# Purple fringing of 85 1.2ii



## Perio (Jan 12, 2015)

Hi guys! I've recently purchased 85 1.2ii and I was hoping I wouldn't see purple fringing, but it's there. For those who have 85 1.2ii, does any of you have no purple fringing? Or it's a hallmark of all copies of the lens? What's the best way to get rid of it in post-processing? Thank you


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 12, 2015)

They all do it. Some say the MkII is worse than the MkI, and both are much worse than the 85 f1.8.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=397


----------



## infared (Jan 12, 2015)

yeah....I have a copy of the lens ....love it..but it definitely has purple fringing..but I think that that is just life with most exotic wide-open lenses. I use the Lens Correction software in Lightroom to remove the fringing and it is very effective. I find that the 85mm f/1.2L II has so many attributes and is quite magical...and its ok sometimes to live in a less than perfect world.


----------



## Machaon (Jan 12, 2015)

infared said:


> ..but I think that that is just life with most exotic wide-open lenses.



Unless you get the Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4...

I'm torn between the Otus' hyper-expensive perfection with manual focus, and the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 II's very-expensive but still-nice imperfection. It's the chromatic aberation that really turns me off the Canon.

My hope is that Canon will bring out a Mark III lens next year that will correct the colour fringing issue. I feel I can wait. In any case, I need to hoard gold to get either of them.

I'm sure I'd be impressed with the Mark II but I'm yet to find a way to resell equipment without losing 50% value. I see this purchase as a long-term marriage that I need to get right first time.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 12, 2015)

Pretty much all wide aperture lenses have purple fringing at wide apertures. Lightroom can remove it for you, I believe DXO removes it as well, so its hardly a big deal.

The 85mm f/1.8 has a lot of it. (LOCA)

Here is a example of what Lightroom can do, the first two photos show the original photo and a 1:1 Crop. The third shows it after Lightroom cleans it up.


----------



## Famateur (Jan 12, 2015)

+1 on Lightroom corrections. It' easy, and ticking the box is usually all it takes. Once in awhile, I use a local adjustment brush with the fringing slider all the way up to deal with trouble spots, and that works a treat.

Occasionally, when I look at a white wall or a clear sky, I notice all the floaters in my eyes. If all I thought about was those floaters, I'd see them everywhere and be really bothered. Most of the time, though, I don't even notice them because I'm too busy paying attention to the things I want to see.

In other words, I wouldn't let a small thing (and something that's easily corrected in Lightroom) keep you from enjoying everything else the lens has to offer.

Just my two cents...


----------



## yorgasor (Jan 12, 2015)

I've had this lens for over a year, and just today I noticed some green fringing in some hair with a heavy sun backlight. I was able to clean it up easily enough in lightroom. That depth of field is magical however, and it's truly a wonderful lens. This is one of my favorite shots from today:



5D3_8552 by yorgasor, on Flickr

Just remember this was designed to be a portrait lens. I wouldn't use it for landscapes, and it's pretty rare you run into fringing while doing portraits.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 12, 2015)

Machaon said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > ..but I think that that is just life with most exotic wide-open lenses.
> ...



I think you need to get a grip on reality. On one hand you are happy to drop some serious cash on a luxury lens like a 85mm f1.2 II L and then it's not good enough for you, so you want to drop even more money on an uber niche 85mm Otus....and then you mention cost savings. Yeah right. 
If you have the need and buying power for a Bentley then buy one....but don't bitch about the price or residual values. If you really want to be more conservative, go get an 85mm f1.8 USM. An awesome lens and really better value....but yes it has optical compromises like every other lens on the planet.


----------



## Machaon (Jan 12, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I think you need to get a grip on reality.
> 
> If you have the need and buying power for a Bentley then buy one....but don't bitch about the price or residual values.



I'm sorry that my one-off lens purchasing decision has upset you so much.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 12, 2015)

Perio said:


> Hi guys! I've recently purchased 85 1.2ii and I was hoping I wouldn't see purple fringing, but it's there. For those who have 85 1.2ii, does any of you have no purple fringing? Or it's a hallmark of all copies of the lens? What's the best way to get rid of it in post-processing? Thank you



As others have said it part of the 85L II experience (as it is for the 35L, 50L and 135L). 

