# Samples of Canon 85mm f1.4 IS posted by DPreview



## Chaitanya (Nov 1, 2017)

Dpreview has posted sample taken using 85mm f1.4IS L. 
https://www.dpreview.com/samples/5001614830/canon-85mm-f1-4l-is-usm-sample-gallery


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 1, 2017)

Numbers 2, 6, 18, 28 and 45 have me sold, they seem to have much smoother background transitions than the 1.2.

Number 45 looks very nice for wide open too.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 1, 2017)

I've been excited about this lens. I hope there will be more posts of portraits. From what I see right now I am not sure it is better than the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. Yes, the 85mm is a faster lens, but...


----------



## edoorn (Nov 1, 2017)

My copy is in! Got it from the dealer this afternoon. No serious testing yet, AF seems to be very snappy and fast. 

It's a very well built thing, 35 II-ish. Quite a bit of weight but in balance on a gripless 5d IV. 

Anyone interested in a second hand Tamron 1.8?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 1, 2017)

Not really wowed by those samples, but I'll reserve judgment until my review copy arrives.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 1, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I've been excited about this lens. I hope there will be more posts of portraits. From what I see right now I am not sure it is better than the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. Yes, the 85mm is a faster lens, but...



Can we say "more wieldly," or is the proper expression "less unwieldly"? 

You have made a good comparison at 85mm, but I also agree with PBD that it seems smoother than the 1.2 II.

The samples include a lot of f/5.6 and higher, which does show sharpness and range, but many of us would be most interested in more samples under f/2.8--especially with twinkly lights in the background. 

Hoping reviews (especially Dustin's!) cover ergonomics and AF accuracy on outer points.

(Thanks, Chaitanya.)

PS *NOW, CANON, PLEASE DO THIS FOR 50MM!*


----------



## Viggo (Nov 1, 2017)

If it’s one thing I’ve learned the last 15 years with Canon, it’s that only sample shots like these tell me nothing. And worst offender are Canon themselves. Even samples from the 1dx2 looks like a compact camera. 

I’ll be buying this no matter what because of AF, IS and weathersealing. And I will get more out of it than these snapshots taken with no care  hopefully it has no distortion and minimal CA and vignetting. Contrast, bokeh and flare looks great, but only shooting it myself will give the answers.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 1, 2017)

edoorn said:


> My copy is in! Got it from the dealer this afternoon. No serious testing yet, AF seems to be very snappy and fast.
> 
> It's a very well built thing, 35 II-ish. Quite a bit of weight but in balance on a gripless 5d IV.



Is it just me, or is that a _very_ short lens hood for that FL? Compare edoorn's prior shot vs. two prior EF 85mm primes below.

- A


----------



## sleepnever (Nov 1, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Not really wowed by those samples, but I'll reserve judgment until my review copy arrives.




I'm with you. Lots of the portrait shots didn't seem very sharp either, to me. Interested in seeing your's and others' reviews.


----------



## BeenThere (Nov 1, 2017)

It’s a little hard to believe that there are no lens corrections applied to any of the shots as i’m Not seeing any vignetting in the wide open shots. This is nigh impossible. But, the background bokeh looks pretty good.


----------



## edoorn (Nov 1, 2017)

very first impression is that it's quite a bit sharper @ 1.4 than my Tamron @ 1.8. But no professional tester here so I'll leave it to the pro's


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 1, 2017)

sleepnever said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Not really wowed by those samples, but I'll reserve judgment until my review copy arrives.
> ...



Apart from the much better flare resistance and better CA control, I dont see image quality advantages over the 85 f1.2. I mean, bokeh and sharpness seems fine and "technically" good (although sharpness was a little disappointing at 100%), but I dont think those pictures illustrate or prove that the 85 L IS can provide the beautiful depth/3D rendering that I love from the 85 L f1.2. Im looking forward to more sample images and Dustins tests.


----------



## sebasan (Nov 1, 2017)

DPReview doesn't know how to take pictures. Period.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Nov 1, 2017)

Somehow I missed the official announcement of this lens - I did not realize it is already released. Anyway it is shocking (in a good way) that Canon has released a new version of an L lens that is actually cheaper than its predecessor. I wonder if they will continue to make both or discontinue the 1.2ii? Clearly image stabilization is hugely useful, especially since this will likely be a mainstay for wedding photographers shooting handheld.

The sample photos, however, are not helpful. This is a lens made for indoors and low light and portraits, but the sample photos are daylight scenic shots? (Yes I know there are a few portraits thrown in). If I did not have a Sigma EX 1.4 that I am happy with, I might consider this.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 1, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> Somehow I missed the official announcement of this lens - I did not realize it is already released. Anyway it is shocking (in a good way) that Canon has released a new version of an L lens that is actually cheaper than its predecessor. I wonder if they will continue to make both or discontinue the 1.2ii? Clearly image stabilization is hugely useful, especially since this will likely be a mainstay for wedding photographers shooting handheld.
> 
> The sample photos, however, are not helpful. This is a lens made for indoors and low light and portraits, but the sample photos are daylight scenic shots? (Yes I know there are a few portraits thrown in). If I did not have a Sigma EX 1.4 that I am happy with, I might consider this.



This new one is not a predecessor -- it's just another option. The 85mm f/1.2L II will continue to be sold alongside this lens. I'm actually curious to how they position these lenses w.r.t. each other. One would presume the f/1.2L II will win the isolation/bokeh contests but the f/1.4L IS will be so much better on other fronts (sharpness, IS, much faster AF, no more focus by wire nonsense, etc.).

