85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?

[privatebydesign]

They have not been using the Blue Goo (formerly BR) technology in all new releases. I owned the 35 II, and indeed it was something to behold. But the Blue Goo is merely a tool, and sometimes a lens design requires different tools.

With all of the new 85mm lenses released recently, it is very possible that Canon's won't be the best. It is almost certain that if it is the best, it won't be by terribly much, as the field of competitors is simply stunning. I would not begrudge any fellow photographer their choice from among Tamron, Sigma, Zeiss, and - soon - Canon.

The best what?

The sharpest? And what does that mean, the sharpest in the center, the sharpest in the corners, the sharpest average across the field, the sharpest at close focus, the sharpest at infinity? And that is just 'the sharpest', we could do the same for CA, bokeh, distortions etc etc. How about focus accuracy, focus speed, focus consistency.

If we learn anything from the multitude of tests and opinions available to us nowadays, biased and less so, it is that there is no 'best' as we all have different priorities.

Personally I'd only be interested in a Canon 85 f1.4 L IS, anything else and I'll go without and that includes the Canon 1.2.

 

[SteveM]

I'd be interested in the 85mm 1.4, assuming a reasonable price, otherwise I'll stick to the 1.8. I find the 1.8 to be ok from f2.2.

 

[LordofTackle]

I'd be interested in the 85mm 1.4, assuming a reasonable price, otherwise I'll stick to the 1.8. I find the 1.8 to be ok from f2.2.

At least here in Germany I'm pretty sure the price will be anything but reasonable
I'm in the market for a 85 and currently waiting for the 85 1.4 L (IS) to come out..then I will decide between it, the Siggy and the 85 1.2
But knowing me, it will probably become the rumored 85 1.4

-Sebastian

 

[Tapcon]

I have the 1.2 and I have a love hate relationship with it. I will gladly sell it and get the 1.4 IS in a heartbeat.

 

[PeterAlex7]

From what I think I have read, we may have a choice between two different 85mm L models in the near future. Or, maybe the soon to be announced 85mm f/1.4L IS won't be an L at all, but a lens that sort of bridges the gap between the 85 f/1.8 and the 85 f/1.2L II in the same way the 50 f/1.4 does for that focal length.

Is there really room for two 85mm L lenses?

The reason I ask is I think I have also read that this new 85 will not replace the 85mm f/1.2L II in the lineup.

We'll know soon enough, but I am left wondering what you fine folks think.

Will there be two 85mm L lenses?

I think the 85mm f/1.2L II would be the bridge between the new 85mm f/1.4L IS and the 85mm f/1.8

 

[YuengLinger]

Ok, after a fairly important photo session where some side-lit flare, and hand shake at 1/250th impacted IQ, I'm ready to try an 85mm 1.4 IS.

Lately, something about the shape of the 1.2 has been harder for me to hold steady. Or I just had a bad day.

Doesn't happen with my 24-70mm; with the 135mm maybe I've just been more careful, as it was problematic with shake from day one, and I worked around it with higher shutter speeds and better technique. But, as said, the shape of the "grapefruit" shape of the 1.2 seems to be more of a challenge for me now than it was four years ago when first purchased.

In any event, bring on the IS.

 

[Ozarker]

Ok, after a fairly important photo session where some side-lit flare, and hand shake at 1/250th impacted IQ, I'm ready to try an 85mm 1.4 IS.

Lately, something about the shape of the 1.2 has been harder for me to hold steady. Or I just had a bad day.

Doesn't happen with my 24-70mm; with the 135mm maybe I've just been more careful, as it was problematic with shake from day one, and I worked around it with higher shutter speeds and better technique. But, as said, the shape of the "grapefruit" shape of the 1.2 seems to be more of a challenge for me now than it was four years ago when first purchased.

In any event, bring on the IS.

As I get older (only 54) I have noticed more shake. I'd welcome IS. Honestly, I am starting to wonder about the usefulness of anything wider than f/2.8. Especially for portraits where flash is used. Depth of field is already shallow at f/2.8, so it is really starting to make me wonder.