However, new coatings are improving the ability of modern lenses to resist PF a lot. We will just have to wait for Canon to release updates to all these lenses in due time. 

Meanwhile - besides shooting my Canon lenses I am enjoying my Sigma 50mm ART - with a lot less PF.


----------



## chromophore (Jan 12, 2015)

Simply put, the 85L was not designed for this use case. It is a specialist lens intended for low-light, low-to-medium contrast portraiture. It's a demanding lens to use and it is not supposed to be versatile, although many photographers have adapted to its quirks remarkably well.

The 85L II and 85L are optically identical save for the iris shape; the difference between the two is primarily in the CPU driving the USM motor, resulting in faster (but still relatively slow compared to other EF lenses) AF speed in the newer design.

As for the source of this chromatic aberration, it is fairly safe to say that it is primarily caused by the optical design itself, specifically, (1) the variation of plane of best focus as a function of wavelength, and (2) spherical aberration as a function of wavelength. Apochromatic lenses are designed to correct these aberrations but are generally much more expensive as a result.

Having owned both the 85L II and 85/1.8, I can say that if you're comparing the L shot at f/1.2 against the 1.8 wide open, of course you will see more fringing in the L. But stopped down to the same aperture, the L is just as good as the non-L, and possibly even better if your copy of the 1.8 is not one of the sharper ones. I had a really good copy of the 1.8 and there are times I wished I never sold it. But the 85L II is a bokeh monster that even the Zeiss Otus cannot match. You just have to know when to use it in the right situations.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jan 12, 2015)

I tested the 1.2 mark II and the 1.8 side by side several months ago. They both had about the same amount of CA at 1.8, but if you open the L lens all the way to 1.2 it does have a bit more.

I like the label: "bokeh monster" for the 1.2  I did not like the slow focus speed or the weight, however. Definitely a specialty portrait lens... every wedding photographer with strong biceps should have one!

BTW, anti-reflection coatings are wonderful things, but they are not related to chromatic aberration.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 12, 2015)

My GUESS is that the 85mm 1.2 L is the lens least likely to get an update within five years.

My OPINION is that it is also one of the least in need of an update, as it is so freakin' perfect for many portraits. If somebody has a very round face or bulbous nose, I'm going with my 70-200mm at closer to 150mm, but otherwise, the DoF options with the 85mm 1.2 in a controlled sitting are amazing.

Great for animal portraits too, and found still-lifes.

Mt. Spokane did a great job of illustrating one of the rare scenarios in which fringing is an issue--and how easy it is to fix. Badges, very shiny jewelry (I never saw it on pearls!)...But to overlook the stunning IQ because of being obsessed with CA in a small percentage of situations is just...sad. :-[


----------



## wsheldon (Jan 12, 2015)

Agreed, and ditto for the 85 1.8 (and 135 f2) wide open. Metal on instruments in concerts and eye catchlights are other bugbears for PF/LOCA I deal with regularly, but Lightroom is extremely effective at removing those artifacts when they're bothersome. I don't hesitate to shoot wide open when the shot calls for it.


----------



## surapon (Jan 12, 2015)

Perio said:


> Hi guys! I've recently purchased 85 1.2ii and I was hoping I wouldn't see purple fringing, but it's there. For those who have 85 1.2ii, does any of you have no purple fringing? Or it's a hallmark of all copies of the lens? What's the best way to get rid of it in post-processing? Thank you



Dear Friend Mr. Perio.
I have this Awesome Canon EF 85 mm, F/ 1.2 L MK II Since 2007 ( 2008 ?), and fell in love with her.
My Eyes might be poor ( 66 Years old , but young at Heart)= I do not see any Colors Fringing in my Photos both 1.2 and 2.8= It might be just first generation of this MK II
Please See The Photos attached, The First 2 Photos = F 1.2, SS = 1/1250 SEC, ISO = 100, The Third Photo= F 2.8, SS =1/ 125 SEC., ISO = 100
Yes, my trustfully Old Canon 1DS MK I 12 MP.
Enjoy.
Surapon

PS. MAY BE "purple fringing, or the Colors Fringing" are create by the Artificial Light source that reflected from the shining surface of the subjects---Not By the Natural / Sun Light in my Photos ???


