# 85mm f/1.2L II vs 85mm f/1.4L IS



## Ozarker (Sep 3, 2017)

Well, the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS is no longer a rumor.

I'm wondering: For those of you thinking about an 85mm portrait lens; will you choose the f/1.4L IS? Will you choose the old 85 f/1.2L II? Or will you wait and see whether or not an 85mm f/1.2L III is coming?

I know it has been said that the new f/1.4L is not a replacement for the f/1.2L, but I'm not sure I believe that. It may not be a direct replacement (because of the vastly differing specs), but that doesn't mean Canon won't quit making an 85mm in f/1.2.

Wondering how many of us might be torn about all this.

I've got a feeling that if a new 85mm f/1.2 does come out that the price is going to be really up there.

I'd like an 85mm portrait lens, but the new lens has certainly muddied the water for me.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Sep 3, 2017)

The water is very clear to me, you have f/1.2 and f/1.4. I have used the 1.2 many times before as a loaner, purchased a new one last month, it's truly a class lens, it has its querks but the results are worth the effort, of late I also got the new 35 this year, that is a new class of 35mm. I am sure the new 1.4 is just as good as the new 35 but if you want to shoot f/1.2 then you only have one option, as said by Canon the f/1.2 will remain in the lineup and stay in production that suggests to me no new mkiii is in the pipeline. End of the day millions of fantastic images have been taken with the 1.2ii, surly that's encouraging enough to buy into it at this time. I am super pleased with my choice.


----------



## Perio (Sep 3, 2017)

arthurbikemad said:


> The water is very clear to me, you have f/1.2 and f/1.4. I have used the 1.2 many times before as a loaner, purchased a new one last month, it's truly a class lens, it has its querks but the results are worth the effort, of late I also got the new 35 this year, that is a new class of 35mm. I am sure the new 1.4 is just as good as the new 35 but if you want to shoot f/1.2 then you only have one option, as said by Canon the f/1.2 will remain in the lineup and stay in production that suggests to me no new mkiii is in the pipeline. End of the day millions of fantastic images have been taken with the 1.2ii, surly that's encouraging enough to buy into it at this time. I am super pleased with my choice.



But how much difference do you expect to see at f1.2 vs. 1.4?


----------



## Viggo (Sep 3, 2017)

I've had a bunch of 1.2's and each time I find it the only option, and I want to love it, but I gets sold after a short while because I'm not loving the wide open performance and the AF sucks for what I need.

I'm currently selling my 135 because it's too long and too close to my 200. And I think the 85 IS will suit me just fine. Ideally I would have kept my Zeiss 100 f2, but mf is not right for me.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Sep 3, 2017)

Perio said:


> arthurbikemad said:
> 
> 
> > The water is very clear to me, you have f/1.2 and f/1.4. I have used the 1.2 many times before as a loaner, purchased a new one last month, it's truly a class lens, it has its querks but the results are worth the effort, of late I also got the new 35 this year, that is a new class of 35mm. I am sure the new 1.4 is just as good as the new 35 but if you want to shoot f/1.2 then you only have one option, as said by Canon the f/1.2 will remain in the lineup and stay in production that suggests to me no new mkiii is in the pipeline. End of the day millions of fantastic images have been taken with the 1.2ii, surly that's encouraging enough to buy into it at this time. I am super pleased with my choice.
> ...



I knew someone would ask just that, not a great deal, I'd agree that for the most part people should seriously consider the benefits of the new lens, but for me a lens has many other characteristics than just its apature, those qualities of the new lens have yet to be seen. Over the next year or so it will be interesting to see the new lenses portfolio unfold.


----------



## Nitroman (Sep 3, 2017)

I've used the Canon 85mm f1.2 II for several years now on 1Ds3, 5D2 and 5Ds and the AF does suck. 

It's basically supposed to be a portrait lens but dues to the design you will be very lucky to get a sharp photo at f1.2 at headshot distance with using AFMA. 

