TDP reviews the 85 f/1.4L IS USM

[ahsanford]

The majority of the guts of the TDP review has been posted, critically including lens IQ information:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.4L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx

IQ comparisons here:

85 f/1.4L IS vs. 85 f/1.2L II @ f/1.4

85 f/1.4L IS vs. Sigma 85 f/1.4 Art @ f/1.4

85 f/1.4L IS vs. Zeiss Milvus 85mm f/1.4 @ f/1.4

(Otus left out of these links as it's never been tested on the 5DS R, apparently)

Understanding a few critical caveats...

• Just one lens each in these IQ comparisons
• Sharpness is not remotely everything in a lens

...one must still tip their cap to Sigma here. The 35L II delivered the same level of sharpness (and terrific rendering, great AF, etc.) as the 35 Art, but here at 85mm, Canon either couldn't repeat that feat for cost or technical reasons, or they prioritized rendering/OOF areas above sharpness. If you are a sharpness junkie with unreasonable expectations of wide open performance, the Sigma would appear to still be the top dog.

But the Canon has first party AF, is sealed, has IS, and may deliver better color/rendering to your eye (I haven't compared enough to judge). And it's certainly no slouch sharpness-wise.

Vignetting not posted yet (one might imagine this might not be pretty at 77mm front element vs. larger 3rd party front elements), but much of the review is in play. Have a look.

- A

 

[YuengLinger]

As expected, the advantages over the 1.2 are IS and quick AF. Many of us were hoping for significantly sharper and even less purple fringing.

I'd like to see some more IQ tests. While I appreciate Brian's educational approach to reviews, I think tripod use removes a lot of doubt. Too bad he is going with hand held. Furthermore, I've rarely seen especially useful image samples in his reviews.

Regarding practical use, if a photographer is choosing an 85mm for the first time, this is a very good choice. But at the moment, as reviewed, I'm not ready to sell my 1.2 and get this instead.

 

[Larsskv]

The Sigma is really impressive. No doubt about it. At the same time, I don’t believe that the sharpness difference between the two is noticeable unless you are pixel peeping. The Sigma seems to have slightly better contrast, which I find to be more likely to separate the two.

I would believe that for the most of us, first party AF, IS and the smaller size and lighter weight will be favored over the slightly better (and hard to notice) sharpness and contrast of the Sigma.

I look forward to bokeh comparisons. From what I have seen so far the Sigma 85 ART seems to be a strong performer in that regard as well.

 

[ahsanford]

As expected, the advantages over the 1.2 are IS and quick AF. Many of us were hoping for significantly sharper and even less purple fringing.

I'd like to see some more IQ tests. While I appreciate Brian's educational approach to reviews, I think tripod use removes a lot of doubt. Too bad he is going with hand held. Furthermore, I've rarely seen especially useful image samples in his reviews.

Regarding practical use, if a photographer is choosing an 85mm for the first time, this is a very good choice. But at the moment, as reviewed, I'm not ready to sell my 1.2 and get this instead.

Agree, and I'm 100% certain Dustin (and many others, surely) will dig into the head to head comparisons and give us additional insight.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Anyone else notice the change in the hood design?

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=1168&LensComp2=0&LensComp=397

Looks like it got a lot shorter, but some of that (do the mouseover stuff) may appear to be related to the fact that the f/1.4L IS is internally focusing while the f/1.2L II is not.

Also, from the TDP review: "Unusual is that the interior is molded-ribbed plastic instead of Canon's usual flocking material."

I thought ribbed/plastic-only that was a third-party / budget sort of move. I just checked all my current hoods, and even my non-L stuff (50 f/1.4 USM, 28 IS, 35 IS) has flocking/felt-like stuff like the L hoods. Why would they go this route?

- A

 

[YuengLinger]

Looks like it got a lot shorter, but some of that (do the mouseover stuff) may appear to be related to the fact that the f/1.4L IS is internally focusing while the f/1.2L II is not.

Also, from the TDP review: "Unusual is that the interior is molded-ribbed plastic instead of Canon's usual flocking material."

