Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS & Three More Lenses Coming at the End of August [CR2]

[ahsanford]

1) Will this new 85L be focus by wire like the 85 f/1.2L II is?

I hope not. I hate that OTW focusing on 85/1.2L II. Lens itself is fine, bit front-heavy but that's expected. However that freely spinning focusing ring was driving me nuts.

It's not an easy call:

1) IS says video as much as stills --> that says Nano USM, which is (as I understand) only available in FBW, right?

2) Portraiture cares less about pure focusing speed (like a sports lens might) and more about really long throw for accurate manual focusing.  That's somewhat neutral to Nano USM vs. Ring USM, right?

3) Stills folks in general (or folks that don't shoot video at all) want 'mechanical' ring USM for faster focusing speed and a true full-time manual mechanical focusing override.

One would think that unless Group 2 above has skin in the game towards one or the other focusing setup (please pipe up if they do), Group 3 should win the argument and this will be principally a stills portraiture lens.  But the predecessor was FBW...  I could see this go either way.

- A

[ahsanford]

My personal votes for the three lenses:

• EF 50mm f/1.4L IS USM
  
• EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM
  
• EF 50mm f/1.4 USM II

- A

Metal or plastic mounts?

If the budget 50 f/1.8 STM is now metal, any of those above would be metal.

- A

[mnclayshooter]

My personal votes for the three lenses:

• EF 50mm f/1.4L IS USM
• EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM
• EF 50mm f/1.4 USM II

- A

Metal or plastic mounts?

If the budget 50 f/1.8 STM is now metal, any of those above would be metal.

- A

   I was merely piling-on. 

[Khalai]

2) Portraiture cares less about pure focusing speed (like a sports lens might) and more about really long throw for accurate manual focusing.  That's somewhat neutral to Nano USM vs. Ring USM, right?

Not quite correct. None of AF lenses are particularly good at MF or having a long focus throw. Look at pure MF lenses for example.  Let's take Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 as a prime example of over-the-top portraiture lens. It has 261° focus ring rotation. Milvus 85/1.4 has even more, 270° of focus ring rotation. None of the Canon lenses (maybe apart from macro I guess) has that. And it's logical - less focus throw = less movement = quicker AF. These two are bound to one another.

Note. Milvus 100/2 Macro has absurdly long throw of 352°. That about as long as it can get on a lens, which is not warping into fourth dimension

Image from TDP shows it quite clearly, what a long throw could really mean

[ahsanford]

2) Portraiture cares less about pure focusing speed (like a sports lens might) and more about really long throw for accurate manual focusing.  That's somewhat neutral to Nano USM vs. Ring USM, right?

Not quite correct. None of AF lenses are particularly good at MF or having a long focus throw. Look at pure MF lenses for example.  Let's take Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 as a prime example of over-the-top portraiture lens. It has 261° focus ring rotation. Milvus 85/1.4 has even more, 270° of focus ring rotation. None of the Canon lenses (maybe apart from macro I guess) has that. And it's logical - less focus throw = less movement = quicker AF. These two are bound to one another.

Note. Milvus 100/2 Macro has absurdly long throw of 352°. That about as long as it can get on a lens, which is not warping into fourth dimension

You misunderstand me.  I'm saying (a) portraiture folks care less about AF speed for the same reasons you mention and (b) neither Nano USM nor Ring USM are inherently better/worse for a long focus throw, so neither has the advantage with portraiture folks.

Also, the 85L (according to KR) has a 3/4 of a turn to cover the entire focus range.  If that's the same as the focus throw, that's a respectable 273° or so, which is even longer than the two 85s you just referenced.

- A

[Maiaibing]

I have owned the 35 f2 IS. I know it's build. It is good, but seems less solid than the L lenses. When referring to the build I was mostly referring to the lack of weather sealing.

Are all Ls sealed?  I thought the 50L and 85L weren't, at least.

50L is sealed. But 35L (first version) is not as well as 24L (first version), 135L, 200L and 70-200/4L (non IS) are also not sealed. So some older L lenses are not weather sealed, all the new one are.

+Some need a filter to be sealed and since there has been some less than acurate info shared here let me share the list I got from Canon, Japan:

And a note on which of these that need a filter to be fully sealed (The Super Tele Lenses are not included in the list below):

EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM +needs front filter
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM +needs front filter
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM +needs front filter
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro
EF 50mm 1.2L USM +needs front filter
EF 85mm 1.2L II USM
EF 24mm 1.4L II USM

[H. Jones]

1) Will this new 85L be focus by wire like the 85 f/1.2L II is?

I hope not. I hate that OTW focusing on 85/1.2L II. Lens itself is fine, bit front-heavy but that's expected. However that freely spinning focusing ring was driving me nuts.

