# Lensrentals.com Puts the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS Through The Machine Testing



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 4, 2018)

```
Roger over at Lensrentals.com has completed his OLAF testing of the brand new Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS. There are <a href="http://www.pntrs.com/t/TUJGRktHSkJGRk5HSklCRkpOSkVN?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lensrentals.com%2Fblog%2F2018%2F01%2Fmtf-testing-the-canon-85mm-f1-4-l-is%2F">lots of charts and all of that to look at</a>.</p>
<p><strong>From Lensrentals.com:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>This is a lens where the designer has focused on being very good in as many situations as possible rather than obtaining the highest possible MTF. It’s apparently designed for the person who uses 85mm in a lot of different situations; especially in low light situations.</p>
<p>It’s very sharp, the field is designed to get good focus no matter where you focus, and all reports indicate that the focusing is quick and accurate. If you take a ton of shots, your keeper rate is going to be exceptionally high. And if you shoot in poor lighting with an 85mm it will be amazing compared to almost anything else available in Canon mount. <a href="http://www.pntrs.com/t/TUJGRktHSkJGRk5HSklCRkpOSkVN?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lensrentals.com%2Fblog%2F2018%2F01%2Fmtf-testing-the-canon-85mm-f1-4-l-is%2F">Real the full test at Lensrentals.com</a></p>

</blockquote>
<p>I also must say that I didn’t realize that current EF 85mm f/1.2L II uses an optical design from the early 1970s, that’s a pretty incredible run.</p>
<blockquote><p>The <a href="http://www.pntrs.com/t/TUJGRktHSkJGRk5HSklCRkpOSkVN?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lensrentals.com%2Frent%2Fcanon-85mm-f1.2l-ii">Canon 85mm f/1.2 II</a> lens, the king of creamy bokeh, is basically a 40-year old optical design first released in 1976 (in FD mount) and released as an EF mount lens after some slight optical modification in 1989. The “II” version, released in 2006, was an electrical/mechanical change only, the optics remained the same. That’s an amazing run for a photography lens. It was designed in the early 1970’s and is still used frequently today.</p></blockquote>
<p>Consider this day a success.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## aceflibble (Jan 5, 2018)

The optics of the 85 f/1.2 aren't really that old. That's a fairly significant misrepresentation of the facts, or a plain huge misunderstanding of how lenses are made, depending on how naive the writer wishes to admit to being. The FD and both EFs have the same number of elements, but the FD is 6 groups, not 7 as the EF mounts are. The bigger difference which you don't see by just looking at the bare optical formula is the shape of several elements were slightly changed between the FD to EF move, and of course the materials and coatings have changed _drastically_, first with the move from FD to EF and again with the mark II. The aperture blades also changed from the FD to EF, and the inner housing was updated to a different texture which, at least in theory, should have helped with inner reflections. (Though because the coatings and actual lens materials also changed, it's hard to pin any improvements on something as relatively minor as the housing.)

Roger has the actual testing nailed, but that bit of trivia he dropped is really quite misleading.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Jan 5, 2018)

In my opinion, there is nothing much to correct from the dual Gaussian optical design of the 85mm f/1,2L. I love the fact, the lesser the elements/groups, the simpler the design.

If there were a "85mm f/1,2L mark III", I would add:

a) new coatings
b) weather sealing
c) faster AF or new USM design
d) mechanical focusing override
e) no change in length when focusing


----------



## Woody (Jan 5, 2018)

For me, the most important aspect and one that Canon does really well this time is the low copy-to-copy variance.

LENS --> VARIANCE
Zeiss Milvus 85mm f1.4 --> 29
Canon 85mm f1.4 L IS --> 31
Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 --> 32
Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art --> 40
Nikon 85mm f/1.4G AF-S --> 35
Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC --> 47
Sony FE 85mm f/1.4 GM --> 61
Canon 85mm f1.8 --> 65

Sony is pretty awful in this regard given its release date (2016).