But your "made for indoors and low light and portraits" is a matter of opinion. It's a prime -- this could be an events, sports, street reportage or even a landscape lens if you wanted it to be. But yes, portraiture & wedding work surely will get a lot of use.

- A


----------



## aceflibble (Nov 1, 2017)

sebasan said:


> DPReview doesn't know how to take pictures. Period.


And music fans complain that music critics and journalists can't play instruments well, and video game players complain that games journalists can't play games well enough.

Writing about something is an entirely separate skill to being proficient with that thing, and by the same token, being proficient at something does not necessarily mean you will be good at writing about it.

Yes, lots of professionals could take better photos than these, if given the opportunity to use the lens in their regular use. A very small percentage may be able to make better photos when shooting under the time- and location-restricted conditions that most lenses are reviewed under. Only an absolutely tiny minority can take better photos under those conditions _and_ proficiently write about their use in a way which informs both the technically-minded consumer and the artistically-minded one.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 1, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> sebasan said:
> 
> 
> > DPReview doesn't know how to take pictures. Period.
> ...



Music critics and jounalists aren't doing reviews of the guitars, pianos, etc. They re reviewing the lens tunes. If DPR was reviewing photos your analogy would work.

Ya' gotta be proficient with the instrument to properly review it. DPR is not proficient.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 1, 2017)

Hi Dustin,
I am with you.. image #26 in DPR gallery is an interested one to look at. I have noticed a generous amount of LoCA in the image that I had some hard time to correct in post.

there is another image that I found a reference to being a interesting in that regard:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60320644

original size:
https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/60320644/0400a24d9fde4917af14b5fc15b1d6ca






TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Not really wowed by those samples, but I'll reserve judgment until my review copy arrives.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 2, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> ........I have noticed a generous amount of LoCA in the image that I had some hard time to correct in post.
> 
> there is another image that I found a reference to being a interesting in that regard:
> 
> https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60320644



That as always, is easily removed if you want.


----------



## infared (Nov 2, 2017)

I love my 85mm F/1.2L II ...it's old and slow like me.
I am sure that this new one is a great lens, too. DPR shoots are never a good one-source decision maker.
Lots of people will be reviewing the lens and comparing it to the Sigma and mine...
It should all be quite interesting. I am actually surprised at Canon's intro price...
I am thinking that Sigma has a LOT to do with that!!!!  8) :
The new release inspired me to use my 85mm F/1.2L II this weekend.
I found a willing balloon/dart hawker at a booth on the Seaside Boardwalk in NJ. He was quite a character:

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipOHYsQ2rUbdNTYKkpaxwqfX1suS5gI1vdXuBzHN

He was effective, too. He got $5 out of my buddy's pocket for a 3-dart throw. Of course, much to my delight.... he came up empty! LOL!


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 2, 2017)

if this is what you called removed, then yes... in general LoCA are known to be hard to remove "properly" in post.

Sigma 85 Art shows a fair amount of LoCA and the verdict was that they can be removed but at cost of loss of sharpness. I am pretty sure that Dustin commented on this issue quite a few times. I am not crazy about the bokeh quality of the new lens so far either. I will keep my Sigma 85 Art for now and see how it all goes.

p.s. see if you can easily remove LoCA in image #26 in DPR gallery. 



privatebydesign said:


> That as always, is easily removed if you want.


----------



## aceflibble (Nov 2, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Music critics and jounalists aren't doing reviews of the guitars, pianos, etc. They re reviewing the lens tunes. If DPR was reviewing photos your analogy would work.
> 
> Ya' gotta be proficient with the instrument to properly review it. DPR is not proficient.


The reviewers of instruments don't need to be particularly proficient beyond the basics, either; anyone who has ever seen a Guitar World review of anything will know what I'm talking about.
As it happens, I used to review music effects pedals for a UK national publication. My playing ability is minimal, but I can be a decent writer (when I can be bothered) and I know my way around the innards of a pedal, hence I got the work.
Hell, look at how many food critics are good chefs and vice-versa. Most motoring journalists are not expert race car drivers. Rarely do you find computer programmers reviewing computer hardware.

Point remains. Ability to utilise something significantly above-averagely and ability to report on something are two entirely separate skillsets, and you can not expect every reviewer to possess both skills, given how few people in the world actually do.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 2, 2017)

It's not what I call removed, it *is* removed going by the pixel RGB values. There is no sharpness loss when you desaturate the specific colors, none. What you might have to do on an image like #26 is mask or layer, and that isn't something I'd want to do to every shot, but it isn't that time consuming and is well worth the couple of minutes for the keepers.

I am on a boat so can't download #26 RAW, but I guarantee I can remove it to RGB value neutrals without much effort (and will do when I have decent internet).

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying there are not aberrations, what I am saying is I'll take correctable ones any day over uncorrectable ones.




SecureGSM said:


> if this is what you called removed, then yes... in general LoCA are known to be hard to remove "properly" in post.
> 
> Sigma 85 Art shows a fair amount of LoCA and the verdict was that they can be removed but at cost of loss of sharpness. I am pretty sure that Dustin commented on this issue quite a few times. I am not crazy about the bokeh quality of the new lens so far either. I will keep my Sigma 85 Art for now and see how it all goes.
> 
> ...


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 2, 2017)

Thank you very much for the hint. I genuinely look forward to see what can be done with #26 when your time permits. Do you think that you can post a write up on what steps were required for you to remove LoCA in this image PS and LR?



privatebydesign said:


> It's not what I call removed, it *is* removed going by the pixel RGB values. There is no sharpness loss when you desaturate the specific colors, none. What you might have to do on an image like #26 is mask or layer, and that isn't something I'd want to do to every shot, but it isn't that time consuming and is well worth the couple of minutes for the keepers.
> 
> I am on a boat so can't download #26 RAW, but I guarantee I can remove it to RGB value neutrals without much effort (and will do when I have decent internet).
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I am not saying there are not aberrations, what I am saying is I'll take correctable ones any day over uncorrectable ones.


