# Will canon make an 85f2 IS?



## wickidwombat (Nov 9, 2012)

I pretty much shoot my sigma 85 at f2 most of the time because I find dof too shallow on 1.4 and really only go to 1.4 due to extreme low light so an 85 f2 with IS that sharp wide open might tempt me. Especially if is smaller and more compact. Since it seems canon are putting IS on all the non L primes I think this is a possibility just when is the big question?


----------



## dolina (Nov 9, 2012)

I would not be surprised if Canon were to make an EF 85mm f/1.8 USM with IS. A f/2 is unlikely.

I would also expect them to make an IS version for the following

EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
EF 28 f/1.8 USM
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
EF 50mm f/1.8 II
EF 100mm f/2 USM
EF 135mm f/2.8 with Softfocus
EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro

That is the trend for non-L EF lenses. Just add IS at the same f-number and focal length.


----------



## jhanken (Nov 9, 2012)

> That is the trend for non-L EF lenses. Just add IS at the same f-number and focal length.



I noticed that the non-"L" category seems to be getting all the love. I think the 135MM f/2 L would be a cool lens to get the IS treatment, although the price would likely get a little crazy.


----------



## symmar22 (Nov 9, 2012)

dolina said:


> I would not be surprised if Canon were to make an EF 85mm f/1.8 USM with IS. A f/2 is unlikely.
> 
> I would also expect them to make an IS version for the following
> 
> ...



add a 180mm Macro please...


----------



## elflord (Nov 10, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I pretty much shoot my sigma 85 at f2 most of the time because I find dof too shallow on 1.4 and really only go to 1.4 due to extreme low light so an 85 f2 with IS that sharp wide open might tempt me. Especially if is smaller and more compact. Since it seems canon are putting IS on all the non L primes I think this is a possibility just when is the big question?



f/2.8 and it will cost about as much as the Sigma 85 (and almost as much as the 135L)


----------



## dolina (Nov 10, 2012)

jhanken said:


> > That is the trend for non-L EF lenses. Just add IS at the same f-number and focal length.
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that the non-"L" category seems to be getting all the love. I think the 135MM f/2 L would be a cool lens to get the IS treatment, although the price would likely get a little crazy.



The non-L EF primes with IS are not cheap either.  Canon will either continue selling the ancient lens or discontinue them all together.

symmar22 180mm Macro is an L prime. I am not that interested as I do not shoot macros all that often.


----------



## symmar22 (Nov 10, 2012)

My bad, I thought I read 135mm f2L in the list. Not sure they would bother updating the 135mm Soft Focus though.


----------



## Ew (Nov 10, 2012)

Interesting... for some reason, I was convinced that the 28 2.8 IS is a replacement for the 1.8 ...


----------



## Zv (Nov 11, 2012)

They'll probably announce the 85 and 100 primes with IS at the same time just like the 24, 28 combo. I reckon they'll be both f/2. The existing 85 @ f/1.8 is not that great, I find f/2.8 and above is where it shines. Hopefully the replacement is better wide open. 

Based on Canon's recent trend it may be a while before we see these lenses though, they seem to be starting at the wide end (24, 28, 35 . . . ) so hopefully next up is the long awaited 50 update! People need a decent 50 1.4 IS. Leave the nifty fifty alone, it serves a purpose to those who want cheapness! 

Now, I've heard of the 135 soft focus but never knew what it was for. Does anyone own one? Why would you want your focus to be soft? Surely you can just use post processing techniques now to get the same effect. Don't see this lens getting IS anytime soon. 

I also don't know if Canon will upgrade the small 50 macro to an IS version, it prob cost too much for a lens that isn't even true 1:1 macro. They're new 24-70 f4 IS will take care of that need.


----------



## symmar22 (Nov 11, 2012)

Don't forget the 135mm Soft Focus was released in 1987. It was not designed for digital since... digital was barely experimental in 1987. The main purpose was to have a portrait lens with an integrated adjustable soft filter. I guess at that time, David Hamilton was still trendy. 
But it is not a single concept, Rodenstock had designed the Imagon lenses (200, 250 and 300mm) for use on technical view cameras.
Soft focus was only possible with these lenses, or soft filters, or some tricks in the lab. For people who did a lot of soft portraits (very fancy back in the 80's), a lens with integrated soft must have been a blessing.
Nowadays with post production software, it doesn't really make sense any more to design specific lenses for soft focus. Aside from that, people claim it is a very sharp lens when the soft ring is set to 0. Maybe Canon could design a new 135mm f2.8 with IS (lightweight, small filter size, CHEAP).