I know the faster f stops are useful to some. Just thinking about my own uses. For me, f/2.8 might be enough.

 

[YuengLinger]

As I get older (only 54) I have noticed more shake. I'd welcome IS. Honestly, I am starting to wonder about the usefulness of anything wider than f/2.8. Especially for portraits where flash is used. Depth of field is already shallow at f/2.8, so it is really starting to make me wonder.

I know the faster f stops are useful to some. Just thinking about my own uses. For me, f/2.8 might be enough.

I think apertures faster than 2.8 present quite a few options I'd not want to go without. Particularly with 30-60 year old men, it's great being able to work relatively close in and have super shallow DoF. Is 1.2 necessary? Maybe not, but until recently, it seemed that to have a very sharp 1.8-2.2, starting at 1.2 was part of the design. But newer lenses are pretty close to peak sharpness at max aperture, so I wouldn't feel I'm giving up anything mystic if a new 85 1.4 IS was sharp wide open as the 35mm 1.4 II is sharp wide open.

One of my favorite master portrait artists is George Hurrell. Something understated yet majestic about shallow DoF used properly. I know he used mostly 8x10, so I don't know precisely the 135 equivalent focal lengths are, but I see a lot of 1.8 - 2.2. Cecil Beaton, whom I also admire immensely, maybe even shallower.

I've had otherwise very good very shallow DoF images "ruined" by a hand looking like a clawish blob or an ear that looks odd when too out of focus, or a jawline that blurs into a neck with unflattering results, but I persevere and feel so happy when it all works.

 

[Ozarker]

As I get older (only 54) I have noticed more shake. I'd welcome IS. Honestly, I am starting to wonder about the usefulness of anything wider than f/2.8. Especially for portraits where flash is used. Depth of field is already shallow at f/2.8, so it is really starting to make me wonder.

I know the faster f stops are useful to some. Just thinking about my own uses. For me, f/2.8 might be enough.

I think apertures faster than 2.8 present quite a few options I'd not want to go without. Particularly with 30-60 year old men, it's great being able to work relatively close in and have super shallow DoF. Is 1.2 necessary? Maybe not, but until recently, it seemed that to have a very sharp 1.8-2.2, starting at 1.2 was part of the design. But newer lenses are pretty close to peak sharpness at max aperture, so I wouldn't feel I'm giving up anything mystic if a new 85 1.4 IS was sharp wide open as the 35mm 1.4 II is sharp wide open.

One of my favorite master portrait artists is George Hurrell. Something understated yet majestic about shallow DoF used properly. I know he used mostly 8x10, so I don't know precisely the 135 equivalent focal lengths are, but I see a lot of 1.8 - 2.2. Cecil Beaton, whom I also admire immensely, maybe even shallower.

I've had otherwise very good very shallow DoF images "ruined" by a hand looking like a clawish blob or an ear that looks odd when too out of focus, or a jawline that blurs into a neck with unflattering results, but I persevere and feel so happy when it all works.

Another truism by you.

I have the 135 f/2L and the 35 f/1.4 II. Right now I am messing up more shots than nailing. I just need to practice more.

 

[bluenoser1993]

Any chance the 85 f1.4 IS might accept a teleconverter? With design advances you can be sure image quality at 119 f2 would be as good or better than the old 135L. I'd sell the 135 to fund that for sure. It would be killer for gymnasium sports.

 

[privatebydesign]

Any chance the 85 f1.4 IS might accept a teleconverter? With design advances you can be sure image quality at 119 f2 would be as good or better than the old 135L. I'd sell the 135 to fund that for sure. It would be killer for gymnasium sports.

None if past and present designs are anything to go by, and that includes new designs by third parties. Having said that that only applies to Canon TC's, don't see why third party TC's wouldn't work.

