# The Next Lens from Canon & NAB Announcements



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 8, 2017)

```
The next EF lens announcement from Canon will be for the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS.<a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-85mm-f1-4l-is-usm-on-the-way-cr3/"> We originally reported on this lens back in November</a> and unfortunately eately we don’t have any more information to report.</p>
<p>We’re thinking the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS will be announced some time in Q2/early Q3 but we hope to nail down an announcement date soon.</p>
<p>We have been told that this lens will not replace the EF 85mm f/1.2L, and that the classic 85L will remain current in the lineup for the foreseeable future.</p>
<p>As for NAB in a few weeks, we do expect to see some announcements on or around April 20, 2017. We’re now being told that there will be no Cinema EOS prime lenses announced for the show, instead we’ll be getting a cinema zoom lens.</p>
<p>The only thing we know for sure is that EOS 5D Mark IV will get a big firmware update announcement on or around April 20, 2017. We haven’t confirmed with absolute certainty that our <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/crop-factor-change-for-4k-canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-included-in-coming-update-more/">previous report on the updated features is 100% legitimate</a>.</p>
<p>There is a new Cinema EOS camera body coming, but as we reported earlier, it won’t be announced for NAB and will come later in the year. If we go by the little bit of information we’ve heard about the camera, it will be a “baby” C300 Mark  II. A Cinema EOS C200 perhaps?</p>
<p>All is still quiet on the EOS 6D Mark II, but we definitely expect things to heat up soon.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 8, 2017)

So expect leaks regarding 6D mark II close to announcements similar to 35mm macro.


----------



## Pixel (Apr 8, 2017)

So the new 85 is "not a replacement for the f1.2L?"
So can we expect pricing to be competitive to the Sigma then?


----------



## Sabaki (Apr 8, 2017)

I'm super curious about this lens. 

Some blue gunk, improved AF performance and the same IQ 'feel' as the latest 35mm and I may just jump for this


----------



## Jopa (Apr 8, 2017)

Pixel said:


> So the new 85 is "not a replacement for the f1.2L?"
> So can we expect pricing to be competitive to the Sigma then?



If it's going to be similar to the 35II (exceptional quality / optical characteristics) but with IS the price will be around $2k. Most likely my Sigma goes to eBay at the day of official announcement


----------



## Tom W (Apr 8, 2017)

Completely off topic, but I'd love to see them produce another 50 1.0L. Just because.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 8, 2017)

Keeping the 85L II around is an interesting move. Perhaps that's because this new one might be the Art/Otus-like super pickle jar. 

Curious to see if the next 50L follows suit and keeps the f/1.2L around. 

- A


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Apr 8, 2017)

very Good


----------



## Mancubus (Apr 8, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>We have been told that this lens will not replace the EF 85mm f/1.2L, and that the classic 85L will remain current in the lineup for the foreseeable future.</p>



Why? Who would buy such lens?

Heavier, older, no IS, probably a lot less sharp at any aperture and maybe more expensive. Pretty sure the 1.4 will have weather sealing too.

The difference between f/1.4 and 1.2 is insignificant.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 8, 2017)

I'll take an 85 1.4L with IS, weather sealing and fast focusing over the 85 f1.2 L II any day. Throw in the weight saving and modern design and build and I'll have a very nice compliment to the 35 f2 IS for travel.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 8, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <p>We have been told that this lens will not replace the EF 85mm f/1.2L, and that the classic 85L will remain current in the lineup for the foreseeable future.</p>
> ...



There will always be holdouts for 'that unique look you can only get from a 1.2' that they can never actually reliably recognize. 

Having said that there is a subtle difference between the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkI and MkII, I held onto the MkI because of the smoother way it renders backgrounds and there is no doubt the MkII was built for speed of focus and sharpness above all else, the MkI has a softer more portrait orientated build.

If the 85 f1.4 has the sharper and contrastier look of the 100L Macro then there will be a different feel to the two 85's.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 8, 2017)

In Memoriam? Whoops, forgot to take off the B+W UV filter...


----------



## Pixel (Apr 8, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Mancubus said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Who'd a thought "night and day" could be characterized as "subtle?"


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 8, 2017)

Pixel said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Mancubus said:
> ...



Depends on your definition of night and day and subtle.

As a stand alone image few, if any, can reliably discern one from the other (I have tried experiments like that and people always fail), as a body of work it is easier. That is why I kept the MkI, I shoot portraits more than I shoot sports.

I have bodies of work and shoot to a brief, if I want sharper, harsher, more contrast etc as a look from a shoot I use the 100L Macro, if I want a subtler look, lower contrast, backlight, etc I use the 70-200 f2.8 IS, but in truth I could do either shoot with either lens.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 8, 2017)

Any wild predictions on how much longer the 85 f/1.2 II will be in full service status? That is, eligible for repair by Canon before service life ends? I think they won't produce it much longer once the 1.4 is released, if at all. Just keep it as current until stocks are drawn down.


----------



## infared (Apr 9, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <p>We have been told that this lens will not replace the EF 85mm f/1.2L, and that the classic 85L will remain current in the lineup for the foreseeable future.</p>
> ...



...because....My 85L f/1.2 II has magic inside that fat little barrel!  It is an amazing lens, (some people recognize this..some don't)....I will just have to see how the IQ holds up on my new 5D IV I have coming in from Hong Kong this week. With that larger sensor it may show its age...not sure?
I would disagree with with your statement that the difference between the f/1.4 and f/1.2 is insignificant. I would expect the bokeh to be quite a bit better (to me) on the 85L f/1.2 II. We will see...'cause there will be lots of comparison reviews...you can bet that! will love seeing it head-to-head with the Sigma which I really believe is the lens it will be competing with, not the f/1.2. Two completely different animals.
What will be REALLY attractive about the new lens will be most likely lower CA, perhaps greater sharpness and way faster focusing. Seems everything is a compromise.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 9, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Any wild predictions on how much longer the 85 f/1.2 II will be in full service status? That is, eligible for repair by Canon before service life ends? I think they won't produce it much longer once the 1.4 is released, if at all. Just keep it as current until stocks are drawn down.



Canon have always said 7 years, but don't ask me to find the link. Now there may well be discussion on when that date starts and it obviously isn't when the last one is ever sold, so who knows when the clock starts?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 9, 2017)

infared said:


> ...because....My 85L f/1.2 II has magic inside that fat little barrel!  It is an amazing lens, (some people recognize this..some don't)....



Well I have tried, very hard in the past, to find people that can authoritatively recognize it. And whilst some were very vocal and dismissive nobody I have found has ever been able to consistently and accurately pick the right lens in blind tests.

That isn't saying there is no point to the lens, there absolutely is, but people who claim 'magic' have never once managed to prove it.


----------



## infared (Apr 9, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > ...because....My 85L f/1.2 II has magic inside that fat little barrel!  It is an amazing lens, (some people recognize this..some don't)....
> ...



Well...your comments are good for one thing. They make me laugh...a LOT!


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 9, 2017)

infared said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



Ha, thats what people normally say at this point.

Now show me the "magical" difference at normal viewing distances between two shots taken from the same place, one from a ff camera with an 85 f1.2 @ 1.2 and a one from a crop camera with a 50 f1.4 @ f1.4. Or just crop a ff camera shot with the 50 from the same place, it is the same thing.

Yes there are minuscule differences, but no "magic", and nobody can consistently reliably and accurately tell them apart.


----------



## retroreflection (Apr 9, 2017)

50mm has 1.8, 1.4, and 1.2. Why not 85?
It would be an immense service to certain numerological OCD types.
If they are a bit too lettered, that 1.4L would be a rift in the perfection, though.


----------



## rjbray01 (Apr 9, 2017)

Maybe this is being a bit dumb but perhaps Canon have got a large inventory of the existing lens which they want to sell before retiring it ?


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2017)

Speculation: 

I think the comparison here is going to be between this new lens and the Tamron 85 1.8 VC. Obviously, there are differences, but I think the break point in the Canon market is going to be those who are looking for IS and great IQ, but not willing to pay an extra $1200 for the last 5 percent of IQ that the Canon's Blue Goo will impart along with a fraction of a stop. I know this conundrum well because I faced it when I owned both the Tamron 35 VC and the Canon 35mm L II. I sold the canon, which at that point was an easier decision because the 35 doesn't have IS. 

(The Sigma may or may not have better IQ, but it won't have OS, so it will be less comparable. They really should have put OS in that jar of Sigma glass.)

On the other hand, I wouldn't be shocked if real-world testing favored the Sigma for IQ. If they're beating Zeiss on that lens, anything's possible.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 9, 2017)

Canon may just want to carry a 'magic' / draw / bokeh line pair of specialty lenses:

EF 50 f/1.2L USM
EF 85 f/1.2L USM II

... _and_ go huge with retrofocal Otus/Art killers that are built around uncompromising resolution:

EF 50 f/1.4L IS USM
EF 85 f/1.4L IS USM

And they'd sell both sets of 50s and 85s for different camps of shooters.

- A


----------



## FTBPhotography (Apr 9, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Canon may just want to carry a 'magic' / draw / bokeh line pair of specialty lenses:
> 
> EF 50 f/1.2L USM
> EF 85 f/1.2L USM II
> ...




The most sensible post in this thread. 

A lot of hate for the 1.2, probably from people who don't own it.


----------



## FTBPhotography (Apr 9, 2017)

Tom W said:


> Completely off topic, but I'd love to see them produce another 50 1.0L. Just because.



if the first one was a failure, I'm sure a new one wouldn't be any better.


----------



## Fleetie (Apr 9, 2017)

I'm confident that the much-loved 85/1.2L will remain in the line-up for the foreseeable future; so many people admire it and swear by it. I don't have one, but I wish I did.

