# 85mm



## steliosk (Nov 12, 2013)

Hello 

Here are my worries:
The 85L is adorable but i'd have to sell my kidney to buy it 

so i'm stuck between the EF 85 1.8 and the Sigma 85 1.4

I have a 5D3

i've tested the 1.8, i had absolutely no problem in focusing at 1.8. The sharpness was ok and with a little help in post processing i'm quite satisfied!

The one thing i can't tolerate is the purple/green fringes. The ones that are blended in the bokeh are unfixable 

I'm talking about head portraits mostly.
The 100L macro which i own, is fringless on that matter.

I was wondering if the Sigma is any better? I need to shot wide open and i don't know which one performs better or should i just stay with 100L 2.8.

phewwwww decisions decisions...


----------



## glongstaff (Nov 12, 2013)

to be honest I am happy with the EF 85mm f/1.8....I haven't noticed the fringing you state...admittedly not done the studio style portraits but have taken in very trying conditions..heres just a couple of shots taken with the lens at two venues (same band)


----------



## RunAndGun (Nov 12, 2013)

I have both the Canon 85mm f/1.8 and f/1.2. The 1.8 is a great lens for the money. If you're looking at the 1.2 to get rid of CA, you'll still have it. But the 1.2 is a great lens period.


----------



## Rat (Nov 12, 2013)

I love contrast. I hate the 1.8 fringing. Apparently, the 100mm (non-L) is just as bad. Would have gone Sigma but have AF concerns (and sane financial priorities).


----------



## steliosk (Nov 13, 2013)

well here are some samples at 100% with the Canon 85 1.8
see the frings?

i'm wondering if the Sigma 1.4 is any better


----------



## Harv (Nov 13, 2013)

This may answer your questions regarding the Sigma.....

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/602-sigma85f14eosff?start=1


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Nov 13, 2013)

Steliosk: Your photos do a great job of pointing out the purple fringe in front of the subject. My testing also found green fringing behind the subject.

I found that both went away when I stopped down to about F/2.2 and the bokeh was still enough for my needs. I never notice it in general use. Check out my website if you like. Many of the photos were created with the 85 1.8, I love that lens and use it more than any other.

I'm afraid that if you shoot wide open, all the available 85mm lenses are going to have some color fringing somewhere. Even if one of them is slightly superior according to technical reviews, the copy-to-copy variation and autofocus problems can still be frustrating.

Wish I had a better answer for you!


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Nov 13, 2013)

OK, on second thought I do have a suggestion... the examples you posted appear to be close-ups, so I'm wondering if maybe you should consider the 100mm macro?


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 13, 2013)

at f1.4 the sigma has much less fringing but its still has some (not nearly as bad as the examples you show), by f2 its completely gone though and its razor sharp


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 13, 2013)

You just have to stop it down to get rid of the fringing. That's why I love my 100mm F2.8 USM Macro. I didn't notice any fringing @ 2.8, though I don't know why DXO listed it as having a higher LCA than the 85mm...


----------



## dirtcastle (Nov 13, 2013)

I think this is one of the reasons why the 135mm f/2L is so popular and revered (even though it is significantly longer than the 85 f/1.8. Much of Canon's fast glass will have CA wide open (including the 85L). The 100mm f/2.8L is a damn fine lens, but I don't see it as a substitute for an 85 f/1.2 because, well, f/1.2 is a lot bigger hole than an f/2.8 ). That said, I feel like the 85mm f/1.8 can get the job done most of the time. Just work around the limitations and avoid super high contrast and blowouts. You can also try slight underexposure and using Lightroom to lift shadows and highlights.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 13, 2013)

steliosk said:


> I'm talking about head portraits mostly. The 100L macro which i own, is fringless on that matter.



Um, this is a bit off topic (sorry), but I was wondering about getting the very reasonably priced 85/1.8 in combination to my 100L...

... but I somehow doubt this is really necessary, the aperture difference isn't that large and the 100L has IS. For which occasions do you find the 100L too long, or are you set upon getting an even shallower dof than f2.8?


----------



## wayno (Nov 13, 2013)

I had the Canon 85 1.8 and it's a very good lens but I prefer the Sigma. My copy is tack sharp and focusses just fine. Beautiful detail even wide open. For the relatively minor extra price, I think it's worth it. And both it and the 1.8 are a fair bit faster at AF than the 85L and as such, more useful for some applications.


----------



## Niki (Nov 13, 2013)

with the 5d mark iii shouldn't have so much fringing


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 13, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> steliosk said:
> 
> 
> > I'm talking about head portraits mostly. The 100L macro which i own, is fringless on that matter.
> ...



Personally I think the 85 is too short for tightly cropped head portraits it you want to flatter your model with FF. Even 100 for that matter. This is where the 135 focal length is at its best. But I don't shoot like that so sold my 135L but kept the 85 1.8. It's very good value and flexible, producing a pleasing bokeh that's on a par with the 135L IMO.


----------



## Harv (Nov 13, 2013)

I had another thought.....

You could also consider the Canon EF 100 f/2 which is just as sharp as the 85 but shows significantly less fringing. It's a lens many tend to overlook.