 

[Ozarker]

Any chance the 85 f1.4 IS might accept a teleconverter? With design advances you can be sure image quality at 119 f2 would be as good or better than the old 135L. I'd sell the 135 to fund that for sure. It would be killer for gymnasium sports.

None if past and present designs are anything to go by, and that includes new designs by third parties. Having said that that only applies to Canon TC's, don't see why third party TC's wouldn't work.

Considering the price of the current 135mm f/2L I have no idea why anyone would want to spend the money on an 85mm lens and then put a $429 TC on it for indoor sports. Currently it doesn't work with Canon TCs anyway.

I guess third party teleconverters are less expensive, but still. Then again, it could all boil down to the individual's budget. It just doesn't make sense to me personally.

 

[bluenoser1993]

Any chance the 85 f1.4 IS might accept a teleconverter? With design advances you can be sure image quality at 119 f2 would be as good or better than the old 135L. I'd sell the 135 to fund that for sure. It would be killer for gymnasium sports.

None if past and present designs are anything to go by, and that includes new designs by third parties. Having said that that only applies to Canon TC's, don't see why third party TC's wouldn't work.

Considering the price of the current 135mm f/2L I have no idea why anyone would want to spend the money on an 85mm lens and then put a $429 TC on it for indoor sports. Currently it doesn't work with Canon TCs anyway.

I guess third party teleconverters are less expensive, but still. Then again, it could all boil down to the individual's budget. It just doesn't make sense to me personally.

I admit, reading my post again I see I didn't articulate my thoughts very well. Killer for indoor sports at f/1.4 to stop motion in volleyball, and have the ability to put the 1.4x I already own on it for the ocations I'd like to get close to the 135 focal length, still at f/2 and the benifit of IS.

 

[Ozarker]

Any chance the 85 f1.4 IS might accept a teleconverter? With design advances you can be sure image quality at 119 f2 would be as good or better than the old 135L. I'd sell the 135 to fund that for sure. It would be killer for gymnasium sports.

None if past and present designs are anything to go by, and that includes new designs by third parties. Having said that that only applies to Canon TC's, don't see why third party TC's wouldn't work.

Considering the price of the current 135mm f/2L I have no idea why anyone would want to spend the money on an 85mm lens and then put a $429 TC on it for indoor sports. Currently it doesn't work with Canon TCs anyway.

I guess third party teleconverters are less expensive, but still. Then again, it could all boil down to the individual's budget. It just doesn't make sense to me personally.

I admit, reading my post again I see I didn't articulate my thoughts very well. Killer for indoor sports at f/1.4 to stop motion in volleyball, and have the ability to put the 1.4x I already own on it for the ocations I'd like to get close to the 135 focal length, still at f/2 and the benifit of IS.

I don't know about third party teleconverters, but Canon's won't work anyway. I doubt the new 85mm will accept a teleconverter, but who knows?

 

[Ian_of_glos]

Is there a case to be argued for owning both the 85mm F1.2L ii and the new 85mm F1.4?
The new F1.4 lens has some clear advantages - it is lighter (slightly), has IS, faster AF and presumably less chromatic aberration. On the other hand - although the F1.2 ii is difficult to handle it produces some remarkable images that are unlike anything I can produce with any of my other lenses.
Do I go for the F1.4 for moving subjects, outdoor use or more general photography and keep the F1.2 just for extra special studio portraits or is this just a symptom my acute GAS flaring up again?

 

[arthurbikemad]

Is there a case to be argued for owning both the 85mm F1.2L ii and the new 85mm F1.4?
The new F1.4 lens has some clear advantages - it is lighter (slightly), has IS, faster AF and presumably less chromatic aberration. On the other hand - although the F1.2 ii is difficult to handle it produces some remarkable images that are unlike anything I can produce with any of my other lenses.
Do I go for the F1.4 for moving subjects, outdoor use or more general photography and keep the F1.2 just for extra special studio portraits or is this just a symptom my acute GAS flaring up again?

This is the question I have been asking myself.