That said, does anyone know the T-stop of that lens? And is it likely or possible that the new 85/1.4L IS will be able to equal it? Or exceed it? (Seems unlikely.) That might be one reason (as well as IS, and sharpness) to go for the new lens.


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 9, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > ...because....My 85L f/1.2 II has magic inside that fat little barrel!  It is an amazing lens, (some people recognize this..some don't)....
> ...



One thing many people do "wrong" when they use the 85L is to shoot it at f1.2 all the time. I find it to be best/magic between f2 and f4. 

Proof of magic? If you don't see it, then you don't. When I look at 50mm pictures on Flickr, I have found that I can often pick the 50L pictures from all other 50mm lenses. It is not because of bokeh, but a depth rendering that brings the picture to life. I haven't done the same comparison with the 85LII, but it shares this quality with the 50L.


----------



## sanj (Apr 9, 2017)

My 1.2 is up for sale shortly.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 9, 2017)

FTBPhotography said:


> A lot of hate for the 1.2, probably from people who don't own it.



I don't hate the 1.2, I hate the pretentious bullshit that people come out with but can never back up. Further, your assumption implies they don't own it because they can't, not that they don't own it because they don't see the reason to.

I used to own an FDn 85 f1.2, it never really impressed so I never bothered with the AF version.



Larsskv said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



More often than not what stops me at an image is the light and the processing. People that own the 1.2's often know how to get that light and look, so my contention is they get great images not the lens gets great images. There are a few people who shoot the 135 f2 almost exclusively, what a bargain that lens is, but give them a 70-200 f2.8 and the images still stand out. There are some amazing, truly mind blowing users mainly in Eastern Europe of the very modest 50 f1.8 that stand out, again, I believe it is because they have an eye, not a 'magical' lens.


----------



## sanj (Apr 9, 2017)

Lately. Not eatly.

@ Moderator. 8)


----------



## sanj (Apr 9, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> FTBPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of hate for the 1.2, probably from people who don't own it.
> ...



Agreed. Anyways there is no magic anywhere. Leave alone in a lens.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 9, 2017)

FTBPhotography said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Canon may just want to carry a 'magic' / draw / bokeh line pair of specialty lenses:
> ...



Yes, I've used a 35mm f1.4L and 85mm f1.2 II L professionally for portrait and wedding work for many years and it's an excellent optic. But it's optimised for portraits, so having a sharper version doesn't really appeal to me. It's an extremely flattering lens for head and shoulders shots when used wide open. I have used it for landscapes and it's ok...but heavy and bulky and it's min aperture is only f16. It can't ever replace good 70-200 f2.8 LIS II....but it's not supposed to. While the zoomster can do portraits...it can't do them like a 85mm f1.2 IIL can. It's a combination of working distance, focal length and aperture that just work together so well. The "magic" with this lens is in it's light gathering capabilities. It seems to invent it's own light in dim lit scenes. I shot a wedding in the crypt of Canterbury cathedral lit only by candle light...no problems with this lens. But on bright sunny days (we do get them in the UK...honest) forget trying to shoot it wide open. You will bounce off your camera's fastest shutter speed all too easy. ND's become a must. 
I'm not fussed about an IS system, if I can't shoot below 1/50th it's no use for portrait work. 
While there are a lot of comparisons with the 135L, it's a very different animal. It works light levels that the 135L can't even dream of and it operates at a working distance that allows repore between photographer and client. Anyone who's used a 200mm f2.8 or faster will know that it's hard to work a shy client on a portrait or wedding shoot with a long lens. 
Many don't understand the 85mm f1.2IIL, they look at lens charts or web reviews which generally take the lens out of context and measure against a datum that this lens simply wasn't designed for. It's a bit like complaining that a fisheye, macro or a TSe is too specific or dedicated. Well...these lenses aren't designed to be versatile, they have a specific function. If you don't need optimum potential in those genres...then get a more versatile lens...it's quite simple really. 
I really like my 85mm f1.2 II L and It's more than payed for it's self with portfolio's worth of great images. But it you dislike this lens then you probably don't understand it or are using out of context. Here's a few examples:






















These are 4 examples of an 85mm shot wide open at f1.2 on a full frame camera.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 9, 2017)

FTBPhotography said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Canon may just want to carry a 'magic' / draw / bokeh line pair of specialty lenses:
> ...



Sorry, where's the "hate"?


----------



## scyrene (Apr 9, 2017)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The "magic" with this lens is in it's light gathering capabilities. It seems to invent it's own light in dim lit scenes. I shot a wedding in the crypt of Canterbury cathedral lit only by candle light...no problems with this lens. But on bright sunny days (we do get them in the UK...honest) forget trying to shoot it wide open. You will bounce off your camera's fastest shutter speed all too easy. ND's become a must.
> I'm not fussed about an IS system, if I can't shoot below 1/50th it's no use for portrait work.
> While there are a lot of comparisons with the 135L, it's a very different animal. It works light levels that the 135L can't even dream of and it operates at a working distance that allows repore between photographer and client.



Well obviously a lens at f/1.2 is going to gather more light than f/2 or f/2.8. It's not magic, and it's not - as you say and I've seen in other gushing reviews - 'creating its own light'. It's just gathering more light than most lenses because it's got such a wide aperture.



GMCPhotographics said:


> Many don't understand the 85mm f1.2IIL, they look at lens charts or web reviews which generally take the lens out of context and measure against a datum that this lens simply wasn't designed for. It's a bit like complaining that a fisheye, macro or a TSe is too specific or dedicated. Well...these lenses aren't designed to be versatile, they have a specific function. If you don't need optimum potential in those genres...then get a more versatile lens...it's quite simple really.
> I really like my 85mm f1.2 II L and It's more than payed for it's self with portfolio's worth of great images. But it you dislike this lens then you probably don't understand it or are using out of context.



With all due respect, PBD wasn't saying the 85L is bad, but that nobody can reliably tell its images apart from other lenses at similar focal lengths and apertures. And although some have claimed they can, nobody has yet - here or to my knowledge anywhere else - proven they can.

I'm not sure why some users of this lens get so defensive (talk of 'hate' above). It's a matter of bringing some empiricism to a world of 'magic'. The 85L is an excellent lens for portraiture - that's what it was designed for. But it is not magical, nor is any other lens. If it helps people justify their purchasing decisions, well that's up to them, but when discussing a range of lenses, and comparing them, it's of no use to anyone to talk in mystical terms, or to say that anyone disagreeing simply doesn't understand. I'm pretty sure PBD understand perfectly well. I owned the 85L and it's capable of producing beautiful images. But it is just a tool for a job, there's no need for all this cultlike lyricism.

To claim that a newer 85mm lens won't have the 'magic' of the 85L is meaningless and absurd. Nobody has seen images taken with this lens yet, and even when we do, if 'magic' cannot be measured or defined, then it is irrelevant to people attempting to decide between the two.


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 9, 2017)

scyrene said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > The "magic" with this lens is in it's light gathering capabilities. It seems to invent it's own light in dim lit scenes. I shot a wedding in the crypt of Canterbury cathedral lit only by candle light...no problems with this lens. But on bright sunny days (we do get them in the UK...honest) forget trying to shoot it wide open. You will bounce off your camera's fastest shutter speed all too easy. ND's become a must.
> ...



I find it quite arrogant to dismiss the opinion of so many users of the 85LII, and deny it isn't special. It does have qualities that other lenses don't have. I have had the 85 f1.8, several copies of the 24-70 f2.8 LII and the 70-200 f2.8 (non is) and while they are very good, they lag behind the 85LII and they don't give as pleasing images. And I don't think it is because of the light gathering or the creamy bookeh. 

Yes, it is hard to define the magic, but many owners of the 85LII recognize it and can't be convinced by "non believers" that they are wrong, and neither can you.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 9, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> I find it quite arrogant to dismiss the opinion of so many users of the 85LII, and deny it isn't special. It does have qualities that other lenses don't have. I have had the 85 f1.8, several copies of the 24-70 f2.8 LII and the 70-200 f2.8 (non is) and while they are very good, they lag behind the 85LII and they don't give as pleasing images. And I don't think it is because of the light gathering or the creamy bookeh.
> 
> Yes, it is hard to define the magic, but many owners of the 85LII recognize it and can't be convinced by "non believers" that they are wrong, and neither can you.



What rubbish.

"I believe and they believe so you can't tell us we are wrong", then illustrate it? You can't, nobody reliably and consistently can. Lens performance is not unquantifiable it is a visual medium, if you can't illustrate something it isn't there. 

Magic is an illusion, a false idea or belief. I have been shooting professionally since 1978 and I have never met a single person, and I have tried, who can reliably and consistently tell images shot with pretty much any specific lens let alone the 50 and 85 f1.2's. Now I am not saying there is no point to having one, indeed I have owned both, but unless you or anybody else can start backing up your assertions in this visual medium with visual identification those reasons do not include a 'unique' look. Heck use one because it gives you that special mojo, one of my best friends swears by his 85 f1.2 MkII, he is never without it, when he gets it out his bag his eyes just light up and he shoots differently, it gives him an energy no other lens does. Does that feeling translate to his images? I don't see it and I have tried really hard, I'd love a convincing reason to buy an 85 f1.2.


----------



## hubie (Apr 9, 2017)

Perhaps Magic can be defined as a sum of optical aberrations and imperfections such as haze in the image under certain light conditions, vignetting etc... something that seems pleasing to our eye and sets a lens 'apart' from a clinical, optically superior lens ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 9, 2017)

hubie said:


> Perhaps Magic can be defined as a sum of optical aberrations and imperfections such as haze in the image under certain light conditions, vignetting etc... something that seems pleasing to our eye and sets a lens 'apart' from a clinical, optically superior lens ...



Maybe it can, and that is an excellent contribution to the thread. But my point is if those characteristics are not readily identifiable/recognisable, and they aren't by the lenses proponents, then it is irrelevant.


----------



## AAPhotog (Apr 9, 2017)

Im pissed. I just bought the 85mm L II a little over a month ago and rarely get good shots because of the slow as ****** auto focus. now I read a new one is finally on the horizon?