----------



## danfaz (Nov 2, 2017)

Enough proof for me, without any mega-pro shooter examples! This lens will best the 1.2 on at least three levels: 1) IS 2) weather-sealing 3) Price. AF speed most likely. 

Sure, it's 1/3 stop "slower," but this will be waaaay more versatile. I am glad I pre-ordered it


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 2, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Thank you very much for the hint. I genuinely look forward to see what can be done with #26 when your time permits. Do you think that you can post a write up on what steps were required for you to remove LoCA in this image PS and LR?



Here is #26 from the RAW.

Unfortunately I am working on an uncalibrated monitor so if there s still purple/green shifting it is my monitor, to me it looks colour consistent.

Three images showing what I did.

1st is Camera Raw filter Lens Corrections CA settings.
2nd is in PS with the mask
3rd is as 2 but with the CA settings turned off.

Opened as Smart Object in PS, made a Camera RAW Filter, made the Smart Filter mask black then painted in the areas I wanted to remove the CA. You can go as deep into it as you want, removing the CA from the bokeh blurs etc, it is very output centric but a perfectly good technique.

This technique keeps the desaturation to the specific areas that are problematic, so you can dial in where you want it or not and it dies not impact resolution one iota.

Like I said, you wouldn't want to do this to every file but for the keepers this took me less than five minutes and fits in with a normal PS workflow for my prints and session hero shots.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 2, 2017)

Thanks again. PS with the mask looks the best to my eyes. Certainly makes quite a difference now.



privatebydesign said:


> Here is #26 from the RAW.
> 
> Unfortunately I am working on an uncalibrated monitor so if there s still purple/green shifting it is my monitor, to me it looks colour consistent.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jopa (Nov 2, 2017)

Too bad this lens has some *GMO* in it. According to my wife it's quite dangerous for me. She told me I should stay away of GMO and this lens


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 2, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Too bad this lens has some *GMO* in it. According to my wife it's quite dangerous for me. She told me I should stay away of GMO and this lens



Wrong GMO, with this lens it means 'Great Many Orchids'


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 2, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Too bad this lens has some *GMO* in it. According to my wife it's quite dangerous for me. She told me I should stay away of GMO and this lens



You should remind your wife that GMO stands for Greatly More Organic, and are even better for you!


----------



## lucuias (Nov 2, 2017)

the sample photos is amazing!


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 2, 2017)

Again, no BR (Blue Goo). I have to now wonder why BR has just about disappeared. Then again, this lens might have been designed before BR was developed.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 2, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Again, no BR (Blue Goo). I have to now wonder why BR has just about disappeared. Then again, this lens might have been designed before BR was developed.



Maybe it simply isn't useful in the 85mm focal length.


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 2, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Again, no BR (Blue Goo). I have to now wonder why BR has just about disappeared. Then again, this lens might have been designed before BR was developed.



Not a wide enough lens to need it.


----------



## melbournite (Nov 3, 2017)

Hi guys, I picked up my copy of the lens a couple of days ago and used it in a shoot yesterday along side the trusted 70-200 IS 2.8 II. My guess is that the focus speed is very close to 70-200 if not on par. It seems just as accurate as the 70-200 which is always comforting for a f1.4 lens.

For the 1.4 buffs, I went out for a quick stroll and took a gallery of f1.4 ONLY shots. No models willing to pose unfortunately:
https://www.freelancephotographermelbourne.com.au/Digital-Samples/Canon-EF-85mm-f14L-IS-USM-Lens/


----------



## MrFotoFool (Nov 3, 2017)

melbournite said:


> ...For the 1.4 buffs, I went out for a quick stroll and took a gallery of f1.4 ONLY shots. No models willing to pose unfortunately:
> http://www.freelancephotographermelbourne.com.au/Digital-Samples/Canon-EF-85mm-f14L-IS-USM-Lens/


Thanks for the samples.


----------



## danfaz (Nov 3, 2017)

melbournite said:


> Hi guys, I picked up my copy of the lens a couple of days ago and used it in a shoot yesterday along side the trusted 70-200 IS 2.8. My guess is that the focus speed is very close to 70-200 if not on par. It seems just as accurate as the 70-200 which is always comforting for a f1.4 lens.
> 
> For the 1.4 buffs, I went out for a quick stroll and took a gallery of f1.4 ONLY shots. No models willing to pose unfortunately:
> http://www.freelancephotographermelbourne.com.au/Digital-Samples/Canon-EF-85mm-f14L-IS-USM-Lens/



Very cool, thanks! Liking what I see here. Some good 3-D effects happening.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 3, 2017)

Nice photos. thanks for sharing.
Where did you get your lens from in Australia?
I see the lens is still on pre-order at Camerastore in Adelaide at A$2,250 delivered.




melbournite said:


> Hi guys, I picked up my copy of the lens a couple of days ago and used it in a shoot yesterday along side the trusted 70-200 IS 2.8. My guess is that the focus speed is very close to 70-200 if not on par. It seems just as accurate as the 70-200 which is always comforting for a f1.4 lens.
> 
> For the 1.4 buffs, I went out for a quick stroll and took a gallery of f1.4 ONLY shots. No models willing to pose unfortunately:
> http://www.freelancephotographermelbourne.com.au/Digital-Samples/Canon-EF-85mm-f14L-IS-USM-Lens/


----------



## Viggo (Nov 3, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> melbournite said:
> 
> 
> > ...For the 1.4 buffs, I went out for a quick stroll and took a gallery of f1.4 ONLY shots. No models willing to pose unfortunately:
> ...



