Review: Canon 85mm f/1.4L IS. Is it a Better Option Over the EF 85mm f/1.2L II?

[Canon Rumors]

<iframe width="728" height="409" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YDlzuiTMGeQ" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe><p>Jared Polin has completed his review of the Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS, and finds out if this is a better option over the Canon classic, the EF 85mm f/1.2L II.</p>
<p>Personally, I sold my EF 85mm f/1.2L II after using the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS for a few weeks. The advantages of the new 85mm lens such as IS, faster AF, better built quality, and lighter weight were just too much for me to overlook.</p>
<p><strong><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDlzuiTMGeQ">Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS  at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[ahsanford]

One error in that video: f/1.2 to f/1.4 is not a full stop, last I checked. :

But I largely agree with Jared -- I rented this lens for Christmas and it was a treat. The new lens is a comprehensive upgrade to the f/1.2L II (IS, focusing speed, focusing consistency, internal focusing design, etc.) other than maximum background isolation, where the f/1.2 wins... if it nails focus at f/1.2.

In particular, this lens' AF was absolutely rockstar solid shot wide open (handheld on stationary targets, but I did move away from center on the AF frequently on my 5D3 and it nailed everything).

This lens is still plagued with the mirrorbox clipped bokeh, but that's the price of the EF mount more than this lens' design, it would appear.

Highly recommended!

- A

 

[stevelee]

One error in that video: f/1.2 to f/1.4 is not a full stop, last I checked. :

My calculator suggests it is about 0.445 stop.

 

[cpreston]

One error in that video: f/1.2 to f/1.4 is not a full stop, last I checked. :

My calculator suggests it is about 0.445 stop.

I would bet that it is quite a bit less from a light transmission standpoint.

 

[stevelee]

One error in that video: f/1.2 to f/1.4 is not a full stop, last I checked. :

My calculator suggests it is about 0.445 stop.

I would bet that it is quite a bit less from a light transmission standpoint.

I would guess that the reason someone might want the f/1.2 would be for the shallower DOF and maybe a little fuzzier looking background. An online DOF calculator tells me that at 12 feet the f/1.4 would have 6" DOF, and the f/1.2 would have 5".

Having seen the review and these figures, but never having used either lens, I certainly wouldn't pick the somewhat heavier and more expensive lens for such small advantages.

In film days I had a 55mm f/1.2 lens. My 85mm lens was f/1.8, as best I recall. It was just about my favorite all-around lens. For some years back then my travel trinity was it, the 28mm, and the 200mm. Now I don't have a prime in any of those lengths. My 100mm f/2.8 macro acts as my portrait lens for now.

 

[sanj]

Very basic (useless) review.
If someone is shooting wide aperture lenses, they should shoot in low light and post those photos.

I sold my 1.2 long before the IS version came out. Am happy with the new lens. It DOES have focus issues and in my rough calculation 10% photos at full open are not perfectly sharp.

 

[Hector1970]

That’s interesting Sanj.
The 85 1.2 is a bit frustrating but when it nails it, it nails it.
I’m reluctant to move but if I were a new buyer I’d go 1.4
1.2 would be great advantage if it were good at focusing in low light.
But for shallowdepth of field it’s great

 

[hendrik-sg]

One error in that video: f/1.2 to f/1.4 is not a full stop, last I checked. :

My calculator suggests it is about 0.445 stop.

f=1.2 is either 1/2 or 1/3 stop faster than 1.4. Here is helpful to look at 1 digit more. So, f=1.4 is 1.41, 1/3 stop faster is 1.26, 1/2 stop faster is 1.19.

So, correctly rounded, 1/3 stop faster than 1.4 would be 1.3, half stop faster would be 1.2. But of course, the marketing department has it's own rounding rules

 

[sanj]

That’s interesting Sanj.
The 85 1.2 is a bit frustrating but when it nails it, it nails it.
I’m reluctant to move but if I were a new buyer I’d go 1.4
1.2 would be great advantage if it were good at focusing in low light.
But for shallowdepth of field it’s great

1.4 is sharp to when it nails it. But it does not nail it as frequent as I hoped it would. I guess this is a feature with such wide lenses. I have no big issues. Just sometimes feel bad when I check on large screen and the shot is not perfect sharp.

