A New 85L is on the Way [CR2]

[Mancubus]

lenses that produce a more organic, human rendering

That's the most creative excuse for a poor performing lens I've ever seen. There is nothing human/organic about a piece of glass/metal, whether it's made in the 50's by Leica or in 2016 by Zeiss.

Give me a sharper lens over old technology optics any day.

 

[romanr74]

Optically, this design is a direct descendant of the FD 85/1.2L.

Not really. They are very different within the context of the Double Gauss design, which is the basis for thousands of lenses.

In particular the aspherical element is very different in the two designs.

VERY different...

 

[Loswr]

Optically, this design is a direct descendant of the FD 85/1.2L.

Not really. They are very different within the context of the Double Gauss design, which is the basis for thousands of lenses.

In particular the aspherical element is very different in the two designs.

It all depends on how you define 'direct descendant'. For example, one could argue that my Zeiss multiphoton microscope is a direct descendant of Antonie van Leeuwenhoek's microscope.

Well, I'm off to look at some animalcules.

 

[Alex_M]

I like your light meter ( at 1 o'clock top, right). Is that a new Sekonic that was just anounced at the Photokina? Can you also share a photo of the battery pack that powers the beast?

 

[addola]

That would be interesting, and I guess they need to keep it at f/1.2 because that sits it apart from competitors that don't offer any FF lenses with f/1.2 that has autofocus. I guess this is the merit of having a larger mount than Sony & Nikon.

However, I think the 135L needs to be upgraded with that BR optics thing. It's performance would probably beat Zeiss's 135s. I wouldn't be amazed if a new 85L gave Otus-like quality at half the price.

I better start saving!

 

[turtle]

Why do you see it as an 'excuse', rather than an articulation of why some people prefer certain types of optics for certain applications? Perhaps this is because you assume everyone wants the sharpest possible lens with loads of contrast etc. You may - fair enough - but not everyone does, especially when it comes to photographing people.

With regard to rendering, you misunderstand: I am not talking about the lens as an end result, but its effect on the end result: the photo. Lenses differ and this affects the rendering of the image. We can use whatever subjective terms we like to describe real observable differences in image characteristics and the lens that gets us to the desired result most quickly and easily is surely the tool we choose.

Would I prefer a low flare Zeiss to a 1940s Leica lens for night photography? It depends on what I am trying to achieve, right?

This is not a case of 'the new lens vs. the old lens: there can only be one winner'. I'm sure the new lens will be outstanding in many respects. Whether everyone prefers it for all applications remains to be seen. Going by recent trends in optical designs, some people will continue reaching for slightly (or much) older designs. Just ask Paolo Roversi.

lenses that produce a more organic, human rendering

That's the most creative excuse for a poor performing lens I've ever seen. There is nothing human/organic about a piece of glass/metal, whether it's made in the 50's by Leica or in 2016 by Zeiss.

Give me a sharper lens over old technology optics any day.

 

[Loswr]

Why do you see it as an 'excuse', rather than an articulation of why some people prefer certain types of optics for certain applications? Perhaps this is because you assume everyone wants the sharpest possible lens with loads of contrast etc. You may - fair enough - but not everyone does, especially when it comes to photographing people.

lenses that produce a more organic, human rendering

That's the most creative excuse for a poor performing lens I've ever seen. There is nothing human/organic about a piece of glass/metal, whether it's made in the 50's by Leica or in 2016 by Zeiss.

Give me a sharper lens over old technology optics any day.

People like evaluating lenses based on sharpness because it's easily measured, quantitative, and can be represented (albeit poorly) by a single number. Most people have little to no comprehension of optical technology, and therefore fail to understand the compromises that must be made in other, more subjective aspects of optical performance in favor of maximal sharpness.

Put bluntly, a simple criterion is a good match for a simple mind.

 

[Ozarker]

Why do you see it as an 'excuse', rather than an articulation of why some people prefer certain types of optics for certain applications? Perhaps this is because you assume everyone wants the sharpest possible lens with loads of contrast etc. You may - fair enough - but not everyone does, especially when it comes to photographing people.

lenses that produce a more organic, human rendering

That's the most creative excuse for a poor performing lens I've ever seen. There is nothing human/organic about a piece of glass/metal, whether it's made in the 50's by Leica or in 2016 by Zeiss.

