# Review: Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM by TDP



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 27, 2017)

```
<p>Bryan over at The-Digital-Picture has completed his review of the brand new Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM.</p>
<p><strong>From The-Digital-Picture:</strong></p>

<blockquote><p>While it will find use for many purposes (we will go looking for opportunities to use this lens), the Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM Lens is one of the best portrait lenses ever built. The 85mm short telephoto focal length is ideal for this use and the ultra-wide aperture combined with image stabilization permits those portraits to be captured handheld even in extreme low light situations. The fast Ring USM AF implementation ensures that the shallow plane of sharp focus lands where you direct it and the shallow depth of field diffusely blurs an even highly distracting background, making the subject stand out. The red ring indicating L-Series membership assures us that professional-grade build quality is included and that the image quality from this lens will be stellar. <a href="https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.4L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>For $1599, I think you’re getting one heck of a lens from Canon.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 27, 2017)

Can someone run me through the clipped bokeh ball mirror box comments I've been seeing? What's that all about?

A few comments on some sample shots I've seen recently:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33869.msg696464#msg696464

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33869.msg696792#msg696792

- A


----------



## infared (Nov 27, 2017)

I am keeping my Canon 85mm f/1.2L II. As Brian says: "While the f/1.2 aperture can create a slightly stronger background blur (it creates a look no other lens can provide)". I am sticking with that. Sometimes "sharper is not better"....Not that the new lens is all that much sharper. Also, I consider my kit. I have the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, the 80-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and also, yum...the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART lens. (I have the 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro, too....I also have a 5D IV and that allows me to crank up the ISO a bit, if needed.
...so with all the back-up, I am just going to keep this little L-grenade because I just LOVE the imagery that I can create with it, even though it does not have IS, and fast AF. I just won't part with mine...but I do not shoot for a living. I just shoot for joy now....and sometimes, less is more! ;D
...but I get it that a lot of people will want this new lens instead.


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 27, 2017)

infared said:


> I am keeping my Canon 85mm f/1.2L II. As Brian says: "While the f/1.2 aperture can create a slightly stronger background blur (it creates a look no other lens can provide)". I am sticking with that. Sometimes "sharper is not better"....Not that the new lens is all that sharper. Also, I consider my kit. I have the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, the 80-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and also, yum...the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART lens.
> ...so with all the back-up, I am just going to keep the little grenade because I just LOVE the imagery that I can create with it, even though it does not have IS, and fast AF. I just won't part with mine...but I do not shoot for a living. I just shoot for joy now....and sometimes, less is more! ;D



I am not selling my 85LII, but I’m afraid GAS will force me to add the 85 L IS to my growing prime collection. I’m really curious to see how they compare in terms of real world results (looking beyond sharpness and CA). Further, IS, faster AF and weather sealing speeks for itself...


----------



## infared (Nov 27, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > I am keeping my Canon 85mm f/1.2L II. As Brian says: "While the f/1.2 aperture can create a slightly stronger background blur (it creates a look no other lens can provide)". I am sticking with that. Sometimes "sharper is not better"....Not that the new lens is all that sharper. Also, I consider my kit. I have the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, the 80-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and also, yum...the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART lens.
> ...



No...I get it. The new lens will focus MUCH faster. That is a big seller right there. I have the Sigma 135mm...and that focuses like a rocket ship....so I am, and have been comfortable with my kit in the portrait area...but I get it that you HAVE to have it. LOL!...I am working on selling my 16-35mm f/4L IS to pick up the new 2.8L III version. Lots of great glass, everywhere we look!!!! LOL!


----------



## brad-man (Nov 27, 2017)

I'm keeping my EF 85mm f/1.8 USM :'(


----------



## michi (Nov 28, 2017)

brad-man said:


> I'm keeping my EF 85mm f/1.8 USM :'(



Ugh, I have that lens too. IF and WHEN it hits focus, it does a really nice job. But it's too much of a hit and miss for me, even with the 5DIV which does much better with this lens than any of my older bodies did. Still, I'm ready for a new portrait lens, and I think it's going to be the 85 1.4 L IS.


----------



## aceflibble (Nov 28, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Can someone run me through the clipped bokeh ball mirror box comments I've been seeing? What's that all about?


