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

[hne]

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

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?

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

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]

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]

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

- A

 

[FramerMCB]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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.

I feel the same way about everything that you said!

 

[neuroanatomist]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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!

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]

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]

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.

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 ...