----------



## Viggo (Jan 12, 2015)

One of the reasons I sold my last copy of the 85 was fringing and corner performance when I started to compare it to the 50 Art. There really isn't ONE thing I like better about the 85 L II vs the 50 Art. But that's me and it's a different focal length.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 16, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> My GUESS is that the 85mm 1.2 L is the lens least likely to get an update within five years.


Not so sure. The 85L has two weak spots that Canon should act on; its one of the non-IS "L" primes that encounters most failures (electrical problems) and the sloooow focus (even if its better than the 85LI). Its esspecially sad becasue it limits the use of the lens for action shots at night.

There is also the reflection issue. Those who use the 85L at night will surely have seen occaisional "sparks" of green light from time to time. I expect this can be fixed with some of the new coating techniques Canon continues to develop. 

I would expect a 85L III to see improvements on all three issues.

When Canon starts to release new bodies with better AF and software for focussing such as eye recognition the usefulness of the 85L will improve as we can begin to shoot more confidently @F/1.2.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 16, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > My GUESS is that the 85mm 1.2 L is the lens least likely to get an update within five years.
> ...



I used my 85II for a lot of low light weddings here in the UK using nothing more than 5DII's centre spot. I used a fine focus screen to assist me and it worked really well. I generally got about 3-4 shots per wedding which wasn't as sharp as I wanted due to focus errors, that's out of about 2000 image taken. On the 5DIII, my average hasn't changed but the single point spot focus is needed to get the best out of this lens but keepers vs losers is the same.

Many people complain about this lens, if you can't use it properly...go back to f2.8 glass and be happy. if not, then stick with it, it's a tough tool to learn but it's worth it. Top tier glass like this which has a thin DOF is always going to require a very high degree of skill and accuracy. Don't blame the lens...


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 16, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > When Canon starts to release new bodies with better AF and software for focussing such as eye recognition the usefulness of the 85L will improve as we can begin to shoot more confidently @F/1.2.
> ...



Strange comment.

Why argue against the introduction of a camera software upgrade which according to yourself would let you shot more freely with the lens (not being confined to the centre focus spot as you seem to be) and which would help many people shoot more confidently with one of Canon's nicest lenses? 

You sound like the people who argued against autofocus when it was introduced. Not for pro's... Not reliable... Toy camera... Technology helps us in all kind of ways to achieve better pictures. 

More than this I dislike your suggestion that certain lenses should be reserved for people who consider themselves to having "very high degree of skill". I hope your photography can stand that kind of self-promotion.


----------



## chromophore (Jan 16, 2015)

I've already said it: the 85L is a *specialist lens*. It was never designed with the intent to shoot action at night. It is a *low-contrast, low light portraiture lens.* If you can use it for other things, that's great. If camera bodies have become more sophisticated so as to facilitate using the 85L in other situations, that's great. But it doesn't change the original design intent of this lens, which is so plainly obvious to anyone who has ever used one--from the focus-by-wire AF system, the very heavy, dense, fat, nearly unit-focusing optical design, and the spherochromatism and axial chromatic aberration when shot wide open.

I find it absurd that people somehow expect lenses to do everything they personally believe (for whatever reason) it "should be able" to do, and if it doesn't, well, that simply "must" mean that an update is imminent or else Great Canon will lose a "loyal customer" forever!!!111one!!! Cue the dramatic drumroll!

Please. Get over yourself. Just because a lens is not designed to do everything you imagine it to do doesn't mean it's the designers' failing. It means that the photographer doesn't understand how to select the right tool for the job.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 16, 2015)

Machaon said:


> I'm sure I'd be impressed with the Mark II but I'm yet to find a way to resell equipment without losing 50% value. I see this purchase as a long-term marriage that I need to get right first time.


If you're losing that much on Canon lens sales, you're doing something wrong. If you take good care of the lens, put up nice photos of the lens, and have a decent selling reputation, you should be able to sell lenses for a minimal loss, even taking into account eBay's fees. I have either made a profit or lost less than 10% on all Canon lens sales on eBay. Camera bodies and third party lenses are another story, however. I've taken a 20-50% bath on them, but it's still far less than rental fees...