I thought ribbed/plastic-only that was a third-party / budget sort of move. I just checked all my current hoods, and even my non-L stuff (50 f/1.4 USM, 28 IS, 35 IS) has flocking/felt-like stuff like the L hoods. Why would they go this route?

- A

Maybe the new hood designer has a lint phobia?

 

[ahsanford]

Looks like it got a lot shorter, but some of that (do the mouseover stuff) may appear to be related to the fact that the f/1.4L IS is internally focusing while the f/1.2L II is not.

Also, from the TDP review: "Unusual is that the interior is molded-ribbed plastic instead of Canon's usual flocking material."

I thought ribbed/plastic-only that was a third-party / budget sort of move. I just checked all my current hoods, and even my non-L stuff (50 f/1.4 USM, 28 IS, 35 IS) has flocking/felt-like stuff like the L hoods. Why would they go this route?

- A

Maybe the new hood designer has a lint phobia? Personally, I don't think it's such a flocking big issue. :

Ha!

Flocking is softer & deformable, so one might imagine it would take damage better than plastic. Even the most matte plastic finish will get shiny with wear and damage. See the outside of my old enormo 24-70 f/2.8L I hood -- had a nice matte finish until it got some use. Now imagine that inside of a hood.

Surely they didn't just do this for cost reasons, did they? (To an L lens?!)

Just riffing: might this be better for durability if you tightly nest your various hoods together?

- A

 

[arthurbikemad]

I did note the other day the new 24-105 of mine has no felt in the hood, just plane plastic.

 

[ahsanford]

I did note the other day the new 24-105 of mine has no felt in the hood, just plane plastic.

Hate to dwell on minutiae like this when we have a sweet new lens to talk about, but I'm curious if this is a takeaway from Canon, a similarly performing 'other way to do it' or an upgrade that I'm not understanding.

Please educate me on this. I find these system-level deltas interesting.

- A

 

[raptor3x]

Seems like the new 85L is sharper than the ART lens into the corners but has lower contrast, higher LOCA, and more astigmatism.

 

[hne]

About as sharp at f/1.4 as the f/1.8 is stopped down to f/2.8. Glad I've got a reservation. Number 25 at a company getting 25 in their initial shipment. Any month now, I guess...

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm not ready to sell my 1.2 and get this instead.

I am.

 

[ahsanford]

I'm not ready to sell my 1.2 and get this instead.

I am.

Depends on what you value. For me, dramatically faster AF + no focus by wire + IS + added sharpness = a very compelling value proposition vs. the f/1.2L II. But others may hang their hat on f/1.2 being something magical that trumps all of what this new lens offers.

- A

 

[Larsskv]

A pretty illustrative side by side video comparison between the 85LII, 85 f1.4 and Sigma 85 ART:

https://youtu.be/ofR2qRcE6aw

The 85 F1.4 compares well with the Sigma ART in real world images.

 

[Viggo]

Got mine today, and as I posted in another thread, first thing I tried was to shoot metal in harsh light and the amount of purple fringing is extremely low, the 35 L II has none, and it’s there with the 85 IS, but even deliberately pushed to show it, it’s nothing to worry about.

Vignetting is very low, I was hoping for really good performance there, and I’m not disappointed.

The AF is very certain and locks and tracks great. Still in the process of finding the afma value, really impressive, even in terrible light.

I usually have very shaky hands so I had no hope for getting sharp images at the mentioned 1/8s, but I can get almost every single shot sharp at 1/8s. Ai servo locks without doubt, although slower in f1.4s, iso 1000 1/8s, pretty crazy.

Slight pincushion distortion but not noticeable unless aligning up a straight doorframe in at the extreme edge.

 

[YuengLinger]

Got mine today, and as I posted in another thread, first thing I tried was to shoot metal in harsh light and the amount of purple fringing is extremely low, the 35 L II has none, and it’s there with the 85 IS, but even deliberately pushed to show it, it’s nothing to worry about.

Vignetting is very low, I was hoping for really good performance there, and I’m not disappointed.

The AF is very certain and locks and tracks great. Still in the process of finding the afma value, really impressive, even in terrible light.

