Did 85L NEED to have slow focus, or just a fluke thing they were trying?

[ScottyP]

Everyone talks about the focus by wire system on the 85L being slow, but this is accepted as ok by people who use it for portraits, not action.

I have never heard an explanation of why they gave it that focus system rather than a more common one. Was it just something Canon was trying out, which perhaps didn't pan out, or does this unusual focus system in fact do something better for some kind of use (portraits?)?

I know they can make big glass focus quickly, so I don't think the trade off was made for that reason. I don't get the impression it was a cost saver. I suppose it could be a space saver somehow, but it couldn't save all that much space. Anyone know the answer?

 

[mackguyver]

Everyone talks about the focus by wire system on the 85L being slow, but this is accepted as ok by people who use it for portraits, not action.

I have never heard an explanation of why they gave it that focus system rather than a more common one. Was it just something Canon was trying out, which perhaps didn't pan out, or does this unusual focus system in fact do something better for some kind of use (portraits?)?

I know they can make big glass focus quickly, so I don't think the trade off was made for that reason. I don't get the impression it was a cost saver. I suppose it could be a space saver somehow, but it couldn't save all that much space. Anyone know the answer?

It's a combination of big glass PLUS fast aperture. DOF is paper thin at f/1.2 so the AF goes slowly for accuracy sake. Also, this is probably the biggest and heaviest piece of glass Canon uses for focusing movements. The big whites use huge front elements but are rear focus and the focusing group is relatively small, especially in comparison to the 85L.

 

[Sporgon]

Everyone talks about the focus by wire system on the 85L being slow, but this is accepted as ok by people who use it for portraits, not action.

I have never heard an explanation of why they gave it that focus system rather than a more common one. Was it just something Canon was trying out, which perhaps didn't pan out, or does this unusual focus system in fact do something better for some kind of use (portraits?)?

I know they can make big glass focus quickly, so I don't think the trade off was made for that reason. I don't get the impression it was a cost saver. I suppose it could be a space saver somehow, but it couldn't save all that much space. Anyone know the answer?

The focus-by-wire refers to manual focus. The focusing ring acts as an encoder to operate the USM focusing motor rather than a mechanically attached helicoil. I don't know for certain, but I imagine that the reason both versions of the 85/f1.2 have this form of manual focus is that to move this concentrated mass of glass smoothly and accurately enough for f/1.2 would require a steel helicoil gearing, which, to make it function appropriately for a lens of this calibre would add too much to the cost of the lens.

The 'slow' auto speed of the lens will be to do with bringing that mass of glass on its roller bearings in to action and an accurate enough halt to match the f/1.2 depth of field of an 85mm lens.

 

[ScottyP]

Interesting. The "focusing" goes on with the heavier front glass, compared to the big whites which move the smaller rear glass around?

I assume the Sigma Art 85mm (wherever it is) will have a different design, and will focus in a more traditional way.

I wonder if they will be able to get the same rave reviews they had with their 35mm, or if they will be accused of having traded dreamy bokeh for sharpness and quickness, etc...

And I assume precise focus at the faster focus speed will be a challenge for them.

Maybe it will only be f/2.

 

[YuengLinger]

The "slow" focus was very intentional. Canon knew that only the most discerning of portrait photographers would buy this, keeping it out of the hands of the riff-raff gearheads. We certainly don't need a pack of ninja extremists running around shooting fast-moving targets at f/1.2. Simply wouldn't do.

 

[Dylan777]

Lost her few months back. She is back, thanks to CPW-street Price

 

[mackguyver]

That's a happy reunion - great to see it, Dylan!

 

[Dylan777]

That's a happy reunion - great to see it, Dylan!

Thanks mackguyver

Yes...she is slow, but beautiful

 

[YuengLinger]

NICE product photography, Dylan.

Definitely a hard lens to even contemplate living without.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Lost her few months back. She is back, thanks to CPW-street Price

Congrats Dylan! I bet you missed it a lot.

 

[Maiaibing]

The "slow" focus was very intentional. Canon knew that only the most discerning of portrait photographers would buy this, keeping it out of the hands of the riff-raff gearheads. We certainly don't need a pack of ninja extremists running around shooting fast-moving targets at f/1.2. Simply wouldn't do.

It was certainly not intentional. Canon made it clear that they tried to make the lens focus much faster than the original and Canon indeed continues to advertise the 85L II as both a sports action lens and a portrait lens.

I suggest you read the original press release and current Canon sales advertising.

 

[unfocused]

The "slow" focus was very intentional. Canon knew that only the most discerning of portrait photographers would buy this, keeping it out of the hands of the riff-raff gearheads. We certainly don't need a pack of ninja extremists running around shooting fast-moving targets at f/1.2. Simply wouldn't do.