As for the purple fringing, yes, my 85L f.1.2 II, along with my 24L f/1.2 II, 50L f/1.2 and other fast lenses previously owned (50 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4L, and 135L f/2) all do it. Stopping down improves or even eliminates it, and certain subjects with specular highlights (like the police badge above) can be really affected by it. It's something that is pretty easy to correct and unless you go for an Otus, something you just have to live with. the key is keeping those specular highlights outside of the primary subject (usually the eyes) if you can.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 16, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Machaon said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure I'd be impressed with the Mark II but I'm yet to find a way to resell equipment without losing 50% value. I see this purchase as a long-term marriage that I need to get right first time.
> ...



+1

I have always sold my gear for at least 80% of the price I bought it for (except for the 100-400 v1 which I sold it for $ 900, but could have got more if the Tamron 150-600 had not come about). However, I must admit, I've purchased used gear in mint condition for 40-50% of the price (For instance, I got the 50L for $700 and 17Tse for $1600, used and under warranty), so Machaon isn't alone here. 



mackguyver said:


> As for the purple fringing, yes, my 85L f.1.2 II, along with my 24L f/1.2 II, 50L f/1.2 and other fast lenses previously owned (50 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4L, and 135L f/2) all do it.



Nice lens and mark II, WOW. Now I want Canon to make one for me as well


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 16, 2015)

J.R. said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > As for the purple fringing, yes, my 85L f.1.2 II, along with my 24L f/1.2 II, 50L f/1.2 and other fast lenses previously owned (50 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4L, and 135L f/2) all do it.
> ...


LOL - oops! I forgot to mention my 800mm f/2 as well


----------



## J.R. (Jan 16, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



I'll pass this one, it'll be too heavy for me. Surprisingly Canon didn't make the DO version for you :-X


----------



## Machaon (Jan 20, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> If you're losing that much on Canon lens sales, you're doing something wrong. ...you should be able to sell lenses for a minimal loss, even taking into account eBay's fees.



Thanks for the advice. I haven't been using eBay as a seller, and perhaps I should. One's much more likely to get full value for used gear there. I've just been concerned about dodgy buyers, especially for high-value items such as lenses...


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 20, 2015)

Machaon said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > If you're losing that much on Canon lens sales, you're doing something wrong. ...you should be able to sell lenses for a minimal loss, even taking into account eBay's fees.
> ...


It's not the greatest place in that regard as I've had a few who have tried to scam me or haven't paid, but having access to such a massive pool of potential buyers is a huge advantage over the local Craig's List or such. Also, the majority of my camera gear sales have gone well, you just have to be careful. And don't fall for the inevitable shutter count emails. Here are a couple threads about eBay sales I have contributed to, and I'm sure there's more out there if you search:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21136
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21526.0


----------



## pdirestajr (Jan 20, 2015)

chromophore said:


> I've already said it: the 85L is a *specialist lens*. It was never designed with the intent to shoot action at night. It is a *low-contrast, low light portraiture lens.* If you can use it for other things, that's great. If camera bodies have become more sophisticated so as to facilitate using the 85L in other situations, that's great. But it doesn't change the original design intent of this lens, which is so plainly obvious to anyone who has ever used one--from the focus-by-wire AF system, the very heavy, dense, fat, nearly unit-focusing optical design, and the spherochromatism and axial chromatic aberration when shot wide open.
> 
> I find it absurd that people somehow expect lenses to do everything they personally believe (for whatever reason) it "should be able" to do, and if it doesn't, well, that simply "must" mean that an update is imminent or else Great Canon will lose a "loyal customer" forever!!!111one!!! Cue the dramatic drumroll!
> 
> Please. Get over yourself. Just because a lens is not designed to do everything you imagine it to do doesn't mean it's the designers' failing. It means that the photographer doesn't understand how to select the right tool for the job.



This.


----------



## Machaon (Jan 20, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Here are a couple threads about eBay sales I have contributed to, and I'm sure there's more out there if you search:
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21136
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21526.0



Great resources, thanks for that!


