# Canon 85mm f1.4L IS USM First Impressions and images...



## JoFT (Nov 17, 2017)

Today I got my new 85mm f1.4 L IS USM. I made some first sample shots - and I am blown away by this lens. It is really sharp wide open. I could not find any CA. The Bokeh is just wonderful: smooth like butter - and no onion type stuff. IS works well...


What do I want more?


I will prepare a detailed comparison between the Canon EF 85mm f1.4L with the Zeiss Milvus 85mm f1.4 and the Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art I hope to have this comparison ready within the next few days...


Meanwhile have a quick look to my blog: http://bit.ly/2zKesGi


It will be interesting to get your feeling about this lens


----------



## Viggo (Nov 17, 2017)

Thanks for posting! I think it looks great too!

Looks like mine won’t be here until Monday so really enjoy all new info ;D


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 17, 2017)

Beautiful pics and bokeh is magnificent. When you do your comparisons, please put all settings under the images. The shallow depth of field really brings the eyes into focus and draws me into the pics.
Thank you so much.
sek


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 17, 2017)

Wow! Very nice for sure. This should stop a lot of the negative speculation coming from the Sigma crowd. Thanks for posting. I don't have a 85mm prime, but maybe I will decide to get this one. Very nice!


----------



## Boyer U. Klum-Cey (Nov 17, 2017)

Very nice body of work. I'm convinced!


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 18, 2017)

*JoFT*,

thanks for sharing your experience . the sample images are quite small. would you be able to share unedited RAW file of the Milvus lens (mount up) shot and the next one with credit card, please?

notice how the "CE" lettering has a purple fringe to it and distance scale turns slowly green going into the bokeh area. it is not that bad, of course, just not evident in these samples. in the example with credit card focus is not on text area hence it is not obvious again.
rendition is definitely nice.
you may consider AFMA your lens. it seems consistently front focusing for you. Not being critical of your work, just a technical point you may consider.

*CanonFanBoy*



> ...This should stop a lot of the negative speculation coming from the Sigma crowd.



just a couple of observations if I may:

1. before you wack a label "Sigma crowd" on someone, take a moment to consider that I am 95% Canon in terms of number of lenses in my bag and 100% Canon camera bodies. Dustin Abbott is a strong Tamron supported. why wouldn't you call him a "Tamron Crowd" then? think about it.
2. what you call speculations is evident for those that know where to look and what to look for. if you would like a detailed professional opinion on CA levels in the images provided I am happy to point problematic areas for you out and also provide my opinion on other features present in the samples. Happy to send you a personal message but would be hesitant to comment on forum pages for obvious ethical reasons.

Disclaimer: I have no skin in this Canon vs Sigma game. I consider this lens to be a solid performer but not a spectacular one. it will be evident at the time when *professional* reviewers will come out pointing to the same problematic areas that are evident in all the sample images I have encountered so far. 



JoFT said:


> Today I got my new 85mm f1.4 L IS USM. I made some first sample shots - and I am blown away by this lens. It is really sharp wide open. I could not find any CA. The Bokeh is just wonderful: smooth like butter - and no onion type stuff. IS works well...
> 
> 
> What do I want more?
> ...


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 18, 2017)

What would you suggest I call the crowd that insists the Sigma line is so awesome AF wise when there are so many having so many problems with the AF? I call them Sigma fans, Sigma crowd, etc. There is nothing at all insulting about that. If you think so, then maybe you should take a chill pill. There's the Canon crowd too. I am a part of that crowd and the Tamron 15-30 crowd. I own the Tamron and MY COPY is a fine lens. 

I enjoy Dustin's reviews because I perceive him to be very honest and unbiased. Dustin is a fine man and one never reads him participating in the back and forth flaming so many of us participate in here. In fact, his review of the Tamron 15-30 is what convinced me to buy it. You shouldn't be dropping other people's names and dragging it through the mud behind you.

I also own 3 Russian Helios lenses. I'm part of the Helios crowd too.

So, if you don't like me calling people who like the Sigma line the Sigma crowd... that's just tough biscuits for you. The fact that you got bent about that puts you in a special crowd of your own. It ain't about you, dude. Want to be the thought police? Go right ahead. Just leave me out of it. My post was not directed at you personally, so just stop it. I'll "wack a label" on anything I want. Don't like it? Tough.