Give me a sharper lens over old technology optics any day.

People like evaluating lenses based on sharpness because it's easily measured, quantitative, and can be represented (albeit poorly) by a single number. Most people have little to no comprehension of optical technology, and therefore fail to understand the compromises that must be made in other, more subjective aspects of optical performance in favor of maximal sharpness.

Put bluntly, a simple criterion is a good match for a simple mind.

Then there's getting in the horrible position of having an extremely sharp lens that female subjects hate you for. That's probably my ineptitude with Photoshop more than the len's fault, but still... sometimes things can be too sharp for certain subjects. Especially if the smile lines run far too deep and are too numerous to handle.

Then again, some people don't want to accept the fact that they are aging, and maybe not gracefully.

Looking forward to the new 85L.

Now when will we get a body with auto wrinkle eliminator?

 

[Loswr]

Then there's getting in the horrible position of having an extremely sharp lens that female subjects hate you for. That's probably my ineptitude with Photoshop more than the lenses fault, but still... sometimes things can be too sharp for certain subjects. Especially if the smile lines run far too deep and are too numerous to handle.

 

[Larsskv]

Why do you see it as an 'excuse', rather than an articulation of why some people prefer certain types of optics for certain applications? Perhaps this is because you assume everyone wants the sharpest possible lens with loads of contrast etc. You may - fair enough - but not everyone does, especially when it comes to photographing people.

lenses that produce a more organic, human rendering

That's the most creative excuse for a poor performing lens I've ever seen. There is nothing human/organic about a piece of glass/metal, whether it's made in the 50's by Leica or in 2016 by Zeiss.

Give me a sharper lens over old technology optics any day.

People like evaluating lenses based on sharpness because it's easily measured, quantitative, and can be represented (albeit poorly) by a single number. Most people have little to no comprehension of optical technology, and therefore fail to understand the compromises that must be made in other, more subjective aspects of optical performance in favor of maximal sharpness.

Put bluntly, a simple criterion is a good match for a simple mind.

I have read this article a couple of times. The author claims complex modern high performance lenses doesn't render depth as well as older lens designs, and I think he may have a point.

http://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/

I've examined pictures from different lenses I've had, and found the the Sigma35ART makes somewhat flat looking images. The much simpler Canon 28 f2.8 IS on the other hand makes pictures with more depth in them, I think.

The problem is that it is hard to replicate results that shows differences in depth rendering between lenses. Light, distance, shadows, focal lengths and aperture comes into play. Even so, I found especially that 28 f2.8 to make images with a lot of depth in them, compared to many other lenses.

I didn't agree to the article at first, but after looking at my own pictures, I changed my mind, and now find the article to be very interesting. I don't know if his theory is correct, but i think he is on to something.

 

[NancyP]

Some of the old lenses render very well. That article makes the common sense observation that not all lenses are perfect for all types of shooting.

I am curious about the Laowa 105 apodization lens, myself.

 

[Ozarker]

Then there's getting in the horrible position of having an extremely sharp lens that female subjects hate you for. That's probably my ineptitude with Photoshop more than the lenses fault, but still... sometimes things can be too sharp for certain subjects. Especially if the smile lines run far too deep and are too numerous to handle.

Ahhhhh.... the Fountain of Youth! Thanks!

 

[Ozarker]

Some of the old lenses render very well. That article makes the common sense observation that not all lenses are perfect for all types of shooting.

I am curious about the Laowa 105 apodization lens, myself.

Thanks for that Nancy. I'm putting that on my list right below my triopan dream. I'd love some extra cash right now.

 

[Refurb7]

Why do you see it as an 'excuse', rather than an articulation of why some people prefer certain types of optics for certain applications? Perhaps this is because you assume everyone wants the sharpest possible lens with loads of contrast etc. You may - fair enough - but not everyone does, especially when it comes to photographing people.

lenses that produce a more organic, human rendering

That's the most creative excuse for a poor performing lens I've ever seen. There is nothing human/organic about a piece of glass/metal, whether it's made in the 50's by Leica or in 2016 by Zeiss.

