85mm f/1.2L II or 85mm f/1.4L IS?
- Thread starter Ozarker
- Start date
edoorn said:
Thanks for confirming the AF, I think many of us are expecting a 35L II in the 85mm focal length optically, but lost in the mix I personally presumed a much much faster AF over the rather famously slow (vs. other USM lenses) f/1.2L II.
LR's Roger Cicala pointed out that a nice use for an 85 prime is indoor sports -- basketball, v'ball and such -- and he always recommended the 85 f/1.8 USM over the f/1.2L II solely because of the AF speed differences.
- A
Upvote
0
thank you for sharing this information. is there any chance that you will be able to take a photo of an open book close up and angled?
I am curious to know how bad CA level really is? here is an example ( by Dustin Abbott)
I am curious to know how bad CA level really is? here is an example ( by Dustin Abbott)
edoorn said:
Upvote
0
I'll see what I can do today! Using it on a group portrait assignment later this morning.
AF seems to be top tier level, more like 35 II than 85 1.8. That's the reason I got it. The Tammy I have is no slouch but lacks in pure AF speed (in particular tracking) and low light accuracy.
AF seems to be top tier level, more like 35 II than 85 1.8. That's the reason I got it. The Tammy I have is no slouch but lacks in pure AF speed (in particular tracking) and low light accuracy.
Upvote
0
yeah I've heard that from a fellow pro photog who had the sigma (now has the tamron but wants this one). I played with his lens for a morning and although sharpness is great and center AF generally fine, I experienced issues with outer point too.
From my very initial findings, this 85 does great on outer points.
edit: added tripod wide open shot of Canon vs Tamron (focussed in LV, 2 second timer and adjusted shutter for 1.8 vs 1.4 - 100% crop with my default LR preset and sharpening; Canon of course has not yet a lens correction profile yet)
From my very initial findings, this 85 does great on outer points.
edit: added tripod wide open shot of Canon vs Tamron (focussed in LV, 2 second timer and adjusted shutter for 1.8 vs 1.4 - 100% crop with my default LR preset and sharpening; Canon of course has not yet a lens correction profile yet)
Attachments
Upvote
0
I don't know much about the technical stuff, but the LoCA is what you see in the letters, the slight purple cast? To be fair, the Tamron doesnt show this, also when lens profile correction is off. However, manually setting the defringe amount in LR to a setting of 1 eliminates it.
Attachments
Upvote
0
F1.8 was the shutter speed, apparently:
...adjusted shutter for 1.8 vs 1.4...
but you are right, correctable. but here is this bit:
"... There is pretty massive difference between the amount of purple fringing on the Sigma 85 Art compared to the Tamron 85 VC, and as a result the Sigma results look softer even though it is technically sharper. This is also bad news for wedding photographers – all of those shiny surfaces you want to shoot at shallow depth of field are definitely going to show some CA. While just clicking the “Remove Chromatic Aberrations” box didn’t remove the CA, I was able to use the eyedropper and successfully clear it up. There is some resulting loss of contrast, though, which makes the end result suffer when compared to the Tamron result. You can see the comparison before correction with the Tamron, the comparison of the result before correction with the corrected image, and then a final comparison with the Tamron that illustrates the loss of contrast due to the correction of the CA...."
and
"... I also followed up the CA test by shooting text and comparing it with a similar shot taken with the Otus 85mm. The purple fringing is clearly evident, and I feel that it is robbing the lens of some “micro contrast”, which I feel is backed up in my field results..."
and
"... Frankly, I’m disappointed after more closely examining these issues. It seems strange that such a huge lens would actually come up a bit short in focal length (A.M.: 83mm instead of 85mm, big deal apparently) , and equally strange that a lens so clearly designed around optical performance would have so much chromatic aberration. ...
and finally Otus 85 vs Sigma 85 Art.
now replace "Sigma 85 Art" with "Canon 85 F1.4 IS" and apparently LoCA level does matter. At least according to Dustin Abbott review. Dustin is disappointed, he felt Sigma 85 Art is somewhat compromised due LoCA levels while they are still correctable. yes, correctable but at cost of IQ loss - that what Dustin said. right?