Sigma fanboy much? I admit I'm a Canonfanboy right from the start. Like you said in a recent post (paraphrase), "It is amazing that having an opinion different..." Get over yourself.

I don't appreciate being labeled a label wacker either. : : (extreme don't care at all.) See how that works? Think about it. 

You also say in another post, "How accurate do you need AF to be?" Easy answer. At least as accurate as Canon. If I buy a lens with AF it better darn well work whether I need it or not.

One more thing: You say you are 95% Canon lenses in your bag and 100% Canon bodies. What is your point with that? I own 2 Canon bodies and 1 Voightlander. I'm 66.66% Canon there. I own 1 Tamron SP 15-30, 5 Canon L lenses (6 if I count my 2X III), 3 Helios MF lenses I use on my 5D Mark III, and a Voightlander MF lens for my Voightlander body. So I'm barely over 50% Canon in the lens department. Is your point that you are staunchly in Canon's corner? Are you a bigger fanboy? I don't see how what you have in your bag makes a difference about one single thing. Fanboy is a state of mind. 



SecureGSM said:


> *JoFT*,
> 
> thanks for sharing your experience . the sample images are quite small. would you be able to share unedited RAW file of the Milvus lens (mount up) shot and the next one with credit card, please?
> 
> ...


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 18, 2017)

Non IS primes this FL are now paperweights!


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 19, 2017)

Please dont’ talk about the Sigma autofocus again. They don’t work. End of story. LOL

Beautiful lenses that are well built, but they can’t be depended on for their autofocus like a Canon lens.

Sold my 85mm Art on Friday. The new Canon is a winner.


----------



## JoFT (Nov 19, 2017)

LSXPhotog said:


> Please dont’ talk about the Sigma autofocus again. They don’t work. End of story. LOL
> 
> Beautiful lenses that are well built, but they can’t be depended on for their autofocus like a Canon lens.
> 
> Sold my 85mm Art on Friday. The new Canon is a winner.




Congrats. You'll gain a smaller lens with less weight and size, IS ans weather sealing....


It will be hard 2 weeks until I will get the Sigma for comparison... But I will make the comparison fair...


----------



## JoFT (Nov 19, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> *JoFT*,
> 
> thanks for sharing your experience . the sample images are quite small. would you be able to share unedited RAW file of the Milvus lens (mount up) shot and the next one with credit card, please?
> 
> ...




thank for your comments... I do have "larger" files linked in my summary. Unfortunetely Zenfolio askes for money for uploading raw files... And they get enough for the rest....


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 19, 2017)

LSXPhotog said:


> Please dont’ talk about the Sigma autofocus again. They don’t work. End of story. LOL
> 
> Beautiful lenses that are well built, but they can’t be depended on for their autofocus like a Canon lens.
> 
> Sold my 85mm Art on Friday. The new Canon is a winner.



+1 

That's telling those Sigma fanboys/girls!


----------



## JoFT (Nov 21, 2017)

I thought I should add some images to illustrate the amazing quality of this lens... All these images were taken @ f1.4 on the EOS M5...


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 22, 2017)

JoFT said:


> I thought I should add some images to illustrate the amazing quality of this lens... All these images were taken @ f1.4 on the EOS M5...



Thanks JoFT  I'm already lining up things to sell so I can get this thanks to your shots and opinion. Seriously. Going to sell all 7 of my 600EX-RT flash asap. I use a flashpoint streaklight for flash now. Hardly used the Canons as I almost always shoot outdoors. Might keep 1 or 2. I don't kniow. A lens would be better to have for me. Think I've decided to get the 135 f/2 IS when it comes also. Thanks for the posts.


----------



## JoFT (Nov 22, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> JoFT said:
> 
> 
> > I thought I should add some images to illustrate the amazing quality of this lens... All these images were taken @ f1.4 on the EOS M5...
> ...




Thx for commenting...


Flashwise I do have studio flashes and just one 430 RT with the Remote controller. But for mobile work the Yongnuo works well, too..