----------



## Haydn1971 (Nov 11, 2012)

The trend is clearly to introduce a larger gap in light gathering ability between the non L and L primes...

We currently have the 24/28 f2.8 with IS, the 35 f2 IS is also out soon, with the older lenses being phased out - The new IS lens are expensive now at about £600-670 but I'm confident that this will ease back to the £400 mark in 12 months, once the initial demand has been serviced.

As for what's coming, a 50, 85 & 100 are pretty obvious contenders, the current trend though will likely serve up a 50 f1.8 IS and f2 versions of the 85/100 - why ? Because DSLR's have much better low light ISO performance than ever before and whilst the really picky people on here will insist that lower f numbers are essential, the majority of us couldn't really be able to tell the difference in 0.2-0.4 of an f-stop and would actually benefit from a new lens with sharper optics, image stabilisation and better handling than an unnoticeable outside of the lab improvement of bokah !

I'd like to think we will also see a 20 & 14mm IS non L option soon too... but again based on recent trends expect these to be f3.5 - not that different to the Zeiss prime lenses that get so much praise. 

What about a non L - 200-400 IS ? For about £800 and compatable with extenders ! Come on Canon ;-)


----------



## Zv (Nov 11, 2012)

Symmar22 - thanks for the extra info on the soft focus thing.


----------



## symmar22 (Nov 11, 2012)

Zv said:


> Symmar22 - thanks for the extra info on the soft focus thing.



No problem, it's always a pleasure.

My opinion about the next updates, is that we should see a 50mm f1.4 IS, I wonder if they would do the same with the 50mm 1.8, since they always kept a very clear separation within their ranges : 1.2 L, 1.4 USM, 1.8 cheap everything. I would more see a 50mm 1.8 USM without IS as an ugrade too keep an entry level offering.

After should come the 85mm and 100mm, Not sure though they would make them both f2, since it would make them a bit too similar. The deal is not so bad as it is, a bit brighter but shorter (85mm), or a bit longer for 1/3 stop loss (100mm). IMO it shows a more clear separation between the two lenses, if both would be f2, I wonder if the obvious choice wouldn't be to take the 100m for most people (the longer, the better), and might kill the sales of the 85mm f2. I agree that the actual difference between 1.8 and 2 is almost none, but marketing people may see it otherwise.

Then we need a modern standard macro lens, with USM, IS, and of course 1:1 reproduction ratio. I think the 50mm focal is a bit outdated here, since most close up pictures can benefit from a slightly longer lens. Nikon got that principle early, with the 55mm macro, that was later extended to 60mm. It is somehow equivalent to the 210mm lens used on a 4x5 view camera, for the same reason, more natural perspective in object photography.

Finally, the 135mm f2.8 IS USM would close the chapter of the very old, non USM lenses dating back from the late 80's.

It seems Canon has decided to start with the wide angle end, replacing the 15mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm. One should note they did not upgrade non-L USM lenses in between though. The 20mm f2.8 USM and the 28mm f1.8 USM are still here.

So it would be interesting to see if they are only getting rid of the non-USM lenses (then the next ones should be 50mm f2.5 macro, and the 135mm f2.8 ) , or if they are renewing the whole non-L prime range....


----------



## gjones5252 (Nov 11, 2012)

So I just ordered the 85mm 1.8. Should I return it? I want the 1.8 for low light video and depth of field in pictures. Given the current trend I wonder if it would be best to return it and just wait. Seems like it won't be but another two months or so? Is would be helpful and the current trend is also for better picture quality.


----------



## dolina (Nov 11, 2012)

Remember, updated lenses will *ALWAYS* cost more. Do not expect a price cut on currently sold old lenses.



Ew said:


> Interesting... for some reason, I was convinced that the 28 2.8 IS is a replacement for the 1.8 ...



When the 28 2.8 IS was announced the 28 2.8 from the 80s was removed from the lineup.

A lot of the lenses from the 80s were derived from FD lenses and are starting to show their age with high MP bodies. Sticking to them will make your photos have a "period" look most notably the 70s and 80s minus the aesthetics of film.