Same thing you get with anamorphic lenses; the image circle is being projected so wide that parts are being blocked off by the architecture of the camera. Most commonly with anamorphic lenses and some faster tilt-shift lenses (or adapted lenses from a larger format) it is the lens mount which gets in the way, but in the case of Canon's longer f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses, it's the mirror box.

An easy way to think of it is like creatively shaping out of focus highlights. You know how you can make them take on shapes like hearts, cross, or stars, or even words, by placing a stencil of the shape at the front of the lens, and the in-focus parts of the image remain unaffected? Or how Sony and Fuji have released lenses with apodization filters which smooth off the edges of out of focus areas? Basically the same thing.

Canon could fix it by tightening up the spread of the image circle, which would also marginally help with micro contrast and aberration, but it'd also be harder to keep the light transmission high and you'd miss out on the low-contrast soft look of these lenses, which has been their primary selling point for years. Sigma, for example, managed to keep the spread of the image circle in check, but as a result their 85mm has a more 'clinical' look, which is great for lab testing but not so great for the kind of soft portraits these lenses are most commonly used for. Given how little OOF highlight shaping matters to your average viewer, especially compared to how important the overall colour and contrast is, it's unsurprising that Canon wouldn't see this as being worth 'fixing'. These Canon 85s have their distinct look; clipped highlight shapes are the price you pay for that.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 28, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone run me through the clipped bokeh ball mirror box comments I've been seeing? What's that all about?
> ...



Ah, this I can relate to as I've fiddled with those bokeh templates in front of the lens before. But those work by defining a profile that is slightly narrower than the lens aperture -- it's effectively commandeering the bokeh shape by edict. Are you saying the mirror box is... narrower in physical width than the opening in the lens blades at time of exposure?

See sample shot here from another thread (first one with the Christmas tree):
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33869.msg696463#msg696463

Is the mirror box effect the blunting of the bokeh balls on the right hand side of the frame, or is it the oval-ing of the balls up top? Will this happen all the time when shooting wide open or just in certain circumstances? Is this a common phenomenon for wide aperture primes? I've honestly never heard this discussed before!

- A


----------



## ethanz (Nov 28, 2017)

infared said:


> I am keeping my Canon 85mm f/1.2L II. As Brian says: "While the f/1.2 aperture can create a slightly stronger background blur (it creates a look no other lens can provide)". I am sticking with that. Sometimes "sharper is not better"....Not that the new lens is all that much sharper. Also, I consider my kit. I have the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, the 80-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and also, yum...the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART lens. (I have the 10mm f/2.8L IS Macro, too....I also have a 5D IV and that allows me to crank up the ISO a bit, if needed.
> ...so with all the back-up, I am just going to keep this little L-grenade because I just LOVE the imagery that I can create with it, even though it does not have IS, and fast AF. I just won't part with mine...but I do not shoot for a living. I just shoot for joy now....and sometimes, less is more! ;D
> ...but I get it that a lot of people will want this new lens instead.



He also says:
"My strong advice is, for most people, to get the Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM Lens over the f/1.2L II. I also recommend upgrading if that is your option."


----------



## Viggo (Nov 28, 2017)

Having had the f1.2 at least 5-6 times and long periods since it came out I’m so ridiculously glad I went for the 85 IS.
If you don’t shoot a lot wide open and use it for portraits in a studio type setting where nothing really moves and I already had the 1.2, then perhaps, but I think I would have rather used a 70-200 at that point. But for everything else the quality wide open is much better with the 1.4, the massive purple fringing I got with the 1.2 and very soft wide open performance would making a compelling argument in itself. But add that incredible AF, and I’m much happier about the AF then Bryan seems to be. Comparing outer points for tracking the difference is very clear against the 1.2. It’s not that small adjustments back and forth, it just locks and stays there.

“I can bump my iso a little” well, the new bodies are very good, but being able to shoot at 800 instead of 12800 is a BIG big difference. Or like the other day I tried shooting in really dark surroundings with f1.4, 1/8s iso 6400 and that would have need 102K iso, and we all know what that looks like :

And already I’ve had much use for the weather sealing, really horrible weather is a nice opportunity for some cool shots. Add all this together and the 85 IS can be used for a lot of things the 1.2 simply can’t. And with much better IQ, it was a very easy sell to me, lol.

I think most people who has actually used both would give the 85 IS a very clear victory.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Are you saying the mirror box is... narrower in physical width than the opening in the lens blades at time of exposure?