Does the statement of Dustin "strange that a lens so clearly designed around optical performance would have so much chromatic aberration" still applies to Canon 85 F1.4 IS? I believe it does. Canon is also twice more expensive : Sigma at A$1,050 (with discount) vs Canon 85 F1.4 IS at over A$2,000
I am not saying that Canon isn't an excellent lens. I am saying : not a clear winner in my book. that's all.
https://dustinabbott.net/2016/12/sigma-85mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-review/
...adjusted shutter for 1.8 vs 1.4...
but you are right, correctable. but here is this bit:
"... There is pretty massive difference between the amount of purple fringing on the Sigma 85 Art compared to the Tamron 85 VC, and as a result the Sigma results look softer even though it is technically sharper. This is also bad news for wedding photographers – all of those shiny surfaces you want to shoot at shallow depth of field are definitely going to show some CA. While just clicking the “Remove Chromatic Aberrations” box didn’t remove the CA, I was able to use the eyedropper and successfully clear it up. There is some resulting loss of contrast, though, which makes the end result suffer when compared to the Tamron result. You can see the comparison before correction with the Tamron, the comparison of the result before correction with the corrected image, and then a final comparison with the Tamron that illustrates the loss of contrast due to the correction of the CA...."
and
"... I also followed up the CA test by shooting text and comparing it with a similar shot taken with the Otus 85mm. The purple fringing is clearly evident, and I feel that it is robbing the lens of some “micro contrast”, which I feel is backed up in my field results..."
and
"... Frankly, I’m disappointed after more closely examining these issues. It seems strange that such a huge lens would actually come up a bit short in focal length (A.M.: 83mm instead of 85mm, big deal apparently) , and equally strange that a lens so clearly designed around optical performance would have so much chromatic aberration. ...
and finally Otus 85 vs Sigma 85 Art.
now replace "Sigma 85 Art" with "Canon 85 F1.4 IS" and apparently LoCA level does matter. At least according to Dustin Abbott review. Dustin is disappointed, he felt Sigma 85 Art is somewhat compromised due LoCA levels while they are still correctable. yes, correctable but at cost of IQ loss - that what Dustin said. right?
Does the statement of Dustin "strange that a lens so clearly designed around optical performance would have so much chromatic aberration" still applies to Canon 85 F1.4 IS? I believe it does. Canon is also twice more expensive : Sigma at A$1,050 (with discount) vs Canon 85 F1.4 IS at over A$2,000
I am not saying that Canon isn't an excellent lens. I am saying : not a clear winner in my book. that's all.
https://dustinabbott.net/2016/12/sigma-85mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-review/
privatebydesign said:SecureGSM said:thank you very much. yeah.. a fair amount of LoCA present in Canon image.
No, not for an f1.4 wide open and without a lens profile.
And again, it is very easily removed.
Upvote
0
I guess then there is no 85 winner at all and it’s a compromise. But as someone that has used about all autofocussing 85’s (canon 85 1.2 II, canon 1.8, old sigma 1.4 and sigma art, tamron 1.8 vc and now this) I think this might the best allrounder yet 
Upvote
0
edoorn said:I guess then there is no 85 winner at all and it’s a compromise. But as someone that has used about all autofocussing 85’s (canon 85 1.2 II, canon 1.8, old sigma 1.4 and sigma art, tamron 1.8 vc and now this) I think this might the best allrounder yet
+1 in theory but I'll wait for reviews.
On paper, the new one should win on a host of fronts (sharpness, having IS, much faster AF, mechanical manual focusing, etc.) while the magic / bokeh / light falloff may remain better with the f/1.2L II. But we need reviews to suss that out.
But if that turns out to be the case, most of us should choose the new one over the old one (if money is no object):
Dedicated portraiture with ample time to chimp, adjust, etc. --> f/1.2L II (or the 85 Otus?)
Bokeh fanatic enthusiasts who say things like "You only buy this to shoot it wide open" :
--> f1/2.L IIVideo --> f/1.4L IS
Events --> f/1.4L IS
Weddings --> f/1.4L IS
Sports (pretty rare need for a prime like this, but if you did) -- f/1.4L IS
Reportage --> couldn't tell you
Product --> couldn't tell you (do folks use non-tilt-shift / non-macro 85-90 primes for product?)
