Updated Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS Specifcations

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
7,687
343
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
HTML:
We have received a few more bits of information in regards to the soon-to-be-announced EF 85mm f/1.4L IS.</p>
<p><strong>Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS Specifications:</strong> (New information in bold / weight and dimensions are approximates).</p>

<ul>
<li><strong>Minimum focusing distance : 85cm / 2.78′</strong>
<ul>
<li><em>EF 85mm f/1.2L II minimum focusing distance is 95cm / 3.12′</em></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Weight: 950g / 33.5oz</strong>
<ul>
<li><em>EF 85mm f/1.2L II weighs 1025g / 36.16oz</em></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Filter size: 77mm</strong>
<ul>
<li><em>EF 85mm f/1.2L II filter thread is 72mm</em></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Max diameter 88.6mm / 3.48″</strong>
<ul>
<li><em>EF 85mm f/1.2L II is 91.4mm / 3.6″ </em></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Length: 105.4mm / 4.15″</strong>
<ul>
<li><em>EF 85mm f/1.2L II is 83.8mm / 3.3″</em></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>4 stop image stabilization</li>
<li>Flourine coating</li>
<li>1 moulded aspherical element</li>
<li>9 aperture blades</li>
</ul>
<p>We’re still waiting to confirm USD pricing as well as the exact announcement date and availability.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
<div style="font-size:0px;height:0px;line-height:0px;margin:0;padding:0;clear:both"></div>
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,972
502
Interesting. When Canon 'responded' (in truth, simply updated) the 35L --> 35L II, they went big: it got longer and heavier.

But here...

Length

85 f/1.8: 2.83"
85 f/1.2L II: 3.31"
85 f/1.4L IS: 4.15"
85 Art: 4.97"
85 Otus: 4.88"

Weight:

85 f/1.8: 15.0 oz
85 f/1.2L II: 36.2 oz
85 f/1.4L IS: 33.5 oz
85 Art: 39.9 oz
85 Otus: 42.4 oz

Filter diameter (as a read on entrance pupil):

85 f/1.8: 58mm
85 f/1.2L II: 72mm
85 f/1.4L IS: 77mm
85 Art: 86mm
85 Otus: 86mm


...I have to say, this is not the pickle jar I was expecting. Anyone else surprised by this?

- A
 

hmatthes

EOS-R, RF and EF Lenses of all types.
The 85/1.8 is always in my kit and is one of Canon's greatest values. "If it ain't broke..."
I have rented the 85/1.2 -- was shocked at the incredible optics :eek: and difficulty to perfectly focus :-[.
So the upcoming 85/1.4 will have to be mind-blowing optically to replace the far smaller 85/1.8 in my kit.
 

Perio

EOS RP
Nov 12, 2013
281
2
I believe there were some discrepant opinions regarding whether or not the number of aperture blades affects the "roundness" of out of focus spheres. The 85 1.4L has 9 blades vs. 8 blades in 85 1.2ii. Can this make a difference?
 
Apr 9, 2014
152
13
www.andrew-davies.com
Personally I would have rather seen an update version of the already excellent 85mm 1.8USM , better control over abberations CA etc in that lens - would be happy for it to be a little heavier too - more the quality and styling of the 35mm F2 IS - but 950g ? nah not for me - carrying heavy stuff round for 12 hours is a big consideration when the image quality of the 450g 85 1.8 is already excellent , just needs a little more processing. Hopefully the specs will be wrong and it will be lighter ... cost is not a factor so much but weight is.

Wedding Photographer North East & Yorkshire Northumberland & Wedding Photographer Cumbria
 

jolyonralph

Kodak Brownie
Aug 25, 2015
1,094
310
50
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
I never did think much of the 85 1.8 nor the 50 1.4. Both were very underwhelming and I sold both of them.

The 85 1.2 II is a single purpose lens. It excels at natural light portraits and is pretty much pointless for anything else.

The 50 1.2 however is a lens I love, however it seems the inter-copy variation is enough to make many people loathe it.

I'll be eager to see what the 85 1.4 can handle. But I am not seeing a reason as yet as to why I would want it.
 

jebrady03

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 2, 2011
529
22
40
Sarasota, FL
ahsanford said:
Interesting. When Canon 'responded' (in truth, simply updated) the 35L --> 35L II, they went big: it got longer and heavier.

