# Would you buy a hypothetical 85mm f/1.4L portrait lens if...



## Ruined (Aug 23, 2014)

The 85mm f/1.2L II, while one of the most stunning portrait lenses ever made, does have some significant disadvantages expressed by users that can pop up even in portrait scenarios (especially portraits during events or outdoors):
85mm f/1.2L II disadvantages:
* Durability - exposed rear element near flush with mount resulting in precarious lens changes in the field, focus motor susceptible to damage when barrel extended and powered off, lack of weather sealing
* Autofocus - Slow on most bodies (1D excluded) due to higher voltage required to drive motor efficiently with large elements & extending barrel
* Manual focus by wire - some dislike this style of focusing, as it may feel less responsive and does not work when camera is powered off

The 50mm f/1.0L had virtually all of these disadvantages and Canon was able to rectify virtually all of them by releasing a slightly slower 50mm f/1.2L, which retains most of the look of the f/1.0 but with increased sharpness and less distracting flare. While the 50mm f/1.2L is not the most popular lens as it is challenging to use and not the sharpest, it is both far easier to use and sharper than the 50mm f/1.0L. The 50mm f/1.2L is currently my go-to lens for event portraits; I wish I could also regularly use the 85mm f/1.2L II but some of its design characteristics do not appear compatible with the often hectic and unpredictable events that could occur during an event.

Given the design similarities between the 50mm f/1.0L and 85mm f/1.2L II, what if the same revisions could be done with the 85mm f/1.2L II using design cues from the 50mm f/1.0L > 50mm f/1.2L revision? Would you accept the below disadvantages in exchange for *all* of the deficiencies listed in the first paragraph being completely rectified - with the same or greater sharpness & similar "look" with lower weight/size as a bonus:

*Known* disadvantages of next 85L being f/1.4 instead of f/1.2:
- 50% less light entering lens wide open
- 14% less DOF isolation capability wide open

*Potential* advantages of next 85L being f/1.4 instead of f/1.2 (using 50L f/1.0>f/1.2 design cues):
- Better protected rear element
- Lens barrel does not extend when focusing
- Weather sealed, easier to accomplish due to lack of extending lens barrel when focusing
- Faster autofocus, similar to speed of 50mm f/1.2L, due to lack of extending barrel and smaller lens elements
- Full time manual override, does not require camera to be powered on
- Lower weight
- Smaller size
- Potential minor increase in sharpness
- Potential minor reduction in flare
- Lower price as less expensive to make
- Overall "look" is similar, but not identical to the 85L f/1.2L II; like the 50L f/1.2L and 85L f/1.2L II, the lens design would be for portraits and hence not overcorrected/clinical.

Thoughts?


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 23, 2014)

I'm holding out for the 85mm f/1.0 L, myself. More light, not less. IMO, the notion that sensor improvements negate the value of fast lenses is just silly. Sensor improvements make fast lenses more capable.


----------



## bseitz234 (Aug 23, 2014)

Would I? No, I've been happy with the 85 1.8. Do I see a market for it? Maybe... I think it would mostly depend on the price. If they knocked a bit off the current 85L II, maybe $1400-$1600? Otherwise they'd lose more sales to the likes of what I'm sure is coming out from Sigma in a new 85 art.

As a sidenote, 1.4 vs. 1.2 is only half a stop, not a whole stop. So 25% less light, 50% would be one full stop slower. ;-)


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 23, 2014)

I would buy a hypothetical 85/1.4L. Heck I would buy any 85/1.4 that doesn't have the AF issues of the current Sigma. 
In fact, I have been holding out for an 85/1.4 (well, not entirely true- I did try to get the 85/1.2 II refurb'd when it was on sale, but maybe the two narrow misses was due to a reason...)


----------



## risc32 (Aug 23, 2014)

i would be interested in seeing something slotted in between the 1.8 and 1.2 from Canon. give me a 1.4 with quick accurate AF, with good build quality priced somewhere between the 1.8 and 1.2 and i'd give it a serious look. the coming Sigma would come in to play though, and if any recent trends continue, the sigma would probably prove to be the IQ equal with good build for a fair bit less. it's just that AF tracking thing...