It was certainly not intentional. Canon made it clear that they tried to make the lens focus much faster than the original and Canon indeed continues to advertise the 85L II as both a sports action lens and a portrait lens.

I suggest you read the original press release and current Canon sales advertising.

And once again sarcasm flies completely over the head of another forum participant.

 

[Ruined]

I think the slow focus and fragility of this lens warrants a redesign for a couple of reasons.

First straight up studio portrait and fashion photographers mostly use narrow apertures with controlled lighting. So f/1.2 is often not the most useful to them.

If you do portraits outdoors, then you might use the thin DOF since you may not have control of the background
. But this lens is not weather sealed, it is fragile, and thus not the ideal choice for outdoors conditions.

Finally, if you want f/1.2 for low light events like weddings, the slow autofocus can get in the way for things like entrances, and other times where people are moving faster.


Based on all this I think the lens warrants a redesign. It has great output but IMO too many functionality sacrifices were made for that output. If a redesign means f/1.4 to fix the functionality issues, I would be in support of that.

 

[danski0224]

How is this lens considered fragile?

 

[Ruined]

How is this lens considered fragile?

The motor that drives the front element forwards and backwards is prone to failure, especially as the front element extends outside the lens barrel when focusing; most designs like that are less reliable as accidentally not retracting the element in 100% and storing the camera lens down as most do can potentially cause damage/failure over time due to the weight/pressure being put on the focusing motor instead of the outer lens barrel. While some might call that careless, in the field or at an event things can get hectic and not retracting the front element 100% accidentally can happen more often than you'd think; the 50mm f/1.4 focus motor has similar reliability issues for the same reason. To make it worse, the 85L II barrel can't even be retracted unless the camera is turned on, so if you do make this error you have the hassle of turning the camera on/off just to dismount the lens properly. Also, the rear element is more exposed than any other in-production Canon lens I am aware of, exacerbated by the fact that the lens is not the easiest to mount in the field due to its giant rear barrel width; recall damage on the rear element is more likely to show up in the photo than damage to the front element. Finally, the lens is not weather sealed like most other Canon L lenses.

All of that combined adds up to a more fragile lens in the field to me that requires more babying compared to say a 24 f/1.4L II or 50L f/1.2L (weather sealed + no extending barrel when focusing + protected rear element) or 85 non-L/135L (not weather sealed, but still less vulnerable to damage due to barrels that do not extend when focusing and more protected rear elements).

Frankly, if Canon released an 85mm f/1.8 IS that fixed up some of the old 85mm f/1.8 minor issues (improved lens hood design, curved aperture blades, updated coatings, etc) I would probably forget about the 85mm f/1.2 line altogether - unless it was revamped to correct its functionality shortcomings in the field where I mostly shoot.

 

[Dylan777]

How is this lens considered fragile?

The motor that drives the front element forwards and backwards is prone to failure, especially as the front element extends outside the lens barrel when focusing; most designs like that are less reliable as accidentally not retracting the element in 100% and storing the camera lens down as most do can potentially cause damage/failure over time due to the weight/pressure being put on the focusing motor instead of the outer lens barrel. While some might call that careless, in the field or at an event things can get hectic and not retracting the front element 100% accidentally can happen more often than you'd think; the 50mm f/1.4 focus motor has similar reliability issues for the same reason. To make it worse, the 85L II barrel can't even be retracted unless the camera is turned on, so if you do make this error you have the hassle of turning the camera on/off just to dismount the lens properly. Also, the rear element is more exposed than any other in-production Canon lens I am aware of, exacerbated by the fact that the lens is not the easiest to mount in the field due to its giant rear barrel width; recall damage on the rear element is more likely to show up in the photo than damage to the front element. Finally, the lens is not weather sealed like most other Canon L lenses.

All of that combined adds up to a more fragile lens in the field to me that requires more babying compared to say a 24 f/1.4L II or 50L f/1.2L (weather sealed + no extending barrel when focusing + protected rear element) or 85 non-L/135L (not weather sealed, but still less vulnerable to damage due to barrels that do not extend when focusing and more protected rear elements).

Frankly, if Canon released an 85mm f/1.8 IS that fixed up some of the old 85mm f/1.8 minor issues (improved lens hood design, curved aperture blades, updated coatings, etc) I would probably forget about the 85mm f/1.2 line altogether - unless it was revamped to correct its functionality shortcomings in the field where I mostly shoot.

85L II is the only lens I have hood installed at all time. If you can avoid focus from infinity to close-up, AF is fast. Maintain your distance. I don't see a need for Canon to upgrade current version. I'm sure many don't mind having faster AF and a bit lighter in replacement, however, current version IQ is excellent. For 100mm or shorter primes, I prefer larger aperture over IS. I will take f1.2 over f2 with 4-stop IS.