+1 thanks for the shots!

To me, the ones of the bikers have nice pop and it looks great. But the ones of the black dog, and a few others, the bokeh and background looks quite terrible. But the close up of the leave and others where the background is smoother it looks absolutely stunning. Seems like if I want to really have a great background I would need a fairly smooth background to begin with. And to get that really nice pop distance between background and subject and subject to photographer needs to be similiar.


----------



## Jopa (Nov 3, 2017)

melbournite said:


> Hi guys, I picked up my copy of the lens a couple of days ago and used it in a shoot yesterday along side the trusted 70-200 IS 2.8. My guess is that the focus speed is very close to 70-200 if not on par. It seems just as accurate as the 70-200 which is always comforting for a f1.4 lens.
> 
> For the 1.4 buffs, I went out for a quick stroll and took a gallery of f1.4 ONLY shots. No models willing to pose unfortunately:
> http://www.freelancephotographermelbourne.com.au/Digital-Samples/Canon-EF-85mm-f14L-IS-USM-Lens/



Thank you for the samples! Did you mean it's as fast as the 70-200 2.8 IS II or IS I ?


----------



## hendrik-sg (Nov 3, 2017)

For me, the samples look like as if are would be quite a lot of CA's? :-[


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 3, 2017)

http://www.freelancephotographermelbourne.com.au/Digital-Samples/Canon-EF-85mm-f14L-IS-USM-Lens/i-tLb8wJm/O

quite a bit. attached is: print screen (crop) and 15 seconds defringing effort in LR 7.0.1. fixable but could be a pain in the neck for some in post.




hendrik-sg said:


> For me, the samples look like as if are would be quite a lot of CA's? :-[


----------



## Jopa (Nov 3, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> http://www.freelancephotographermelbourne.com.au/Digital-Samples/Canon-EF-85mm-f14L-IS-USM-Lens/i-tLb8wJm/O
> 
> quite a bit. attached is: print screen (crop) and 15 seconds defringing effort in LR 7.0.1. fixable but could be a pain in the neck for some in post.
> 
> ...



I'm wondering how does it compare to the Sigma 85A's CA?


----------



## Viggo (Nov 3, 2017)

Jopa said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.freelancephotographermelbourne.com.au/Digital-Samples/Canon-EF-85mm-f14L-IS-USM-Lens/i-tLb8wJm/O
> ...



Several lenses I would like to see it compared to... I’m climbing the fence with this lens I was sure I was buying.. what to do for portrait lens, medium telephoto for Canon now? I’ve had a few but 85-100 is what I want....


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 3, 2017)

https://www.dpreview.com/news/2895939821/sigma-85mm-f1-4-art-gallery-update

image ##101 (www.socialistalternative.org, white on black writing), 72 (www.socialistalternative.org, white on black writing), 73 (www.socialistalternative.org, white on black writing)

doesn't look as bad to me. at least I never had an issue with removing purple/green fringing in my own Sigma 85 Art files. Sigma 85 Art is a keeper in my bag for now. 

p.s. I will be conducting exhaustive Sigma 85 Art AF tests on 5D IV with *peripheral* AF focus points over weekend.

If AF consistency will hit at least 85% mark (50 shots, defocused to infinity, mirror lockup, studio grade tripod, remote shutter release, FoCal A2 size target, 4.25m to target) then I am keeping the Sigma lens. Else, I am upgrading to Canon 85 IS and sweating the fringing out in post. 



Jopa said:


> I'm wondering how does it compare to the Sigma 85A's CA?


----------



## Jopa (Nov 3, 2017)

Viggo said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > SecureGSM said:
> ...



I think the 85IS is a good one. If I had no Sigma 85A I would probably bought the Canon. Unfortunately we still have no clear winner:
Otus 85: Perfect optics, no AF, no IS
Sigma 85: Super sharp with quite some amount of CA, decent AF, no IS
Canon 85 1.2: Good optically (in the center), best bokeh, slow AF, no IS
Canon 85 1.4 IS: Good optically, great AF and IS

Out of the first 3 I shot I like the Sigma best. In spite the new Canon seems like a great lens, it still does not convince me to swap my Sigma for it. If Canon releases a mirrorless next year, the Sigma's AF accuracy will be "automatically" improved (not speed, but that's ok for me).


----------



## Jopa (Nov 3, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> doesn't look as bad to me. at least I never had an issue with removing purple/green fringing in my own Sigma 85 Art files. Sigma 85 Art is a keeper in my bag for now.



We are on the same boat 



SecureGSM said:


> p.s. I will be conducting exhaustive Sigma 85 Art AF tests on 5D IV with *peripheral* AF focus points over the weekend.



Don't forget to post your findings!


----------



## melbournite (Nov 3, 2017)

Jopa said:


> melbournite said:
> 
> 
> > Hi guys, I picked up my copy of the lens a couple of days ago and used it in a shoot yesterday along side the trusted 70-200 IS 2.8. My guess is that the focus speed is very close to 70-200 if not on par. It seems just as accurate as the 70-200 which is always comforting for a f1.4 lens.
> ...



Ah yes, sorry, it is the 70-200 2.8 IS II that I was comparing it to (I will edit and correct that). I haven't done any specific tests but I'm just going by feel and intuition.


----------



## Jopa (Nov 3, 2017)

melbournite said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > melbournite said:
> ...



Wow, that's very impressive, thank you for the clarification. The 70-200 IS II is FAST, and if the 85IS is even 75% as fast, it's quite an achievement (we're talking about 2 stops faster lens!). Same about the accuracy.