----------



## steliosk (Nov 13, 2013)

I want to thank you all for your answers and your time.

the samples i've posted were taken with 5D3 and 85 1.8
i do have the 100L macro which doesn't suffer from CA but it doesn't melt the background like the 85 1.8 

i don't consider buying the 100 f/2 since i have the 100L 2.8.. i think the differences are way too close.

after checking some samples on photozone
the sigma also has CA but it doesn't suffer as the 85 1.8


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 13, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> But I don't shoot like that so sold my 135L but kept the 85 1.8. It's very good value and flexible, producing a pleasing bokeh that's on a par with the 135L IMO.



Thanks - can you (or anyone) tell me how the 85/1.8 bokeh compares to the 100L?

The bokeh of the 100L is very plain and even to the point of being boring which makes sense on a macro lens, quite unlike my 70-300L with a much more vivid but not disturbing bokeh, though it's radial on the edges on ff which would be due to the small lens diameter (67mm) and large zoom range.



steliosk said:


> i do have the 100L macro which doesn't suffer from CA but it doesn't melt the background like the 85 1.8



Are there samples anywhere for the background blur difference in comparable/same images? Since my fastest lens around this focal length currently is f2.8 I have no idea how large the difference is.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 13, 2013)

There are some attractively priced 135mm f2L lenses on ebay. A bit more expensive than an 85/1.8, but a Lot more quality.


----------



## steliosk (Nov 13, 2013)

Marsu42

umm i can post some with 85 1.8 at 1.8 and 24-105 at 105 and f/4 if it helps

i took some samples between 1.8 and 2.8 a couple of months ago, but i don't remember if i kept it 

the ones with 85mm 1.8 vs 105mm 4.0 are new, just gimmie a sec to post them


----------



## Rat (Nov 13, 2013)

steliosk said:


> after checking some samples on photozone
> the sigma also has CA but it doesn't suffer as the 85 1.8



The Sigma is a lot bigger, though. One of the reasons I got the 85 was for street photography. Even a 5D3 can look inconspicuous with this lens. Well, _sort_ of inconspicuous.


----------



## steliosk (Nov 13, 2013)

the first sample is with EF 85 f/1.8

while the second with 24-105 at 105mm f/4

both taken with 5D3


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 13, 2013)

steliosk said:


> i took some samples between 1.8 and 2.8 a couple of months ago, but i don't remember if i kept it



That would be the ones I'm primarily interested in, though 1.8 vs. 4.0 is also worth a look - I wonder if buying the 85/1.8 would make any significant difference to my 100L, and then of course there's the CA issue which is really minor on the 100L (on ff, crop has a bit more of it).


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 13, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > But I don't shoot like that so sold my 135L but kept the 85 1.8. It's very good value and flexible, producing a pleasing bokeh that's on a par with the 135L IMO.
> ...



We do have a 100L at Building ~Panoramics but I haven't used it much, certainly not for shallow DOF shooting. In reality there is also very little depth of field difference. An 85 @1.8 @ 3.75 metres has a dof of 11 cms according to the Canon dof calculator. Assuming you'd be a little further off for the slightly longer lens, say 3 metres for the same framing dof is calculated at 15cms. 

I believe the 85 1.8 was designed with little chromatic aberration correction to give a smooth out of focus blur, hence bad purple fringing, but in practice, as with so many other things I think you would be splitting hairs with the difference.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 13, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> We do have a 100L at Building ~Panoramics but I haven't used it much, certainly not for shallow DOF shooting.



I'm using is a lot recently on ff because it's the only f2.8 lens I own, it has good/ok quality wide open, no CA and to mfd so it's very flexible... I know it cannot compete with real high-iq €2000+ primes, but on the other hand 85/135 sounds like a lot of duplication to me.



Sporgon said:


> I believe the 85 1.8 was designed with little chromatic aberration correction to give a smooth out of focus blur, hence bad purple fringing, but in practice, as with so many other things I think you would be splitting hairs with the difference.



Hmmmyes, that's what I thought, and that's why I didn't buy it - thanks!


----------



## chromophore (Nov 14, 2013)

I've owned the 85/1.8 and currently own the 85/1.2L II.

If your goal is portraiture, but you can't deal with secondary spectrum/longitudinal chromatic aberration/magenta-green fringing/spherochromatism/etc., then I don't recommend either 85mm lens shot wide open. The 85L is much better once stopped down to f/2 or so, but at f/1.2, it's going to give wicked color fringing in areas of high contrast. With the 85/1.8, the fringing is still there as well.

The 135/2L is a better choice for avoiding this specific aberration, and the quality of blur is very, very nice. I would say that it's as good a portrait lens as the 85L. It's also more affordable. I decided it didn't fit in my lineup because of the other lenses I already own, but it is an extremely well-regarded lens, and in my opinion, for what you are looking for, I think it fits your criteria best.