 

[chromophore]

How is this lens considered fragile?

The motor that drives the front element forwards and backwards is prone to failure, especially as the front element extends outside the lens barrel when focusing; most designs like that are less reliable as accidentally not retracting the element in 100% and storing the camera lens down as most do can potentially cause damage/failure over time due to the weight/pressure being put on the focusing motor instead of the outer lens barrel. While some might call that careless, in the field or at an event things can get hectic and not retracting the front element 100% accidentally can happen more often than you'd think; the 50mm f/1.4 focus motor has similar reliability issues for the same reason. To make it worse, the 85L II barrel can't even be retracted unless the camera is turned on, so if you do make this error you have the hassle of turning the camera on/off just to dismount the lens properly. Also, the rear element is more exposed than any other in-production Canon lens I am aware of, exacerbated by the fact that the lens is not the easiest to mount in the field due to its giant rear barrel width; recall damage on the rear element is more likely to show up in the photo than damage to the front element. Finally, the lens is not weather sealed like most other Canon L lenses.

All of that combined adds up to a more fragile lens in the field to me that requires more babying compared to say a 24 f/1.4L II or 50L f/1.2L (weather sealed + no extending barrel when focusing + protected rear element) or 85 non-L/135L (not weather sealed, but still less vulnerable to damage due to barrels that do not extend when focusing and more protected rear elements).

Frankly, if Canon released an 85mm f/1.8 IS that fixed up some of the old 85mm f/1.8 minor issues (improved lens hood design, curved aperture blades, updated coatings, etc) I would probably forget about the 85mm f/1.2 line altogether - unless it was revamped to correct its functionality shortcomings in the field where I mostly shoot.

To be clear, it isn't the motor that gets damaged. The USM in this lens is simply two rings, and there's no mechanical contact between them. It's not something that is prone to being damaged.

What can get damaged with this lens, like any other lens with a sub-barrel that extends during focusing, is the sub-barrel and cam assembly. With sufficient force, you could damage the components that hold the focusing group in place. You'd have to smack the front of the lens pretty hard when it's extended. I don't think that qualifies as "fragile"--any lens can be abused if you don't treat it with care.

That said, the design of the EF 85/1.2L necessitates extra attention in attaching the lens to the body (or else the rear element could be scratched), and remembering to set the focus back to infinity before removing the lens from the body (or else the barrel is stuck in an extended position, making the aforementioned damage more likely). Furthermore, the lens is fat, round, and very dense. It's one of the few Canon EF lenses in which the outer barrel was given a special textured finish that makes it less slippery and easier to grip, precisely because it is so easy to drop.

 

[chromophore]

The EF 85/1.2L II uses the largest diameter USM in Canon's EF lineup, at 77mm. The only other lenses that use the same USM are the super-telephoto designs (300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, etc). This gives you the first clue as to the demands of this particular fast-aperture design.

Foremost, the 77mm USM was selected because of the need to fit the glass inside, as well as the focusing cam and diaphragm assemblies for such a fast aperture. So even if this lens could be redesigned to use fewer elements in the focusing group (e.g., an internal-focusing design), the diameter of the USM cannot be reduced.

The other reason to use this motor is to facilitate as much torque as possible. The focusing group consists of eight individual elements--all but the last element which is fixed. That's a lot of glass to move quickly and precisely. A large-diameter USM is needed to make this happen.

The very thin DOF of this lens also means that the lens CPU must be more responsive to the AF system on the camera body to adjust the focus. The previous EF 85/1.2L had older electronics that were updated in the EF 85/1.2L II to improve the focusing speed somewhat. Some owners of the first version have reported that when their lens was repaired, the AF speed was noticeably improved, quite possibly because Canon no longer manufactured the old circuit board, so used the board now in the II.

There are also power considerations for the USM in this lens. 1-series bodies, with more juice and a more powerful AF system overall, can use this lens to better effect than, say, an entry-level Rebel.

From this information, I think it is reasonable to infer that Canon designed this lens to have as responsive AF as possible given the design considerations. I don't think they deliberately needed to slow down the AF in any way. That is to say, there is no need for the body to slow down the AF (as is the case with the use of an extender on super-telephoto lenses) just to ensure precise focus. The reason extenders need to slow down the AF is because the image magnification of the combination is increased but the focusing helicoid of the parent lens remains the same, and thus is not designed with a finer pitch to account for the extender use. Newer EF lenses like the 200-400/4 + 1.4x, or the 300/2.8L II, 400/2.8L II, 500/4L II, and 600/4L II in conjunction with the newer III extenders, have the benefit of being "smarter" in their CPUs to permit less conservative AF speed reductions. But as this pertains to the 85L design, the focusing helicoid of this lens was designed for this lens, to have the focusing characteristics it does. If it could AF faster, it would.