----------



## melbournite (Nov 3, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> https://www.freelancephotographerme...es/Canon-EF-85mm-f14L-IS-USM-Lens/i-tLb8wJm/O
> 
> quite a bit. attached is: print screen (crop) and 15 seconds defringing effort in LR 7.0.1. fixable but could be a pain in the neck for some in post.
> 
> ...



I don't normally go looking for purple fringing and among other things it's not my biggest concern but since the subject has come up, I went looking for it in some of the images against the sun/sky and found some in the third picture. It's quite a tight crop into the photo as you can see. I simply used the 'defringe' tool slider in Capture One 10. It fixed it mostly but didn't do the same for the boxes.

ps there's no profile for this lens just yet in C1


----------



## Jopa (Nov 3, 2017)

melbournite said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.freelancephotographermelbourne.com.au/Digital-Samples/Canon-EF-85mm-f14L-IS-USM-Lens/i-tLb8wJm/O
> ...



Sigma:

Original:




Removed:




Crop (worst fragment):


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 3, 2017)

Jopa, thanks for the image files provided. CAs are gone in the Sigma "Removed" file for good. Lovely bokeh, btw. 



Jopa said:


> ...Sigma:
> 
> Original and Removed...


----------



## Jopa (Nov 3, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Jopa, thanks for the image files provided. CAs are gone in the Sigma "Removed" file for good. Lovely bokeh, btw.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sure Alex  I just wanted to compare levels of CA for both lenses. To me they look similar. Maybe Sigma has a little less but more pronounced/saturated purple color. It takes about 10 seconds to remove in LR, so shouldn't be a deal breaker again for both lenses. Only once I had a problem removing it from a bike which was also purple (the chrome parts exposed lots of CA), and the bike lost some purple color intensity.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 3, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> edoorn said:
> 
> 
> > My copy is in! Got it from the dealer this afternoon. No serious testing yet, AF seems to be very snappy and fast.
> ...



"_...Bueller?_"

That hood: tiny, or just me? Seems super tiny (from ePhotoZine, also see edoorn's photo on page 1).

- A


----------



## danfaz (Nov 3, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> That hood: tiny, or just me? Seems super tiny (from ePhotoZine, also see edoorn's photo on page 1).
> 
> - A



Is certainly smaller than the 1.2's and 1.8's hoods, but maybe the different optics in this lens don't require a longer hood?


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 3, 2017)

danfaz said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > That hood: tiny, or just me? Seems super tiny (from ePhotoZine, also see edoorn's photo on page 1).
> ...



Same FOV, though, right? One would think the only way you'd get equal/proper shading from a shorter hood if if the optical elements were recessed from the front element a good distance.

...or it might be that Canon would rather shade less than it optimally should for the purposes of not taking up a lot of space in your bag when not on the lens. That's the default EF 24-something hood design move for sure, but I'm not used to seeing it for primes. (Did they shorten the 35L II hood over the 35L I?)

- A


----------



## cayenne (Nov 3, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I've been excited about this lens. I hope there will be more posts of portraits. From what I see right now I am not sure it is better than the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. Yes, the 85mm is a faster lens, but...
> ...



What's the size difference between the 85mm 1.4 and the 1.2?


C


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 3, 2017)

cayenne said:


> What's the size difference between the 85mm 1.4 and the 1.2?
> C



https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=1168&LensComp=397&Units=E

Weight and (housing) OD are similar, but the new one is about 0.75" / 20mm longer.

The shape of the barrel is quite different. The 85 f/1.4L IS is quite similar to the 35L II while the 85 f/1.2L II has that signature 'scoop-out' near the lens mount (similar to the barrel-to-lens-mount transition of the Sony GM lenses).

- A


----------



## Jopa (Nov 4, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > edoorn said:
> ...



I think it's cool - it makes the lens more compact (with the hood on). I'm wondering why no manufacturer makes collapsible lens hoods.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 4, 2017)

Peripheral AF points test results for Sigma 85 F1.4 Art on Canon 5D IV are in. 54 images were taken sequentialy, in difficult lighting conditions, AV mode, ISO 100, F1.4 and shutter speed ranging from 1/25s to 1/100s, mirror lockup, each shot defocused away to infinity, on stable tripod, remote shutter release, distance to target : 4.25m.

Top left corner cross type AF point was used, Phase Detection Auto Focus. (no live view mode was used).
RAW files were cropped to target size and converted to JPEGs with NO processing, no lens correction, colour, sharpness, noise reduction, etc: absolutely no adjustments made, no down-sampling, etc etc.

result is more than satisfactory.. I am not sure what happened to Dustin Abbott Sigma 85 Art peripheral AF points consistency results on 5D IV body. I would hazard a guess that something was not quite consistent in his test methodology. The sample size of my data is large enough to be conclusive.

*AF consistency is : 95.6%*


Please note: Lens has been identified as Canon EF24 f/1.4L II at 85mm  That's by design.

all test images are available on request.

*Test Report is available here:*


https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QrtuQdT3Zm2eagtjt2K7g5_V8AwkA4ix







Jopa said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > p.s. I will be conducting exhaustive Sigma 85 Art AF tests on 5D IV with *peripheral* AF focus points over the weekend.
> ...


----------



## slclick (Nov 4, 2017)

Those are not exactly the type of images you would want to use to highlight a new, expensive, highly anticipated and (generally speaking) specific use lens.