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 9, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > I find it quite arrogant to dismiss the opinion of so many users of the 85LII, and deny it isn't special. It does have qualities that other lenses don't have. I have had the 85 f1.8, several copies of the 24-70 f2.8 LII and the 70-200 f2.8 (non is) and while they are very good, they lag behind the 85LII and they don't give as pleasing images. And I don't think it is because of the light gathering or the creamy bookeh.
> ...



There are many factors that play together in every picture, light and shadows, the angle of light and shadows, colors, distance to subject, angle of subject etc, which will make it impossible to reliably pick out the picture taken with the 85LII from a bunch of other 85mm lenses. Asking for such proof of the 85L magic is therefore asking for the impossible. 

What I can say is that every time I edit pictures from the 85L, I am amazed by them. Why isn't it like that when I use the 70-200, or the 85 f1.8?

I would also like to refer to the pictures GMCPhotographics have provided above. Do you see how "true to life" they look? The faces are rendered with depth and stands out from the background. They have a large format look to them, that I don't see to the same degree in the zoom lenses. 

Please also have a look at the pictures I have linked to in this thread, comparing the 50ART and the 50L:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31362.120


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 9, 2017)

hubie said:


> Perhaps Magic can be defined as a sum of optical aberrations and imperfections such as haze in the image under certain light conditions, vignetting etc... something that seems pleasing to our eye and sets a lens 'apart' from a clinical, optically superior lens ...



Well, you can guarantee that a group of scientists will suck the joy and life out of any emotional content. An aesthetically pleasing shot is not a technically perfect shot (what ever that is) or a shot taken with an optically flawless lens. it's one that attracts an pleasing emotional response. While probability may well adhere to science, people are emotional beings and photography is about capturing engaging images. It's the difference between a Magnum photographer and a local photo club photographer.


----------



## infared (Apr 9, 2017)

I find it quite arrogant to dismiss the opinion of so many users of the 85LII, and deny it isn't special. It does have qualities that other lenses don't have. I have had the 85 f1.8, several copies of the 24-70 f2.8 LII and the 70-200 f2.8 (non is) and while they are very good, they lag behind the 85LII and they don't give as pleasing images. And I don't think it is because of the light gathering or the creamy bookeh. 

Yes, it is hard to define the magic, but many owners of the 85LII recognize it and can't be convinced by "non believers" that they are wrong, and neither can you.
[/quote]

Well...I bet we enjoy creating images more than most with "our" magic lens! What a bunch of negative, elitest and ever-so boring "experts" here. LOL! 8)


----------



## vscd (Apr 9, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Magic is an illusion, a false idea or belief. I have been shooting professionally since 1978 and I have never met a single person, and I have tried, who can reliably and consistently tell images shot with pretty much any specific lens let alone the 50 and 85 f1.2's. Now I am not saying there is no point to having one, indeed I have owned both, but unless you or anybody else can start backing up your assertions in this visual medium with visual identification those reasons do not include a 'unique' look.



I guess the magic of love to a woman cannot be obtained by their "specifications". Other people will never know why someone is totally addicted to a person they wouldn't meet by their own. Maybe they can understand that she's good looking, maybe she can do someting others can't do... but the magic and the difference to other women, also looking good, is only visible for a very small amount of people who know the advantages and disadvantages  I sometimes don't understand what people like on a specific other person, but they do. And *they* know what they like in a very specific way.

Ok, this is a very strange comparision but the 85L has indeed an own signature and I like the way it draws pictures. The new distagon optics are very sharp but optics which are very high corrected have their flaws on bokeh and are very large and have a lot of elements in it. Ergo a worse T-Stop than an old Planar/Gauss Design. Sharpness on the 85L is no problem, even not at f1.2 in the center which was a problem on the old 50 f1 and even on the 50 f1.2. 

...and by the way, get a good read at http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2017/04/01/why-sharpness-is-overrated


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 9, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Magic is an illusion, a false idea or belief. I have been shooting professionally since 1978 and I have never met a single person, and I have tried, who can reliably and consistently tell images shot with pretty much any specific lens let alone the 50 and 85 f1.2's. Now I am not saying there is no point to having one, indeed I have owned both, but unless you or anybody else can start backing up your assertions in this visual medium with visual identification those reasons do not include a 'unique' look. Heck use one because it gives you that special mojo, one of my best friends swears by his 85 f1.2 MkII, he is never without it, when he gets it out his bag his eyes just light up and he shoots differently, it gives him an energy no other lens does. Does that feeling translate to his images? I don't see it and I have tried really hard, I'd love a convincing reason to buy an 85 f1.2.



I agree completely. 

You have a tough audience though. I love this forum but it can get a bit elitist. Whether it's not appreciating Canon's $2k+ offerings (like one should) or refusal to shoot any 3rd party lens, there are plenty who are stuck in "their way" and won't change their opinion.

I think those who "think" they can tell the difference between a prime lens shot at f/1.2 and f/1.4 without clinical, identical shots are fooling themselves. I'm guessing they are suffering from confirmation bias. They look at a photo on flickr, see the EXIF data, and say to themselves, "Oh yeah, it definitely was XYZ lens, I had the eye to see it."

Develop a ton of random photos (say 8x12) that exist at various focal length and apertures, and I bet even the best of the best will struggle. The reality is that a focal distance plays a far greater role in bokeh and DOF than a small aperture change and that the focal distance isn't 100% apparent (an expert might have a good estimate) in a photo, especially if one doesn't know the exact focal length of the lens.

And not to take away anything from the the 85mm f/1.2 II. It's just that, in my humble opinion, the best lens in the world will never make a terrible picture look good, and an excellent composed, lit photo can look amazing with an iphone.

Ultimately it's the photographer and the photo opportunity. Splitting hairs over an Otus, Sigma Art, or Canon L glass is a bit foolish.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 10, 2017)

vscd said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Magic is an illusion, a false idea or belief. I have been shooting professionally since 1978 and I have never met a single person, and I have tried, who can reliably and consistently tell images shot with pretty much any specific lens let alone the 50 and 85 f1.2's. Now I am not saying there is no point to having one, indeed I have owned both, but unless you or anybody else can start backing up your assertions in this visual medium with visual identification those reasons do not include a 'unique' look.
> ...



Two major issues with your comment.

1/ Even a blind man can see the love of a good women, so not being able to illustrate a visual difference in lens characteristics when challenged just makes that position look even more foolish.

2/ Who said anything about sharpness? A quick search of my posting history would demonstrate I am way ahead of you and Erick on that.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21449.msg407730#msg407730
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29294.msg583489#msg583489
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29469.msg588102#msg588102


----------



## The Flasher (Apr 10, 2017)

I'm too practical to be a lens snob, but in this profession shooting anything under f2 is too risky in my experience. Canons, Sigmas - too many soft eyes, not enough DOF buffer for fashion etc. I understand the appeal of razor thin focus plane, but commercial demand for this effect is just as thin. Does this mean I don't want one? On the contrary, I do, I'd just never use it.

A 24-70 2.8 IS on the other hand...


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 10, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> The first shot in this batch is a botch, in my opinion. You've blurred out her finger tips and whatever she is blowing, yet the distracting stubble on her right wrist is razor sharp. This shows a lack of control and judgment with the shallow depth of field.
> 
> I like the one of the bleach blond with curly hair, my favorite. The young man has a bit of glare, and the texture of his skin goes too quickly into blur for my taste. Finally, the couple, I'm sorry if the young man is in poor health, but, as captured, his cadaverous skin tones make him look off.
> Pretty silly to be abstractly discussing something that can't be quantified if we can't even demonstrate it.



Wow, I'm a little bit speechless. Not only have you deviated from the conversation at hand (turning capabilities of a camera lens into a critique of one's photos), you REALLY deviated by going all "Reality TV" and casting judgement on an individual's appearance (what does that have to do with photography?). In the world of the interwebs I get one can see a lot of noise, but I was disappointed to see it on this forum.

Alot I could be said in rebuttal however I'll focus on just one of your points, your critique of the first photo. In portrait photography 101, the vast majority of photos say get the eyes in focus. And this photo follows this paradigm. Aka, the face (eye) is the focus point and the forearm/wrists so happen to be in the focus plane and not surprisingly the hands are not and therefore out of focus. And you criticize this??? :

disappointed...


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Apr 10, 2017)

I rented the 85 1.2L a couple of years ago and did a couple of nude photoshoots with it mounted on my 5D3. It was fun to play with the razor thin DOF, but I decided I didn't like seeing parts of a face blurry. Other body parts can be blurry, but not the face. 

It's all a matter of personal taste, in my opinion. I realize that a lot of photographers love the dreamy look of F/1.2 but I rarely have a use for it. If I need that I can get it with my 50mm 1.2 L, which I use at F/1.4 to get just a bit more DOF while retaining nice background bokeh.

I kept using my old Canon 85 1.8, usually at around F/2.2 and that generally gave me adequate DOF as well as good subject/background separation.

I now have the Tamron 85 1.8 VC stabilized lens and I'm quite happy with it. It's a reasonable size, very sharp, nice bokeh, consistent fast autofocus.

I'm keeping my old Canon 85 1.8 around to use as a 135mm equivalent on my Rebel-class bodies. The compact size fits them nicely.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 10, 2017)

Also, any guess on the likelihood Canon moves away from focus by wire with this new EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM? Canon was the best show in town for 85mm lenses for some time, but the field is somewhat saturated with rcent high quality options now: Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss, etc. and I believe all of those lenses focus mechanically and not by wire.

So it's one thing for Canon to say 'we are maintaing our legacy of FBW with the new 85L', but the competitors are in the stronger position on this feature, are they not?

- A


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 10, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> I think those who "think" they can tell the difference between a prime lens shot at f/1.2 and f/1.4 without clinical, identical shots are fooling themselves. I'm guessing they are suffering from confirmation bias. They look at a photo on flickr, see the EXIF data, and say to themselves, "Oh yeah, it definitely was XYZ lens, I had the eye to see it."