Give me a sharper lens over old technology optics any day.

People like evaluating lenses based on sharpness because it's easily measured, quantitative, and can be represented (albeit poorly) by a single number. Most people have little to no comprehension of optical technology, and therefore fail to understand the compromises that must be made in other, more subjective aspects of optical performance in favor of maximal sharpness.

Put bluntly, a simple criterion is a good match for a simple mind.

I have read this article a couple of times. The author claims complex modern high performance lenses doesn't render depth as well as older lens designs, and I think he may have a point.

http://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/

I've examined pictures from different lenses I've had, and found the the Sigma35ART makes somewhat flat looking images. The much simpler Canon 28 f2.8 IS on the other hand makes pictures with more depth in them, I think.

The problem is that it is hard to replicate results that shows differences in depth rendering between lenses. Light, distance, shadows, focal lengths and aperture comes into play. Even so, I found especially that 28 f2.8 to make images with a lot of depth in them, compared to many other lenses.

I didn't agree to the article at first, but after looking at my own pictures, I changed my mind, and now find the article to be very interesting. I don't know if his theory is correct, but i think he is on to something.

Of course, many factors go into lens quality, not just sharpness. No one knows that better than Canon. Even so, I find that article to be silly and amateurish. His "lens intention diagrams" don't describe anything real. He is a pretend lens "expert" who sees what he wants to see and who then lords his pretended expertise over those who disagree with him.

 

[drmikeinpdx]

Tamron 85mm F/1.8

I got tired of waiting and picked up the new stabilized Tamron 85mm F/1.8.

It's noticeably sharper than the Canon 85mm F/1.8 that I used for a few years and way lighter than the Canon 85mm F/1.2 L that I rented. Not to mention much less expensive than the 85 L!

Focus performance is excellent on my 5D3.

As for rendering, I'm not completely sure about that yet. It does have a different look, but I'm not sure how to describe it.

So if you are in need of a medium priced 85mm lens, don't forget to look at the Tamron.

https://www.amazon.com/Tamron-AFF016C700-85mm-Lens-Black/dp/B01CIXJLI8/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1475109274&sr=1-2&keywords=tamron+85mm+1.8

Also... don't forget the lowly Canon 85mm F/1.8 either. Stop it down 2/3 of a stop and you get good subject/background separation. Add in the excellent autofocus, light weight and low price and you have a great value. What's a little chromatic aberration among friends?

 

[Larsskv]

Why do you see it as an 'excuse', rather than an articulation of why some people prefer certain types of optics for certain applications? Perhaps this is because you assume everyone wants the sharpest possible lens with loads of contrast etc. You may - fair enough - but not everyone does, especially when it comes to photographing people.

lenses that produce a more organic, human rendering

That's the most creative excuse for a poor performing lens I've ever seen. There is nothing human/organic about a piece of glass/metal, whether it's made in the 50's by Leica or in 2016 by Zeiss.

Give me a sharper lens over old technology optics any day.

People like evaluating lenses based on sharpness because it's easily measured, quantitative, and can be represented (albeit poorly) by a single number. Most people have little to no comprehension of optical technology, and therefore fail to understand the compromises that must be made in other, more subjective aspects of optical performance in favor of maximal sharpness.

Put bluntly, a simple criterion is a good match for a simple mind.

I have read this article a couple of times. The author claims complex modern high performance lenses doesn't render depth as well as older lens designs, and I think he may have a point.

http://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/

I've examined pictures from different lenses I've had, and found the the Sigma35ART makes somewhat flat looking images. The much simpler Canon 28 f2.8 IS on the other hand makes pictures with more depth in them, I think.

The problem is that it is hard to replicate results that shows differences in depth rendering between lenses. Light, distance, shadows, focal lengths and aperture comes into play. Even so, I found especially that 28 f2.8 to make images with a lot of depth in them, compared to many other lenses.