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 4, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Peripheral AF points test results for Sigma 85 F1.4 Art on Canon 5D IV are in. 54 images were taken sequentialy, in difficult lighting conditions, AV mode, ISO 100, F1.4 and shutter speed ranging from 1/25s to 1/100s, mirror lockup, each shot defocused away to infinity, on stable tripod, remote shutter release.
> Top left corner cross type AF point was used, Phase Detection Auto Focus. (no live view mode was used).
> RAW files were cropped to target size and converted to JPEGs with NO processing, no lens correction, colour, sharpness, noise reduction, etc: absolutely no adjustments made, no down-sampling, etc etc.
> 
> ...



Very impressive! Thank you for sharing your experience!


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 4, 2017)

no worries,

it is actually: *95.6%*. my mistake.
I have attached test report to my previous post. Honestly, I did not expect the results to be that solid and in a pretty bad lighting conditions. peripheral AF points were a bit of a worry to me but now I am confident in the lens.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QrtuQdT3Zm2eagtjt2K7g5_V8AwkA4ix




Larsskv said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Peripheral AF points test results for Sigma 85 F1.4 Art on Canon 5D IV are in. 54 images were taken sequentialy, in difficult lighting conditions, AV mode, ISO 100, F1.4 and shutter speed ranging from 1/25s to 1/100s, mirror lockup, each shot defocused away to infinity, on stable tripod, remote shutter release.
> ...


----------



## Jopa (Nov 4, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Peripheral AF points test results for Sigma 85 F1.4 Art on Canon 5D IV are in. 54 images were taken sequentialy, in difficult lighting conditions, AV mode, ISO 100, F1.4 and shutter speed ranging from 1/25s to 1/100s, mirror lockup, each shot defocused away to infinity, on stable tripod, remote shutter release, distance to target : 4.25m.
> 
> Top left corner cross type AF point was used, Phase Detection Auto Focus. (no live view mode was used).
> RAW files were cropped to target size and converted to JPEGs with NO processing, no lens correction, colour, sharpness, noise reduction, etc: absolutely no adjustments made, no down-sampling, etc etc.
> ...



Oh wow, this is a really great result. Yesterday I also spent the evening with this lens on the 1dx2, and I think the lens is solid. Two notes (fine-print Sony style  ): the Servo mode contributes to some misfocusing, even shooting a slow moving subject, and it doesn't work well with non cross type focusing points. Basically nothing new. The Servo mode still wroks better compared to the 85/1.2II. Another thing - the lens focuses better/more reliable on the 1dx2 compared to the 5DsR. Probably no-news again. Could be also due to some improvements in the focusing module of the new generation of Canons.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 4, 2017)

Jopa, 1dx2 apparently built with a dedicated AF processor and a battery that is capable of driving heavy glass fast.

no surprise that non cross type AF points are under performing. that seems to be a common issue. I was advised to switch them off in menu. The lens is a keeper for now.

p.s. AI Servo mode: it really depends on the settings and case you choose. at any rate, I would not shoot a moving subject with 85mm lens at F1.4. stop down to F2.8 at least  and grab a nice and fast focusing 70-200 F2.8 lens while you are at it so you can adjust your framing as you go.


----------



## Jopa (Nov 4, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> The lens is a keeper for now.



Indeed my friend!

Planning to take it for a photo shoot of my girls this weekend as soon as the grass dries out (I hope it will)  The 85mm delivers exceptional portrait look with some surroundings which are pretty much missing on the longer telephotos (like 200 or 300). It's a great time of year - full of colors, time to take some nice pics!!!


----------



## Jopa (Nov 4, 2017)

Oh just noticed your edit. Yes, the 70-200 II is a gem in the Canon lens lineup. Used it recently on our family trip to Smoky Mountains. But the 85A @ f/2.8 optically is a killer. I just use my feet to zoom in and out


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 4, 2017)

wockawocka said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Again, no BR (Blue Goo). I have to now wonder why BR has just about disappeared. Then again, this lens might have been designed before BR was developed.
> ...



A 600mm DO with BR is rumored to be coming. I also thought that maybe the longer focal lengths wouldn't see a benefit. Since reading about the 600mm DO, I have no idea why. Maybe it is only used with lenses that need help with CA?


----------



## Jopa (Nov 4, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



It could be just a rumor. It will be definitely DO (as Canon demoed it), but not necessary BR. I'm also wondering how expensive it's going to be...


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 5, 2017)

Jopa said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > wockawocka said:
> ...



Too rich for my blood, buddy.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 5, 2017)

From uncle Roger hot of the press:

Testing Lenses: Stopped-Down MTF Curves



> ... Today, I’m going to present data from Canon, Sigma, Rokinon, and Zeiss Cinema primes. Why? Because those are the same as the photo primes optically, so what happens with the Cine lenses is representative of what will happen with photo lenses. We get a two-for-one special...





> ... 85mm
> 
> Yes, everything is sharper at T4. But the 85mm graphs, I think, may surprise some of you. They did me, at least a bit.
> 
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 5, 2017)

What relevance does the CN-E version of the 85 f1.2 have to the performance of the new EF 85 f1.4 IS?


----------



## Rowk (Nov 6, 2017)

I'm very excited about the reviews for this lens.
Thanks for the additional sample shots shown in this thread!

About that lens hood, I was wondering why there is no black velvet fabric inside of it?
It looks kind of cheap, like the ones Tamron sells with their lenses.
Doesn't that fabric make a difference anymore?


----------



## Jopa (Nov 6, 2017)

Rowk said:


> I'm very excited about the reviews for this lens.
> Thanks for the additional sample shots shown in this thread!
> 
> About that lens hood, I was wondering why there is no black velvet fabric inside of it?
> ...