My fear would be the new lens is so good the 1.2ii will never be used again and become worthless, or they will both have there own look and we should own both, or the 1.2ii will still be King and retain its classic look/rendition and I will have no desire for the new lens. Who knows...? Time will tell.

That said, the new 35 is just AWESOME, but then I think the reviews and test data reflect that, not sure this new 85 has hit it off like the new 35??

 

[SecureGSM]

I am genuinly confused about people keep talking about using IS for freezing the moment for indoor sports like valley ball. Do I miss somethjing here? The only way to "stabilise" a fast moving subject is to increase shutter speed and usually well above 1/500s. at this shutter speed therer is no need for IS at 85mm focal length.
even at 1/250s you still do not need and even at 1/125s if you shoot with a medium pixel density body.
IS is very usefull for video.

as to the idea shooting moving subject with 85mm lens at F1.4:

I wouls suggest the DOF may be so thin that very little will be in focus at all. I mean there are some cases when you can if your object is far enough for the DOF to stay acceptably deep.

as to those special studio shots at F1.2:

not many photogs would choose to shoot wide open in studio. you need decent DOF to keep your subject in focus hence you shoot at apertures F8 and even smaller. there is no shortage of good quality light in studio. you do not need IS for that either as stobes will freese the moment for you anyway. in fact you will be better of swtiching the IS in studio off.
and finaly 85 F1.2 AF ability in low light is quite poor and some studios are quite dark.

If you shoot environmental portraiture, then F1.2 comes handy though.

Is there a case to be argued for owning both the 85mm F1.2L ii and the new 85mm F1.4?
The new F1.4 lens has some clear advantages - it is lighter (slightly), has IS, faster AF and presumably less chromatic aberration. On the other hand - although the F1.2 ii is difficult to handle it produces some remarkable images that are unlike anything I can produce with any of my other lenses.
Do I go for the F1.4 for moving subjects, outdoor use or more general photography and keep the F1.2 just for extra special studio portraits or is this just a symptom my acute GAS flaring up again?

 

[wockawocka]

I am genuinly confused about people keep talking about using IS for freezing the moment for indoor sports like valley ball. Do I miss somethjing here? The only way to "stabilise" a fast moving subject is to increase shutter speed and usually well above 1/500s. at this shutter speed therer is no need for IS at 85mm focal length.
even at 1/250s you still do not need and even at 1/125s if you shoot with a medium pixel density body.
IS is very usefull for video.

as to the idea shooting moving subject with 85mm lens at F1.4:

I wouls suggest the DOF may be so thin that very little will be in focus at all. I mean there are some cases when you can if your object is far enough for the DOF to stay acceptably deep.

as to those special studio shots at F1.2:

not many photogs would choose to shoot wide open in studio. you need decent DOF to keep your subject in focus hence you shoot at apertures F8 and even smaller. there is no shortage of good quality light in studio. you do not need IS for that either as stobes will freese the moment for you anyway. in fact you will be better of swtiching the IS in studio off.
and finaly 85 F1.2 AF ability in low light is quite poor and some studios are quite dark.

If you shoot environmental portraiture, then F1.2 comes handy though.

Is there a case to be argued for owning both the 85mm F1.2L ii and the new 85mm F1.4?
The new F1.4 lens has some clear advantages - it is lighter (slightly), has IS, faster AF and presumably less chromatic aberration. On the other hand - although the F1.2 ii is difficult to handle it produces some remarkable images that are unlike anything I can produce with any of my other lenses.
Do I go for the F1.4 for moving subjects, outdoor use or more general photography and keep the F1.2 just for extra special studio portraits or is this just a symptom my acute GAS flaring up again?

Well kinda. But you need to also factor in that the further away something is the more pronounced hand shake will be. If you've ever tried to shot a photo of the moon at 400mm without IS or a tripod you'll get me.

Then also at 1.4 the further away something is the area of focus is greater. Which is why close up portraits will blow the background but in the seats of a volleyball match the distance is beneficial.

So there's some truth in what you're hearing.