I've had my lens and bodies all calibrated by Canon Pro UK and still the AF is way out unless i use AFMA. The AFMA value also changes with focus distance so it's not an easy fix.

I'm guessing the new 85mm f1.4 IS design will be more accurate and if you want f1.2 you just have to get used to the older lenses quirks. Once sharp it's a lovely lens but the difference between f1.2 and f1.4 is marginal.

That's my opinion anyways ...


----------



## Jopa (Sep 3, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Well, the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS is no longer a rumor.
> 
> I'm wondering: For those of you thinking about an 85mm portrait lens; will you choose the f/1.4L IS? Will you choose the old 85 f/1.2L II? Or will you wait and see whether or not an 85mm f/1.2L III is coming?
> 
> ...



They said the 1.4 IS is not a replacement of the 1.2L, but they didn't say it won't be ever updated, so who knows, maybe we'll see a v3 in a year or two. It would be really nice actually to have the 1.2L with faster AF (presumable internal focusing), to me that's the only thing it's lacking. The center sharpness is great, and I can live with CA  It delivers a unique look and that's most important (to me).


----------



## Jopa (Sep 3, 2017)

Nitroman said:


> I've used the Canon 85mm f1.2 II for several years now on 1Ds3, 5D2 and 5Ds and the AF does suck.
> 
> It's basically supposed to be a portrait lens but dues to the design you will be very lucky to get a sharp photo at f1.2 at headshot distance with using AFMA.
> 
> ...



f/1.2 at a headshot distance is super hard indeed  f/2.8 is more realistic. Mine required -5 to -6 AFMA but it was very consistent.


----------



## mjg79 (Sep 3, 2017)

The truth is that on this subject nobody knows what will happen.

I was expecting this new lens to come in at a higher price point and clearly be the replacement for the 1.2 just as the 200/2 IS replaced the 200/1.8.

But it has come in lower than expected. Is this because it is 1.4? Is this because Canon is worried about the stiff competition at 85mm? Or is this because Canon is genuinely planning to keep two L lenses at 85mm?

You can safely ignore all the marketing talk from Canon - even if they are going to discontinue the 1.2 they won't say so until the stock is cleared.

I think we will get a clearer idea when we see some more samples taken and see how it competes. I'm hoping it will match the 1.2 for quality and improve the chromatic aberrations. 

I think ultimately this is the new 85L and we will see the 1.2 phased out. Had Canon really wanted to just make another good quality 85 they could have updated the 1.8. But they know that so many professionals in many areas as well as prosumers were wanting a wide aperture 85 with fast focusing and for them to put IS on it too is the icing on the cake. A fast 85mm is one of those very important lenses in a line up and I will be surprised if it's anything less than amazing. 

The only thing that brings doubt is that it is, compared to Sigma, relatively lower weight and it is cheaper than we expected. 

As for whether this means Canon is just trying to crush the opposition or whether Canon has produced a lens with some corners cut to keep the price down, nobody can say yet, we are all just guessing.

In real world terms nobody will be able to tell the difference between a photo at 1.2 and 1.4. Yes on a tripod in certain circumstances one can manage to find slight differences but it won't have any impact on the worth of a photo. Being in focus however will.

I am very excited about the new lens. The only regret I have is I think I probably should have sold my 1.2 some months ago - if this new lens matches the quality and adds in IS and fast focus I don't think anyone will be buying the 1.2 without hefty discounts.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 3, 2017)

One thing people seems to overlook is that even though the DOF of 1.2 vs 1.4 isn't going to be much they can have completely different bokeh. Take the 200 f2 vs 70-200 f2.8; with both at 2.8 the 200 f2 will still have much nicer bokeh.

And again, if anyone thinks Canon will replace the 1.2 with a 1.4 at cheaper price, they do not know Canon very well. 

Show me one lens where the replacement is much cheaper.