The fabric is a flocking material to reduce reflectivity even further https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flocking_(texture). If you ever used Metabones MK4, you may remember when they "upgraded" the MK4 M to MK4 T just by adding this flocking thing http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB-EF-E-BT4.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 6, 2017)

The Art has 95,6% hit? Wow, thats worse than my old 50 L. All other Canon L’s I’ve tried are 98,9% or better, 35 L II and 24-70 II was higher than 99,4% . Tested with a lot of data points. The Art lenses I had couldn’t get a result even 

Anyone tried the AF consistency with the Canon 85 IS?


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 6, 2017)

Viggo,

are you sure?  Well, let me explain.

95.6% number does not mean that 4.4% are "out of focus" shots. peak sharpness value at 1950 and trough at 1697. majority of shots are well over 1800. see the report.


in fact, as per report attached there is not a single shot that deviated from peak sharpness by more than 20%. all 54 of them are in focus. so that's 100% in your books.

And that's with peripheral AF points and crappy light too. not a centre one.

there is not a single lens I have ever calibrated achieved better than 98.5% QoF and that lens is Canon 35 F1.4 II.

24-70 F2.8 II, 70-200 F2.8 II, 16-35 F2.8 III I own and hundreds of other Canon and Sigma lenses I have calibrated over last few years never achieved QoF equal or better than 98.5%




Viggo said:


> The Art has 95,6% hit? Wow, thats worse than my old 50 L. All other Canon L’s I’ve tried are 98,9% or better, 35 L II and 24-70 II was higher than 99,4% . Tested with a lot of data points. The Art lenses I had couldn’t get a result even
> 
> Anyone tried the AF consistency with the Canon 85 IS?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 6, 2017)

Couple of points. 

Canon CN primes are NOT great lenses at least in cinematography terms. 

The EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM we have tested (only one so far) was very sharp and the AF very accurate, certainly worth the asking price. 

Personally my favourite portrait lens is the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS II USM its so versatile and the results never disappoint. However I will be getting the EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM for my kit bag in 2018 (still need to complete my Elinchrom light modifiers first).


----------



## Viggo (Nov 6, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Viggo,
> 
> are you sure?  Well, let me explain.
> 
> ...



«outer points” the very outer most non-cross or the last or second last crosstype?


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 6, 2017)

Viggo, as per the test setup description:

Top left corner cross type AF point was used. Non cross type AF points switched off in menu as they are not really brilliantly accurate. Please note poor light level. (ISO 100, F1.4, T=1/30s average)


----------



## Viggo (Nov 6, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Viggo, as per the test setup description:
> 
> Top left corner cross type AF point was used. Non cross type AF points switched off in menu as they are not really brilliantly accurate. Please note poor light level. (ISO 100, F1.4, T=1/30s average)



The light level might have something to do with it. I use 10-11 ev..


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 6, 2017)

I deliberately used poor light to ensure the Sigma performance peripheral AF points in such a conditions. 
Once again, 95.6% QoF result is very good. You just not looking at the right numbers the compare with. Do you research if do not believe my experience.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 6, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> I deliberately used poor light to ensure the Sigma performance peripheral AF points in such a conditions.
> Once again, 95.6% QoF result is very good. You just not looking at the right numbers the compare with. Do you research if do not believe my experience.



No, I agree, in those low light levels I’m seeing that as very good result myself. Doesn’t make me change my mind about buying Sigma ever again though ;D


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 6, 2017)

Fair enough, I was contemplating to let my Sigma 85 Art go and buy a new Canon 85 IS instead. 

I was expecting the new Canon to best Sigma in CA and AF department. It did not eventuate. Bar that Sigma is a better glass optically and cost half of what Canon is charging for 85 IS in Australia. $1125 vs $2250. 
Just do not see a point to upgrade to end up with optically inferior glass. That’s all. 
That said, I sold all other Sigma Art primes due to very poor AF consistency on 5D IV.


----------



## edoorn (Nov 7, 2017)

Great your copy is working good! Not every one seems to work as well; I know some pro photogs who have used the sugma but are not happy with the AF, in particular on outer focus points


----------



## pwp (Nov 7, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Fair enough, I was contemplating to let my Sigma 85 Art go and buy a new Canon 85 IS instead....
> 
> ...That said, I sold all other Sigma Art primes due to very poor AF consistency on 5D IV.


Same here with a string of sold Sigma primes, purely on AF inconsistencies. When will I ever learn? 
But you're happy with the Sigma 85 Art? If the AF is acceptable, it's a compelling option.

-pw


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 7, 2017)

Oh yes, very compelling indeed. contrasty, Next to nothing vignetting wide open. Virtually none. Mind boggling sharpness wide open. Please see mtf charts at f1.4 and F4 posted on previous page. that 86mm filter size is there for reason. 

CA level is a bit higher than I really wanted it to be at but very easily addressed in post.
Bokeh... I would like to mention this if I may. Nothing like anything I have seen before. Creamy, smooth??? No, not the right word. I would say it is relaxed, deep, rich and intensive at the same time. Not nervous or busy, no. Rather punchy and vibrant.



pwp said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Fair enough, I was contemplating to let my Sigma 85 Art go and buy a new Canon 85 IS instead....
> ...


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 7, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



That's true. BR is just another refractive material with another type of dispersion. Dispersion is a generic property of each optical material which measures how large is the refractive index (= capacity to alter the light path in optical elements) for different wavelengths (= colors). Dispersion is never a constant function, it has different refractive index values for different colors. A lens (e.g. a simple magnifying glass) has different focal lengths for different wavelengths / colors. That is the reason for CAs.
The art of lens design means that you have to combine two lenses with DIFFERENT DISPERSION to create a constant function for the dispersion of the lens system - same focal length for each wavelength / color.
My idea: Canon used the BR material just to add another type of "glass" which is not solid hence it is more expensive to integrate it into a lens: create sealings which show long term stability and maybe the material itself isn't that cheap.