 

[jolyonralph]

The 85 1.2L has a characteristic "look" that I don't know if the 1.4L IS would match. I haven't shot both, but I own the 1.2L and I'm pretty happy with it.

 

[stevelee]

One error in that video: f/1.2 to f/1.4 is not a full stop, last I checked. :

My calculator suggests it is about 0.445 stop.

f=1.2 is either 1/2 or 1/3 stop faster than 1.4. Here is helpful to look at 1 digit more. So, f=1.4 is 1.41, 1/3 stop faster is 1.26, 1/2 stop faster is 1.19.

So, correctly rounded, 1/3 stop faster than 1.4 would be 1.3, half stop faster would be 1.2. But of course, the marketing department has it's own rounding rules

Yes, I took 1.4 way too literally, when of course it should be the square root of 2, (1.4142...). So using that real (theoretical) value and taking literally 1.2, my calculator gets it to be 0.47393... of a stop. As suggested above, the t-values are probably closer, and who knows what the real differences are in optical properties. My guess is that they could be influenced as much by peculiarities of each design as much as by whatever the real difference in lens opening sizes. And I would assume that 85mm in each case is the result of rounding. So theoretical DOF lookup amounts may not have much to do with reality when you are looking at such small differences. But the point is that even in theory, there is not that much difference.

 

[ken]

...
This lens is still plagued with the mirrorbox clipped bokeh, but that's the price of the EF mount more than this lens' design, it would appear.
...

If this lens were used on a (mythical) mirrorless FF camera with an EF mount, would mirrorbox clipped bokeh still be an issue? (I'm guessing not, but haven't read much about this topic.)

 

[ahsanford]

If this lens were used on a (mythical) mirrorless FF camera with an EF mount, would mirrorbox clipped bokeh still be an issue? (I'm guessing not, but haven't read much about this topic.)

I've been waiting for folks to adapt it to answer that very question. Surely, the matter would improve, but I don't understand the physics of it -- the mirrorbox is (I thought) wider than the sensor, so we're seeing something that should be out of frame affecting something within the frame.

I believe this has to do with the wide open aperture of the lens (the physical diameter of the aperture the blades makes when wide open) is bigger than some of the mechanicals inside the body. I just don't know if once the mirrorbox is removed, does something nearly that size inside of the body (some external housings of the shutter?) become the next thing that clips things?

I defer to folks who know this better than I do, but a test of this lens on an A7 would be great (though the adaptor design itself may play into it).

- A

 

[stevelee]

The 85 1.2L has a characteristic "look" that I don't know if the 1.4L IS would match. I haven't shot both, but I own the 1.2L and I'm pretty happy with it.

And what I should have added to my previous post is that the real choice between the two should be which one you like better for the pictures it makes, rather than small numbers on one's calculator. Up to a point, a little softness in a portrait lens is often considered a feature, not a bug.

On my Rebel I used the 50mm f/1.4 as my portrait lens. Now with my 6D2, I consider the 100mm macro to take that role. I have made some rather nice portraits with the 24-105mm STM, but it opens just to f/5.6 in portrait range, so no extreme background separation. Early in the spring I was taking some macro shots of flowers in the front yard and got into a discussion on lenses with a neighbor. I took some shots of her and her cats that turned out well. In the pictures she does seem to have more freckles than in real life, and one of the cats looks fiercer with her fangs bared. In real life she looked more like she was smiling. She certainly was not acting threatened or aggressive.