It's not an easy call:

1) IS says video as much as stills --> that says Nano USM, which is (as I understand) only available in FBW, right?

2) Portraiture cares less about pure focusing speed (like a sports lens might) and more about really long throw for accurate manual focusing.  That's somewhat neutral to Nano USM vs. Ring USM, right?

- A

I really hope Canon makes the right choice and goes with Ring USM. I guarantee there's a huge number of sports photogs/photojournalists/news organizations that would jump on a 85mm f/1.4L IS with super fast AF speed. I've seen countless pjs with the 85mm f/1.8 that would have gotten a 85mm f/1.2 instead if the AF was better. Add wedding photographers into the equation as well, and you get a big market for such a lens, even at a high price.

This lens would immediately jump to near the top of my list if it foucsed like the 85mm f/1.8, even if it ends up being around 2K.

[neuroanatomist]

+Some need a filter to be sealed and since there has been some less than acurate info shared here let me share the list I got from Canon, Japan:

And a note on which of these that need a filter to be fully sealed (The Super Tele Lenses are not included in the list below):

EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM +needs front filter
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM +needs front filter
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM +needs front filter
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro
EF 50mm 1.2L USM +needs front filter
EF 85mm 1.2L II USM
EF 24mm 1.4L II USM

There are many weather sealed lenses that are omitted from your list, besides just the superteles.  The 85mm f/1.2L II is on your list, and it's not weather sealed.

Sorry, your list is incomplete and is actually adding to the inaccurate info being shared here.

–1

[Woody]

thinking a bit about this today, I suspect 3 lenses may not be that accurate that there's something about colors in there as well...

2016: 6
2015: 4
2014: 7
2013: 4
2012: 9
2011: 4
2010: 5 + 2 TC's
2009: 5

As much as I hope you are wrong about this, I have to admit chances are we'll only see 1 EF-M lens with multiple colors. Sigh...

In this forum, there's always a lot of excitement when some fancy L lens is announced. But EF-S and EF-M lenses are generally overlooked.

[mppix]

2) Portraiture cares less about pure focusing speed (like a sports lens might) and more about really long throw for accurate manual focusing.  That's somewhat neutral to Nano USM vs. Ring USM, right?

Not quite correct. None of AF lenses are particularly good at MF or having a long focus throw. Look at pure MF lenses for example.  Let's take Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 as a prime example of over-the-top portraiture lens. It has 261° focus ring rotation. Milvus 85/1.4 has even more, 270° of focus ring rotation. None of the Canon lenses (maybe apart from macro I guess) has that. And it's logical - less focus throw = less movement = quicker AF. These two are bound to one another.

Note. Milvus 100/2 Macro has absurdly long throw of 352°. That about as long as it can get on a lens, which is not warping into fourth dimension

Image from TDP shows it quite clearly, what a long throw could really mean

I am not sure if I read your post correctly but I'd like to clarify the following for future readers. There is no reason why a lens should not be able to do >360deg mechanically (in two dimensions: rotation and movement along lens axis). Also the "gearing" between AF motor and movement of the focus group is a lens design choice. Hence it does not immediately impact AF speed (motor power and focus group inertia does). See e.g.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/canon-35mm-f1-4-mk-ii-teardown/

Then there is the haptics. Many reportage/sport/(... anything really) lens, say a EF 70-200, have about 1/3 to 1/2 rotation from min focus to infinity. This is convenient because one can adjust focus to anywhere without taking the hand off the ring or distorting the arm desperately. Macro is an exception that needs particularly fine control over focus so priorities are different there.

Finally, I am unsure to which degree this discussion applies to portraits. My models are mostly alive and move so my MF keeper rate with reasonable close subjects at 85@1.4 is low (stationary objects tend to be fine). I'd be interested to hear the experience of others on this.

[vscd]

+Some need a filter to be sealed and since there has been some less than acurate info shared here let me share the list I got from Canon, Japan:

And a note on which of these that need a filter to be fully sealed (The Super Tele Lenses are not included in the list below):

[...]
EF 85mm 1.2L II USM
[...]

There are many weather sealed lenses that are omitted from your list, besides just the superteles.  The 85mm f/1.2L II is on your list, and it's not weather sealed.

Sorry, your list is incomplete and is actually adding to the inaccurate info being shared here.

–1

The 85L 1.2 II is somewhat difficult to decide in weathersealing. It has no sealing on the bayonett but it's known to be quite weathersealed if you attach a frontfilter. The Body itself is well sealed.

[YuengLinger]

Besides being slow, one thing I really don't like about the 85 1.2 focus-by-wire is having to remember to put it in manual and retract the barrel before turning off the camera.  (I choose the menu option to disable MF while shooting, as I find it just too easy to nudge out of focus otherwise.  Don't like that either!)