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 5, 2018)

Ah-Keong said:


> In my opinion, there is nothing much to correct from the dual Gaussian optical design of the 85mm f/1,2L. I love the fact, the lesser the elements/groups, the simpler the design.



Focus by wire + external (telescoping) focusing + very slow AF are all problems the new f/1.4L IS has addressed.

- A


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Ah-Keong said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion, there is nothing much to correct from the dual Gaussian optical design of the 85mm f/1,2L. I love the fact, the lesser the elements/groups, the simpler the design.
> ...



That's all very well if clinical sharpness is all you look for in an 85mm lens. I'm sure the new lens is great (I haven't tried it yet), but I very much doubt it has the same *character* as the 1.2 II. I'd also love a 1.2 III, although I'm still happy with the II

I'd love to get the 1.4 IS as well, but for different photography entirely.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Jan 5, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Ah-Keong said:
> ...



Same as this, I own the 1.2II and want the new 1.4, as is I still choose the 1.2II over other modern lenses I carry, like the 35II for portrait etc, even though the 1.2II is SLOW and FULL of CA at times it does have the magic, I also shoot with my 200/2 BUT there are plenty of times its just way to long, like the 135! 85mm is such a good focal length I think it could well justify owning them both, then and only then can I decide to keep them all or let one go...??


----------



## Bernard (Jan 5, 2018)

The reason why the 1.2 is slow to focus is because it is unit-focusing. That means all the glass moves back and forth. That's a lot of weight to move.
An AF-optimized design would use a light "focusing group."


----------



## RogerCicala (Jan 5, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> The optics of the 85 f/1.2 aren't really that old. That's a fairly significant misrepresentation of the facts, or a plain huge misunderstanding of how lenses are made, depending on how naive the writer wishes to admit to being. The FD and both EFs have the same number of elements, but the FD is 6 groups, not 7 as the EF mounts are. The bigger difference which you don't see by just looking at the bare optical formula is the shape of several elements were slightly changed between the FD to EF move, and of course the materials and coatings have changed _drastically_, first with the move from FD to EF and again with the mark II. The aperture blades also changed from the FD to EF, and the inner housing was updated to a different texture which, at least in theory, should have helped with inner reflections. (Though because the coatings and actual lens materials also changed, it's hard to pin any improvements on something as relatively minor as the housing.)
> 
> Roger has the actual testing nailed, but that bit of trivia he dropped is really quite misleading.



The optical adjustments made were largely made to adjust to the different EF mount. If you recall, the FD to EF adapter required an optical element - the extra element is basically built into the EF 85 lens. There were technical changes as you mention and additionally changes in focusing motors and electronics. There was also capability to grind the aspheric more accurately and to a different curve. I wasn't trying to state they were optically identical, simply that the EF f/1.2 maintains the original Double-Gauss design with minor modifications. The newer lens is a more typical 85mm telephoto design. 

Roger


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 5, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Ah-Keong said:
> ...



I believe the differences are imperceptible and the magic is a frame of mind. But that's just from using the new one for two days. Time will tell.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 5, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Focus by wire + external (telescoping) focusing + very slow AF are all problems the new f/1.4L IS has addressed.
> ...



Clinical sharpness is not all I look for. 

A lens that focuses before next Tuesday is something I look for. 

A lens that lets me shoot handheld in low light and be able walk the ISO down 4 stops is something I look for. 

A lens that lets me manually adjust focus with instant mechanical responsiveness (no FBW, checking in the with body, etc.) is something I look for. 

A lens that it sealed and is not externally focusing with a protruding inner barrel is something I look for.

We can talk about magic and rendering all day, and it's not unimportant. But I definitely think the proof has not been brought forward to say that the small bit of extra magic from f/1.2 (and how the prior design renders) means that the two lenses are for different purposes. I look forward to endless wide open bokeh comparisons that I'm sure are already in progress. It may just turn out that the f/1.4L IS is 98% as good for portraiture as the f/1.2L II *and* the AF + IS unlocks 2-3 other arenas of photography (events, reportage, etc.) that the f/1.2L II struggled with.