The 135 will be awesome, too. But my philosophy is a bit difference. My lens lineup is 15/35/85/200 and than a Fullframe and an APS-C Body... than i have 22/55/135/32 as equivalent.... ;-)


----------



## Shane1.4 (Nov 22, 2017)

Only had a few free minutes to take photos today but below is a video showing some quick casual real life comparison photos with my new Canon 85 and the my Sigma 85. Hope it is helpful for anyone trying to decide!

https://youtu.be/3-6tLgTA2cQ


----------



## Viggo (Nov 22, 2017)

Suspicion confirmed. The 85 IS’ lens hood is useless in the rain. I mean, they finally weather seal it and then shorten the lens hood so the front element is impossible to keep dry, *facepalm* and it was just a light drizzle with no wind and I was carrying it lens pointing down, so the rain is just from a couple of shots...


----------



## hne (Nov 22, 2017)

Viggo said:


> Suspicion confirmed. The 85 IS’ lens hood is useless in the rain. I mean, they finally weather seal it and then shorten the lens hood so the front element is impossible to keep dry, *facepalm* and it was just a light drizzle with no wind and I was carrying it lens pointing down, so the rain is just from a couple of shots...



Ouch!
3D printer to the rescue?


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 22, 2017)

Viggo said:


> Suspicion confirmed. The 85 IS’ lens hood is useless in the rain. I mean, they finally weather seal it and then shorten the lens hood so the front element is impossible to keep dry, *facepalm* and it was just a light drizzle with no wind and I was carrying it lens pointing down, so the rain is just from a couple of shots...



A hood is not principally for keeping rain off the front element. Do you similarly complain that the very low profile petal-shaped hoods on the UWA zooms are similarly faulty as well? :

But _is_ the hood too short? Or is this just the reality of switching from an externally focusing lens to and internally focusing lens? See pics (all from TDP): at MFD, the distance from the front element to the edge of the hood is similar.

I'm thinking more and more that Canon is leveraging an internally focusing lens design to give us something no bigger than it needs to be. Less space to take up in a bag when not on the lens.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 22, 2017)

Viggo said:


> Suspicion confirmed. The 85 IS’ lens hood is useless in the rain. I mean, they finally weather seal it and then shorten the lens hood so the front element is impossible to keep dry, *facepalm* and it was just a light drizzle with no wind and I was carrying it lens pointing down, so the rain is just from a couple of shots...



Also, though I can't see it in the manual ???, I'm presuming you need to front filter for the weather sealing to work on this one.

Do you front filter when you go into the rain?

- A


----------



## slclick (Nov 22, 2017)

Hood lengths are designed to cover potential flare based upon the elements needs am I not correct?


----------



## Viggo (Nov 22, 2017)

Yes, I use filter for weather sealing.

Well, the primary use for a lens hood is indeed to avoid flare. however, I haven't had any issues with rain on any other lens except the 17-40 (which isn't sealed.)

Even my 35 L II doesn't get rain on the front element like the 85 did today....


----------



## Viggo (Nov 22, 2017)

hne said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Suspicion confirmed. The 85 IS’ lens hood is useless in the rain. I mean, they finally weather seal it and then shorten the lens hood so the front element is impossible to keep dry, *facepalm* and it was just a light drizzle with no wind and I was carrying it lens pointing down, so the rain is just from a couple of shots...
> ...



Ha! Perhaps! I know a place where I can have things 3D printed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I'm thinking more and more that Canon is leveraging an internally focusing lens design to give us something no bigger than it needs to be. Less space to take up in a bag when not on the lens.



That's the norm for hood design, and I'm sure that's true in this case, as well. 




Viggo said:


> hne said:
> 
> 
> > 3D printer to the rescue?
> ...



Would another ET-83 hood fit? The ET-83BII (for the 200/2.8L II) is deeper.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Also, though I can't see it in the manual ???, I'm presuming you need to front filter for the weather sealing to work on this one.



Why on earth would you presume that? The lenses that require a front filter to complete the weather sealing all have in common an inner moving barrel which does not extend in front of the plane of the filter threads. That includes the front filter-compatible UWA L zooms with internal barrels that move with zooming, and the 50/1.2 with an internal barrel that moves with focusing. They also have in common a statement to that effect in the manual. 

