try the 100-400mmII for best in class close focus. MFD is about 3 ft set to 400mm. Actually less than 400mm when focused this close but still pretty good for butterflies when walking around. This lens designed to have a good MFD.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 27, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> Jack
> Try the 100-400mmII for best in class close focus. MFD is about 3 ft set to 400mm. Actually less than 400mm when focused this close but still pretty good for butterflies when walking around. This lens designed to have a good MFD.



If it had been available a couple + years back I'd probably own it and may still get it. However, now it's the 400DO II that serves me very well except for MFD (800 is my choice for practically all songbird type shoots, FF). The 300 2.8 was pretty handy for butterflies but it's getting sold soon. You see, there is this unfortunate reality of $$. 

I spent 3 years shooting 600 feeling short so going to 560 isn't exactly what I'd have preferred and now I'm loving 800 with manageable weight.

Jack


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 27, 2017)

Unfortunately, never is there one lens to rule them all.


----------



## mclaren777 (Aug 28, 2017)

It sounds like the 85mm IS will cost somewhere between $1600-2000, which is great news in my book.

Translated from Japanese...

"Although there is not information on the domestic price yet, in the UK it seems that EF 85 mm is 1569 pounds, TS-E lenses are 2499 pounds each, M100 is 449 pounds body only."

http://www.nokishita-camera.com/2017/08/blog-post_28.html


----------



## hne (Aug 28, 2017)

mclaren777 said:


> It sounds like the 85mm IS will cost somewhere between $1600-2000, which is great news in my book.
> 
> Translated from Japanese...
> 
> ...



More likely advertised at either $1499 or $1599, considering the quotients of £/$ of RRP/MSRP on other high valued Canon gear that tend to be within 5% of each other right now.


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 28, 2017)

mclaren777 said:


> "Although there is not information on the domestic price yet, in the UK it seems that EF 85 mm is 1569 pounds, TS-E lenses are 2499 pounds each, M100 is 449 pounds body only."


At £2.5k each, I suspect any business case for the new TS-E lenses is going to be difficult for me to make given the sorts of work I do (I've been told I can have one if I sell my 11-24...)

The 85 just isn't remotely useful for any paying work (no weddings/portraits/babies/pets ;-) ) compared to what I've already got covering that FL


----------



## jdavidse (Aug 28, 2017)

keithcooper said:


> mclaren777 said:
> 
> 
> > "Although there is not information on the domestic price yet, in the UK it seems that EF 85 mm is 1569 pounds, TS-E lenses are 2499 pounds each, M100 is 449 pounds body only."
> ...



The problem I see is now there will be 5 quality L, updated TS-E lenses. Most people can only afford 1 of such a specialty lens. Do they really expect to sell that many of these? It seems like not just an expensive niche product, but a niche divided 5 ways.


----------



## jdavidse (Aug 28, 2017)

Just out of curiosity, which TS-E would everyone get, if you could only own 1? And why?


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 28, 2017)

jdavidse said:


> Just out of curiosity, which TS-E would everyone get, if you could only own 1? And why?


17mm - has earned me far more money than the 24mm (my second choice)

17mm just gets more 'wow' shots from clients - harder to use well, and I can crop if too wide (not that many clients want 50MP files)

If you meant just the new ones, probably the 90 (if I can't keep my Mk1) or possibly the 135 (I have an old Zeiss 135/3.5 that I've sometimes used) 50 just leaves me wondering what I'd actually use it for


----------



## hendrik-sg (Aug 28, 2017)

Maybe this is off topic, but i own the 17mm which i would buy again. For the wide angel, i like the shift function, and tilt can be used with little luck and try/error even when handholding the camera. It's my general wide angel lens

2nd choice would be the 24mm for the same reasons.

In my opinion these 2 lenses can be used very generally, whereas i see the longer ones as specialised lenses mostly for product photography, within a professional setup.


----------