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Jan 22, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Machaon said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



You said that right, I saw color fringing even on that Otus, from a review a guy tested, he said that it don't do justice on a the small file sizes, but I still say it, and that made me know that no matter how much a lens cost it does have some flaws. im sure its a high end product but not that perfect. Give and take a few more years from now, I bet this industry will be at it again, with another high price calming to be the best. I will own the 85mm II 1.2 one day im not in a hurry, it is a spectacular abstract monster.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Jan 22, 2015)

chromophore said:


> I've already said it: the 85L is a *specialist lens*. It was never designed with the intent to shoot action at night. It is a *low-contrast, low light portraiture lens.* If you can use it for other things, that's great. If camera bodies have become more sophisticated so as to facilitate using the 85L in other situations, that's great. But it doesn't change the original design intent of this lens, which is so plainly obvious to anyone who has ever used one--from the focus-by-wire AF system, the very heavy, dense, fat, nearly unit-focusing optical design, and the spherochromatism and axial chromatic aberration when shot wide open.
> 
> I find it absurd that people somehow expect lenses to do everything they personally believe (for whatever reason) it "should be able" to do, and if it doesn't, well, that simply "must" mean that an update is imminent or else Great Canon will lose a "loyal customer" forever!!!111one!!! Cue the dramatic drumroll!
> 
> Please. Get over yourself. Just because a lens is not designed to do everything you imagine it to do doesn't mean it's the designers' failing. It means that the photographer doesn't understand how to select the right tool for the job.


Man that's what I found out when i got my 50Lmm 1.2 and images were missed most of the time, until I understood how to use it, I began to understand that all lens also works this way. Maybe this is why canon is the Lens king with so many lenses on the market, they all have there own uses. I stick with my 50 until i got it right and yes I do agree on the 85Lmm 1.2 what it was designed for portraits not for action sports, however I will not take away from it, maybe there are that few 12% that can actually pull it off with a few frames. Using a lens what it made for is the key and not only understanding the rules of engagement but also understanding what it can and can not do.


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 23, 2015)

Purple fringing can be avoided by not taking extremely shiny or glowing objects under the sun (white T-shirt, et al). I've never seen purple fringing on a red car.


----------



## Ruined (Jan 24, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > My GUESS is that the 85mm 1.2 L is the lens least likely to get an update within five years.
> ...



I agree, I would not be surprised if the 85L III is f/1.4, either. Basically, make some changes like they did from the 50mm f/1.0 > 50mm f/1.2


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 24, 2015)

chromophore said:


> I've already said it: the 85L is a *specialist lens*. It was never designed with the intent to shoot action at night. It is a *low-contrast, low light portraiture lens.* If you can use it for other things, that's great.



Yeah. You're the man. Clearly Canon is clueless about its own lenses when they say about the 85L: "it really excels as a sports photography lens".

I suggest you write to Canon to correct their inept understanding of how to use their lenses...




chromophore said:


> I find it absurd that people somehow expect lenses to do everything they personally believe (for whatever reason) it "should be able" to do, and if it doesn't, well, that simply "must" mean that an update is imminent or else Great Canon will lose a "loyal customer" forever!!!111one!!! Cue the dramatic drumroll!
> 
> Please. Get over yourself. Just because a lens is not designed to do everything you imagine it to do doesn't mean it's the designers' failing. It means that the photographer doesn't understand how to select the right tool for the job.



"Get over yourself." Just stands out - dosn't it?


----------



## scyrene (Jan 24, 2015)

I'll just point out a couple of things that I don't think have been mentioned thus far.

I dunno if it's obvious to everyone else, but the fringing is purple and green. Purple one side of the focal plane, green on the other.

As for Lightroom corrections, they work well but for two cases - where the fringing is very out of focus and on subjects that are purple and/or green to begin with. The intensity of the false colour diminishes the further from the plane of focus it is, but it's still noticeable sometimes, which requires a lower threshold for the defringing, which can lead to grey edges elsewhere. Grey edges are also a problem where there are parts of the image that are purple or green, as I say - so leaves can be particularly tricky.

As people have said, this lens excels for some uses. On portraits it's undoubtedly wonderful, and in low light it can do amazing things. But I wouldn't use it for e.g. flower photography - indeed I sold the 200mm f/2.8L because I found the fringing too problematic for this use (I suppose I should have gone for the 180L macro). The 85L is a bit of a prima donna - treat it well and it'll impress. But it's not for every situation.