But I'm not for a moment saying 'sharpness is everything, and since the new one is sharper we should only use that', because -- were that true -- _we'd all own the Sigma_. Other things matter, and I think Canon absolutely got those other things right with the new lens. The new lens is a wonderful instrument.

- A


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jan 5, 2018)

Happy to see the placebo effect of buying a new lens and convincing myself the new lens was almost just as sharp as the Sigma wasn't me going crazy. When I had both lenses I truly couldn't tell much difference between the two in sharpness. The implementation of Image Stabilization is absolutely awesome. So I didn't feel bad about letting the Art lens go...it was a love/hate relationship for the year I had it since launch in 2016.

This lens simply excelled at a wedding last month. It was extremely accurate in all situations with autofocus, sharpness was excellent, and the bokeh was simply beautiful.

I think a lot of people really thought we would see a repeat performance of Canon's proverbial mic drop it gave us with its new 35mm, but we got a totally different kind of mic drop. This is, without a doubt, the most usable 85mm on the market that's a true Jack of All Trades. I shoot an enormous variety of subject from motorsports, editorial, weddings, events, and portraits. This is the first 85mm I've owned that I can honestly say it will work for everything I shoot. The Sigma was great for slowed down work where I could check the images and adjust/reshoot as needed, but this lens removes the chimping and just works as any professional tool should.

- Kevin


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 5, 2018)

Yep, I just rented the f/1.4L IS and I'll add the AF is absolutely brilliant -- the best AF experience I've ever had with a wide aperture lens. 

Prior use of the Sigma 35 Art, 50L, and my old 50 f/1.4 had simply wretched hit rates wider than f/2 (esp. off center) on my 5D3, while this new one excelled there. It was so much fun to use without worrying about chimping for the odd/erratic misses.

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 5, 2018)

Here's one that I took trying to show bokeh at various distances. Sorry no Christmas lights in the background.

Straight out of camera, converted with DPP. Shot at f/1.4, 1/15th sec, ISO 100, on a 5DIII. Live View AF, camera placed on another stool. Right at MFD. Window light camera right, some overhead LED from camera left.

I'm not seeing problematic CA. Took some shots of shiny objects outdoors, overcast light. Some green fringing in OOF areas behind subject, but easily corrected in LR with the little eyedropper. Certainly less fringing than the 1.2, significantly.

Btw, LR Classic CC still doesn't have the profile.

One other note, for shots taken with spot metering, I think I'm needing to overexpose about 1/3 more stop than with the 1.2, but nothing scientific here. Just seems to need a bit more +EC. A bit.


----------



## neurorx (Jan 5, 2018)

Excellent review and beautiful pictures. Just got my copy and I am looking forward to testing it out!


----------



## deleteme (Jan 6, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm not seeing problematic CA. Took some shots of shiny objects outdoors, overcast light. Some green fringing in OOF areas behind subject, but easily corrected in LR with the little eyedropper. Certainly less fringing than the 1.2, significantly.



Lens makes the soldiers look fat. Deal breaker for me.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Jan 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Focus by wire + external (telescoping) focusing + very slow AF are all problems the new f/1.4L IS has addressed.
> 
> - A



agree, but it lacks the double Gaussian "magic" render...


----------



## Ah-Keong (Jan 8, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> That's all very well if clinical sharpness is all you look for in an 85mm lens. I'm sure the new lens is great (I haven't tried it yet), but I very much doubt it has the same *character* as the 1.2 II. I'd also love a 1.2 III, although I'm still happy with the II
> 
> I'd love to get the 1.4 IS as well, but for different photography entirely.



Agree! The character is magical!
if you nail it....