> 
> Develop a ton of random photos (say 8x12) that exist at various focal length and apertures, and I bet even the best of the best will struggle. The reality is that a focal distance plays a far greater role in bokeh and DOF than a small aperture change and that the focal distance isn't 100% apparent (an expert might have a good estimate) in a photo, especially if one doesn't know the exact focal length of the lens.
> 
> ...



You have missed the point completely. Nobody in this thread has claimed they can distinguish a f1.2 and f1.4 shot from each other. The magic of the 85LII is often more apparent at f2.8. The razor thin DOF can sometimes come at the cost of ruining the depth rendering of a picture. 

Yes, the focal length, lighting etc is more important, but that is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the same picture taken with different lenses at the same focal length all look the same, and most of the 85LII owners here seem to agree that they don't. 

Why should we listen to the bunch of you that don't own the 85LII and are in denial?


----------



## reczey (Apr 10, 2017)

I hope it will not be an L lens, but it will be a 'matching pair' for the 35mm f/2 IS. I hope Canon will continue the 'line' they started with the 24mm f/2.8 IS, 28mm f/2.8 IS, 35mm f/2 IS...


----------



## scyrene (Apr 10, 2017)

GMCPhotographics said:


> hubie said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps Magic can be defined as a sum of optical aberrations and imperfections such as haze in the image under certain light conditions, vignetting etc... something that seems pleasing to our eye and sets a lens 'apart' from a clinical, optically superior lens ...
> ...



He's not sucking the joy out - he's bringing the discussion back down to earth. "The new 85 won't have the same magic as the old one" is a pretty useless statement if nothing can be presented to illustrate what is meant. What are people trying to decide between the two meant to make of that? Nobody's telling existing 85L owners to stop using it. You're welcome to get all misty-eyed about it, and by all means enjoy what you do - I hope everyone doing photography enjoys it (at least to some extent) or else do something else. But when we're comparing equipment, saying "lens X has this magical quality that can't be explained, and can't be seen by people in images unless they are true believers" is of zero use or validity beyond the confines of those people's heads.



vscd said:


> [T]he 85L has indeed an own signature and I like the way it draws pictures. The new distagon optics are very sharp but optics which are very high corrected have their flaws on bokeh and are very large and have a lot of elements in it. Ergo a worse T-Stop than an old Planar/Gauss Design. Sharpness on the 85L is no problem, even not at f1.2 in the center which was a problem on the old 50 f1 and even on the 50 f1.2.



If it has a signature - by which you must mean a set of unique properties that set its images apart from those produced by all other lenses - then the test that PBD proposes (and has done) ought to prove it: it should be possible to tell that lens apart by its "signature". If not, then it's not a signature unique to this lens. That's not sucking the fun out of photography, it's not hating, it's just puncturing myth with a bit of level-headed objectivity.



Luds34 said:


> I think those who "think" they can tell the difference between a prime lens shot at f/1.2 and f/1.4 without clinical, identical shots are fooling themselves. I'm guessing they are suffering from confirmation bias. They look at a photo on flickr, see the EXIF data, and say to themselves, "Oh yeah, it definitely was XYZ lens, I had the eye to see it."
> 
> Develop a ton of random photos (say 8x12) that exist at various focal length and apertures, and I bet even the best of the best will struggle. The reality is that a focal distance plays a far greater role in bokeh and DOF than a small aperture change and that the focal distance isn't 100% apparent (an expert might have a good estimate) in a photo, especially if one doesn't know the exact focal length of the lens.



Spot on. And it's nothing to be embarrassed by - no matter how good a photographer you are, it is not possible to consistently correctly predict what lens took what shot (or even, as you say, what precise FL or aperture was used). And boiling it down to what can be shown and measured is of great value - because it helps new photographers understand their craft without mystery, can help us choose what kit will best serve our needs, and can help us all better understand what actually makes the images we like best the way they are. Not "use this lens, it's magical" but e.g. "use this combination of focal length, aperture, subject and background distance to get this look".


----------



## scyrene (Apr 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Also, any guess on the likelihood Canon moves away from focus by wire with this new EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM? Canon was the best show in town for 85mm lenses for some time, but the field is somewhat saturated with rcent high quality options now: Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss, etc. and I believe all of those lenses focus mechanically and not by wire.
> 
> So it's one thing for Canon to say 'we are maintaing our legacy of FBW with the new 85L', but the competitors are in the stronger position on this feature, are they not?
> 
> - A



Isn't the received wisdom is Canon used focus-by-wire because the moving lens elements were so large and heavy? Perhaps if this new lens is f/1.4 they might choose a conventional mechanical MF. I certainly hope so. I didn't like the 85L's focus by wire, although I mostly use AF so it's not a deal breaker.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 10, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> The first shot in this batch is a botch, in my opinion. You've blurred out her finger tips and whatever she is blowing, yet the distracting stubble on her right wrist is razor sharp. This shows a lack of control and judgment with the shallow depth of field.
> 
> I like the one of the bleach blond with curly hair, my favorite. The young man has a bit of glare, and the texture of his skin goes too quickly into blur for my taste. Finally, the couple, I'm sorry if the young man is in poor health, but, as captured, his cadaverous skin tones make him look off.
> Pretty silly to be abstractly discussing something that can't be quantified if we can't even demonstrate it.



GMC was quite clear that in his view the lens has a specific use and he posted pictures to show how he uses it. Whether you like the pictures is irrelevant to how he chooses to use the lens.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 10, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> You have missed the point completely. Nobody in this thread has claimed they can distinguish a f1.2 and f1.4 shot from each other. The magic of the 85LII is often more apparent at f2.8. The razor thin DOF can sometimes come at the cost of ruining the depth rendering of a picture.
> 
> Yes, the focal length, lighting etc is more important, but that is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the same picture taken with different lenses at the same focal length all look the same, and most of the 85LII owners here seem to agree that they don't.
> 
> Why should we listen to the bunch of you that don't own the 85LII and are in denial?



I thought the point was people saying a new 85 won't have the same "magic" as the 85L. I don't think it's unfair to ask what they meant.

"In denial". Listen to yourself. What is this, a cult? I owned the 85L. It's a fine lens, with well-known foibles. It didn't wow me enough to want to keep it, so I traded it in after a period of time.

Is this how you react to anyone questioning your beliefs? Asking for evidence? To present none and tell them they're simply wrong or unable to see the light?

Edit: PS this is not meant to impugn your character but there is such a thing as bias - and as mentioned above, confirmation bias. So the owners and lovers of this lens can "see" the difference. If others - disinterested third parties, especially - can't see it, then it's probably not there. That's how the world works.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 10, 2017)

In think the issue here is that we see what we want to see. I can absolutely see the difference in the images that my 135L makes - the smooth bokeh, the openness of the data, the pin sharp in-focus areas, generally the "magic" that people state this lens has. That is until the images get mixed up with others - then I can't tell the difference ! In fact I have been in the embarrassing position when one favourite image of mine that I swore was shot on the 135L turned out to have been actually shot on the 24-105L - of all lenses ! Ouch !


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 10, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > The first shot in this batch is a botch, in my opinion. You've blurred out her finger tips and whatever she is blowing, yet the distracting stubble on her right wrist is razor sharp. This shows a lack of control and judgment with the shallow depth of field.
> ...



If we are discussing what makes this lens special, I think demonstrated misuse can be fairly pointed out.

GMC claims that many photographers don't understand this lens. He has clearly made the point, though perhaps not in the way he intended.

Getting eyes in focus, if that is the goal of the photographer, is only one aspect of portraiture. Composition and a pleasing blending of all the elements makes for success.

As for commenting on the appearance of a subject, if lighting is used poorly and thus makes the subject look ill, that's certainly relevant. I did qualify my comment by hoping that the subject was not actually unhealthy. If GMC made the subject look as good as possible, then he did what he could. But if the young man is healthy, something in the lighting and processing went wrong.


----------



## AJB (Apr 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> hubie said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps Magic can be defined as a sum of optical aberrations and imperfections such as haze in the image under certain light conditions, vignetting etc... something that seems pleasing to our eye and sets a lens 'apart' from a clinical, optically superior lens ...
> ...



I agree that people probably can't pick which lens took a given picture by looking at that picture on its own and so, in that sense, the characteristics are probably not readily identifiable/recognisable. The same applies to different but similar apertures.

But, I don't think that makes those characteristics irrelevant... I can readily believe that one lens renders slightly (subjectively) better pictures than another at the same focal length/aperture. It might be that seeing EXACTLY the same scene shot from 2 different lenses I'd prefer one of those 2 lenses in almost all cases, and that would make it a "better" lens to me. I could express that by saying it has some sort of "magic" that I can't put my finger on compared to the other one.

But in the real world we never take 2 simultaneous pictures from the same place with 2 different lenses so no, I couldn't point to any given pictures which show why I prefer one or the other.

Just because I can't identify which lens took which picture from a random set of different pictures doesn't negate that "magic"/rendering/image characteristic - a particular lens just seems to give pictures I'm happier with in general.

(And, just for the record, the nearest I've got is a 100 2.8 L macro and a 50 1.8 II, so I'm not defending any given lens I own).


----------



## AJB (Apr 10, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> In think the issue here is that we see what we want to see. I can absolutely see the difference in the images that my 135L makes - the smooth bokeh, the openness of the data, the pin sharp in-focus areas, generally the "magic" that people state this lens has. That is until the images get mixed up with others - then I can't tell the difference ! In fact I have been in the embarrassing position when one favourite image of mine that I swore was shot on the 135L turned out to have been actually shot on the 24-105L - of all lenses ! Ouch !



But that doesn't mean there's no difference, and that a shot at f4 would be exactly the same from both (give or take the 105 vs 135 focal length). You might have liked that favourite image even more if it'd been the 135L. Or it might even be that that particular image better suited the 24-105's characteristics and you wouldn't like the 135's rendering as much.