I can't figure out any other way to bring the extended part of the barrel back to its safest position before stashing the lens.

[Khalai]

I am not sure if I read your post correctly but I'd like to clarify the following for future readers. There is no reason why a lens should not be able to do >360deg mechanically (in two dimensions: rotation and movement along lens axis). Also the "gearing" between AF motor and movement of the focus group is a lens design choice. Hence it does not immediately impact AF speed (motor power and focus group inertia does). See e.g.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/canon-35mm-f1-4-mk-ii-teardown/

Then there is the haptics. Many reportage/sport/(... anything really) lens, say a EF 70-200, have about 1/3 to 1/2 rotation from min focus to infinity. This is convenient because one can adjust focus to anywhere without taking the hand off the ring or distorting the arm desperately. Macro is an exception that needs particularly fine control over focus so priorities are different there.

Finally, I am unsure to which degree this discussion applies to portraits. My models are mostly alive (some are cold though so I am not sure) and move so my MF keeper rate with reasonable close subjects at 85@1.4 is low (stationary objects tend to be fine). I'd be interested to hear the experience of others on this.

A) Yes, it is possible to have more than 360° degree rotation, but only if focus ring moves freely without hard stops and only if there is a solution for distance scale to encompass more than full circle (e.g. using OLED display such as Batis lenses or new Canon 70-300 lens). With MF lenses with physical focusing ring (meaning there is no uncoupling like with USM lenses) and physical hard stops, you can't really have more than 352° mentioned above.

B) This was my main point as many lenses have rather short focus throw (90-120°) for ease of use with one hand without needing to reposition. I have only a brief few hours experience with 85/1.2L II, so I can't really recall focus throw distance. However with its implementation of focusing systém, it's actually very problematic switching between AF and MF and since there is no FTM, I guesstimate that 95% or more users have that lens on AF all the time and don't bother with focus by wire unless very specific scenario.

C) I can see what you mean. My four months old son is a real challenge when it comes to manually focusing my 85/1.4 Planar lens on 1-2 metres distance. Keeper rate is rather low unfortunately

[Ian_of_glos]

Besides being slow, one thing I really don't like about the 85 1.2 focus-by-wire is having to remember to put it in manual and retract the barrel before turning off the camera.  (I choose the menu option to disable MF while shooting, as I find it just too easy to nudge out of focus otherwise.  Don't like that either!)

I can't figure out any other way to bring the extended part of the barrel back to its safest position before stashing the lens.

I have trained myself to focus the lens at infinity before turning the power off. This ensures the lens is fully retracted when I return it to my bag.
Whilst I love my 85mm F1.2L ii to bits, I do find it difficult to mount. The red dot is hidden away at the base of the lens and it takes a few attempts before it finally engages properly.

[mppix]

I am not sure if I read your post correctly but I'd like to clarify the following for future readers. There is no reason why a lens should not be able to do >360deg mechanically (in two dimensions: rotation and movement along lens axis). Also the "gearing" between AF motor and movement of the focus group is a lens design choice. Hence it does not immediately impact AF speed (motor power and focus group inertia does). See e.g.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/canon-35mm-f1-4-mk-ii-teardown/

Then there is the haptics. Many reportage/sport/(... anything really) lens, say a EF 70-200, have about 1/3 to 1/2 rotation from min focus to infinity. This is convenient because one can adjust focus to anywhere without taking the hand off the ring or distorting the arm desperately. Macro is an exception that needs particularly fine control over focus so priorities are different there.

Finally, I am unsure to which degree this discussion applies to portraits. My models are mostly alive (some are cold though so I am not sure) and move so my MF keeper rate with reasonable close subjects at 85@1.4 is low (stationary objects tend to be fine). I'd be interested to hear the experience of others on this.

A) Yes, it is possible to have more than 360° degree rotation, but only if focus ring moves freely without hard stops and only if there is a solution for distance scale to encompass more than full circle (e.g. using OLED display such as Batis lenses or new Canon 70-300 lens). With MF lenses with physical focusing ring (meaning there is no uncoupling like with USM lenses) and physical hard stops, you can't really have more than 352° mentioned above.

B) This was my main point as many lenses have rather short focus throw (90-120°) for ease of use with one hand without needing to reposition. I have only a brief few hours experience with 85/1.2L II, so I can't really recall focus throw distance. However with its implementation of focusing systém, it's actually very problematic switching between AF and MF and since there is no FTM, I guesstimate that 95% or more users have that lens on AF all the time and don't bother with focus by wire unless very specific scenario.

C) I can see what you mean. My four months old son is a real challenge when it comes to manually focusing my 85/1.4 Planar lens on 1-2 metres distance. Keeper rate is rather low unfortunately

C - sounds like the perfect model. Best of luck!