The mirror box is a bit larger than the image circle (43mm) and a bit smaller than the mount throat diameter (54mm), so call it ~50mm (looking into the mount, the outer box is almost as large as the throat, but the mirror and mechanisms take up some additional space). 85mm f/1.4 has an aperture diameter of ~60mm. So yes...the mirror box is smaller than the physical aperture of the lens. You can also see how stopping down will eliminate the clipping at some point.




ahsanford said:


> See sample shot here from another thread (first one with the Christmas tree):
> www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33869.msg696463#msg696463
> 
> Is the mirror box effect the blunting of the bokeh balls on the right hand side of the frame, or is it the oval-ing of the balls up top? Will this happen all the time when shooting wide open or just in certain circumstances? Is this a common phenomenon for wide aperture primes? I've honestly never heard this discussed before!



Two different phenomena. The mirror box is causing the clipping off the bokeh balls, as acefibble perfectly explained. The oval shape (usually called ‘cats-eye’ bokeh) is analagous to optical vignetting – occurs mainly at the periphery of the image circle and the shape is exaggerated as the light gets more off axis. Position of the light source in the frame also affects it. An easy way to conceptualize it is to look at an unmounted wide aperture lens wide open compared to one stopped down (a manual lens, or unmount the lens with DoF Preview activated) straight on vs. at an oblique angle, where the ‘cats-eye’ shape becomes evident







B&H has a nice article on bokeh and the underlying optical consideration behind some of the effects:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/understanding-bokeh


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Nov 28, 2017)

ethanz said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > I am keeping my Canon 85mm f/1.2L II. As Brian says: "While the f/1.2 aperture can create a slightly stronger background blur (it creates a look no other lens can provide)". I am sticking with that. Sometimes "sharper is not better"....Not that the new lens is all that much sharper. Also, I consider my kit. I have the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, the 80-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and also, yum...the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART lens. (I have the 10mm f/2.8L IS Macro, too....I also have a 5D IV and that allows me to crank up the ISO a bit, if needed.
> ...



Oh no - I had just persuaded myself that I do not need the F1.4 IS and I would just keep my F1.2 ii. Would there be any reason to keep the F1.2 and use both lenses? Although they are the same focal length they seem to be very different lenses in other respects.
Still, here in blighty we have to wait until mid December before the lens will be available and I assume that the first batch to arrive will all go to people who have pre-ordered, so I have until after Christmas to weigh up all the options.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 28, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


>



Beeen wondering about that from time to time and then along comes Neuro with this image and I swear there was an actual light bulb above my head, lol, thanks!


----------



## nda (Nov 28, 2017)

OMG It looks sharper than the Otus 85mm..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2017)

Ian_of_glos said:


> Oh no - I had just persuaded myself that I do not need the F1.4 IS and I would just keep my F1.2 ii. Would there be any reason to keep the F1.2 and use both lenses? Although they are the same focal length they seem to be very different lenses in other respects.



I can’t see a reason to have both, personally. Accordingly, my 85/1.2L II has been sold and an 85/1.4L IS is on its way to me (althouth package tracking suggests that UPS put it on the wrong truck, as it went from Boston to the next state over instead to the destination, it’s academic at this point since I’m on the other side of the Atlantic now, and no doubt UPS will have it sorted and delivered before I return home). 

I’m with Bryan on this – the image rendering of the 85/1.4 is quite similar to the 85/1.2, and I’m perfectly willing to give up the 1/2-stop of aperture in favor of IS, faster AF, weather sealing, and a bit more off-center sharpness.


----------



## infared (Nov 28, 2017)

ethanz said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > I am keeping my Canon 85mm f/1.2L II. As Brian says: "While the f/1.2 aperture can create a slightly stronger background blur (it creates a look no other lens can provide)". I am sticking with that. Sometimes "sharper is not better"....Not that the new lens is all that much sharper. Also, I consider my kit. I have the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, the 80-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and also, yum...the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART lens. (I have the 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro, too....I also have a 5D IV and that allows me to crank up the ISO a bit, if needed.
> ...



Yeah ethanz...and I ALSO said: "..but I get it that a lot of people will want this new lens, instead".
My lens is the right choice for "me". I clearly stated why. I value Brian's opinion, but I make the decisions for "my" photography, Brian doesn't. (..but he does make some money if you click and buy from his website). :-X
All that being said, this new Canon 85mm is a great lens, whether I buy it, or not.