But either way it's not to say that you never want to use the 135 again unless you need an aperture wider than f4. I could well believe that, in general, you prefer images from your 135L, and that you think of that as a certain "magic" it gives.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 10, 2017)

AJB said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > In think the issue here is that we see what we want to see. I can absolutely see the difference in the images that my 135L makes - the smooth bokeh, the openness of the data, the pin sharp in-focus areas, generally the "magic" that people state this lens has. That is until the images get mixed up with others - then I can't tell the difference ! In fact I have been in the embarrassing position when one favourite image of mine that I swore was shot on the 135L turned out to have been actually shot on the 24-105L - of all lenses ! Ouch !
> ...



I think that it probably means the difference is more important to me, the photographer, than anyone else.


----------



## infared (Apr 10, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > I think those who "think" they can tell the difference between a prime lens shot at f/1.2 and f/1.4 without clinical, identical shots are fooling themselves. I'm guessing they are suffering from confirmation bias. They look at a photo on flickr, see the EXIF data, and say to themselves, "Oh yeah, it definitely was XYZ lens, I had the eye to see it."
> ...



Well...you, me and these cowboys "get" it. ...and we all have more fun no matter what lens we are using!!!! ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TuXRgMjwSg
Hopefully they could do their shootout over when the new Canon releases!!!!


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 10, 2017)

scyrene said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > You have missed the point completely. Nobody in this thread has claimed they can distinguish a f1.2 and f1.4 shot from each other. The magic of the 85LII is often more apparent at f2.8. The razor thin DOF can sometimes come at the cost of ruining the depth rendering of a picture.
> ...



GMCPhotografics has provided some very good images in this thread, that I think illustrates the qualities of the 85LII. If you don't accept he pictures as evidence, why don't you find some comparable images taken with other lenses, that offer the same depth rendering, background separation, color and bokeh, as the second picture GMCphotografics has provided? In stead of demanding more proof, maybe you should start with disproving the evidence that has already been provided.


----------



## Maiaibing (Apr 10, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Any wild predictions on how much longer the 85 f/1.2 II will be in full service status? That is, eligible for repair by Canon before service life ends? I think they won't produce it much longer once the 1.4 is released, if at all. Just keep it as current until stocks are drawn down.


Until spare parts run out. This is Canon's declared policy. Based on previous lenses this can be anything from 2-3 to 10 years. Most lenses are repaired 4-6 years after end of production (but remember Canon may still sell lenses quite a long time after end of production). 

The 200 f/1.8 L came with an extremely short repair window for such a crazy expensive lens (<3 years). There were a couple of lenses that just got their end of service notice (cannot find the link right now). Seem to remember one of these had quite a long repair window.


----------



## Maiaibing (Apr 10, 2017)

Fleetie said:


> I'm confident that the much-loved 85/1.2L will remain in the line-up for the foreseeable future; so many people admire it and swear by it. I don't have one, but I wish I did.
> 
> That said, does anyone know the T-stop of that lens? And is it likely or possible that the new 85/1.4L IS will be able to equal it? Or exceed it? (Seems unlikely.) That might be one reason (as well as IS, and sharpness) to go for the new lens.


Spot on. T-stop is actually "only" f/1.4. ;D


----------



## RunAndGun (Apr 10, 2017)

AAPhotog said:


> Im pissed. I just bought the 85mm L II a little over a month ago and rarely get good shots because of the slow as ****** auto focus. now I read a new one is finally on the horizon?



It's not an "action" lens. Even a cursory search on the 85/1.2 would have revealed that the focus is very slow. I know I've mentioned more than once when discussions about it pop up. It's a beautiful lens that has a lot of things going for it, but focus speed isn't one of them.


----------



## RunAndGun (Apr 10, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> Fleetie said:
> 
> 
> > I'm confident that the much-loved 85/1.2L will remain in the line-up for the foreseeable future; so many people admire it and swear by it. I don't have one, but I wish I did.
> ...



I would have put my money on T1.3. I have the stills version of the 85/1.2 and the CN-E version and the Cine is rated T1.3.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 10, 2017)

AAPhotog said:


> Im pissed. I just bought the 85mm L II a little over a month ago and rarely get good shots because of the slow as ****** auto focus. now I read a new one is finally on the horizon?



SOMEBODY had to be the last person on the planet Earth to discover this! :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 10, 2017)

AAPhotog said:


> Im pissed. I just bought the 85mm L II a little over a month ago and rarely get good shots because of the slow as ****** auto focus. now I read a new one is finally on the horizon?



I'm pissed, too. I bought a TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II and rarely get good shots because the autofocus doesn't work at all. I was even more pissed when I bought the TS-E 17mm f/4L and had the same problem! Now I read that a medium format light field view camera where every lens is a TS and focus is not needed is on the horizon?


----------



## scyrene (Apr 10, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



Well that's not how it works. You guys are making the claim, you provide evidence to back it up. And I mean actual evidence, not just a set of pretty pictures. Some of those portraits were great - but that doesn't prove anything. A combination of subject matter, photographer skill, light, focal length and aperture, subject distance, choice and distance of background, postprocessing, etc contribute to their quality. Some of those depend on the lens - but they aren't unique to it. Are you seriously saying if you were given a set of images with no other info, including some made with the 85L, you could pick out the ones that were (better than chance)? Do you really believe that? PBD says he's done this test, and nobody succeeded - perhaps he'll provide some images, but I suspect it wouldn't be worth his time.

The only lens I could have a good stab at identifying from images or footage is the MP-E - if it's an ultra macro with hexagonal specular highlights, then it's a good bet. That's quantifiable, and testable. "It's magical" isn't.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> AAPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > Im pissed. I just bought the 85mm L II a little over a month ago and rarely get good shots because of the slow as ****** auto focus. now I read a new one is finally on the horizon?
> ...



It's the simplest gear-buying flowchart you will ever see:

1) Identify your needs (mount, crop-only vs. FF, focal length, prime vs. zoom, IS, aperture, sealing, focus speed, stills vs. video needs, etc.)

2) Line up your needs to the various lenses that might fit those needs.

3) Educate yourself. Read reviews from trusted sources on your possible/candidate lenses, talk to people on forums, chat up the guy in the local camera store (if you have one). _Ask if a new version of this lens might be coming soon..._

4) Make up your mind on the one lens you think you need.

5) Does this lens cost more than [your personal financial threshold of pain]? 


If yes, *RENT BEFORE YOU BUY*.


If not, pull the trigger.

- A


----------



## Sabaki (Apr 10, 2017)

So are we saying that if we own a zoom that covers the focal length of a prime, we should should skip the prime as there's no discernible difference in image quality?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 10, 2017)

Sabaki said:


> So are we saying that if we own a zoom that covers the focal length of a prime, we should should skip the prime as there's no discernible difference in image quality?



No, but if you started to look at blind tests you'd be shocked how often you couldn't tell the difference between the two.

When I went to EF from FD the biggest difference was the quality of the 2.8 zooms in the newer system (apart from the ultra wides which have subsequently improved just as much). I got the three f2.8 zooms as a starter to see what else I needed. I have added primes to that since 2004 but mainly for different reasons than image differences.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 10, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Actually I think all you've done is expose your rather immature and sad attitude to other people's work. This is my work and my clients are more than happy with them, they are my judge not some weirdo on a forum. If you don't like them, so what? Keep your rather vile opinions to your self and crawl back to the negative pit that you've just came out from. It is really bad forum manners to criticise another photographer's work unless it's been requested. A critique improves wisdom, a criticism condemns. If you have some talent and have evidence then post it, let us all see it...or are you one of the modern forum trawlers who have lots of opinions and no portfolio of work? 

You seem to be offended because I have shared my experience of using this lens in a professional context and I've shown some images that illustrate my point. Sorry if your opinion is different or that your ego is bruised because there are others here who have found this lens to be an amazing tool. Maybe the real take away here is "a lot of portrait photographers like this lens a lot. They appreciate the rendering and slim DOF that this lens offers, while putting up with its slow AF and other quirks because in their opinion that this niche lens that does something they can't get else where and are happy to pay for that tool. 

Wisdom comes from experience. So don't trash some one who is wiser than you in a certain area. All you are doing is showing how naive you are on a world wide forum. This forum has many giants of photography walking through it's pages. It also has a lot of muppets. Who you are in private always gets exposed in public.


----------



## Sabaki (Apr 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > So are we saying that if we own a zoom that covers the focal length of a prime, we should should skip the prime as there's no discernible difference in image quality?
> ...



Yeah, blind tests differ in that way to shooting test charts which can be measured and differences defined. 

I just think that these 'magic' lenses set themselves apart in maybe less than 5% of images they render.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 10, 2017)

GMCPhotographics said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



So praise = critique, and criticism is unacceptable? You have been very personal in criticizing my critique! Nothing that I wrote evaluating your images was personally insulting, GMC. I stick to my charge that the first shot, while capturing the face itself nicely, was, as a whole, not pleasing at all because the fingertips and substance in her hands became a formless blob--a common mistake with this type of lens.

I was pointing out that claiming others just don't get it, don't understand this lens, needs to be backed up by solid examples of how to use it. I don't feel that is what you've offered here, and once an image is up as an example, I don't believe we step out of bounds commenting on it.

The thread is about gear. If somebody claims a lens is irreplaceable, then posts images that, in my opinion don't demonstrate that claim, should I not be allowed to point this out? Should I just say, "These don't back your assertion"? Or should I explain why they don't?

Please, all, if you are pleased with your images, if your friends, family, and clients are pleased, but somebody on a forum finds fault, be more confident and say, "While you may have intended to make a point, I'm happy with my work and will continue doing more of the same!"

Imagine slamming a client who was unhappy with work that was to be paid for. Not good for business.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 10, 2017)

Sabaki said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



Yes, a blind test with a participant number of two. :


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 10, 2017)

scyrene said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



So you make the rules? GMCPhotografics provided example pictures. If you're correct, it should be easy to find pictures taken with other lenses that have the same look to them. But hey, you didn't. 