The 35 L II, 16-35 IS, 16-35 III, all the TS lenses, 400 DO II, 24 and 28 IS, 35 f2 and so on....


----------



## mjg79 (Sep 3, 2017)

Viggo said:


> One thing people seems to overlook is that even though the DOF of 1.2 vs 1.4 isn't going to be much they can have completely different bokeh. Take the 200 f2 vs 70-200 f2.8; with both at 2.8 the 200 f2 will still have much nicer bokeh.
> 
> And again, if anyone thinks Canon will replace the 1.2 with a 1.4 at cheaper price, they do not know Canon very well.
> 
> ...



Interesting post and you are right about the price. The only example I think of the other way is the 50/1.2 was cheaper than the 50/1.0 but it's obviously not a direct replacement.

But another question comes to mind though - has Canon ever released an L lens in a popular focal range that didn't improve on its predecessors? 

It's quite possible you will be right about the bokeh. I've noticed that the race to have ever sharper and ever better corrected optics seems to be giving worse bokeh - Sigma's 50mm Art lens, for example, doesn't have the nice, Nikon Noct style, rendering of the old "Sigmalux" 50/1.4. 

So it might be the case that the 1.2 has an edge there. But I still struggle to see people being willing to pay extra over and above the price of the new 1.4 IS for a lens that is slow to autofocus, has no IS and has chromatic aberrations. I would be happy to be wrong as I have one and am not keen to see it's used value drop a lot. But when you mention all those lenses - the 35L II, the 16-35/4 IS (assuming we count it as a replacement for the 17-40), the 16-35/2.8 III, the 400DO II, the 24mm TS-E II - all of those ones anyway saw significant upgrades to the optical quality (and other elements). The 35L II, Canon's most recent 1.4 prime, in particular offers Otus like performance with auto focus - and yes, it must be noted, a higher cost.

So despite seeing the lower price, I still struggle to see Canon releasing an L lens 85mm 1.4 that is anything short of great.

It will be fascinating to see the reviews as they come out.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 3, 2017)

Agreed !

I think this new L will be better than the 1.2 in every aspect, not counting bokeh. But I also will be willing to sacrifice a little blur quality over the improvements in AF alone, and considering all the other aspects, I expect this to be a great lens and sharper at f1.4 than the 1.2 is at 1.6-1.8.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 3, 2017)

I have the 1.2 and love what it can do. However, quick AF and IS, and, hopefully, better ergonomics, would make this a clear, easy choice if I ever had to replace the 1.2. Just too much added versatility to fret over 1/3 of a stop!

Just read the Professional Photographers of America review of the Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art. It's a lovely performer, but for some reason, their Art lenses have a history of inconsistent, unreliable AF. Plus, no IS.

My prediction is that the current 1.2 will be phased out and not upgraded.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Sep 3, 2017)

Some of you should get a shift on and buy this new lens ;D, then get back on here and post up some feedback - oh and a few pics..... I will say even the new 35ii is not free from minor imperfections, shooting today with the 35ii I noticed some minor blue fringing on a zipper shot with the 5D4, it got me thinking were do you find perfection? Zeiss Otus 85mm 1.4? Seems those who sport such a lens also accept the fact it has no IS and are happy to pay the £3532.99 asking price here in the UK.


----------



## padam (Sep 3, 2017)

AF speed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXxgA8KglDQ


----------



## mjg79 (Sep 3, 2017)

padam said:


> AF speed
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXxgA8KglDQ



Good find thanks. The 1.4 actually looks like it frames it a bit differently when focusing closely, I suppose that's focus breathing but if you look carefully they start of focused at different distances so that might explain that difference and clearly much better AF and the rendering, so far as one can tell in such a test, looks very similar to the 1.2. Exciting to see.