----------



## klickflip (Aug 23, 2014)

If it was as good optically as the 1.2L II then theoretically yes. But I'd know I was using the 1.4  and although i don't shoot at 1.2 that much, either normally 1.4-.1.8 or f8-10 for more studio work which is absolutely bitingly sharp at these apertures. 
And call me vain but I'd prob rather know I'm using the best.

It's all part of the game. When you tell the client this is being shot on a £1800 lens they go wow and the results do prove it, and that leads to a better artist/ business perception in my eyes and justifies fees at then end of day. - but of course you actually have to be producing something really good at the same time of course.
Same if you use broncolor or a Hassy its all relative to the client and job and your perceived worth. 

Sure I could do something similar with, a 85 1.8 and some cheap chinese lights, but consistency and quality is worth more in my eyes. If its just for yourself and hobby then the best for cheapest compromise prob makes more sense though. 
Somehow i doubt that a 1.4 smaller cheaper version would get the same results optically. It may be very slight but some of us and our clients will notice this difference.


----------



## Ruined (Aug 23, 2014)

klickflip said:


> Somehow i doubt that a 1.4 smaller cheaper version would get the same results optically. It may be very slight but some of us and our clients will notice this difference.



Why do you say that? The 50mm f/1.2L is a smaller, cheaper version of the 50mm f/1.0L and aside from the light/DOF differences between f/1.2 & f/1.0, the 50mm f/1.2L is actually superior optically to the 50mm f/1.0L while still retaining the "dreamy" portrait look of the 50 mm f/1.0L.

My thought is if they apply a similar formula to the 85mm f/1.2L II (which has very similar design to the 50mm f/1.0L) they might be able to create a 85mm f/1.4L lens with less usability issues and similar look.

See below, 50mm f/1.0L first, 85mm f/1.2L II second. 50mm f/1.2L third.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 24, 2014)

Ruined said:


> [...]
> 
> *Known* disadvantages of next 85L being f/1.4 instead of f/1.2:
> - 50% less light entering lens wide open
> ...



I like the "full aperture stops" as max aperture more than sth. like 1.2 or 1.8 so the 2.0/100 won against the 1.8/85.
I like direct control of the focus ring much more than any "by wire"-system (really like the focus ring of the old chrome ring FD lenses!).
I like lenses which do NOT show longitudinal chromatic aberations because I like to shoot into the sun.

An EF 1.4/85mm IS USM with true apochromatic correction would be a great option. I like the idea of IS in high aperture lenses because the combination of high max aperture, high ISO capability (just with APS-C) + IS extend the usefulness of such lenses in dim environments.
Not to forget: good close focus capabilites welcome, sth. like 1:3.5 or 1:4 would be great!


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Aug 24, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> I'm holding out for the 85mm f/1.0 L, myself. More light, not less. IMO, the notion that sensor improvements negate the value of fast lenses is just silly. Sensor improvements make fast lenses more capable.



This^^^^ ....though I am pretty sure they could take the existing 85 1.2L II design and increase the barrel length for internal focusing, get rid of electronic MF and go with mechanical and weather seal it.


----------



## RunAndGun (Aug 24, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> I'm holding out for the 85mm f/1.0 L, myself. More light, not less. *IMO, the notion that sensor improvements negate the value of fast lenses is just silly*. Sensor improvements make fast lenses more capable.



*Yes*. I want to be able use my aperture as much for creative decisions as just technical(exposure). It's baffled me for years hearing the excuse thrown around from manufactures and other photographers alike that we no longer need fast glass because cameras are now capable of ISO speeds in the realm of science fiction when all you had was film or even just 5-10 years ago with digital. Hell, because we have cameras that can shoot in the 100K+ and 200k+ ISO realms, should manufactures just start making all lenses starting at f/8? 8)


----------



## Zv (Aug 24, 2014)

Yeah, I would be interested in an 85 1.4 L or non L. I had the 1.8 which was disappointing and I can't afford (or need) the 1.2 yet. There seems to be this huge gap in between which Sigma have been exploiting but there are some like me who want a Canon version of that lens. Something under $1000 that focuses fast, is reliable and is reasonably sharp wide open with minimal CA and LoCA. 

They could even discontinue the old 1.8 and replace it with a newer non L USM f/1.4 version but I wonder if they'd add IS to it. Looking at previous updates the trend seems to to be towards slower with IS so a f/2 IS would be more likely (I wouldn't have much interest in such a lens as I want to create a shallow dof effect and not something in between). An f/2.8 IS would be completely worthless IMO as this is covered by the 70-200LII. 