But here...

Length

85 f/1.8: 2.83"
85 f/1.2L II: 3.31"
85 f/1.4L IS: 4.15"
85 Art: 4.97"
85 Otus: 4.88"

Weight:

85 f/1.8: 15.0 oz
85 f/1.2L II: 36.2 oz
85 f/1.4L IS: 33.5 oz
85 Art: 39.9 oz
85 Otus: 42.4 oz

Filter diameter (as a read on entrance pupil):

85 f/1.8: 58mm
85 f/1.2L II: 72mm
85 f/1.4L IS: 77mm
85 Art: 86mm
85 Otus: 86mm


...I have to say, this is not the pickle jar I was expecting. Anyone else surprised by this?

- A
You're comparing 35mm f/1.4 to 35mm f/1.4 vs 85mm f/1.2 to 85mm f/1.4. There's a half stop of aperture difference between 1.2 and 1.4.
 

Berowne

... they sparkle still the right Promethean fire.
Jun 7, 2014
253
92
If weight and dimensions go parallel with the Price, then this lens will be very expensive. Remember, it is similar to the Nikon 105/1.4. Guess, it can be even more expensive.
 

jeffa4444

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 28, 2013
1,430
86
65
The more we learn about this lens the more likely it will be expensive and possibly even replace the EF 85mm f1.2L II after a period of time.

Ive long thought Canon will standardise a group of high end primes at the f1.4 stop like Zeiss with the Otus or Sigma with many of the Art lenses including the 85mm.

This lens will add too the EF 24mm f1.4L II and the EF 35mm f1.4L II, lets skip the inferior EF 50mm f1.4 which is long overdue replacement and remains a mystery only Canon can answer and the variable quality EF 50mm f1.2L. Nikon has shown a f1.4 100mm is possible so with the EF 85mm f1.4L they are on the way to a high end f1.4 series of primes.
In the UK at least the EF 85mm f1.2L II is £ 1,767 so I don't expect the f1.4L to be too dissimilar maybe even more expensive.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,972
502
Perio said:
I believe there were some discrepant opinions regarding whether or not the number of aperture blades affects the "roundness" of out of focus spheres. The 85 1.4L has 9 blades vs. 8 blades in 85 1.2ii. Can this make a difference?
Check TDP / PZ / etc. for what the bokeh looks like on various lenses with slightly different blade counts. I don't think 8 vs. 9 will be a gamechanger per se.

I think the biggest delta with 8 vs. 9 will be sunstars from the sun/streetlights/etc. when you stop the lens down. An odd number of blades doubles the number of points you see:

https://www.thewave.info/Techniques/SunStars.html

"The number of points in the sunstar depends on the number of diaphragm blades. The number of points in the star is twice the number of blades for lenses with an odd number of blades, and equal to the number of blades for lenses with an even number of blades."

...but that's not exactly why you buy a portrait lens.

- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,972
502
jebrady03 said:
You're comparing 35mm f/1.4 to 35mm f/1.4 vs 85mm f/1.2 to 85mm f/1.4. There's a half stop of aperture difference between 1.2 and 1.4.
Fully understood -- that's why I threw in the Otus/Art. Both the current 50L and 85L are not as huge pickle jars as a 'corner-to-corner sharpness at all cost' sort of lens would indicate.

In other words, if the 85 f/1.4L IS was to be like the 35L II and throw the house at sharpness, one would think it would be bigger/heavier than the specs CR just published.

- A
 

jolyonralph

Kodak Brownie
Aug 25, 2015
1,094
310
50
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
It cannot replace the 85 1.2 II because the 85 1.2 is a compromise design not focused on charts or sharpness readings, but designed to make natural light portraits look amazing. I'd love it to focus faster, but I can't possibly imagine the 1.4L replacing it for my use anyway.

Now, of course, I may be wrong and it may turn out to be an incredible lens. But I suspect it'll be OK.
 

tiggy@mac.com

Pentax K-1000
Jan 20, 2014
490
168
Thetford, VT
www.ForestMetrix.com
It may or may not contain the Blue Goo tech. the "moulded aspherical element" could mean that. You'll recall that Canon hasn't specified what state that "organic material" of their blue refractive optics is in. It seems like their marketing people have been struggling to come up with a phrase that sounds better than "moulded plastic," for their high tech element.