But since you claim the burden of proof is on us, and we haven't persuaded you, you have certainly convinced me that I, and the many who find the 85LII special, is totally wrong about it's qualities. What a relief. Now I can sell all my equipment and settle with a rebel and a kit lens. :

Sarcasm aside, I can't reliably pick out shots made with the 85LII in a bunch of pictures, but statistically I think I will be able pick it out more often than coincidence would indicate.


----------



## vscd (Apr 10, 2017)

scyrene said:


> The only lens I could have a good stab at identifying from images or footage is the MP-E - if it's an ultra macro with hexagonal specular highlights, then it's a good bet. That's quantifiable, and testable. "It's magical" isn't.



I would also recognize a 80-200L, especially at the wide end because it has the old Petzval-Look..which is somehow characteristic. Also the 8-15L is very unique @8mm 

In my opinion the 85LII has a very own signature on colors and bokeh. I recognized this after I replaced the old 85mm f1.8 with the 85L. If someone needs it, hmm, may be questionable but I think I would see the difference between a 85mm f1.8 and a 85mm f1.2 @OpenAperture. But of course the 85L has way more advantages over the 85mm f1.8. It's sharper, has ETTL-II, weathersealing (kind of) and the biggest plus... the Viewfinder is more than two times as bright as a f1.8 lens. Focus in low light may be slow but it's still working. 

I don't understand the attitude "you can't tell the difference anyway". With this attitude we could all work with a 28-300L. Why primes? Why L-lenses? Only for the red ring porn?


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 10, 2017)

Sabaki said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



I think you are on to something. I have many pictures from my 85LII, 35LII and 50L that doesn't look special at all, but when they do, they really do!

I am just an amateur. I end up with many pictures of the same people, in comparable situations. I don't think it is coincidence that my favorite pictures are from prime lenses, and not zooms. And the thing is, the L primes I have make pictures that look better than most of the non L primes I have used. What a shock.


----------



## Sabaki (Apr 10, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I'm also an amateur, a weekend snapper for the most part. 

I often look at images shot on my 400 f/5.6, compare it to a 600mm on full frame and think the difference isn't noticeable. Until I see those images the 600mm nails perfectly and I realize there's some places my 400 just can't go.


----------



## infared (Apr 10, 2017)

This room reeks of Canarrogance. :'(


----------



## CanonGrunt (Apr 10, 2017)

reczey said:


> I hope it will not be an L lens, but it will be a 'matching pair' for the 35mm f/2 IS. I hope Canon will continue the 'line' they started with the 24mm f/2.8 IS, 28mm f/2.8 IS, 35mm f/2 IS...



Ditto. If it turns out to be in that 'line', it's a good bet that it'll be released alongside the new 6D. That 'line' has found a loving home among the 6D video enthused owners. If it has IS, I'd be willing to bet it's going to be part of that 'line'.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 10, 2017)

CanonGrunt said:


> reczey said:
> 
> 
> > I hope it will not be an L lens, but it will be a 'matching pair' for the 35mm f/2 IS. I hope Canon will continue the 'line' they started with the 24mm f/2.8 IS, 28mm f/2.8 IS, 35mm f/2 IS...
> ...



A 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 update will happen, but we are not sure they'll get IS and as rumored here at CR it's possible those lenses get the focus-by-wire Nano USM treatment. Canon may be giving up on proper ring USM in mid-level lenses. :'(

- A


----------



## PHOTOPROROCKIES (Apr 11, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> CanonGrunt said:
> 
> 
> > reczey said:
> ...



Will most likely be an L lens, and I cannot wait for it to get here! ;D I do agree the 85mm f/1.8 and 50mm f1.4 need updated but this will be an entire new L lens. ;D I also am expecting it to blow the Sigma 85 art out of the water, just hoping canon doesn't disappoint.


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 11, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > I think those who "think" they can tell the difference between a prime lens shot at f/1.2 and f/1.4 without clinical, identical shots are fooling themselves. I'm guessing they are suffering from confirmation bias. They look at a photo on flickr, see the EXIF data, and say to themselves, "Oh yeah, it definitely was XYZ lens, I had the eye to see it."
> ...



No I have not missed the point. Take 100 random photos shot with a list of various 85mm lenses (Canon f/1.2, f/1.8, the new Tamron, the new Sigma, etc.) And blindly ask someone to tell me which lens each photo was shot with. Like I suggested, develop 8x12's, lay them out on the table and tell me you can match random shots to a specific lens because it has that magic that one can just recognize? No, It's impossible. And that was the point a number of us were making. 

Heck, just the different magnification of viewing the exact same image at different sizes has a dramatic afffect as we go from small web (facebook) to regular web size to small print, medium print, large print. That's why even knowing the focal length that a picture was shot at, it can be pretty difficult to guess/gauge the aperture that was used.

And this doesn't mean we all shoot with a kit lens. Of course various lenses provide something more, something different, something even a bit unique. I'm sure the 85mm f/1.2L is a fantastic piece of glass. But to pretend it's difference is so vast, so clearly different from any other similar lens, that it falls into the realm of magic? That any photo taken with it can easily be recognized? That is just plain naive thinking.


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 11, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > Luds34 said:
> ...



I wish you had read my posts more carefully, and with good intentions, and you wouldn't have made all these false claims about what I mean. 

That said, I don't think it would be impossible to pick out the 85LII shots. I wouldn't get them all right, but I would pick out more of them than coincidence would indicate. 

Don't get so hung up on the word magic. We're not talking Harry Potter here. Replace magic with better look, and you should get the idea.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 11, 2017)

Skating past the immortal debate of 'magic' vs. 'that MTF looks way better' :, let's pivot a bit.
*
What's the value proposition of this new lens?*

1) IS - video people, low light folks should love this. (Also possibly an industry first? I'm not aware of another FF f/1.4 IS lens unless you count bolting an f/1.4 prime on an IBIS A7 or Pentax body.)

2) We presume it will be sharper -- it is 11 years newer, after all.

3) We might get the BR gunk here, given that the last L prime to be released also got it (the 35L II).

4) We might get a mechanical focusing ring back (i.e. RIP focus by wire)

5) It's possible this new lens sheds some weight, but perhaps not -- most of the other 85 f/1.4 designs of late that we've seen (Art, Milvus, Otus) are in that 40-45 oz. neighborhood, but there are some exceptions to that.

And we don't know this new lens's price. Could be the same as the f/1.2L II given all the 'new' they've packed in it + IS, which might actually trump the f/1.2 in the market's eyes.

- A


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 11, 2017)

As a 85mm 1.2 owner I'll give my two cents.
As lens go it's difficult to use . It's slow focusing.
I've found it incredibly sharp stopped down in a studio. 
Used at 1.2 I have to take a few shots each time to ensure eyes are in focus.
It takes a little time and patience but it can produce a beautiful image .
. I know people want to measure that or say show me in comparison to another lens.
It's just a pleasing photograph it produces.
It's what stops users selling it. It's not the most practical lens but it can produce a special photograph .
I know some people here are more interested in the technical side and MFT charts.
I'm more interested in the result, the final image.
For me it's a lens worth keeping for those special moment.
The 70-200 2.8 II is much more reliable and flexible.
I too unfortunately like both the 50 1.2 and 50 1.4 which both produce great images.
My 1.4 is a bit soft at 1.4 but I like the look. My 1.2 is sharp and I like the way it renders the background.
I expect the new 85mm 1.4 will be good, sharp and fast focussing.
Il skip it as the 70-200mm will do that.
The 85mm 1.2 will be kept for that 1.2 look.


----------



## infared (Apr 11, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> As a 85mm 1.2 owner I'll give my two cents.
> As lens go it's difficult to use . It's slow focusing.
> I've found it incredibly sharp stopped down in a studio.
> Used at 1.2 I have to take a few shots each time to ensure eyes are in focus.
> ...



I feel that way, too. I have no doubt that the new 85mm will "out perform" the 85mm f/1.2L II by "modern standards".
This new lens will most likely be a whole different beast, aimed at hi-Rez sensors.
It may well be class-leading with all the optical qualities of the new 35mmL (albeit longer focal length), plus IS, and weather-sealing. I am guessing It will also most likely be in or above the $2K price range. At least it is possible. It will also, most likely be a whopper to hold. 
I cannot give up the look of my 85mm f/1.2L II, nor financially justify owning both. LOL!
I am thinking that my choice will be to perhaps purchase the new Sigma 135mm f/1.8 as that would broaden the focal ranges in my quiver, give me a modern uber-sharp, fast-focusing lens in the same general focal range area of the 85mm. That combo would give me more versatility, and no-doubt save me some money knowing newly-released prices of fat Canon L glass. Time will tell...at any rate it will be an exciting lens, no doubt.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 11, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> So you make the rules? GMCPhotografics provided example pictures. If you're correct, it should be easy to find pictures taken with other lenses that have the same look to them. But hey, you didn't.
> 
> But since you claim the burden of proof is on us, and we haven't persuaded you, you have certainly convinced me that I, and the many who find the 85LII special, is totally wrong about it's qualities. What a relief. Now I can sell all my equipment and settle with a rebel and a kit lens. :
> 
> Sarcasm aside, I can't reliably pick out shots made with the 85LII in a bunch of pictures, but statistically I think I will be able pick it out more often than coincidence would indicate.



Not my rules, but the rules of rationalism, empiricism. Try this as a general background: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence (here the extraordinary claims would be either that the 85L is "magical" or that you can pick out images taken with it better than chance, if given a selection taken at various apertures and focal lengths with it and other lenses. Further down, you say don't get hung up on the word "magic". Okay, maybe this has all been taken to an extreme. I just want to know the properties of a lens. Subjective opinion is relevant of course, as some things are hard to measure. But conversely, it doesn't mean that everything people believe is true (in lenses or anything else).