Annually Canon has a habit of announcing 4-5 new EF & EF-S lenses. They have accomplished that this year.

For 2013 I expect the same. Two L primes, two non-L EF primes an EFS lens and the rest EF-M lenses.


----------



## Zv (Nov 12, 2012)

gjones5252 said:


> So I just ordered the 85mm 1.8. Should I return it? I want the 1.8 for low light video and depth of field in pictures. Given the current trend I wonder if it would be best to return it and just wait. Seems like it won't be but another two months or so? Is would be helpful and the current trend is also for better picture quality.



Nah, hang on to it. You can take some great pictures in the meantime. And when the new 85 comes you can sell the old one to help pay for it. It'll be longer that two months, even after it's announced and released you'll want to wait for the price to drop. The 85 1.8 is a great low light lens for the price. 

Are you using FF or crop? It's great on both but you'll get smaller dof on FF. In my opinion f/1.8 on FF is too shallow for video if the subject is people. It's harder to keep them in focus without constant focus pulls. Prob better to use f/4 and just crank up ISO. The 85 when stopped down is amazing.


----------



## BRNexus6 (Nov 12, 2012)

I'm sure they will replace the majority of their old lenses with IS replacements. 

Prepare to pay around $800 for such a lens.


----------



## gjones5252 (Nov 12, 2012)

Zv said:


> gjones5252 said:
> 
> 
> > So I just ordered the 85mm 1.8. Should I return it? I want the 1.8 for low light video and depth of field in pictures. Given the current trend I wonder if it would be best to return it and just wait. Seems like it won't be but another two months or so? Is would be helpful and the current trend is also for better picture quality.
> ...


Ok awesome. Thanks for the input. I have both crop and full frame. Yeah I will use it and a wide angle for concert type video. This probably the last lens ill buy for a while and now I am saving for a better camera just for the higher iso and better autofocus for pictures.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Nov 12, 2012)

gjones5252 said:


> So I just ordered the 85mm 1.8. Should I return it? I want the 1.8 for low light video and depth of field in pictures. Given the current trend I wonder if it would be best to return it and just wait. Seems like it won't be but another two months or so? Is would be helpful and the current trend is also for better picture quality.



When, and if, an 85/1.8 IS comes out, it will sell for double that of the current 85/1.8. So you can sell your 85/1.8 for what you have paid for it at that time.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 12, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> gjones5252 said:
> 
> 
> > So I just ordered the 85mm 1.8. Should I return it? I want the 1.8 for low light video and depth of field in pictures. Given the current trend I wonder if it would be best to return it and just wait. Seems like it won't be but another two months or so? Is would be helpful and the current trend is also for better picture quality.
> ...


Very solid logic there


----------



## Bosman (Nov 13, 2012)

Although an F2 version of the 85 would be good especially if it is the hybrid IS. Canon would be smarter to make it 85 F2.8 hybrid IS to keep it more distant from the F1.2. If they do an F2 version they should have regular IS. If the 35 F2 were regular IS it would make it easier to overlook. If i was Canon I would streamline the lens lineup, 1 L version, one non L. The funny thing is the new 24-70 F4 screws that up. I get the white lens being duplicated but don't understand this 24-70F4 L concept. Given that 35mm is a more popular lens like the 50 and 85 focal lengths It makes sense to give it added spice. I'd say there are way more shooters out there that feel safer shooting F2.8 or smaller apertures. Given that I'd say there will be some major value to hybrid is helping with panning motion and low light shooting. Shooting F1.4 means more focus issues with movement, yes you get faster shutter speeds but your miss rate increases also. There are pluses and minuses to every lens.
It is pretty obvious Canon wants their cameras to be used heavily for video until those who get more serious are ready for their cinema lens lineup. Having IS on more of their lenses I believe is a priority for them. Just look at firmware updates and features, Canon seems to make these cameras a priority of 60/40, camera/video. I am ok if this is wrong, I made it up, but they are really getting serious about video! This kinda annoys me since the whole focus point thing not lighting up is a very useful camera function that they def knew they skipped but wow hdmi is coming to 5dm3. WTH!


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 14, 2012)

an 85 f2.8 with HIS is too close to the 100f2.8L HIS Macro
cant really see it being f2.8


----------



## Bosman (Nov 16, 2012)

Not a bad point Wickid but 85 is more ideal for portraits imo. Besides the 100 is macro and 85 wouldn't be.


----------