Just thinking about it now - perhaps a decent f/1.4 version would take away some of the sales of the f/1.2 version. The L version would still give a unique look though and for a pro that would be worth the extra cash. Hmmm it's an interesting conundrum I look forward to seeing what Canon and Sigma will be doing in the near future at this focal length!


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Aug 28, 2014)

Ruined said:


> *Known* disadvantages of next 85L being f/1.4 instead of f/1.2:
> - 50% less light entering lens wide open
> - 14% less DOF isolation capability wide open
> 
> ...


Yes, I had the Sigma 85mm f1.4 and sold it to finance another lens. Sigma was faster, but less accurate, than canon f1.2L, bokeh was less but similar. 
New canon 85mm f1.4 should focus considerably faster than the current f1.2, that is my complain to it.
If canon releases something around $1K I will take the plunge, otherwise I will wait for the refreshed Sigma 85 f1.4.


----------



## dstppy (Aug 28, 2014)

RunAndGun said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > I'm holding out for the 85mm f/1.0 L, myself. More light, not less. *IMO, the notion that sensor improvements negate the value of fast lenses is just silly*. Sensor improvements make fast lenses more capable.
> ...



I agree as well. I always use aperture to control DoF and shutter speed to control hand-shake/stopping/slowing motion. 

If nothing else, better sensors allow us to choose a wider DoF in darker situations . . .


----------



## sdsr (Aug 28, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> Not to forget: good close focus capabilites welcome, sth. like 1:3.5 or 1:4 would be great!



Is a fast 85mm (or longer) lens that focuses close technically possible? I ask because I'm pretty sure I've never seen one that focuses closer than c. 3 feet - which is the main reason why, for all that I like fast 85mm lenses, I end up using my 100L more often.

As for the original question, I would be interested if it got rid of the 85L's purple fringing and had IS, but those who are hoping such a thing would cost <$1000 seem a tad optimistic. Focusing speed doesn't matter much to me (I've been contemplating buying a MF Canon 85 1.2 to use on my A7r; much cheaper than the current 85L).


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 28, 2014)

I like the idea, but I just don't see Canon replacing the 85L anytime soon. Too new. Now replacing the 1.8 (which I own) makes sense as that sucker is 20 years old. But I dont see that being a 1.4 either because Its too close to the 1.2. They'll either keep it at 1.8 or go to 2.0 thats much sharper wide open at that aperture than the 1.8 is now at wide open.

Either way, I own the Sigma 35 and 50 ART lenses. When the 85 ART is announced I wont be able to pre-order it fast enough. $2300 for the Canon L prime is just too goofy for me. The 1.8 at f8 vs the L at same aperture are very close and Im shooting studio work. I cant justify an extra 2000 for the L. I will gladly pay Sigma 1000 for when I know will probably smoke both these Canon lenses.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Aug 28, 2014)

The Zeiss 85mmf1.4 is an excellent lens for Canon users who aren't dependent upon auto-focus. 
If Canon could produce an EF lens and market it for between $1200-1500 (lower the better) if 
would be hard to resist. Meanwhile, Carl has been well used and appreciated.


----------



## Loren E (Sep 17, 2014)

I would LOVE an 85L F1.4 with faster focusing, no sketchy rear element, no focus-by-wire, and with 77mm filter threads. Would be really sweet if it could take a 1.4 teleconverter though that might not be possible. No need for IS on this.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 17, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> I'm holding out for the 85mm f/1.0 L, myself. More light, not less. IMO, the notion that sensor improvements negate the value of fast lenses is just silly. Sensor improvements make fast lenses more capable.



Well they do and they don't. Research it and I think you'll find there is a fair bit of jiggery pokery going on to get an f1.2 lens to record like an f1.2 lens.

However I think it's fair to say the modern AF does make a very fast lens make more versatile sense.


----------



## gigabellone (Sep 18, 2014)

I have the Canon 85/1.8, and i don't see myself spending over 1500€ for 2/3 of f-stop advantage, weather sealing, and (slightly?) increased sharpness. Let's be honest: the old 85/1.8 is sharp enough, focuses with good accuracy and speed, its optical deficiencies are negligible, and its cost of 350$/€ makes it a no brainer for anyone except the most demanding pros, or the very rich amateurs.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Sep 18, 2014)

Perhaps it is because i have never really used the 85mm (any of them), but i do not find myself using that focal length a lot (according to lightroom). So i probably would not buy a new one. 