----------



## mjg79 (Sep 3, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> I have the 1.2 and love what it can do. However, quick AF and IS, and, hopefully, better ergonomics, would make this a clear, easy choice if I ever had to replace the 1.2. Just too much added versatility to fret over 1/3 of a stop!
> 
> Just read the Professional Photographers of America review of the Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art. It's a lovely performer, but for some reason, their Art lenses have a history of inconsistent, unreliable AF. Plus, no IS.
> 
> My prediction is that the current 1.2 will be phased out and not upgraded.



I suspect you're right. I admit it makes me a bit sad. An 85/1.2 has been in Canon's line up for decades, it's an iconic lens. 

Canon has been on a gradual move to being a bit more conservative over the past decade. They know what they are doing and they know pros really care more about autofocus, build quality, weather sealing, weight etc. But still it's a bit of a pity. If I'm honest I chose Canon over Nikon because of the 85L when I first bought a DSLR. I knew 1.2 v 1.4 makes no real difference but it just was so exotic I wanted it. I still remember opening the box when I bought it and just holding it the way one would a piece of jewellery or a Rolex. 

Canon replaced the 200/1.8 with a 200/2.0 and IS. The 50 1.0 was replaced with a 50 1.2. And now it looks like the 85/1.2 is being replaced by a 1.4 (I know they deny it but they are bound to). It seems a pity when the rest of the industry is trying to give exotics. Some years ago Canon seemed able to be both bold and sensible, today the sensible side is winning out. They are making money so perhaps they are right and I am wrong of course!

Over the past several years we have seen a 14mm 1.8, a 20mm 1.4 and a 135mm 1.8. Only snag is Sigma made them. We have also seen a 28mm 1.4, a dreamy 58mm 1.4 and a 105mm 1.4. Only they were form Nikon. I really think the Canon who built the 50mm 1.0 and 85 1.2 would have been the first to get some of those new exotic combinations.

I'm not bashing Canon; they are my favourite camera company and I love using the products. When one looks at the overall user experience and the quality of the products they are wonderful. The gradual refinement of lenses whether it is a 24mm TS lens or a 300 2.8 with IS shows a very mature company carefully designing products. I just want a bit of fire back, give us something to lust over!


----------



## Viggo (Sep 3, 2017)

Speed is extremely hard to check sensibly like that, although it's painfully obvious how poor the f1.2 is. Does anybody know which body they are tested on?

The speed difference is in the accuracy as well. Focus racking from one end to the other doesn't say anything about accuracy and ability to track accurately. In that regard it can't be as bad as the 1.8 (which is awful), but they "look" nearly as fast.

Thanks for sharing the video, new info to me and that is always fun.


----------



## Phenix205 (Sep 3, 2017)

I've had the 1.2 for over three years. Love it very much. However, the number of photos shot at 1.2 has been relatively small. If you don't have the 1.2, definitely go with the new 1.4 IS. I'll stick with the 1.2. As long as you use it the right way, it's simply amazing. I haven't had much AF issue at all as I never use it to shoot moving subject. I take my time to study the light and composition.


----------



## Perio (Sep 3, 2017)

mjg79 said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > I have the 1.2 and love what it can do. However, quick AF and IS, and, hopefully, better ergonomics, would make this a clear, easy choice if I ever had to replace the 1.2. Just too much added versatility to fret over 1/3 of a stop!
> ...



That's true but these exotic lenses were designed in the past when cameras had poor ISO performance. Thus, the need for a wider aperture was greater. Nowadays, it's more important to have better specs and functionality. Sure, some people say 200 f1.8 gives you a more pleasant 3d picture than 200 f2, but the latter is much more functional, lighter, has IS, etc. Not sure what's going to happen with 50 f1.2 and whether or not it'd be replaced with 50 f1.4 L version with IS and other improvements.


----------



## mjg79 (Sep 3, 2017)

Perio said:


> That's true but these exotic lenses were designed in the past when cameras had poor ISO performance. Thus, the need for a wider aperture was greater. Nowadays, it's more important to have better specs and functionality. Sure, some people say 200 f1.8 gives you a more pleasant 3d picture than 200 f2, but the latter is much more functional, lighter, has IS, etc. Not sure what's going to happen with 50 f1.2 and whether or not it'd be replaced with 50 f1.4 L version with IS and other improvements.