Street --> f/1.4L IS
Landscape --> either (or neither, honestly, a zoom would be more useful and just as sharp at landscape apertures)
- A
(P.S. Sorry if this is a repost to this thread, forgot if I posted this here before.)
Upvote
0
Well, for me personally not just in theory but in practice - having used them all now.
YMMV as you already say. For people shooting only portraits the 1.2 look might be a reason to get that, and for others seeking a fair balance in price vs performance the Tamron, for instance. Or for a bit more, a great sigma art copy that is working fine AF-wise (there sure seem to be copies out there)
I think this lens is indeed targeted at those shooting events, weddings, etc. It would have been great if the lens would have had the BR optics like the 35 but I can live with it and clean up CA in post. Just wonder why they didn't add it..cost?
YMMV as you already say. For people shooting only portraits the 1.2 look might be a reason to get that, and for others seeking a fair balance in price vs performance the Tamron, for instance. Or for a bit more, a great sigma art copy that is working fine AF-wise (there sure seem to be copies out there)
I think this lens is indeed targeted at those shooting events, weddings, etc. It would have been great if the lens would have had the BR optics like the 35 but I can live with it and clean up CA in post. Just wonder why they didn't add it..cost?
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:edoorn said:I guess then there is no 85 winner at all and it’s a compromise. But as someone that has used about all autofocussing 85’s (canon 85 1.2 II, canon 1.8, old sigma 1.4 and sigma art, tamron 1.8 vc and now this) I think this might the best allrounder yet
+1 in theory but I'll wait for reviews.
On paper, the new one should win on a host of fronts (sharpness, having IS, much faster AF, mechanical manual focusing, etc.) while the magic / bokeh / light falloff may remain better with the f/1.2L II. But we need reviews to suss that out.
But if that turns out to be the case, most of us should choose the new one over the old one (if money is no object):
Dedicated portraiture with ample time to chimp, adjust, etc. --> f/1.2L II (or the 85 Otus?)
Bokeh fanatic enthusiasts who say things like "You only buy this to shoot it wide open" :
Video --> f/1.4L IS
Events --> f/1.4L IS
Weddings --> f/1.4L IS
Sports (pretty rare need for a prime like this, but if you did) -- f/1.4L IS
Reportage --> couldn't tell you
Product --> couldn't tell you (do folks use non-tilt-shift / non-macro 85-90 primes for product?)
Street --> f/1.4L IS
Landscape --> either (or neither, honestly, a zoom would be more useful and just as sharp at landscape apertures)
- A
(P.S. Sorry if this is a repost to this thread, forgot if I posted this here before.)
Y U NO mention the Sigma 85A? It's not worse than the Otus 85 (the CA is correctable).
Upvote
0
SecureGSM said:
The Otus is nice, but it's a real pain to shoot it even on a Sony body (with focus peaking + IBIS). I pretty much never use it after getting the Sigma. I feel if I get this Canon I will probably give up the Sigma: IS + fast and reliable AF = convenience. No one wants to have extra pain if it can be avoided IMHO.
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:Jopa said:
Yeah, I regret even putting the Otus down as this rebuttal would be inevitable.
If you need AF and it cannot miss, it's a choice between the two Ls. If you don't, the Sigma Art should 100% be considered.
- A
True. Also, it could be just me - but I had quite a few misses with the 85II. I think the AF motor just couldn't keep up...
Upvote
0
Jopa said:
I'm not saying an large aperture L lens won't ever miss. But Canon lens' AF routines/communication with Canon bodies surely is more reliable/consistent/responsive than third party offerings.
I welcome an AF hit rate and AF speed test of any and all 85 primes on a Canon body. I'll be brave and say the new 85 f/1.4L IS will will be top of the heap on both fronts (speed for sure, accuracy/consistency we'll have to see).
- A
Upvote
0
Review
I may have missed a few posts in the discussion since it started, so I'll stick to factual observations in my mini-review/first impressions.