I didn't agree to the article at first, but after looking at my own pictures, I changed my mind, and now find the article to be very interesting. I don't know if his theory is correct, but i think he is on to something.

Of course, many factors go into lens quality, not just sharpness. No one knows that better than Canon. Even so, I find that article to be silly and amateurish. His "lens intention diagrams" don't describe anything real. He is a pretend lens "expert" who sees what he wants to see and who then lords his pretended expertise over those who disagree with him.

That was my initial impression too, but my own research supports much of what he is claiming. As I said, I don't think he has it all correct/right, but there are definitely differences in how different lenses renders depth, and the sharp Sigma lenses seems to be bad in that regard.

 

[Maiaibing]

Its going to be interesting, but I fear the new lens will be so optically outstanding that it will make less appealing portraits than the current lens. With all manufacturers being forced to produce 'optical lasers' (because that's what the market demands), lenses that produce a more organic, human rendering are going to get harder to find. When the new lens is introduced might be the perfect time to buy the old one

Tip:

1) In the old days we used to smear vaseline on the front of the lens to create an artistic effect - try it if you need to

2) Today software is your friend - no need for unsharp lenses anymore

 

[Mikehit]

I have read this article a couple of times. The author claims complex modern high performance lenses doesn't render depth as well as older lens designs, and I think he may have a point.

http://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/

I've examined pictures from different lenses I've had, and found the the Sigma35ART makes somewhat flat looking images. The much simpler Canon 28 f2.8 IS on the other hand makes pictures with more depth in them, I think.

The problem is that it is hard to replicate results that shows differences in depth rendering between lenses. Light, distance, shadows, focal lengths and aperture comes into play. Even so, I found especially that 28 f2.8 to make images with a lot of depth in them, compared to many other lenses.

I didn't agree to the article at first, but after looking at my own pictures, I changed my mind, and now find the article to be very interesting. I don't know if his theory is correct, but i think he is on to something.

Is that about focal length of the lens or is that about the glass materials and/or the coatings? Would a comparison of different 35mm/28mm have the same result?

 

[Loswr]

Today software is your friend - no need for unsharp lenses anymore

Let me repeat, with emphasis.

People like evaluating lenses based on sharpness because it's easily measured, quantitative, and can be represented (albeit poorly) by a single number. Most people have little to no comprehension of optical technology, and therefore fail to understand the compromises that must be made in other, more subjective aspects of optical performance in favor of maximal sharpness.

Do you believe the current 50L and 85L are a bit soft wide open is because Canon couldn't figure out how to make them sharp? They are not maximally sharp wide open because spherical aberration was deliberately left undercorrected in the optical design, in favor of improved bokeh.

Here's a good read: http://toothwalker.org/optics/spherical.html

In a contest between optical physics and software, optical physics will win.

 

[Larsskv]

I have read this article a couple of times. The author claims complex modern high performance lenses doesn't render depth as well as older lens designs, and I think he may have a point.

http://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/

I've examined pictures from different lenses I've had, and found the the Sigma35ART makes somewhat flat looking images. The much simpler Canon 28 f2.8 IS on the other hand makes pictures with more depth in them, I think.

The problem is that it is hard to replicate results that shows differences in depth rendering between lenses. Light, distance, shadows, focal lengths and aperture comes into play. Even so, I found especially that 28 f2.8 to make images with a lot of depth in them, compared to many other lenses.

I didn't agree to the article at first, but after looking at my own pictures, I changed my mind, and now find the article to be very interesting. I don't know if his theory is correct, but i think he is on to something.

Is that about focal length of the lens or is that about the glass materials and/or the coatings? Would a comparison of different 35mm/28mm have the same result?

According to the article, it has a connection with the amounts of glass elements that is used to correct different aberrations. The theory seems to be based upon a claim, that older and simpler lens designs, preserve/create a better depth rendition than never and more complex designs.

Personally I found the images from the 24-70 f/2.8LII to have a lot of depth to them, contradicting the theory in the article. Further, my 35LII also render depth in a very good way, so the number of glass elements cannot tell the whole story.

The biggest thing for me personally is that I have been more aware of the rendering of depth from my various lenses, but I wonder why it is so.