If it has the Blue Goo, and it has similar effects as it does on the 35 II, then no one will be complaining about IQ, despite the new lens being a half pound lighter than the Sigma/Zeiss versions.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,239
263
With 77mm filter size vs 86mm on Zeiss / Sigma one would expect Canon lens to be smaller and lighter. Will that translate to elevated vignetting levels and softer corners wide open remains to be seen. It's all about compromises else, your example of Optus 85 size, heft and price.
ahsanford said:
jebrady03 said:
You're comparing 35mm f/1.4 to 35mm f/1.4 vs 85mm f/1.2 to 85mm f/1.4. There's a half stop of aperture difference between 1.2 and 1.4.
Fully understood -- that's why I threw in the Otus/Art. Both the current 50L and 85L are not as huge pickle jars as a 'corner-to-corner sharpness at all cost' sort of lens would indicate.

In other words, if the 85 f/1.4L IS was to be like the 35L II and throw the house at sharpness, one would think it would be bigger/heavier than the specs CR just published.

- A
 

jebrady03

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 2, 2011
529
22
40
Sarasota, FL
I've decided to give the Sony E mount system a try and this lens was the one thing making me consider staying with Canon. I grew tired of waiting and bought the Zeiss Batis 85mm f/1.8 (which is stabilized and weather sealed) and paired it with the A7r2 (which also has in-body) and with Eye AF, the results are incredible. Also, it's half the weight of the 85mm f/1.4L IS and I bought it for $850 (used but essentially new). So, yeah, I'm missing out on 2/3 of a stop of aperture, but the AF accuracy, small size and weight, and low-cost make it more than worth it.
I know Canon won't even know about me to even consider shedding a tear, but I'm really happy with the Sony combo. And as a bonus, I actually prefer the Sony skin tones because my wife and son are both orange-heads (I don't know why we call people like them "red heads", they're not) and the Canon colors wreaked havoc on their hair and skin. The Sony colors represent them accurately. FINALLY!!!
 

TomDibble

I'm New Here
Jun 15, 2017
17
3
Perio said:
I believe there were some discrepant opinions regarding whether or not the number of aperture blades affects the "roundness" of out of focus spheres. The 85 1.4L has 9 blades vs. 8 blades in 85 1.2ii. Can this make a difference?
The blades will almost certainly be shaped so that "wide open" the aperture (or one near it) is perfectly circular. However, the blade can not be cut so that it is perfectly round at f/1.4 and still at f/2.8. The number of blades in play affects how close it can get as it is stopped down. At the same time, as the number of blades increases the "trueness to round" as the aperture stops down becomes less apparent: going from a triangle to a square is incredibly noticeable, while going from a octagon to a nonagon is not going to be noticed unless you are really looking for it.

So, the disparate opinions on the matter are going to be if the effect - after stopping down - is going to be noticeable, and I think that is not something we can offer a scientifically precise answer. There is a difference, we just can't say if it will be noticed by you in particular. And what you see will not be the same as what your neighbor sees, and will differ from image to image.

Further, of course, this assumes that the "target aperture" for the lens is f/1.4. It is possible that Canon expect the lens to be used more often at f/1.8 and so make 1.8 "perfectly round" at the cost of 1.4. Such an approach would allow more stopped-down apertures to benefit as well.
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
231
36
I probably sound like a broken record, but Canon keeps making this easier for me as a big fan of zooms-- I already own plenty of 77mm filters, and am now rather surprised that it wasn't the typical 72mm prime filter size.


Also, looking at other lenses for reference for size, the lens is about exactly the same diameter as the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, and only 14mm shorter in length.(vs retracted 24-70, of course.)

It's also exactly the same length as the 35mm f/1.4L II interestingly, but 6mm wider in diameter.

That's a pretty nice size for a lens. So excited to see this get revealed.
 

arthurbikemad

EOS 7D MK II
Jul 19, 2015
451
18
UK
I have a good few nice Canon lenses, 200/2, 135/2, 85/1.2ii and so on, BUT I'd have to say the 35/1.4ii that I got a little while back is one awesome lens, I'd go out and say I may well class it as one of the best I own.

That blue magic defo seems to do the trick, if the new 85 is anything close I may well be a little cheesed..haha