Background
I picked up my lens in Sydney yesterday, it had been shipped in earlier in the day. I had hoped to 'test' the lens in store, before 'deciding' to buy, but the truth is I had already decided several months ago when I first heard about launch - despite already owning the 1.2.
The store denied the request to try the lens before purchase. A little unusual, but I would rather that no-one else is allowed to try 'my' lens before I buy it.
Equipment
I brought my 1DC with me on this trip, along with the 85/1.2. The 1DC is fitted with an L-bracket. This is not a travel combination!
Ergonomics
I have always found the 1D/1.2 combination awkward to hold, and a little un-balanced. This isn't helped by the L-bracket, but that's not the sole cause. In contrast, the 85/1.2 on the 6D felt much better.
With the 1.4 being significantly longer, and uniform diameter, this is a much better combination (for me) on the 1D series. It's also considerably easier to mount than the 1.2.
The pouch LP-1219(?), same model as the the 1.2, has a noticeably larger aperture - which actually makes it usable! Returning the 1.2 & hood to the pouch was always a real fiddle.
Whether it was the ergonomics, or the shoot, I have hardly used the 1.2 in the 2 years I have owned my ’dream' lens.
Auto-Focus
I have not taken enough images yet to genuinely determine an improvement, but it does feel to be a massive improvement, which I will need for indoor sports. This was the main reason for my upgrade.
Image Quality
Again I don't have enough samples to determine the 'better' lens, but I am attaching some samples and will link the original RAW for those who wish to peep!
Caveat
The shots wil the 1.4 were taken first, and the camera/lens combo was easy to hold.
The shots with the 1.2 were up to 30 minutes later, and I had a little difficulty holding steady.
Also the 1.2 needs(?) AFMA, which I applied after the aircraft shot...
... and it seems I didn't stand in exactly the same place for the comparison shots...
No tripod was used in the execution of what was intended to be a private review.
Summary
I would be hard pushed to pick between these images, but ergonomically the 1.4 is the winner.
I expect that IS performance and AF acquisition will push me to sell the 1.2 without remorse.
I may have missed a few posts in the discussion since it started, so I'll stick to factual observations in my mini-review/first impressions.
Background
I picked up my lens in Sydney yesterday, it had been shipped in earlier in the day. I had hoped to 'test' the lens in store, before 'deciding' to buy, but the truth is I had already decided several months ago when I first heard about launch - despite already owning the 1.2.
The store denied the request to try the lens before purchase. A little unusual, but I would rather that no-one else is allowed to try 'my' lens before I buy it.
Equipment
I brought my 1DC with me on this trip, along with the 85/1.2. The 1DC is fitted with an L-bracket. This is not a travel combination!
Ergonomics
I have always found the 1D/1.2 combination awkward to hold, and a little un-balanced. This isn't helped by the L-bracket, but that's not the sole cause. In contrast, the 85/1.2 on the 6D felt much better.
With the 1.4 being significantly longer, and uniform diameter, this is a much better combination (for me) on the 1D series. It's also considerably easier to mount than the 1.2.
The pouch LP-1219(?), same model as the the 1.2, has a noticeably larger aperture - which actually makes it usable! Returning the 1.2 & hood to the pouch was always a real fiddle.
Whether it was the ergonomics, or the shoot, I have hardly used the 1.2 in the 2 years I have owned my ’dream' lens.
Auto-Focus
I have not taken enough images yet to genuinely determine an improvement, but it does feel to be a massive improvement, which I will need for indoor sports. This was the main reason for my upgrade.
Image Quality
Again I don't have enough samples to determine the 'better' lens, but I am attaching some samples and will link the original RAW for those who wish to peep!
Caveat
The shots wil the 1.4 were taken first, and the camera/lens combo was easy to hold.
The shots with the 1.2 were up to 30 minutes later, and I had a little difficulty holding steady.
Also the 1.2 needs(?) AFMA, which I applied after the aircraft shot...
... and it seems I didn't stand in exactly the same place for the comparison shots...
No tripod was used in the execution of what was intended to be a private review.
Summary
I would be hard pushed to pick between these images, but ergonomically the 1.4 is the winner.
I expect that IS performance and AF acquisition will push me to sell the 1.2 without remorse.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Similar threads
