November 19, 2017, 09:40:51 PM

Author Topic: Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS & Three More Lenses Coming at the End of August [CR2]  (Read 32584 times)

mnclayshooter

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
  • I love shooting - clay pigeons and photos!
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


 8)  I was merely piling-on. 
Pull!... click... crap!  Lemme try it again...
Pull!  click... boom... crap! Lemme try it again...
Definition of insanity?

canon rumors FORUM


Khalai

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • In the absence of light, darknoise prevails...
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 :)
6D | Zeiss 21/2.8 ZE | 24-70/2.8L II | 35/1.4L | 50/1.2L | Zeiss 50/2 ZE Makro | Zeiss 85/1.4 ZE | 70-200/2.8L II

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5723
  • USM > STM
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

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1013
    • Copenhagen Cycle Chic Pictures
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
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 07:01:10 PM by Maiaibing »

H. Jones

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 191
  • Photojournalist
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.
Bodies: 1DX mark II, 5d Mark III
Lenses: 16-35mm F/4L IS |  24-70mm F/2.8L II | 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II | 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS II  | 50mm 1.8 STM

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21762
+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
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Woody

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 976
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.

canon rumors FORUM


vscd

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
  • 5DC
+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.

5DC, 5DM3, 85 1.2L II, 80-200 2.8L, 100 2.8L IS, 14 2.8, 35 1.4, 75-300 IS, 135 1.8, 40STM, 24-85, Helios 44-2, Zeiss Lenses, and real cams like Zenza Bronica ETRSi or Fuji GX680

YuengLinger

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1510
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

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • In the absence of light, darknoise prevails...
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 :(
6D | Zeiss 21/2.8 ZE | 24-70/2.8L II | 35/1.4L | 50/1.2L | Zeiss 50/2 ZE Makro | Zeiss 85/1.4 ZE | 70-200/2.8L II

Ian_of_glos

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 124
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.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21762
+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.

LOL.   ::)

First off, there's nothing difficult to decide.  If your car has one window broken out, the interior will get wet if it rains...even if all the other windows seal up tight.  The lack of a mount gasket on the 85/1.2L II means the lens is not weather sealed.  Period.

As for your statements that, "...it's known to be quite weathersealed," and, "The body itself is well sealed," known by whom?  You?  The wisdom of the internet?  Can you provide some evidence to back up your claim?  It's always amusing when people make bold claims like this, and it turns out they're just spewing BS from their nether orifice.   Not your first time, evidently

As you're frantically scouring the internet for some authoritative source to back up your BS, here are some statements from a previous email exchange with Canon USA's technical advisor for you to consider (emphasis mine):

Quote from: Chuck Westfall, Canon USA
Pre-1999 white EF lenses such as the 200/1.8L, 300/2.8L, 300/4L, 300/4L IS, 400/2.8L, 400/5.6L, 500/4.5L, 600/4L, 35-350/3.5-5.6L, 70-200/2.8L, and 100-400/4.5-5.6L all lack mount gaskets but have moderate dust and moisture resistance for their switches, focusing rings and zoom rings where applicable.  Other pre-1999 L lenses like the original EF14/2.8L, 24/1.4L, 35/1.4L, 85/1.2L, 135/2L, 200/2.8L, 200/2.8L II, original TS-E lenses, etc. have no special seals or gaskets, but they are sturdier, generally speaking, than most non-L lenses. Under no conditions does an EF lens without a mount gasket resist moisture at the lens mount as well as a lens with a built-in mount gasket. 

There is no difference in the mechanical construction of the EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM lens compared to its predecessor. Therefore, the comments that you quoted from my [previous] message remain applicable to this lens.


Best of luck in your Googling.   ;)
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

H. Jones

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 191
  • Photojournalist
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.

On most recent bodies there's actually a setting that automatically retracts focus-by-wire lenses when you turn the camera off. Pretty nifty whenever I have the 50mm f/1.8 on my 1dx2, but since my 5D3 doesn't do that, I often forget. Just another reason I don't like focus-by-wire!
Bodies: 1DX mark II, 5d Mark III
Lenses: 16-35mm F/4L IS |  24-70mm F/2.8L II | 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II | 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS II  | 50mm 1.8 STM

canon rumors FORUM


neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21762
On most recent bodies there's actually a setting that automatically retracts focus-by-wire lenses when you turn the camera off. Pretty nifty whenever I have the 50mm f/1.8 on my 1dx2, but since my 5D3 doesn't do that, I often forget. Just another reason I don't like focus-by-wire!

Out of curiosity, is it all focus-by-wire lenses, or just the STM lenses?  My EOS M/M2 wil retract the front element of the M22/2 STM, for example, but not the 85/1.2L (although that's via the M mount adapter).  The 85L is a bit unique in the lineup, having full ring USM but also FBW (some older supertele lenses were like that, too, but they didn't have front focusing elements). 
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5723
  • USM > STM
On most recent bodies there's actually a setting that automatically retracts focus-by-wire lenses when you turn the camera off. Pretty nifty whenever I have the 50mm f/1.8 on my 1dx2, but since my 5D3 doesn't do that, I often forget. Just another reason I don't like focus-by-wire!

Sorry to hijack your (perfectly fine) point to make mine:  a 50 f/1.8 STM on a 1DX2 just has me screaming "Unmet need!" at the top of my lungs. 

I'm not questioning you your choice one bit, mind you.  It's just the fact that we don't have a 50 prime that is decently sharp across the frame (with only modest stopping down, say by f/2.8 ) with proper fast/non-hunting/consistent first-party AF continues to vex me.  That's not an extravagant or unreasonable ask by any means.

[/rant]

- A

canon rumors FORUM