 

[Ruined]

How is this lens considered fragile?

The motor that drives the front element forwards and backwards is prone to failure, especially as the front element extends outside the lens barrel when focusing; most designs like that are less reliable as accidentally not retracting the element in 100% and storing the camera lens down as most do can potentially cause damage/failure over time due to the weight/pressure being put on the focusing motor instead of the outer lens barrel. While some might call that careless, in the field or at an event things can get hectic and not retracting the front element 100% accidentally can happen more often than you'd think; the 50mm f/1.4 focus motor has similar reliability issues for the same reason. To make it worse, the 85L II barrel can't even be retracted unless the camera is turned on, so if you do make this error you have the hassle of turning the camera on/off just to dismount the lens properly. Also, the rear element is more exposed than any other in-production Canon lens I am aware of, exacerbated by the fact that the lens is not the easiest to mount in the field due to its giant rear barrel width; recall damage on the rear element is more likely to show up in the photo than damage to the front element. Finally, the lens is not weather sealed like most other Canon L lenses.

All of that combined adds up to a more fragile lens in the field to me that requires more babying compared to say a 24 f/1.4L II or 50L f/1.2L (weather sealed + no extending barrel when focusing + protected rear element) or 85 non-L/135L (not weather sealed, but still less vulnerable to damage due to barrels that do not extend when focusing and more protected rear elements).

Frankly, if Canon released an 85mm f/1.8 IS that fixed up some of the old 85mm f/1.8 minor issues (improved lens hood design, curved aperture blades, updated coatings, etc) I would probably forget about the 85mm f/1.2 line altogether - unless it was revamped to correct its functionality shortcomings in the field where I mostly shoot.

To be clear, it isn't the motor that gets damaged. The USM in this lens is simply two rings, and there's no mechanical contact between them. It's not something that is prone to being damaged.

What can get damaged with this lens, like any other lens with a sub-barrel that extends during focusing, is the sub-barrel and cam assembly. With sufficient force, you could damage the components that hold the focusing group in place. You'd have to smack the front of the lens pretty hard when it's extended. I don't think that qualifies as "fragile"--any lens can be abused if you don't treat it with care.

That said, the design of the EF 85/1.2L necessitates extra attention in attaching the lens to the body (or else the rear element could be scratched), and remembering to set the focus back to infinity before removing the lens from the body (or else the barrel is stuck in an extended position, making the aforementioned damage more likely). Furthermore, the lens is fat, round, and very dense. It's one of the few Canon EF lenses in which the outer barrel was given a special textured finish that makes it less slippery and easier to grip, precisely because it is so easy to drop.

My wish is for Canon to make an f/1.4L version that will retain 95% of the 85L II f/1.2 IQ awesomeness but rectify all of the issues that result in slow focus and lens fragility. The slightly narrower aperture should allow for less glass that will allow for a reduction in size and hence overall functionality issues with the lens. That would make it a lot more usable in the field, events, and pretty much in general. This is a lens I have wanted but constantly passed over every single time because it is nowhere near as field/event friendly as most of the other L lenses. I just don't trust the longevity given the potential ways it can be easily damaged, be it rear element or extending front element.

 

[Ruined]

85L II is the only lens I have hood installed at all time.

85 f/1.8 is worth keeping lens hood installed all the time as well simply because it is non-reversible and a pain to attach

This is a fairly decent solution to the lens barrel issue, though this lens + hood on all the time surely must take up a ton of bag space I'd imagine...

If you can avoid focus from infinity to close-up, AF is fast.

Reception entrances + AI servo can equal disaster if you mistrack for a moment with this lens due to the slow focus. For non-moving or slow moving subjects, it is adequate but would love to see it improved.

Maintain your distance. I don't see a need for Canon to upgrade current version. I'm sure many don't mind having faster AF and a bit lighter in replacement, however, current version IQ is excellent.

No complaints about IQ, but I would tradeoff a slight bit of max aperture say in an f/1.4L version if it meant I could have a lens that is faster focusing, no perilous rear element, and no extending lens barrel when focusing. I value IQ and love the bokeh of f/1.2 on this lens, but I'd sacrifice just a bit for a lens I could use with more confidence in more situations.

For 100mm or shorter primes, I prefer larger aperture over IS. I will take f1.2 over f2 with 4-stop IS.

85mm is kind of the borderline for me. 50mm larger aperture, no contest. But 85mm you need to do 1/125 without IS to be safe to get max resolution especially in an event when things move fast and you may have to fire off some shots with less than perfect technique. With IS you could probably get away with 1/80-1/100 and still avoid both motion blur and camera shake for everything but fast moving subjects.

So if a 85mm f/1.8 IS does surface, I'd have to take a long hard look at that.