Once again, and for the last time, nobody has told you to sell your 85L (I don't know how many times I have to say that, perhaps you have magical reading skills too : ). Nobody has even said this isn't an excellent lens - indeed it is, and produces excellent images in some circumstances. But so will a new 85 f/1.4. No pixie dust, just a combination of lens design and skilled photography.

Anyway, I'll stop hijacking the thread now.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 11, 2017)

vscd said:


> I don't understand the attitude "you can't tell the difference anyway". With this attitude we could all work with a 28-300L. Why primes? Why L-lenses? Only for the red ring porn?



Well even if you can't reliably tell e.g. an image taken with the 85L and another with the 70-200 2.8, the 85L has features that recommend it in some situations - most notably the wider maximum aperture. You're eliding two different points here - the discussion arose from people saying a new 85mm lens won't have some "magic" that the 85L does. Choosing between an 85mm f/1.2 and an 85mm f/1.4 is much trickier than e.g. the 85L and a 28-300L. So we'd look at things that separate them. If this magic can't be reliably identified, then it can't really be used as a recommendation for one over the other. That doesn't mean one lens can be used for all subjects in all situations - nobody has ever made that claim, and it would be ludicrous to do so.

Clearly all lenses have properties that recommend them for certain uses. But in other situations the differences may not matter. For medium aperture portraiture in controlled light the 100L macro, 100 f/2, 85mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.8, 70-200 f/2.8 etc may all be similar enough (i.e. impossible to reliably tell apart) that choosing one or another is academic. That is not to say each of those lenses won't excel in other ways - you'd choose the 85L for ultimate low-light use or shallw DOF, the zoom for flexibility, the macro lens for macros, the 85 1.8 for lowest cost, etc. Not to mention AF speed and accuracy, how intimidating they are to subjects - or even how good it makes the photographer feel to have a given piece of kit.

Reliance on terms that cannot be quantified, measured, or even illustrated, is silly. If people want to say the 85L's bokeh is smoother, or that the new 85mm's AF is faster, or whatever, that's great - they can be measured. To say "you need an 85L cos it's magical but you can't see that in images unless you're a true believer" is of no use to anyone. I can't believe this is even controversial.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 11, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Skating past the immortal debate of 'magic' vs. 'that MTF looks way better' :, let's pivot a bit.
> *
> What's the value proposition of this new lens?*
> 
> ...



IS would be great (I'm a firm supporter of it even in wide aperture lenses). Less chromatic aberration - the 85L had rather a lot wide open. Sharpness is very good in the older lens, despite its wider aperture, so they needn't push that too much. Mechanical manual focus would be a great help.


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 11, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> I wish you had read my posts more carefully, and with good intentions, and you wouldn't have made all these false claims about what I mean.
> 
> That said, I don't think it would be impossible to pick out the 85LII shots. I wouldn't get them all right, but I would pick out more of them than coincidence would indicate.
> 
> Don't get so hung up on the word magic. We're not talking Harry Potter here. Replace magic with better look, and you should get the idea.



Well, I apologize if missed the nuance of your specific points. By the time I responded a lot of discussion had gone by and at that point one's response can kind of be a general response to the entire discussion, even though I specifically responded to you. In short, of course the "magical" 85mm f/1.2 can produce a "better look", I'm not disagreeing. I just think as pros and enthusiasts we get too caught up in the gear and exaggerate how much better it is. My point is that, more often than not, it's not much.


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 11, 2017)

scyrene said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand the attitude "you can't tell the difference anyway". With this attitude we could all work with a 28-300L. Why primes? Why L-lenses? Only for the red ring porn?
> ...



+1

Echoing my thoughts, just articulated much better.


----------



## Talys (Apr 11, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...



I totally agree. Like most equipment, it's all a matter of compromises -- the decision for a lot of people is to buy the best lens for the one purpose, and then to just make it work for the other uses where it might not be technically the _best_ lens, but the differences are academic. 

Just because every piece of equipment has something that makes it stand out doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of overlap in usefulness.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 11, 2017)

Talys said:


> Just because every piece of equipment has something that makes it stand out doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of overlap in usefulness.



Yep. 35L II vs. 35 f/2 IS is a great example of that, as is 24-70 f/2.8L II vs. 24-70 f/4L IS, as is... hell, half the portfolio now that I think about it. 

- A


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 11, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > I wish you had read my posts more carefully, and with good intentions, and you wouldn't have made all these false claims about what I mean.
> ...



We can settle our little dispute here. The 85LII won't look special in every image, far from it, and that is why illustrating it's qualities is difficult. I hope people reading this thread has noted that many owners of the 85LII find it to be unrivaled in certain situations, despite its chromatic aberrations and slow focus. And yes, it is a speciality lens that works best for portraits.


----------



## paulrossjones (Apr 12, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <p>We have been told that this lens will not replace the EF 85mm f/1.2L, and that the classic 85L will remain current in the lineup for the foreseeable future.</p>
> ...



the look of 1.2 compared to stopping down to 1.4 really is significant. I find the 85 1.2 at 1.2 , canons prettiest lens. I am sure the new 1.4 will be sharper, but when you use the 85 1.2 its the feel of the lens thats the most important thing.


----------



## infared (Apr 12, 2017)

paulrossjones said:


> Mancubus said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Don't look now...but the "experts" are about to set you straight on that comment. Good luck!


----------



## vscd (Apr 12, 2017)

infared said:


> paulrossjones said:
> 
> 
> > Mancubus said:
> ...



Yes, the thread will continue.  But infact, the f1.2 look is different from f1.4... that's physics. The only question is if it's neccesary in the picture or is it visible in the picture. Let's see how the new 85mm f1.4 IS will perform in the field... it is a common problem that the high-resultion Distagondesigns can have some backdraws in the bokeh as the immense amount of elements and groups are sometimes visible in the OutOfFocus areas. Onionrings inclusive. Furthermore the T-Stop can be worse for this reason... the Sigma 85mm f1.4 ART is "only" @t1.8 while the old one had t1.6. Let's see how much an optional Blueelement is taking away or the additional IS-Elements.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2017)

_Oh, oh, oh 
It's magic, you know 
Never believe it's not so 
It's magic, you know…_

;D


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 12, 2017)

Aside from the 1/2 stop difference between 1.4 & 1.2 the technical differences can be down to various variables such as optical design, coatings, glass types, iris type etc. that affect the final image quality. Bokeh is one of the main attributes that people nail the 1.2L lenses for over the current 1.8 85mm and Canon is most likely lining the 1.4 lens up to compete with the Zeiss Otis and the Sigma Art lenses so sharper and higher contrast. Sharpness & contrast can be altered by filters so applied when required, removed if not but this does not materially change bokeh (personally I prefer sharper and then filtrate if its too sharp for the subject). 
Personally I believe photographers should have choices, that one sizes doesn't fit all and we all have our likes & dislikes. In the end though if we live by equipment its our clients perceptions that matter not ours we are supplying a service. If its purely amateur usage then again its about personal choice (or financial) so not one is right or wrong.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 13, 2017)

As much as I'd like to try this new 85mm f1.4 LIS lens, I think Canon have missed a trick. Nikon has the fantastic 105mm f1.4. That would have been an interesting concept, a 105mm f1.4 IS lens on a Canon mount. It wouldn't divide the 85IIL sales, but add something to Canon's lens catalogue. Then it would become a question of 105mm vs 85mm focal lengths and not a discussion about f1.2 vs f1.4, AF speed, size and weight etc. But the discussion would be a creative choice between the 2 different looks that these lenses would offer. It would also take some of the strain off the 135IIL's development.


----------



## FramerMCB (Apr 13, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



I have no experience [shooting] with the 85mm f1.2L II, however, I have read much about it and viewed many, many photos taken with it. And to borrow a phrase from Dustin Abbott's descriptive jargon in reviewing, in particular, Zeiss lenses, with the 85L II it's all about the "drawing" of the lens (or rendering if you will). Now, with other lenses in the same circumstances - same aperture, same camera settings, lighting, etc. - you can capture an outstanding image, but I dare say, it will not have quite the same rendering (or look), especially when you open it up. And let's face it, most people buying this lens and using it (properly) are typically going to use it most at the wider aperture end - say 1.2 to 2.8 or 3.5. in a portrait, food, or other studio work, where your purpose is to isolate the subject or a specific feature of the subject. I will also freely admit, that this "look" is or can be subtle, again, depending on subject matter, lighting, etc. but it is there. For those that have a hard time understanding what I mean, go find some reviews of the 85L II, or check out Dustin's website and see his review of the Zeiss OTUS 85mm f1.4 or his more recent review of the Zeiss Milvus 85mm f1.4. Ditto for his review of the OTUS 55mm. Or Bryan Carnathan's review of these lenses at TDP.


----------



## FramerMCB (Apr 13, 2017)

Is it just me, or has the past couple weeks waiting for the end of April (i.e. new product announcements from Canon for this lens and the 6D Mk II) just dragging by like molasses in January?   8)


----------



## hbr (Apr 13, 2017)

No, it is not just you! 
Brian


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 13, 2017)

Yeah, the 6D2 is the all-eclipsing event this year. It's shaping up to be *the* enthusiast's camera, so at a site like this, it's kind of the earth moon and stars to some regular readers/posters here.

I believe the 6D2 will be (compared to the 6D1) what the 5D3 was compared to the 5D2 -- a comprehensive step forward that ticks all the major boxes people have been asking for. In the 6D2's case, I see that coming in the form of better AF, DPAF + tilty-flippy + touch, on-chip ADC, nice bump in fps (6 is no joke for 'entry level FF'), etc. The 6D2 will be a better rig than the 5D3 -- not just with the sensor but on aggregate -- and enthusiasts should be pretty geeked about that.

- A


----------



## Crosswind (Apr 13, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Yeah, the 6D2 is the all-eclipsing event this year. It's shaping up to be *the* enthusiast's camera, so at a site like this, it's kind of the earth moon and stars to some regular readers/posters here.