----------



## infared (Nov 28, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying the mirror box is... narrower in physical width than the opening in the lens blades at time of exposure?
> ...



That graphic is interesting and helpful in understanding the bokeh effects at the edges! Thanks.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 28, 2017)

Canon is knocking out some truly great lenses. These new Canon lenses make a strong case for buying the 5D4. They are expensive but still within reach to many mortals. I wish they'd hurry along with a 50 f/1.4L IS !

Just check out this kit option: 5D4, 16-35 f/4L IS, 35 f/1.4L, 85 f/1.4L IS

You can cover a lot of bases with that relatively modest kit, and produce stunning results.
Shame about the poor 4K implementation and lack of video tools on the 5D4 (and lack of swivel screen  )


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 28, 2017)

I've now completed two full portrait sessions with this lens and I'm still very impressed. I'm a former Sigma 85mm Art lens owner and my choice to move to the Canon was exclusively based on the size, weight, image stabilization, and auto focus - all areas I knew the lens would improve over the Sigma.

This lens is certainly not without it's flaws, but that doesn't take away from the character of the lens or its ability to render incredibly beautiful images. So far, the best of all has been the autofocus! It's truly dead-on reliable and very capable of tracking subjects - including erratic children!

Axial CA could be controlled better and "mirror box clipping" would have been nice to avoid. But this is a killer optic. I really don't personally feel that the images captured by the 85mm f/1.2II and the "unique look" are worth the lack of weather sealing, garbage autofocus, massive amounts of purple fringing, etc.

VERY happy with the 1.4L.

- Kevin


----------



## hne (Nov 28, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> aceflibble said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



The cat-eye shape is physical vignetting from the front lens (most probably) being too small to make the entire aperture visible at all imaged angles.

The straight cuts in the bokeh balls are from the mirror box doing the same from the sensor side.

On the 50/1.0L you additionally get an image of the lens contacts, as those are glued (iirc) to the rear element.


----------



## mjg79 (Nov 28, 2017)

Interesting to read other thoughts on this new lens. I think Canon was probably quite wise to keep the 1.2L II in production alongside the 1.4 IS L as they now offer in the 1.2 the best portrait lens you can buy and in the 1.4 a wonderful "all rounder" that will also appeal to sports photographers and photo journalists.

I think the question will really come down to what you want from a fast 85? Their use does tend to be for portraits which is probably why they keep the 1.2 going. If you use it purely for portraits then many of the advantages of the new lens don't have much impact and the old lens may yet still have a nicer rendering. However if you use an 85 as a sort of general purpose "longer 50" especially for things like sports then the new lens is likely to prove far more useful.

Sharpness doesn't really make much difference in my view. I was pleasantly surprised how well the 1.2L II held up on the 5DS at f/1.2, certainly more than sharp enough for portrait work. I would love to see if anyone who has both lenses can do some head to head tests on things other than sharpness. I am curious how characteristics like the fall off in focus and bokeh rendering compare. The appeal of 1.2L II was always far more than just the big aperture, it has a gentle rendering that is visible at 1.4 or 1.8 too, lovely colors without being too contrasty while still retaining fine details that makes it so good for portraits and justifiably called a legendary lens that pulls people into the Canon system. I think it's the closest Canon has come to matching the rendering of the Nikon Noct. 

One thing is abundantly clear from the many great lenses of the last few years - Canon is working on the assumption that the current EF mount will be around for a good number of years yet. Whatever mirrorless change might be coming one day, I simply don't believe Canon would be releasing lenses like this if they were planning to bring a new full frame mount in the next 2 or 3 years.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 28, 2017)

Thanks for the mirror box clarification, team. Perfectly out of focus clear to me now. 

- A


----------



## FramerMCB (Nov 28, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > I am keeping my Canon 85mm f/1.2L II. As Brian says: "While the f/1.2 aperture can create a slightly stronger background blur (it creates a look no other lens can provide)". I am sticking with that. Sometimes "sharper is not better"....Not that the new lens is all that sharper. Also, I consider my kit. I have the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, the 80-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and also, yum...the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART lens.
> ...



For real-world shooting results, I would look to Dustin Abbott. I am positive that he will have a review of this lens and probably sooner than later.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 28, 2017)

Seems to be a great package for real photography - not so for shooting ISO charts.

