RF85 f1.4L IS USM?

jeffa4444

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 28, 2013
1,476
116
66
As a portrait photographer one of the best lenses Canon has produced is the EF85 f1.4L IS USM. It focuses so much better than the old 1.2L lens and still gives very good bokeh.

My three "go to lenses" in this field are the EF24-70mm f2.8L USM II and the EF70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II along with the 85mm. Canon has answered the two zooms but not this particular 85mm (the f1.2L version is way too expensive for me).
 
As a portrait photographer one of the best lenses Canon has produced is the EF85 f1.4L IS USM. It focuses so much better than the old 1.2L lens and still gives very good bokeh.

My three "go to lenses" in this field are the EF24-70mm f2.8L USM II and the EF70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II along with the 85mm. Canon has answered the two zooms but not this particular 85mm (the f1.2L version is way too expensive for me).
Why not just adapt the 85 if it's working so well?
 

YuengLinger

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 20, 2012
2,836
1,065
Southeastern USA
I believe one of my EF mistakes was trading in the 1.2 v2 for the 1.4, a lens which was competent but disappointing compared to the 1.2. Part of the problem was AF with even moderately paced moving subjects. And, in mine, the IS seemed under performing. Never especially sharp either, wider than f2.8.

I might have had a marginal copy, but thought Canon would call it in spec.

But before I traded the 1.4 in for the RF 1.2, I thought it balanced nicely with the adapter on the R.

If the R 1.2 were, say, $400 cheaper, would it be more tempting? No doubt, the prices are painful now.
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,430
1,076
I believe one of my EF mistakes was trading in the 1.2 v2 for the 1.4, a lens which was competent but disappointing compared to the 1.2. Part of the problem was AF with even moderately paced moving subjects. And, in mine, the IS seemed under performing. Never especially sharp either, wider than f2.8.

I might have had a marginal copy, but thought Canon would call it in spec.

But before I traded the 1.4 in for the RF 1.2, I thought it balanced nicely with the adapter on the R.

If the R 1.2 were, say, $400 cheaper, would it be more tempting? No doubt, the prices are painful now.
I had pretty much the exact same experience. I bought the f1.4 because IS, AF and weather sealing. The weather sealing wasn’t much point when the lens hood was so shallow it was impossible to use in the rain anyway. IS was very, very nice, but AF, although faster than the 1.2, not very good at all. Today I would use the f1.2 II and something else that needed fast AF.
 

Codebunny

EOS RP
Sep 5, 2018
252
189
I don't expect to see a 1.4 R for a long time. Canon have been pushing lenses they could not do before so I am expecting a full 1.2 line and then a full 1.8 line before the 1.4's get a look in. There are already two 85 primes and a fast zoom that cover this line up, with an expected f/2 zoom that also covers 85mm.

I think the EF 85 1.4 IS was a stopgap lens because they could not make a new 85 1.2 on EF that was better than the one they had.

This is of course just my opinion, Canon may surprise us with its lens lineup. Personally I am waiting for the big whites and the tilt shifts, I will likely be waiting as long as you are for the 85 1.4, but at least you have 3 native options.
 

jeffa4444

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 28, 2013
1,476
116
66
To give balance my copy of the EF85mm f1.4L IS USM is brilliant, my copy of the EF85mm f1.2L USM II was slow to focus and the keeper rate was around 85%, it spent more time in the kit bag. Lensrentals tested 10 copies and gave it an overall thumbs up especially in low light and mentioned the high keeper rate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

Rivermist

Mirrorless or bust.
Apr 27, 2019
39
68
Houston
I agree with the OP, the 1.4 is a much better all-around lens, faster AF than the 85LII that I had owned previously, and the IS at the focal length is indispensable IMHO if you are working in "interesting" (i.e. low) light levels, my main use was live music events. Yes it works on an R camera, but it is front-heavy and bulky and a native design would normally result in a shorter overall length as is the case for e.g. the 24-105L. Also agree with the comment that Canon need to think of us non-professional or otherwise budget-sensitive people, if every L lens is going to be well above $2,000 it is pricing us out of the market, lenses with excellent but not superlative characteristics priced in the $800-$1600 range would make a lot of sense. So far only the RF 24-105L fits that concept.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd7 and Del Paso