I usually have very shaky hands so I had no hope for getting sharp images at the mentioned 1/8s, but I can get almost every single shot sharp at 1/8s. Ai servo locks without doubt, although slower in f1.4s, iso 1000 1/8s, pretty crazy.

Slight pincushion distortion but not noticeable unless aligning up a straight doorframe in at the extreme edge.

Encouraging.

 

[Shane1.4]

Mine arrived today. Absolutely love it. Perfect size. Amazing IQ.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ESsqyVMcik

Made an unboxing video and size comparison video to the 35L II and Sigma Art. Already posted my Sigma on Craigslist.

 

[YuengLinger]

Ok. Used my 1.2 yesterday after reading TDP's review. Then started imagining a lens with roughly the same image quality but with snappy AF and IS. I will admit, the short and stout (grapefruit!) shape of the 1.2 seems to exaggerate my issues with shake, forcing me to up the ISO for higher shutter speeds. Or use a tripod.

Plus, how many shots have I just missed because the AF cannot respond quickly enough, relegating this 1.2 to largely a static portrait/found still life lens? Too many.

So, once the dust settles on supplies, I will probably be making the move too! I'd still like to see a bunch more image samples and read about more field experience--but unless a big problem surfaces, late winter, early spring, gimme!

 

[jaell]

I'm on the fence. I like the IQ of the Sigma, but all the references I've seen about the Sigma's AF performance scare me. By the way, does anyone have a link to any verification of the Sigma's AF issues? I've seen lots of people on this forum referring to focusing issues, AF drift over time, recalibrating, etc., but Bryan's review of the Sigma--and his review of the Canon 1.4 IS--doesn't mention any problems with focusing.

Doesn't feel like Canon hit a home run with this lens. A solid triple, maybe. I can live with more CA than on the Sigma. I can live with some corner softness, too. But I'd be more willing to pay a few hundred bucks more for a lens that was more competitive corner-to-corner.

I suppose when the Canon's lens profiles are available and it's easier to correct CA in post, it'll be easier to compare final-result images. So we'll end up with the Canon being more reliably in-focus, and the Sigma sharper corner-to-corner.

Given that lately I've had more issues with my subjects being just slightly out of focus (still learning the Mark IV's AF system) than being soft in the corners, I'm lining up for the Canon.

 

[SecureGSM]

AF drift is a confirmed issue with Sigma 85 Art. I called up my clients and was able to confirm that majority of them noticed AFMA drifted for them in first 3 months after the initial tune. I am doing one of those lenses tomorrow. going by the sample shots I was sent, it is out by 3-5 AFMA points at least.
one more issue that no one noticed yet: Sigma is prone to moire when stopped down to 5.6 and smaller.
I get this quite a lot on both cameras. extreme sharpness and level of detalisation creates visible interference in fine regular patterns and lines. I found a work around: I rotate the image ever slightly by 2-3 degrees in any direction. this simple procedure somehow removes moire for me for good.

example:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/LNn36vCY5RMxV70F2

take a look. move magnification slider on the page and notice aggressive interference pattern appearing in fabric.

I'm on the fence. I like the IQ of the Sigma, but all the references I've seen about the Sigma's AF performance scare me. By the way, does anyone have a link to any verification of the Sigma's AF issues? I've seen lots of people on this forum referring to focusing issues, AF drift over time, recalibrating, etc., but Bryan's review of the Sigma--and his review of the Canon 1.4 IS--doesn't mention any problems with focusing.

Doesn't feel like Canon hit a home run with this lens. A solid triple, maybe. I can live with more CA than on the Sigma. I can live with some corner softness, too. But I'd be more willing to pay a few hundred bucks more for a lens that was more competitive corner-to-corner.

I suppose when the Canon's lens profiles are available and it's easier to correct CA in post, it'll be easier to compare final-result images. So we'll end up with the Canon being more reliably in-focus, and the Sigma sharper corner-to-corner.

Given that lately I've had more issues with my subjects being just slightly out of focus (still learning the Mark IV's AF system) than being soft in the corners, I'm lining up for the Canon.