I love my 70-200 for portraits....

maybe i should give one a go, though i fear it might be like taking hard drugs and i'll be addicted....

From what i hear about focussing speed, it does need a wee update. I'm sure it is in the pipeline somewhere... Canon are not dumb.... money grabbing b*stards (I am originally from the UK), but not dumb!


----------



## Sella174 (Sep 26, 2014)

RunAndGun said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > I'm holding out for the 85mm f/1.0 L, myself. More light, not less. *IMO, the notion that sensor improvements negate the value of fast lenses is just silly*. Sensor improvements make fast lenses more capable.
> ...



Depends, as there are two sides in this. There will always be a need for lenses with large apertures in certain focal lengths for the depth of field effect. However, at the other end, both high-ISO sensors and IS has negated the need for large aperture lenses for pure low-light photography. This means that an 85mm f/1.4 lens makes sense, because the aperture is used for DoF effect (29cm @ 5m); however, a 24mm f/1.4 lens makes absolutely no sense as such a focal length has already way too much DoF for it to be of any artistic value (423cm @ 5m), hence the huge aperture was purely for "available light" - which is not necessary anymore now with 4-stop IS and ISO12800 sensors being "standard".


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 26, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> RunAndGun said:
> 
> 
> > dgatwood said:
> ...


Wide maximum apertures are not only for shallow depth of field. If all you're after is a more blurred background then you could use for example an extension tube to move the subject proportionally closer to you than it is to the background.

Here are a few reasons why a wide angle, wide aperture lens is important to me. They might not be good reasons to everyone but they are good enough for me.

Anyway, the wider the max aperture the better the T-Stop usually is. The better the T-Stop (maximum transmission through a lens), the more light is available for the AF system to work. This can lead to improved low light focusing (all other factors being equal). 

For flash photography: "Guide Number" / "f-Stop" = range
If you have sufficient DoF, a wider aperture allows you to place your flashes further from the subject (e.g. further out of frame) or to use a lower power setting so you can get more shots from your batteries, while not sacrificing IQ, which would happen if you were to simply jack up ISO.

Wide-field astrophotography??? I know this is a much more niche type of photography but the wider the max aperture the better. Shallow DoF has nothing to do with it, Ultra high ISO is pointless and IS is irrelevant. With ISO 12,800 you will get tons of noise and when you are trying to photograph little points of light, that kind of noise is seriously detrimental. No current lens will give you the required 9-or-so stops of stabilization for an exposure in excess of 20s.


----------



## Sella174 (Sep 27, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> Wide maximum apertures are not only for shallow depth of field.



True, and I said so.



StudentOfLight said:


> Anyway, the wider the max aperture the better the T-Stop usually is. The better the T-Stop (maximum transmission through a lens), the more light is available for the AF system to work. This can lead to improved low light focusing (all other factors being equal).



Also true, but advances in AF systems are also negating this point.



StudentOfLight said:


> For flash photography: "Guide Number" / "f-Stop" = range
> If you have sufficient DoF, a wider aperture allows you to place your flashes further from the subject (e.g. further out of frame) or to use a lower power setting so you can get more shots from your batteries, while not sacrificing IQ, which would happen if you were to simply jack up ISO.



"If you have sufficient DoF ..." This naturally depends on the lens focal length, subject distance and set aperture. With a 24mm lens (for example) you nearly always have heaps of DoF ... or heaps of barrel distortion.



StudentOfLight said:


> Wide-field astrophotography??? I know this is a much more niche type of photography but the wider the max aperture the better. Shallow DoF has nothing to do with it, Ultra high ISO is pointless and IS is irrelevant. With ISO 12,800 you will get tons of noise and when you are trying to photograph little points of light, that kind of noise is seriously detrimental. No current lens will give you the required 9-or-so stops of stabilization for an exposure in excess of 20s.



Yes. So shame on Canon for not making such lenses for the 60Da ...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 27, 2014)

Sella, I guess we sidetracked the discussion a bit talking about wide and ultra wide FL, anyway to the OP's qusetion my reply is yes I would buy a 85mm f/1.4. I have the 135L and it is too long sometimes. I'd something like 85/1.4 or 100/1.4 that focuses as quickly as the 135/2.