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 8, 2018)

Ah-Keong said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > That's all very well if clinical sharpness is all you look for in an 85mm lens. I'm sure the new lens is great (I haven't tried it yet), but I very much doubt it has the same *character* as the 1.2 II. I'd also love a 1.2 III, although I'm still happy with the II
> ...



Exactly! If you nail it. I'm finding that I have inverted my keeper ratio. Before if I nailed focus at f/1.2 one out of five or six times, I'm now missing only one out of five or six at f/1.4.

It's a combination of the snappy AF, IS, and, for me, much better balance and overall ergonomics. Really much better. And I think it has a magic of its own (when I'm in the right state of mind).

The attached was taken at ISO 400, f/1.4, 1/80th, on-camera Speedlite. Exported from LR Classic CC with default settings (no added corrections).


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 8, 2018)

Is that green ghosting seen in the bokeh-balls caused by CA, or something else in the background?


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 8, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Is that green ghosting seen in the bokeh-balls caused by CA, or something else in the background?



Ghosting? Those are green LEDs. I'm only seeing CA in a few situations so far. I'll have a sample of where magenta CA was obvious but quickly corrected with the LR CC Lens Correction eye-dropper. (Still no LR CC profile.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 8, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> That's all very well if clinical sharpness is all you look for in an 85mm lens. I'm sure the new lens is great (I haven't tried it yet), but I very much doubt it has the same *character* as the 1.2 II. I'd also love a 1.2 III, although I'm still happy with the II



I don't believe there's anything 'magic' (aka 'character') about the 85/1.2L II...the f/1.4L IS renders beautifully. Unless by 'character' you mean that nostalgic feel of focus-by-wire, the fact that you can enjoy a sip of coffee while the lens achieves focus, and the satisfying click of a lens hood that just pushes on instead of using the traditional bayonet mount. In that case, the 85/1.2 has character in spades.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 8, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > That's all very well if clinical sharpness is all you look for in an 85mm lens. I'm sure the new lens is great (I haven't tried it yet), but I very much doubt it has the same *character* as the 1.2 II. I'd also love a 1.2 III, although I'm still happy with the II
> ...



+1

The old saying,"Everything in photography requires compromise," still applies. I gave up 1/3 stop of light and the mythological magic of the 1.2 and, in return, got a lens that is amazingly close optically, has quick AF, and excellent IS. And it is much better balanced than the grapefruit shaped 1.2.

Now, according to Dustin "Tamron" Abbott (JUST JOKING!), CA is not easy to deal with on this lens. I still think he had a bad copy, as he stated in one segment of his epic review, so I can't speak for his experience. For me, LR CC's eyedropper in Lens Corrections clears up the CA immediately. Here are two quick examples, cropped to the extreme. We all know glass, white gems, metallic surfaces are affected by CA; the attached shots were taken just as part of getting to know the lens, not as a test.

Look carefully at the sneaker and the gator's teeth. Before and after one touch of the eyedropper.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 8, 2018)

Just for context, here are the uncropped shots of the photos above.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 8, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't believe there's anything 'magic' (aka 'character') about the 85/1.2L II...the f/1.4L IS renders beautifully. Unless by 'character' you mean that nostalgic feel of focus-by-wire, the fact that you can enjoy a sip of coffee while the lens achieves focus, and the satisfying click of a lens hood that just pushes on instead of using the traditional bayonet mount. In that case, the 85/1.2 has character in spades.



Bookmarking this to use this same argument up when a proper new 50 comes out. 

Some people will cling to their 'magic' and 'character' and they honestly may not be wrong -- beauty being in the eye of the beholder and what not. 

But I'll take a lens that focuses before next Tuesday, is not FBW, has IS, and mops the floor with its predecessor sharpness-wise. The rendering of the 85 is f/1.4L IS seems terrific to me, but (a) I never shoot portraiture, (b) light falloff and bokeh isn't a high priority for me and (c) my livelihood doesn't depend on my output.

- A


----------