What the 85L (and 50/1.2L) can do, however, is retain strong background blur while giving a wider angle of view than the 135L. That's why those lenses are so coveted--they are capable of giving a certain look that other lenses cannot match (but it takes a particular sort of composition to reveal it). The trick to using these ultra-fast aperture lenses with a lot of color fringing wide open is to shoot in conditions that are low-contrast, with few bright highlights. The 85L is not a lens that works well if shot wide open in direct sun.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Nov 14, 2013)

chromophore said:


> The trick to using these ultra-fast aperture lenses with a lot of color fringing wide open is to shoot in conditions that are low-contrast, with few bright highlights. The 85L is not a lens that works well if shot wide open in direct sun.



Right, like a bride in a white dress on a sunny day... someone was showing off their collection of 85L wedding shots all shot at F/1.2 and oh dear, the dress did look interesting with a purple outline haha.


----------



## Alexiumz (Nov 14, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Thanks - can you (or anyone) tell me how the 85/1.8 bokeh compares to the 100L?



I have both; whilst (as everyone seems to agree in this thread) that the 85 1.8 does have CA issues, the quality of the blur is superior to the 100L wide open - mostly due to the wider aperture. The 85 has lovely bokeh. That said, the 100 does too, and can still very competently be used for portraits, however has better uses in other areas (ie macro!). The real winner is the 135, beats the 85 and the 100.


----------



## jmontessuis (Nov 18, 2013)

I love my EF 85mm f1.8, you won't be disappointed if you buy it, tack sharp, fast AF and fantastic bokeh.
Here is a pic I took with my 85 yesterday, wide open at f1.8...iso 6400.


----------



## Quasimodo (Nov 18, 2013)

steliosk said:


> Hello
> 
> Here are my worries:
> The 85L is adorable but i'd have to sell my kidney to buy it
> ...



I have the 85/1.4 and it is great (the focus speed on the 1.8 is the fastest of the lot), that is, .... until I got to play with the 1.2 for a few weeks. I still like my 1.4, but everytime I use it I am still thinking about the 1.2  

Then again, one should be careful of using my logic, as I have borrowed the 200/2 for a couple of years, and that is a lens I can never afford (or at least if I want to keep my marriage), so the day that one have to go back, I will be content with my 70-200 2.8 II


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 18, 2013)

steliosk said:


> The 85L is adorable but i'd have to sell my kidney to buy it


Sell your kidney - okay just kidding! In all seriousness, though, the 100 2.8L is a great lens and the 85 1.8 is going to disappoint when shot wide open. I'd keep saving as there's nothing quite like the 85 1.2. I put off buying it for many years which was a huge mistake. It really is all that, at least for portraits, and if that's what you're shooting, keep the 100 2.8L, make money with it and save up for the 85 1.2.

The 135 is a great lens, too, especially for indoor sports, but for portraits, you're kind of restricted to headshots unless you have plenty of room to back up and indoors, that's frequently tough, and full lenght shots require a lot of distance. 



Nishi Drew said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > The trick to using these ultra-fast aperture lenses with a lot of color fringing wide open is to shoot in conditions that are low-contrast, with few bright highlights. The 85L is not a lens that works well if shot wide open in direct sun.
> ...


I found that adjusting the micro focus (AFMA) with FoCal made a big difference in terms of both types of CA with all of my fast glass. Obviously it just applies to the in-focus areas, but for some reason, it seems to help overall.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Nov 22, 2013)

Nishi Drew said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > The trick to using these ultra-fast aperture lenses with a lot of color fringing wide open is to shoot in conditions that are low-contrast, with few bright highlights. The 85L is not a lens that works well if shot wide open in direct sun.
> ...


I found that adjusting the micro focus (AFMA) with FoCal made a big difference in terms of both types of CA with all of my fast glass. Obviously it just applies to the in-focus areas, but for some reason, it seems to help overall.
[/quote]

That is a very good point, it's the OOF areas that exhibit the most CA and fringing, and keeping tack sharp focus on what's important to keep in focus (well, the most basic of rules in focus) then yeah, it's then up to choice of aperture and what sort of lighting one's in. I was just recently shooting with a Zeiss 85 wide open and I liked how it was sharp, but the CA in the bokeh was still there, not enough to be an issue though. As far as I know the only 85mm around at a reasonable price, and has near perfect bokeh creaminess and CA control is the Samyang/Rokinon 85mm, it is not sharp and of course all MF, but again it's very much affordable.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 22, 2013)

steliosk said:


> Hello
> 
> Here are my worries:
> The 85L is adorable but i'd have to sell my kidney to buy it
> ...



My advice, make due with the 100L until 2014. I would say it is HIGHLY likely we will see a refresh of the 85mm to go with the new 50mm f/1.8 IS that is being released.


----------



## steliosk (Nov 23, 2013)

i wanna thank you all for your advices. Finally a friend of mine sold me the EF 85mm 1.8 for a good price. I'm quite happy with it.

the 2014 might be a lens upgrade year for canon, but the economy isn't strong as it used to be. Canon lives in her own world on that matter, so probably a new 50mm and 85mm lenses will come out but the prices will be very high
like the new ones 24mm 2.8 IS, 28mm 2.8 IS and 35mm f/2 IS


----------