Since the 85/1.4L IS focuses internally and has no such statement in the manual, the logical presumption is that a filter is not required to complete the sealing. 




Viggo said:


> ...except the 17-40 (which isn't sealed.)



Incidentally, the 17-40 _is_ a weathersealed lens (although that requires a front filter as discussed above).


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 22, 2017)

slclick said:


> Hood lengths are designed to cover potential flare based upon the elements needs am I not correct?



Yes, "based upon the elements" in this application I read as the FOV. But where the front element is physically located w.r.t to the hood matters, so in this case, internal vs. external focusing considerations matter. For instance, if the 85 f/1.2L II hood attached to that telescoping inner barrel (see pics from prior post), one would presume it wouldn't need to be so big.

That said, _Canon doesn't always deliver a perfect hood from a flare perspective_. Since Canon moved from the reverse zooming + gargantuan hood of the 24-70 f/2.8L I (which optimally shades at both ends of the zoom range) to the standard direction zooming + smaller hood of all the 24-something zooms we see today, we only get optimal shading at the 24mm end.

- A


----------



## Viggo (Nov 22, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Also, though I can't see it in the manual ???, I'm presuming you need to front filter for the weather sealing to work on this one.
> ...



Thanks for clearing that up, it's been a long time since I had it.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 22, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why on earth would you presume that? The lenses that require a front filter to complete the weather sealing all have in common an inner moving barrel which does not extend in front of the plane of the filter threads.



Ah, that would explain why the statement wasn't there. Thanks, Neuro. 

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> That said, _Canon doesn't always deliver a perfect hood from a flare perspective_. Since Canon moved from the reverse zooming + gargantuan hood of the 24-70 f/2.8L I (which optimally shades at both ends of the zoom range) to the standard direction zooming + smaller hood of all the 24-something zooms we see today, we only get optimal shading at the 24mm end.



That's a necessary compromise with all 'typical' zoom lenses (i.e., both internally zooming and those where the barrel extends as the focal length increases). 

However, the 85/1.4 is a prime lens, so the hood design can be optimized for that focal length.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 22, 2017)

Shane1.4 said:


> Only had a few free minutes to take photos today but below is a video showing some quick casual real life comparison photos with my new Canon 85 and the my Sigma 85. Hope it is helpful for anyone trying to decide!
> 
> https://youtu.be/3-6tLgTA2cQ



That was a great a great video. The rendering from both lenses are so similar it's an easy choice for me.

Canon CPS coverage, image stabilization, smaller size/weight, with first party autofocus and no need to recalibrate. All at the expense of a little additional chromatic aberration?

Yes. I loved the Sigma 85 Art, but after 3 days testing them side-by-side, I sold the Sigma last Friday. I'm in love with this lens and it complements my 135L nicely.


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 22, 2017)

LSXPhotog said:


> Shane1.4 said:
> 
> 
> > Only had a few free minutes to take photos today but below is a video showing some quick casual real life comparison photos with my new Canon 85 and the my Sigma 85. Hope it is helpful for anyone trying to decide!
> ...



+1. Great video. The images from the two lenses seems to be very equal in both sharpness and bokeh. Size, weight, IS and first party AF will be the deciding factor for most of us, I think. Interesting to see the green tint produced by the Sigma lens. I preferred the Canon in that regard.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 22, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> LSXPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > Shane1.4 said:
> ...



+1, And I still think the Sigma lenses look "sticker on background" while the Canon has more 3d pop. I looks like the Sigma has a very steep focus fall off and that might be it. But I see the same in my images from the 85, things really do pop, reminds my of the Zeiss 100 f2 classic with less bit less fringing.

If its the LoCa that makes it so smooth and makes the subject pop, then I'll take that over sharpness any day...


----------



## Shane1.4 (Nov 22, 2017)

You guys. This lens is incredible. Today we are having an early Thanksgiving/Christmas with my family that can't get together later. The bokeh is amazing!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2017)

Nice images! I see the bokeh balls still have the same mirror box cut off of the 85/1.2L II.


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 22, 2017)

Viggo said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > LSXPhotog said:
> ...