I will stay with my EF 100 2.0 - the guys portrait lens at the moment because I do
not need that lens too often and if, it delivers (except IS, weather sealing). And it
is one of the if not the most compact high aperture AF lens with very good IQ maybe of all
brands.

But if I would need a high aperture portrait etc. lens in the short tele range the EF 1.4 85
would be THE solution for me.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 28, 2017)

So, do portraiture folks jump in on the 85 f/1.4L IS now or wait for an upcoming new 135 f/2L IS?

I imagine wedding/event folks' money has already been spent (interiors would be cramped at 135), but general portraiture folks might prefer the 135, right?

(I can make this a new thread if folks want -- don't want to hijack the review discussion.)

- A


----------



## infared (Nov 28, 2017)

mjg79 said:


> Interesting to read other thoughts on this new lens. I think Canon was probably quite wise to keep the 1.2L II in production alongside the 1.4 IS L as they now offer in the 1.2 the best portrait lens you can buy and in the 1.4 a wonderful "all rounder" that will also appeal to sports photographers and photo journalists.
> 
> I think the question will really come down to what you want from a fast 85? Their use does tend to be for portraits which is probably why they keep the 1.2 going. If you use it purely for portraits then many of the advantages of the new lens don't have much impact and the old lens may yet still have a nicer rendering. However if you use an 85 as a sort of general purpose "longer 50" especially for things like sports then the new lens is likely to prove far more useful.
> 
> ...



I feel the same way about everything that you said!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2017)

mjg79 said:


> The appeal of 1.2L II was always far more than just the big aperture, it has a gentle rendering that is visible at 1.4 or 1.8 too,



Very true. Quite some time back, I compared the 85/1.2L II with the 85/1.8, and at f/1.8 the 85L is clearly superior.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 28, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> So, do portraiture folks jump in on the 85 f/1.4L IS now or wait for an upcoming new 135 f/2L IS?
> 
> I imagine wedding/event folks' money has already been spent (interiors would be cramped at 135), but general portraiture folks might prefer the 135, right?
> 
> ...


I think this is an interesting topic. In my view, 85 and 135 are The two portrait focal lengths. I prefer the 135 outdoors, where I usually have more space and 85 indoors. Since I went, more or less, all in with Hasselblad and later on Leica (for travel), I have been a bit reluctant (and broke) to invest in more Canon gear. However, this 85mm is extremely tempting .... which means my weak character will collapse within short.

I have been rather vocal about my scepticism and experiences with Sigma´s Art lenses. Despite this, I still have the 135/1.8. It is unreliable, but the results, when AF hits, are very good, so I have kept it. However, a Canon L-series 135/2.0, with IS and Canon´s own AF ... means my weak character ... and the Sigma is gone :


----------



## ethanz (Nov 28, 2017)

Eldar said:


> Since I went, more or less, all in with Hasselblad and later on Leica (for travel),



Is that why I've lately seen a lot of your instagram posts be made with Leica instead of Canon? Don't tell me you are straying from the fold!


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 28, 2017)

mjg79 said:


> I think the question will really come down to what you want from a fast 85? Their use does tend to be for portraits which is probably why they keep the 1.2 going. If you use it purely for portraits then many of the advantages of the new lens don't have much impact and the old lens may yet still have a nicer rendering. However if you use an 85 as a sort of general purpose "longer 50" especially for things like sports then the new lens is likely to prove far more useful.



Sure, there are some photojournos and indoor sports folks (who can't get enough light/speed with a 70-200 2.8 ) that would love this lens. Also, some landscapers love a good spread of FL, and this is another option for them.

But I still contend an 85 prime is overwhelmingly for shooting faces in the jillion ways one can -- portraiture, weddings, events, candids, street, etc. So in that, I see a huge overlap in applications between the two 85Ls.

If I'm in the market today for an 85, I'd get the new one in a hot minute. I've yet to see a crushing head to head of the f/1.2 vs. the f/1.4L IS that would lead me to believe the the light falloff / rendering / 'magic' was that much better, and the new lens is sealed + IS + the AF is both much faster and no longer FBW. All boxes tick over to getting the new one unless the reviewers find some achilles heel in this lens (Poor MFD? Focus shift? AF problems with older bodies?)
_
But if I owned the 85 f/1.2L II already, _I'd only be considering the new 85 if AF or IS are vital for what I shoot, or if the lack of those features has cost me missed moments/shots in the past. Given that I'm just an enthusiast, I'd probably just sit on what I already own at that point, but others may feel differently.