Incidentally, one use I find this lens excellent for that might not be obvious is food photography. With a 12mm extension tube, it can work wonders (although the 100L macro is similarly good for this).


----------



## Machaon (Jan 24, 2015)

scyrene said:


> I'll just point out a couple of things that I don't think have been mentioned thus far...



Very useful observations, thanks.


----------



## Roo (Jan 24, 2015)

Damn this thread!! I watched Citizen Kane on DVD tonight and for the first time I was distracted by the purple fringing in a lot of scenes! How the hell you get purple fringing in a black and white movie I don't know but I do know it wasn't shot with a Canon 85 1.2 ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 24, 2015)

Roo said:


> Damn this thread!! I watched Citizen Kane on DVD tonight and for the first time I was distracted by the purple fringing in a lot of scenes! How the hell you get purple fringing in a black and white movie I don't know but I do know it wasn't shot with a Canon 85 1.2 ;D



The copy of the film that they digitised would have been one that was duplicated onto colour film stock, what they should have done is re B&W'ed the digital copy.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 24, 2015)

Roo said:


> Damn this thread!! I watched Citizen Kane on DVD tonight and for the first time I was distracted by the purple fringing in a lot of scenes! How the hell you get purple fringing in a black and white movie I don't know but I do know it wasn't shot with a Canon 85 1.2 ;D



Haha I notice it a lot on television. Ignorance is bliss!


----------



## Tugela (Jan 24, 2015)

Perio said:


> Hi guys! I've recently purchased 85 1.2ii and I was hoping I wouldn't see purple fringing, but it's there. For those who have 85 1.2ii, does any of you have no purple fringing? Or it's a hallmark of all copies of the lens? What's the best way to get rid of it in post-processing? Thank you



It is caused by light scattering on the sensors. How obvious it is depends on how intense the light is, the angle the light comes in at and the size/pixel density of the sensor.


----------



## Tugela (Jan 24, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > Damn this thread!! I watched Citizen Kane on DVD tonight and for the first time I was distracted by the purple fringing in a lot of scenes! How the hell you get purple fringing in a black and white movie I don't know but I do know it wasn't shot with a Canon 85 1.2 ;D
> ...



No, when they produced the digital version, the original film was projected onto a sensor using glass optics. The sensor was recording in color and consequently recorded the artifacts inherent with using glass lenses and digital sensors. Even if it had been recorded as grey scale only, the digital version would still have the scattering highlights, so it would not be identical to the original.


----------



## Tugela (Jan 24, 2015)

dash2k8 said:


> Purple fringing can be avoided by not taking extremely shiny or glowing objects under the sun (white T-shirt, et al). I've never seen purple fringing on a red car.



If it is bright enough you will still get scatter, but the fringing will be a different color. I have seen that in some shots if you look carefully. It isn't as obvious as purple fringing off overexposed whites, but it is there.


----------



## sdsr (Jan 25, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > I've already said it: the 85L is a *specialist lens*. It was never designed with the intent to shoot action at night. It is a *low-contrast, low light portraiture lens.* If you can use it for other things, that's great.
> ...



A few posts ago you commented on its "sloooow focus". Hard to imagine how such a lens would "excel[] as a sports photography lens" but perhaps I'm missing something.


----------



## sdsr (Jan 25, 2015)

AshtonNekolah said:


> ... I saw color fringing even on that Otus, from a review a guy tested, he said that it don't do justice on a the small file sizes, but I still say it, and that made me know that no matter how much a lens cost it does have some flaws.



You'll also find purple fringing via the c. $11,000 Leica Noctilux f.95!


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 25, 2015)

sdsr said:


> A few posts ago you commented on its "sloooow focus". Hard to imagine how such a lens would "excel[] as a sports photography lens" but perhaps I'm missing something.



You are actually missing out on what I wrote. 

Canon esspecially marketed the 85L also as an excellent sports/action lens with a much faster AF motor than the original 85L (which is why I reacted too the totally inaccurate claim that this lens was intended and constructed only to do portraits - this is simply complete nonsense). 

If you read the early reviews people took the lens to test this out and were less than impressed. AF was still too slow for many sports applications. 

Thus Canon's intent when making the lens did not live up to its claims and user expectations - and therefore the 85L II needs an upgrade to faster AF - as I argued for.


----------