Interesting about your opinion on the sticker effect, that we have discussed earlier regarding the 50 ART. To my eyes, the 85 ART seems better in that regard than my impression on the 35 and 50 ART lenses. I think it is difficult to back such a claim based on the video. The pictures aren’t viewed in a large size, and I must admit that I do like the look of the pictures coming from Sigma 85 ART. That said, I also slightly prefer the look in the Canon images, and might agree that some of them have a slightly better 3D rendering. At the same time, I cannot rule out my Canon bias counting in. ???

I can feel the GAS, and might give in to it if I can get a good deal on a Black Friday offer...


----------



## Click (Nov 22, 2017)

Shane1.4 said:


> You guys. This lens is incredible. Today we are having an early Thanksgiving/Christmas with my family that can't get together later. The bokeh is amazing!



Beautiful pictures.  I love the bokeh.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 22, 2017)

Click said:


> Shane1.4 said:
> 
> 
> > You guys. This lens is incredible. Today we are having an early Thanksgiving/Christmas with my family that can't get together later. The bokeh is amazing!
> ...



Nothing beats kids + xmas tree lights. Gold, nice work.

- A


----------



## Act444 (Nov 25, 2017)

Shane1.4 said:


> You guys. This lens is incredible. Today we are having an early Thanksgiving/Christmas with my family that can't get together later. The bokeh is amazing!



Thanks for sharing, nice shots. Just curious, what was the aperture setting on pic #2 (the full-body portrait)? 

I like what I've seen so far, so going to pull the trigger on this one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2017)

Act444 said:


> I like what I've seen so far, so going to pull the trigger on this one.



I just ordered one. I'm leaving for Germany/Switzerland on Sunday, and my new lens will be waiting for me when I return.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 25, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > I like what I've seen so far, so going to pull the trigger on this one.
> ...



Congrats! I don’t think you’ll be disappointed. I’ve already used in heavy rain and snow at ridiculously low shutters, so the weather sealing and IS already have become invaluable to me.


----------



## mrmarks (Nov 25, 2017)

Shane1.4 said:


> You guys. This lens is incredible. Today we are having an early Thanksgiving/Christmas with my family that can't get together later. The bokeh is amazing!



Shane, you are such a lucky guy! And I am not referring to your 85 1.4 . You have such a beautiful family!

On the bokeh balls, I notice that there are concentric circles in some of them. Just wondering if the circles will similarly show up if the same shot was taken with the 85 1.2 at the same aperture?


----------



## Shane1.4 (Nov 25, 2017)

Thanks everyone! All the photos were taken at f1.4. I too see the same mirror box clipping like on the 85 1.2 which is a little frustrating but oh well. Here are a few more from the weekend of my brother-in-law and his wife. I know 85 is used a lot for head shots, but I actually really like it for full body photos. Such a fantastic lens.


----------



## Act444 (Nov 26, 2017)

Shane1.4 said:


> I know 85 is used a lot for head shots, but I actually really like it for full body photos.



Yeah, I've used the 100 Macro similarly with stunning results. 100mm f/2.8 is that perfect (IMO) balance between strong subject/background separation and adequate DOF to get enough of the face/body in focus whether it's a headshot or full body shot. Think I will continue to use it...The only problem is the working distance required to get that full-body shot...pretty much need to be outdoors or in a really large room. 

The 85 has its place too. The 1.4 I'm hoping will be nice in darker (read:indoor) venues along with a little less space required to work.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 26, 2017)

So far I've only used this lens in rain and snow, lol. But it's all good since I've been waiting maaaany years for a weather sealed 85 ;D

1dx2+85 IS at f1.4, iso 200, 1/1000s


----------



## ethanz (Nov 28, 2017)

Viggo said:


>



"Dad, are you really down in the rocks taking a picture of me..."


----------



## Viggo (Nov 28, 2017)

Haha, oh yes, usually I have more dirt on me than the kids have ;D

Now, Broncolor; how about weathersealing and shockproofing the Siros lights 8)


----------



## geekpower (Nov 30, 2017)

looking at these images i am very conflicted. there is a lot to like about this lens, including the price, but the bokeh clipping looks really horrendous to me. i don't mind the cat's eye bokeh balls so much, because there is actually some creative potential there, but the nervousness it creates in the background of the shots with trees i find quite distracting from the subject.

the 135/2 IS ought to be better for clipping, yes?


----------