I wont buy the 6D2, but I am interested how its sensor will perform, as I think that might be a first glimpse into Canon's FF MILC.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 13, 2017)

Crosswind said:


> I wont buy the 6D2, but I am interested how its sensor will perform, as I think that might be a first glimpse into Canon's FF MILC.



It's a sensor. Canon makes a lot of them and will make more. But Canon's success / failure in mirrorless has a lot more to do with ergonomics, form-factor, controls, AF performance, native lens offerings, etc. than how well it stacks up against EXMOR. Consider: we presently get floor-mopped by other APS-C sensors in testing yet EOS M is selling very well.

And, FWIW, the first glimpse into FF MILC is already here. _It's the EOS M5. _ In broad strokes, unless they go with a fixed lens offering, expect Canon's first mirrorless FF rig to a bigger version of the M5, possibly with that extra real estate delivering us a chunkier grip, another dial up top, a top LCD, etc.

- A


----------



## StudentOfLight (Apr 13, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Crosswind said:
> 
> 
> > I wont buy the 6D2, but I am interested how its sensor will perform, as I think that might be a first glimpse into Canon's FF MILC.
> ...


What did you mean by a fixed lens offering?


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 13, 2017)

StudentOfLight said:


> What did you mean by a fixed lens offering?



I mean an autofocusing FF digital camera without an interchangeable lens mount -- i.e. with a fixed (in place) lens. 

It's not like it hasn't been done before. See pictures. These sort of rigs are not typically aimed at folks like us, I see these rigs aimed at globe-trotting trust-funders and wealthy gadget folks who want to take great pictures but don't necessarily know what all the knobs and switches on a FF SLR or Leica rangefinder are for.

Offering one of these might have made sense a year or two ago as Canon was learning the mirrorless basics, ergonomics, how LiveView should ideally work for through-the-viewfinder stills capture, etc. But now that the M5 is out, though an FF rig would have more bells and whistles than the M5 does, there's less of an opportunity for Canon to learn from a niche product like a fixed lens FF rig. They may not do it at this point.

- A


----------



## StudentOfLight (Apr 13, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > What did you mean by a fixed lens offering?
> ...


Ah that makes sense, you lead the paragraph talking about MILC then, jumped to "FF rig" 
and I didn't follow that "FF rig" was disconnected from MILC so I was confused (Wasn't sure how a MILC would have a fixed lens.)

Thanks for the clarification. 

So fixed lens...
Focal length? Max aperture?
A test bed for sensor stabilization perhaps?


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 13, 2017)

StudentOfLight said:


> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> So fixed lens...
> Focal length? Max aperture?
> A test bed for sensor stabilization perhaps?



Leica and Sony (and just about any cell phone) have it right. If you only have one lens, it should be 28-35mm FF and as quick as you can make it without making it huge. Leica opted for 28mm f/1.7 and Sony opted for 35mm f/2. Either would be fine.

As far as why Canon would do this, it's a test bed for anything, but presumably for _things Canon doesn't already have in its pocket_. IBIS comes to mind, sure, but step back from a feature and think about the user experience at a higher level. The general handling of a device with a different form factor is... different. The EOS M1, M2 sort of 'flat brick' design doesn't work well once full frame + quicker lenses get attached (e.g. Leica rangefinders feel like Lego handles in a not good way, Fuji X-Pro 1/2 are bricky and not fun to handle). There's a delicate balance of 'mirrorless is all about being thin' : vs. 'I just bought it and slapped a 70-200 f/2.8 on it and my wrist hurts and I'm really disappointed about this experience' : : : that Canon must shrewdly navigate.

And then, on top of that, presuming the FF ILC that is coming _doesn't_ come with an integral EF mount -- *a conversation we will not further here as it's on 100 other threads at CR* -- the top of the camera will be 'busier' / tighter for space, so knobs / buttons and such need to be carefully located while honoring the FF SLR controls people love so much. You don't want to speak two different 'control languages' with a 5D on one shoulder and FF mirrorless on another. Again, a 'test' fixed lens body might give them some user insights to leverage for the bigger deal FF ILC to come later.

- A


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the clarification.
> ...


On the G 7X & G 7X MKII they have the FF equivilent of 24-105 to me that makes great sense, never understood a fixed 28mm or 35mm so limiting.


----------



## Talys (Apr 14, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> On the G 7X & G 7X MKII they have the FF equivilent of 24-105 to me that makes great sense, never understood a fixed 28mm or 35mm so limiting.



A fixed zoom lens in FF, especially one with a large FR, would put the camera in a space that not many people would buy, IMO. I mean, imagine if the 5D4 came in at $1300 but it could only have a 24-105L -- I sure wouldn't buy it, because the 24-105L is inferior to the 24-70 in every way except FR and massively inferior to all primes in IQ. And, it would be way too expensive as a carryaround consumer camera.

Now, imagine if you could buy the a 50/1.2L fixed on 5D4 body for $1300. I don't know about you, but I'd be super excited, because it would be like carrying around a 5D4 and a 50 1.2 always attached. If the body were rebel sized but had all the capabilities and features of a 5D4, I'd buy it in a heartbeat, because I'd never take the body off the lens anyhow.

Sure, it would make a lousy only camera. But I think most people who are would consider FF have just one camera anyhow.

So, it all depends on the cost and IQ. If Canon releases a fixed-lens, mirrorless prime that is close to the price of the lens by itself, it becomes an exciting value proposition for today, and a gateway and learning experience of Canon into the future, for tomorrow.


----------



## sulla (Apr 14, 2017)

I honestly cannot understand, why canon produces 2 image-stabilised lenses of the same focal length and similar aperture,
the EF 85 1.4L IS USM and the EF 85 1.2 II VD USM...


----------



## sulla (Apr 14, 2017)

sulla said:


> EF 85 1.2L II VD USM


OK, to prevent a shitstorm, this was just a joke, through which I was trying to point to the fact that, due to its enormous weight, the f/1.2 lens is vibrationally damped (VD) about 1 stop over the lighter f/1.8 lens through sheer inertia...
Genuine IS in a fast prime of this focal length is highly welcome, of course! Perhaps, one day, we will see ahsanford's 50mm 1.4 IS lens...


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 14, 2017)

sulla said:


> I honestly cannot understand, why canon produces 2 image-stabilised lenses of the same focal length and similar aperture,
> the EF 85 1.4L IS USM and the EF 85 1.2 II VD USM...



The same answer as why a dog licks its own junk. Because it can.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> sulla said:
> 
> 
> > I honestly cannot understand, why canon produces 2 image-stabilised lenses of the same focal length and similar aperture,
> ...



But, this time a serious answer:


The Otuses and Art (primes) don't offer IS. This is simple feature-based differentiation.


A new lens is needed every 8-10 years or in of the staple professional varieties (24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, a fast 85 for portraiture, etc.), so Canon needed to make a new 85 to keep up with the Joneses. The current 85 is dreamy but not sharp throughout the frame -- DXO (I know, ack, nasty) has tested it on multiple bodies and rated it for 18/22 P-MPix at DXO on a 5D3 but only gets up to a 23/50 on a 5DS R. It could use a step up for a 50 MP+ sensor. And we all know the AF is both FBW and slooooow. There is ample room to improve it.


Video folks would love an f/1.4 IS lens. You could do some Kubrickian Barry Lyndon lighting levels with that.


So a new 85L is a lock. Why the old one isn't obsoleted in a year or so is the $64,000 question. Perhaps it might be (I'm speculating) that Canon has some market intel that no matter how sharp/wonderful/amazing the new 85 f/1.4L IS is, some nontrivial fraction of photographers will never buy it, instead opting to spoon with their current 85 f/1.2L IIs like folks did with their Amiga computers back in the day. To some, the 'magic' is real and they'll never give it up.

- A


----------



## ecka (Apr 15, 2017)

Talys said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > On the G 7X & G 7X MKII they have the FF equivilent of 24-105 to me that makes great sense, never understood a fixed 28mm or 35mm so limiting.
> ...



So, you want to get 5D4 with a permanently attached 50L for the price of the 50L alone?
Who wouldn't? 
5D4 with a permanently attached 24-105L is not that bad either. $4400 combo for $1300 ... pure gold .
How about 5D4 with 40/2.8STM? Maybe $799?


----------



## RunAndGun (Apr 15, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> [*]Video folks would love an f/1.4 IS lens. You could do some Kubrickian Barry Lyndon lighting levels with that.




IS in video isn't as important as some make it out to be and it can even be a hinderance. If you're just trying to hold a locked-off frame handheld, it can help. If you're trying to follow action or you forget to turn it off when you put the cam back on the stix, it can be like you're shooting while you're drunk, without the enjoyment of the buzz.


----------



## Talys (Apr 16, 2017)

ecka said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...



Yeah, exactly  I would happily buy an "experimental" camera/fixed prime lens combo if it weren't that much more than the lens would be by itself. For Canon, it would not cannibalize sales, because nobody is going to own ONLY a fixed 50 or 35. A few hundred dollars over the price of the 50L would be fine for me.

24-105L for $1300 would get me really excited, I'd buy one... and then rarely use it, because the 24-70L is just better for... everything unless you need the top end of that zoom range. I actually use my 17-135 nano more than my 24-105L (version 1). But, such a beast would probably hurt Canon's other sales, because some people would be perfectly content with a 24-105 on a fixed pro-grade body -- and then never buy anything else.

Remember, for canon, the idea would be to experiment with building a FF sensor and ergonomics -- not to give us the deal that would keep us from buying more toys


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 18, 2017)

it's now the 18th. you'd think we'd hear of firmware leaks by now if it was really this big.


----------



## Ozarker (May 12, 2017)

Talys said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



  :
The marketplace is not the place to experiment with ergonomics or new sensor technology. It certainly is not the place to sell a pro grade body for a few hundred more dollars than a lens.

I just got off a 7 day ban, so cannot tell you what I really want to say about this "idea". I learned my lesson.

Golly gee wiz... what a doozy!


----------