I think it's quite possible the next 50mm L lens will indeed be a well corrected 1.4 to go head to head with Sigma etc. Having said that I think it might be a while yet before they update the current one as it has a fairly dedicated following of people who love its unique rendering.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 4, 2017)

mjg79 said:


> Perio said:
> 
> 
> > That's true but these exotic lenses were designed in the past when cameras had poor ISO performance. Thus, the need for a wider aperture was greater. Nowadays, it's more important to have better specs and functionality. Sure, some people say 200 f1.8 gives you a more pleasant 3d picture than 200 f2, but the latter is much more functional, lighter, has IS, etc. Not sure what's going to happen with 50 f1.2 and whether or not it'd be replaced with 50 f1.4 L version with IS and other improvements.
> ...



Yes, those would be the abstractionists. :


----------



## hne (Sep 4, 2017)

Viggo said:


> Speed is extremely hard to check sensibly like that, although it's painfully obvious how poor the f1.2 is. Does anybody know which body they are tested on?
> 
> The speed difference is in the accuracy as well. Focus racking from one end to the other doesn't say anything about accuracy and ability to track accurately. In that regard it can't be as bad as the 1.8 (which is awful), but they "look" nearly as fast.
> 
> Thanks for sharing the video, new info to me and that is always fun.



You find the 85/1.8 bad at AF accuracy? I was thinking that myself before getting the 5DmkIV. I'm tracking running kids at f/1.8 now, with face tracking through iTR AF and getting an astonishing hit rate.

Had a 5yo running full steam straight at me at f/2 on a heavily overcast day this summer, with all 22 shots taken in just over 3 seconds in the series being in perfect focus. Granted, that was with the kid starting out at roughly quarter image height and last frame had a 3/4 image height coverage. I rarely have focus misses unless I let the AF points slip or have severe backlight.

From the video, it looks like the 85/1.4L IS is possibly even slightly faster than the f/1.8 at focusing.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 4, 2017)

hne said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Speed is extremely hard to check sensibly like that, although it's painfully obvious how poor the f1.2 is. Does anybody know which body they are tested on?
> ...



It depends on which points you're using. And I find that the newer Canon bodies is extremely good when something comes straight at the camera, but in general and for all the shots I did with the 1.8 it was to all over the place. It's quick, but not accurate. I didn't expect much either considering the price, but it was even worse than I thought. I also mostly photograph kids at play. 

I didn't try the 1.8 on my 1dx2, used it on the 1dx and it wasn't great to say the least. So I ended up shooting loads more shots than I should, and of course, the coolest shots were always misfocused


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 11, 2017)

I think it really depends if you already have a good copy of the 85mm f1.2 L. There's not really enough in the specs of the new f1.4 IS version to warrant having both except curiosity. If I was in the market for one or the other and I didn't already have one, then it would come down to 1) new and shiny... 2) AF speed vs f1.2 3) cost and availability.

If the new lens was lighter and smaller then there would have been more incentive to side grade. I'm really happy with my f1.2 version and I get great results from it. It's one of my bread and butter lenses. But I may rent a copy of the f1.4 LIS to try out and see how it get on with it. But on paper there's not much to warrant the side grade.


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 11, 2017)

I've always wanted a 'bokeh monster' and the 85mm was the focal length I always set my heart on

As it is, the new 85 is what I'm looking at. I do know that the f/1.2 is a legendary lens but time has moved on and we have a new piece of kit that can write its own story now.

It'll be interesting to see which resolves better on the newer, high MP cameras like the 5DSR and so on

But photographers are in general rather educated on what they put into their kit bags. I'm sure we'll all be making decisions that fits our need, pocket and sensibilities


----------