- A


----------



## stevelee (Nov 28, 2017)

Maybe I'm too doctrinaire, or maybe I don't photograph people with big noses, so this is probably just me. I don't see the appeal of 135mm for portraits. People start looking too flat at that point for me. In fact it is a focal length that I don't feel any need for in my photography. Back in my film days, way back when zooms were really crappy, I found that if I carried a 28, an 85, and a 200 with me, I didn't feel like I needed anything else under normal circumstances. These days I'm glad I have zooms that go to 24mm or equivalent. Traveling with my G7X II, I don't particularly miss lengths over the 100mm equivalent. The S120 it replaced went to 120, but the extra resolution means I can crop the G7X II shots to that equivalent, and still have more pixels. The 85mm f/1.8 was probably my favorite lens in that era. In the comparison pictures above, I like the shots made at 1.8 with both lenses better than the one shot at f/1.2. Money for an 85mm prime is somewhere down the road for me, after wide and long zooms. For now, I think my 100mm f/2.8 macro can take on that duty, and the 24-105mm zoom can cover anything that I don't need more open than f/5.6. I have been pleasantly surprised by that lens so far, even though it is not the L version. (I realize each has its pros and cons, and my choice was not made largely over price.)

If I get around to replacing my less-than-stellar 75-300mm zoom, it could be interesting to see what lengths I shoot with the new zoom most often. Maybe I'll find that with a better lens, I'll use the 135ish range more often than I think I will.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 28, 2017)

stevelee said:


> Maybe I'm too doctrinaire, or maybe I don't photograph people with big noses, so this is probably just me. I don't see the appeal of 135mm for portraits.



135 is tough indoors and (let's face it) the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is so versatile and so good optically that few folks end up using their 135Ls these days. I've always been intrigued with it but never bought a 135L.

But a new 135 prime that splits the atom optically might change that. It needs to be a stop quicker than a 70-200 *and* a lot better optically for folks to want to use it. 

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 28, 2017)

Canon is going to get my money, eventually, for this new lens.

About the 135 f/2L: I just shot with it this morning and I am always extremely impressed with the sharpness and the quick focus of this lens. The colors render beautifully. Truly a real bargain and a wonderful piece of glass. It really is a very, very, very good lens. At least my copy is. I've posted this photo before and it has a technical problem. The close eye is out of focus. BUT, look at the iris of her furthest eye. Just love this lens.

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is also great, but f/2 gives a little extra umph on the bokeh front.

Diffused Streaklight 360ws in a diffused 72" umbrella for the lighting. So two diffusers. My Lightroom and Photoshop skills suck, so hardly anything done to this. 135 f/2L is wonderful. CA can be a problem and it is evident in this photo. I don't know how to remove it, but most of you do.


----------



## drjlo (Nov 28, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> But if I owned the 85 f/1.2L II already, [/i]I'd only be considering the new 85 if AF or IS are vital for what I shoot, or if the lack of those features has cost me missed moments/shots in the past.



My thoughts exactly. I will add that pretty much any decent portrait lens can make breathtaking photos of children and young people. When we shoot older folk is when my 85L II comes into its own IMO, with its less than laser-sharp skin rendering at f/1.2-f/1.4 range doing wonders for model satisfaction, yet it is still sharp and colorful enough for classy portraiture with that special dreamy bokeh. As a bonus, older folk don't move around erratically like children, an easy match for 85L AF speed ;D


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 28, 2017)

As I've mentioned on here many times before, I am a huge fan of the 135L f2 and use it more (by far) than every other lens for portrait work combined. That said, I can't find any real world difference between shooting that lens at f2 and the 85L at f1.2 when framing each option to to match. The bokeh is (to me) pretty much indiscernible from one another since 1.2 at 85mm and 2 at 135mm yields almost the same depth of field at MFD. Both are equally excellent primes. The wider focal length makes the 85 a bit more versatile in tighter spaces, but the price tag currently of the 135L makes it (my opinion) the absolute highest value for money L lens (perhaps ANY lens) Canon makes.

I want the 85L IS. I dont own the 85L Non-IS, but have shot it a few times to compare. Obviously kept my 135 instead. But the IS and faster AF makes this new one VERY appealing, especially considering the $1599 price.