----------



## Loren E (Sep 29, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> RunAndGun said:
> 
> 
> > dgatwood said:
> ...



this is just wrong. 

1) IS has no affect on subject motion blur, where F1.4 provides a hell of a faster shutter speed for freezing motion than F2.8 for example (1/50th of a second vs 1/200th). 

2) obviously low light photography has been benefitted by new sensors, but that certainly doesn't mean that new sensors negate the benefit of fast glass for low light shooting. I would MUCH rather shoot at F1.4 at night at ISO 1600 than F2.8 at ISO 6400. 1600 is a hell of a lot cleaner than 6400 even if today's 6400 wasn't possible in the days of older sensors. 

3) Also ridiculous to say that a 24mm F1.4 doesn't provide shallow enough depth of field for a really pleasing effect when used well. If your subject is close to the lens and the background is a ways back, F1.4 at 24mm can provide great out of focus backgrounds, that are much more melted away and less distracting than shooting at F2.8.

In short, the above post is just perpetuating misinformation! I hope inexperienced photogs aren't mislead by it.


----------



## dash2k8 (Sep 29, 2014)

+1 to Loren.


----------



## dash2k8 (Sep 29, 2014)

To answer the original question, I'd buy it if I had the money.  It's good enough as it is for my needs. Tried a friend's a while back and have been keeping an eye out for a used one at a good price.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 29, 2014)

A fast focusing weather sealed 85/1.4L, with IS and optical performance in class with the current 85/1.2L II (hopefully with less CA) would be a very interesting lens. I have preordered the Otus 85, so I am not sure I would buy it though. But 85/1.4, with fast AF for use in a low light event environment, would fill a totally different need.

As for 1.2 vs. 1.4, I don't believe I would mind. I shot many f1.2 portraits, but the DOF is so thin and I believe f1.4 would give sufficient subject isolation. I actually prefer those closer to f2.0.

Canon is in a bit of a tricky situation though. The current lens used to rule the 85mm arena. Then people opened their eyes to manual focus Zeiss lenses, the Otus 85 is released and next in line is Sigma with an expected (optically) great Art lense (I would never buy it due to the AF issues though). So, if Canon wants to maintain their position, they probably have to do something, but what?


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 29, 2014)

I would. If the 85/1.4 has IS, is optically at least as good as the upcoming sigma art (however good that one may be) and does not cost more than the sigma.

I would be even more interested in a new EF 100/1.8 IS ... Non L. Optically very good, attractively low price, meaning well below 500. ;-)


----------



## Sella174 (Sep 29, 2014)

Loren E said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



You keep telling yourself that and all will be fine.


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 6, 2014)

85 f1.4L IS and i'll be all over it


----------



## Actionpix (Oct 6, 2014)

I am happy with my SIGMA f/1.4 85mm. When I have money I will buy the TAMRON f/2.8 24-70mm.


----------



## chromophore (Oct 6, 2014)

Almost the entire reason for using the 85/1.2L design is precisely because it achieves f/1.2. Otherwise, shoot with the 85/1.8 and be done with it. I currently own the former and have owned the latter.

So no, I would not get an 85/1.4 even if it were a smaller, more durable, and faster-focusing lens, or even if it had IS, because the 85/1.2L II is a specialist design. It produces a very distinctive look that is particularly suited for flattering portraits in low-contrast lighting. Although it's not a perfect lens, in the right use cases, it performs stunningly well. A lot of the disappointment over the 85/1.2 design comes from people who use it when other lenses would be more appropriate.

As for an 85/1.0 design, it's not likely. It would need to come with at least an 85mm (more realistically, ~ 88mm) diameter front element, when most lenses of this class do not exceed the 77mm front filter diameter. It would be even heavier and fatter than the 85/1.2L II. The optical design certainly is doable, but the mechanics and ergonomics make it impractical, as it may even require a larger diameter ring USM than the 85/1.2L II--which, along with the superteles, is already in the largest class. Many considerations become easier at the shorter focal length of 50mm--not that the 50/1.0L was designed without its own compromises. I'd be happy if Canon revived the 50/1.0L, never mind an 85/1.0....


----------