As far as I know Canon telephoto lenses are very well corrected, so there is really no CA issue which needs to be compensated with BR material. But introducing a DO element and trying to make the lens light and compact might have been a reason to omit some lens elements and replace it e.g. with a BR group. Think about taking out 5 lenses and replace them by three flatter lenses to make things lighter and make more room for the movement of other lens groups: Then BR can be helpful while it is usually more important to wide angles.

The 1.4 85 hasn't got a BR element so maybe size / weight / pricing constraints lead to a non-BR design. And everything between 85 and 135mm for FF was always very good, just the great FD 2.5 135 S.C. which suffers only from LOCA wide open.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 7, 2017)

From what I see:
Technically it is very sharp in the image plane but shows a lot of LOCA if there is a high contrast in the scene - see the images of the light bulbs against the sky and the autumn leaves on the street. Viewing the latter one I thought the photographer has spotted some oil spill and put the color rich newton rings in the focal plane but ... it seems to be strong LOCA.

But: For those who do portrait work it seems to be a great lens: Very good texture reproduction of the skin and very good bokeh just at f/1.4.
Plus IS for low light situations without using a disturbing flash.

If I were portrait photographer I would not hesitate to add that lens to my tool set. But too often I need good technical IQ with the typical great rendering of Canon lenses so I will stay at the moment with 60mm and 100mm non-IS macro lenses for that work.

About the samples of dpreview: I do not think they are bad. There are a lot of f/1.4 samples which help to evaluate the general IQ of that lens - I have seen a lot of worse sample galleries showing two or three wide open samples and 50 with boring f/8 ...


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 7, 2017)

I know folks like to have the best lens optically but there is a line to be drawn where the size and weight is an issue. When I saw the Sigma I genuinely laughed out loud at the sight of it and knew it would never be practical for a wedding.

That factor alone stopped me from getting one. The 1.4 from Canon though with it's shorter hood looks perfect. I can't see image quality being worse than the Sigma which says a lot seeing as generally the bigger prime lenses have better IQ.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 7, 2017)

If only it would arrive soon, postponed until December is the last I’ve heard here...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 7, 2017)

How noisy is the IS and AF? Will it be good enough for video or would one need an off-camera mic setup due to buzzing and/or click sounds. 
Also, how nicely does it play with DPAF?


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 7, 2017)

StudentOfLight said:


> How noisy is the IS and AF? Will it be good enough for video or would one need an off-camera mic setup due to buzzing and/or click sounds.
> Also, how nicely does it play with DPAF?



I think Canon had to update the famously slow 85 f/1.2L II AF (and eliminate the FBW setup) and move to modern ring USM = a long overdue win for stills shooters in this FL.

Adding IS helps videographers, sure, _but it's still ring USM_. Until Canon allows us to drop ring USM into 'slow/smooth video mode' ;D, videographers are probably not going to enjoy using it (...with AF that is, some may focus manually).

I was wondering if Canon could ever make a Ring USM / STM hybrid lens so that there would effectively be a 'Stills' / 'Video' AF selector switch on the barrel, but it appears that their answer is Nano USM. Despite that, Canon has only put that tech into two modestly priced non-L zooms to date, so smooth video AF + IS is only available on slower/cheaper glass.

- A


----------



## John (Nov 7, 2017)

i am very, very curious to know about the AF on this lens. is the AF as fast as the 85 f/1.8. if it is, then i would consider buying it.


----------



## John (Nov 7, 2017)

i am very curious to know if the AF ans sharpness of the lens is as good or better than the 85 f/1.8. these 2 factors will weigh in on whether i buy it or not.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 7, 2017)

John said:


> i am very, very curious to know about the AF on this lens. is the AF as fast as the 85 f/1.8. if it is, then i would consider buying it.



It's a $1600 L lens with ring USM. 100% confidence the AF will be at least as quick as the 85 f/1.8 USM.

- A


----------



## Jopa (Nov 7, 2017)

StudentOfLight said:


> How noisy is the IS and AF? Will it be good enough for video or would one need an off-camera mic setup due to buzzing and/or click sounds.
> Also, how nicely does it play with DPAF?



Anything that's not STM or Nano USM won't work with an on-camera mic. Even super quiet Ring USM will be noticeable...


----------



## hne (Nov 8, 2017)

John said:


> i am very, very curious to know about the AF on this lens. is the AF as fast as the 85 f/1.8. if it is, then i would consider buying it.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXxgA8KglDQ

A video comparison of the AF speed between 85/1.2II (sloooooow), 85/1.8 (fast), and the new 85/1.4 IS (faster).


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 8, 2017)

hne said:


> John said:
> 
> 
> > i am very, very curious to know about the AF on this lens. is the AF as fast as the 85 f/1.8. if it is, then i would consider buying it.
> ...



Nice. That's that.

- A


----------



## hne (Nov 8, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> hne said:
> 
> 
> > John said:
> ...



Test description for those not interested in looking closer at the Youtube video: the 85/1.4 was about 1 video frame faster at focusing from far to near, but 1 frame slower at focusing from near to far, so pretty much the same speed as the f/1.8 lens. If the AF perfomance in that video is to be taken as indicative, racking focus between two objects of significantly different objects would need in the order of 200ms with the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM. Plenty fast enough for me!


----------



## mclaren777 (Nov 13, 2017)

StudentOfLight said:


> Also, how nicely does it play with DPAF?



It works great on my 5D4.


----------