Ahsanford & Eldar -- You've nailed my dilemma. I really want a portrait focal length (looking to sell my 85 f1.8) that has IS. I adore my 135 and would never part with it, and seeing as how it's an unknown right now exactly what the new 135 will look like, the new 85 would be a big addition to my bag because I've been wanting a great IS prime to use with my 5DSR. You can't always tripod/monopod stabilize to perfection. (And NO, the 70-200 IS doesn't count lol. It's great, but the 135 prime for portrait work is much better)


----------



## mjg79 (Nov 28, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> mjg79 said:
> 
> 
> > The appeal of 1.2L II was always far more than just the big aperture, it has a gentle rendering that is visible at 1.4 or 1.8 too,
> ...



That's a really good and clear example of how one can't assume that two lenses of the same focal length, even when set at the same aperture, will render images in the same way. When I first got my 1.2L II I was so excited that I shot it at f/1.2 pretty much all the time. However in time I realised that isn't always the best approach and that even when stopped down it still has that lovely rendering.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 28, 2017)

ethanz said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Since I went, more or less, all in with Hasselblad and later on Leica (for travel),
> ...


He he ... No, I have not left the fold. I am just trying out something different. I have for some time, with some very good help, tried to develop my photography into something more than opportunistic shooting of things I come across. Raise the artistic bar if you will. So I have started on some rather specific projects and I must admit that this has changed my approach a bit. (you have seen little of that on instagram though).

I have not used medium format since the early 90ties (film) and the H6D-100c was the first digital medium format with a sensor close to the 6x6 format in size. It is for slow and thought through photography. I have a project where I will print 42 images in 120x120 cm2 (4 feetx4 feet) sizes, where the Hasselblad is excellent. However, it is frightfully expensive, so it took some time to pull the plug. However, I thoroughly enjoy it and I am very happy I did it.

The Leica is also a revisit to my younger years, when I used the M6 a bit. I have tried out the M9 and the M (240), but did not really connect with them. However, with the M10 they made enough subtle changes to make it work. Form factor, size of the viewer and a magnificent sensor being the most important. I travel a lot and the M10 with 21/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/2 and 75/2 lenses is a very compact package (these are the ones you have seen on instagram). Considering the quality and size of the 35/1.4 and the magnificent APO50 f/2.0 Summicron, you wonder why other full frame lenses are so big. And, photographing with a rangefinder and fixed focal lengths does something to the way you take pictures. For some reason, street photography becomes a lot easier with a Leica. Don´t ask me why.

Since I got the Hasselblad and, later on, the Leica, I have hardly used my Canon gear for anything but birds and wildlife. I still have all my L-glass, but I sold all the Zeiss lenses. I will still use Canon for any type of event, action and any type of photography where speed and AF is vital, such as birds and wildlife, but I believe the Hasselblad and Leica are in my kit to stay, for all the slow photography I do.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 28, 2017)

PureClassA said:


> As I've mentioned on here many times before, I am a huge fan of the 135L f2 and use it more (by far) than every other lens for portrait work combined. That said, I can't find any real world difference between shooting that lens at f2 and the 85L at f1.2 when framing each option to to match. The bokeh is (to me) pretty much indiscernible from one another since 1.2 at 85mm and 2 at 135mm yields almost the same depth of field at MFD. Both are equally excellent primes. The wider focal length makes the 85 a bit more versatile in tighter spaces, but the price tag currently of the 135L makes it (my opinion) the absolute highest value for money L lens (perhaps ANY lens) Canon makes.
> 
> I want the 85L IS. I dont own the 85L Non-IS, but have shot it a few times to compare. Obviously kept my 135 instead. But the IS and faster AF makes this new one VERY appealing, especially considering the $1599 price.
> 
> Ahsanford & Eldar -- You've nailed my dilemma. I really want a portrait focal length (looking to sell my 85 f1.8) that has IS. I adore my 135 and would never part with it, and seeing as how it's an unknown right now exactly what the new 135 will look like, the new 85 would be a big addition to my bag because I've been wanting a great IS prime to use with my 5DSR. You can't always tripod/monopod stabilize to perfection. (And NO, the 70-200 IS doesn't count lol. It's great, but the 135 prime for portrait work is much better)



Yup. I agree completely as to the difference between the 70-200 vs the 135. The 135 is so nice. That's the only thing for me. Would it even be worth getting the 85? I guess that for people with big noses use the 135 and the 85 for smaller features?