Later I needed to send a recent picture to my alma mater for an "annual" they are making for our class reunion. So I set up the tripod. Took the dead batteries out of the flash. Decided to use ambient light rather than taking time to clean out the corrosion from the dead batteries. Set a 2-second delay for me to pose after I hit the infrared remote, and made a series of pictures as I stood in front of an empty neutral wall in the hallway as I looked into the flippy screen for positioning. My that macro lens is sharp! It made me look like an old man, mainly because I am one. I can see more detail in my skin in the pictures than I can see in the mirror after cleaning the mirror. The diffuse light did soften the bags under my eyes, and Photoshop helped a little more. In posing I opened my eyes more than I do in real life even as I smiled gently.

 

[ahsanford]

And what I should have added to my previous post is that the real choice between the two should be which one you like better for the pictures it makes, rather than small numbers on one's calculator. Up to a point, a little softness in a portrait lens is often considered a feature, not a bug.

That's why a macro is a great short tele for kids running around, but for portraiture it's almost too clinical, bracingly crisp -- and you may not want that look.

Yes, this fact is why folks love the 50L and 85 f/1.2L II for portraits. Sharpness isn't everything depending on what you shoot.

- A

 

[stevelee]

If I do any more self-portraits with the macro, I will either borrow some nylon stocking material and put a couple layers over the lens or smear petroleum jelly on a UV filter, like we did before Photoshop.

 

[ahsanford]

If I do any more self-portraits with the macro, I will either borrow some nylon stocking material and put a couple layers over the lens or smear petroleum jelly on a UV filter, like we did before Photoshop.

This (above) is why I don't do portraiture. It's good advice -- I just don't have the patience or desire to do this type of photography correctly.

Lazy enthusiast-level tip in using the 100L for single subject portraits: I just pump the brakes on global sharpening in post. I know that won't do anything for light falloff or overall rendering, but it certainly downplays wrinkles. ;D

- A

 

[michi]

That review was a lot of talk and not much information. Anyway, I have this lens and love it. Every portrait I shoot with it is magical. I bet in real life you couldn't tell the difference if a portrait was taken with a 1.2 or the 1.4 version.
What surprises me is that he doesn't mention the pretty horrific chromatic aberration (red and purple) which this lens exhibits wide open. You can even see it in the hair of the statue on his samples in the video. I find it a little annoying considering it's not a zoom and costs $1550...
All in all, I would buy it again, no doubt. If a version II came out some day with reduced chromatic aberration, I would probably sell my I and buy a II.

 

[ahsanford]

What surprises me is that he doesn't mention the pretty horrific chromatic aberration (red and purple) which this lens exhibits wide open. You can even see it in the hair of the statue on his samples in the video. I find it a little annoying considering it's not a zoom and costs $1550...

I seem to recall that max aperture is bigger culprit here than if it's a prime or zoom. Just about every large aperture lens demonstrates this on the wide-open end. I've only seen sickeningly pricey primes like the Zeiss Otus lenses banish it completely.

And can't you just defeat this in post? I recognize that it depends on what you are shooting, but the ACR/LR green/purple fringing sliders work like a charm for me.

- A

 

[stevelee]

Lazy enthusiast-level tip in using the 100L for single subject portraits: I just pump the brakes on global sharpening in post. I know that won't do anything for light falloff or overall rendering, but it certainly downplays wrinkles. ;D

- A

I have the Noël version of the 100mm macro. If the L version is any sharper, I don't think I could deal with it, at least for portraits.

In reality, if I ever need a "recent" picture of me again, I will just use that one. Barring serious illness, etc., my appearance is not likely to change that much in the next ten years.

And I don't often shoot portraits as such. I'll take pictures of people incidentally to something else, much like street photography. So while I was rather partial to the 85mm lens I used with my FT-QL, I don't have any real motivation to get a prime in that size. The 24-105mm STM has exceeded my expectations in its performance and usefulness, so it can cover that range. My next lens purchase almost for sure will be the 16-35mm f/4, maybe for my birthday in October. I need to pay the credit card bill for the 100-400mm lens before I think too much ahead.