 

[Ian_of_glos]

I am genuinly confused about people keep talking about using IS for freezing the moment for indoor sports like valley ball. Do I miss somethjing here? The only way to "stabilise" a fast moving subject is to increase shutter speed and usually well above 1/500s. at this shutter speed therer is no need for IS at 85mm focal length.
even at 1/250s you still do not need and even at 1/125s if you shoot with a medium pixel density body.
IS is very usefull for video.

as to the idea shooting moving subject with 85mm lens at F1.4:

I wouls suggest the DOF may be so thin that very little will be in focus at all. I mean there are some cases when you can if your object is far enough for the DOF to stay acceptably deep.

as to those special studio shots at F1.2:

not many photogs would choose to shoot wide open in studio. you need decent DOF to keep your subject in focus hence you shoot at apertures F8 and even smaller. there is no shortage of good quality light in studio. you do not need IS for that either as stobes will freese the moment for you anyway. in fact you will be better of swtiching the IS in studio off.
and finaly 85 F1.2 AF ability in low light is quite poor and some studios are quite dark.

If you shoot environmental portraiture, then F1.2 comes handy though.

Is there a case to be argued for owning both the 85mm F1.2L ii and the new 85mm F1.4?
The new F1.4 lens has some clear advantages - it is lighter (slightly), has IS, faster AF and presumably less chromatic aberration. On the other hand - although the F1.2 ii is difficult to handle it produces some remarkable images that are unlike anything I can produce with any of my other lenses.
Do I go for the F1.4 for moving subjects, outdoor use or more general photography and keep the F1.2 just for extra special studio portraits or is this just a symptom my acute GAS flaring up again?

No - Image Stabilisation will not help with moving subjects. It simply allows you to use slower shutter speeds for hand held stills and, as you correctly point out, it is very useful for video work.
The point I was trying to make here was that the autofocus on the 85mm F1.2L is so slow that it is not possible to use it for moving subjects. The AF just cannot keep up so I never try to use my 85m F1.2L if the subject is moving. It is therefore a lens that I use mainly in the studio, for still life shots and for models that sit or stand in one place.
Again, I rarely shoot at F1.2 because my focusing skills are just not that good and anyway, if I am shooting a portrait I usually want most of the facial features to be in focus. Occasionally I will use F1.2 to highlight a particular feature - one number on the face of a clock or an item of jewellery that the model is wearing but for general portrait work I tend to stop down to F5.6 or even F8.
So what is the point of having an F1.2 lens? Well as I said, occasionally I want to produce an arty shot where one item is in focus and everything else is blurred. However there is another, intangible quality to this lens that I simply cannot explain. It is not a lens that is technically perfect but it has produced some really lovely pictures that I could not have produced with any other lens

 

[Ian_of_glos]

Is there a case to be argued for owning both the 85mm F1.2L ii and the new 85mm F1.4?
The new F1.4 lens has some clear advantages - it is lighter (slightly), has IS, faster AF and presumably less chromatic aberration. On the other hand - although the F1.2 ii is difficult to handle it produces some remarkable images that are unlike anything I can produce with any of my other lenses.
Do I go for the F1.4 for moving subjects, outdoor use or more general photography and keep the F1.2 just for extra special studio portraits or is this just a symptom my acute GAS flaring up again?

This is the question I have been asking myself.

My fear would be the new lens is so good the 1.2ii will never be used again and become worthless, or they will both have there own look and we should own both, or the 1.2ii will still be King and retain its classic look/rendition and I will have no desire for the new lens. Who knows...? Time will tell.

That said, the new 35 is just AWESOME, but then I think the reviews and test data reflect that, not sure this new 85 has hit it off like the new 35??

Let me know if you decide to buy a copy of the 85mm F1.4. I would be very interested to hear what you think of it.

Are you referring to the 35mm F1.4L ii? if so then I could not agree more.
This lens has a remarkable quality that most of my other lenses lack and I find I am using it more and more as a general walkabout lens in preference to a zoom.