Even if I don't necessarily need the new 85, I still want it.  At the same time I will never get rid of my old 135. Nothing in my bag comes close to it for portraits. Not to my eye.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 29, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> mjg79 said:
> 
> 
> > The appeal of 1.2L II was always far more than just the big aperture, it has a gentle rendering that is visible at 1.4 or 1.8 too,
> ...



Thanks for posting, but this is a strange result for me:
I always thought that the SAME SIZE of circles of confusion in out of focus distances is determined by the effective aperture but there are different DIFFERENT STRUCTURAL properties of the CoCs. But your photos tell a different story: Same FL, same aperture but DIFFERENT SIZE ... (If one would compare same T-stops with different optics I would understand the results)
Just apodization cannot change the SIZE but the STRUCTURE ...

Some interesting point for further research - I will do it perhaps later with 3 different 100mm lenses ...


----------



## lightthief (Nov 29, 2017)

mb66energy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > mjg79 said:
> ...


Maybe the focal lenghts of the two leses are not the same. Don't trust the catalog values.
An other reasen could be the effect "focus breathing". The focal lenght is defined for focusing to a distant point. At mfd, some lenses seems to be shorter...
At least that is how i understood it.


----------



## stevelee (Nov 29, 2017)

Even if the focal length is exactly the same, I would still expect some variation in the appearance of out of focus elements just by the fact that each lens has different elements, even if the overall design is similar. I would expect different components to affect the image in different ways. In focus bits should come together similarly, but out of focus points would exhibit more variation.

That may not have anything to do with anything, but it seems a reasonable expectation on my part.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2017)

lightthief said:


> An other reasen could be the effect "focus breathing". The focal lenght is defined for focusing to a distant point. At mfd, some lenses seems to be shorter...
> At least that is how i understood it.



That seems a likely explanation. The lenses were focused on the near water lily, less than 2 m away.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 29, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> lightthief said:
> 
> 
> > An other reasen could be the effect "focus breathing". The focal lenght is defined for focusing to a distant point. At mfd, some lenses seems to be shorter...
> ...



They have obviously different focal lengths: The 1.8 85mm has a slightly longer FL because it has slightly less field of view - it is much more confusing that the out of focus CoCs are smaller at the same f-stop ...


----------



## midluk (Nov 30, 2017)

mb66energy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > lightthief said:
> ...


Assuming the f-stops are correct for infinity focus (even that is likely not always the case; perhaps it is actually f/1.95 in this case and canon rounded that down to f/1.8) and the absolute aperture does not change with focusing, the f-stop will also change with a change of the focal length.


----------



## mjg79 (Nov 30, 2017)

stevelee said:


> Even if the focal length is exactly the same, I would still expect some variation in the appearance of out of focus elements just by the fact that each lens has different elements, even if the overall design is similar. I would expect different components to affect the image in different ways. In focus bits should come together similarly, but out of focus points would exhibit more variation.
> 
> That may not have anything to do with anything, but it seems a reasonable expectation on my part.



Different lens designs certainly give different results in this regard.

On Fred Miranda someone did a great test with the Zeiss ZE 21 2.8 compared to various Canon and Nikon zooms set at 21mm - at any given aperture the Zeiss had more depth of field which might explain why it is so loved by landscape photographers. And I don't just mean one is harsher than the other in terms of rendering, it really has a deeper depth of field.

An example the other way is the old Rollei and Contax Zeiss 35 1.4 which has an unusually shallow depth of field. Compared to other 35mm 1.4s, focusing to the same distance, the out of focus areas appear more out of focus which gives it that pseudo medium format look.

There must be some design elements or trade offs that are made and it's no surprise the designers of the 1.2 L went for a softer and more out of focus background.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 30, 2017)

midluk said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Good idea! But if I just measure the diameter of the circles of confusion for both lenses at f/1.8 and calculate the relative area of these circles I see a difference of a factor 2 (in words TWO) - this is a whole f-stop so the EF 85 1.8 would show f/2.5 at the focus distance of 2m - not very plausible because 2m is ~ 25 times the focal length ...

The circle of confusion ratio between both images of the EF 85 1.2 are consistent with the f-stop numbers.

Some quick shots comparing EF 100 2.0 and EF 100 2.8 macro at the same f-stop settings show very similar circle of confusion sizes while beeing very different in optical construction at ~ 1m distance ...

But maybe this is the regime between pure optics and lens magics which needs 20 years of daily experience to be understood.


----------

