Canon Announces the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM

[can0nfan2379]

Really looking forward to this. Part of me wonders with marketing this lens between the other two 85's if the 1.2L will get a refresh in the next 6-12 months as well. That would give people a budget lens, a moderate priced 85L and then the top of the line 85L.

 

[jdavidse]

Really looking forward to this. Part of me wonders with marketing this lens between the other two 85's if the 1.2L will get a refresh in the next 6-12 months as well. That would give people a budget lens, a moderate priced 85L and then the top of the line 85L.

Give us a 50mm first

 

[Ruined]

I would totally buy this lens because I have been wanting a more practical f/1.4 version of the 85 f/1.2 due to that lens' autofocus issues (slow, drive by wire, extending barrel, etc). My only concern is that I will pick this up and Canon will release an 85mm f/1.2L III that has less autofocus compromises. Then again, maybe that's just not possible with f/1.2 at 85mm.

If this offers the same type of practicality improvement the 50mm f/1.2L offered over the 50mm f/1.0L while retaining most of the magic from the 85L f/1.2L II, then this is the lens for me.

 

[snoke]

what is obvious to you?

you easy upset. best say nothing. apologies.

 

[cellomaster27]

Wow! I'm very surprised at the price point of this lens! I was expecting >2000. Hopefully this will end up in my bag sooner than later!

 

[Sharlin]

The developer interview was actually surprisingly readable using Google Translate. Even most of the technical stuff was translated properly.

 

[Jopa]

just wanted to clarify. yes, i was talking about up close tight portrait situation at 85mm strictly. 35mm should not be a problem at 1/20s provided I have something to lean against to avoid camera shake. (a wall, a chair, a pilar, etc).

I think that's more like how much % a person takes in the frame, than the 1/focal_length rule (which is still applicable for static objects to eliminate the hands shake effect). For a close up on a 35mm I'd take the same 1/100 to 1/160s (to be sure . If the person is far and the movements are less noticeable (and DoF is much deeper) 1/40s on a 35mm shouldn't be a problem. 1/20s - as you said with extra support and "extra care" probably. Or if @privatebydesign is taking pics of dead or on some kind of drugs people - 1/4s seems to be ok too. Would love to see those pics.

 

[BeenThere]

Hey, the living dead can still be pretty active -- from what I hear.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Great - now all that's remaining is to see the IQ tests. Unfortunately my hopes for high sharpness have dimmed somewhat but ultimately the proof will be in the pudding.

 

[JRPhotos]

I have the 85 1.2 and am for the most part, no happy with it. When it works it produces some great images but that focusing is off on my 5DMKIV. Maybe it's me, but I used another and it's the same problem.

I'll probably check this one out.

 

[Tangent]

Well I think Rudy does a good job with these videos.

 

[wsmith96]

I'm looking forward to trying this lens for indoor sports. On a crop you might get great high school football shots when the teams are close to you as well.

 

[padam]

I'm looking forward to trying this lens for indoor sports. On a crop you might get great high school football shots when the teams are close to you as well.

The 135L on a FF body is a credible alternative for that, lighter, cheaper, at least as sharp, almost as close focusing (with a limiter function for even faster AF) and the lack of IS isn't really a problem.
I wonder which combination would provide a better hit-rate or a more pleasing look.

 

[Viggo]

I'm looking forward to trying this lens for indoor sports. On a crop you might get great high school football shots when the teams are close to you as well.

The 135L on a FF body is a credible alternative for that, lighter, cheaper, at least as sharp, almost as close focusing (with a limiter function for even faster AF) and the lack of IS isn't really a problem.
I wonder which combination would provide a better hit-rate or a more pleasing look.

I've been using the 135 with the 1dx2 for kids soccer and the hitrate isn't anywhere near what i expect. The 200 f2 is stellar so I try using that instead.

Hopefully this new 85 will be a better option.

 

[mjg79]

I am keen to see some real world results from good photographers with this lens.

Given how competitive the 85mm market is and what a key piece of equipment it is for wedding photographers I can't believe Canon won't have produced something that performs very well.

I do find it curious though that Canon seems determined that this doesn't replace the 85/1.2 II. I wonder if the market will see it that way though. If the new 85/1.4 matches the image quality of the old lens but one assumes has much better autofocus and is superior for control of chromatic aberrations and obviously has IS, I would expect most buyers to go for the new lens and by a fairly substantial margin.

Yes 1.2 sounds enticing but Canon has generally been a company that tries to be sensible and goes for the overall experience. Some people were disappointed that the 200/1.8 was replaced with a 200/2.0 IS and others complained that the 50/1.0 was replaced, years later, by a 50/1.2 but in most situations the newer lenses are superior and much easier to use. I have the feeling that will be the case here too.

So although Canon insists they will keep selling a 1.2 L version and a 1.4L version is this a realistic outlook or are they just waiting to shift the remaining stock of 1.2 lenses? It would be fascinating to know if they are still being produced.

 

[aceflibble]

So it's 0.2 f-stops slower (but very likely the same t-stop), more-than-compensated for by IS, it'll for sure focus better and it will most likely be sharper and be better-corrected. (Hell, it's not like it could be any worse than the f/1.2.) And it's cheaper. It is slightly bigger, but it's not like the f/1.2 was ever going to win any awards for compactness or weight anyway.

They may say it's not replacing the 85mm f/1.2L, and that may be true on paper, but in reality there's no practical reason for the f/1.2 to continue being manufactured after this. You'd have to be utterly insane to pay the premium for that extra 0.2 f-stop as well as taking the hit on AF/aberration/etc.

Well I think Rudy does a good job with these videos. 8)

Except he still says 'I-S-O' erroneously. Nobody working for any major camera manufacturer should be getting such basic terminology wrong, let alone in a new product announcement video.

 

[Chub84]

So it's 0.2 f-stops slower (but very likely the same t-stop), more-than-compensated for by IS, it'll for sure focus better and it will most likely be sharper and be better-corrected. (Hell, it's not like it could be any worse than the f/1.2.) And it's cheaper. It is slightly bigger, but it's not like the f/1.2 was ever going to win any awards for compactness or weight anyway.

They may say it's not replacing the 85mm f/1.2L, and that may be true on paper, but in reality there's no practical reason for the f/1.2 to continue being manufactured after this. You'd have to be utterly insane to pay the premium for that extra 0.2 f-stop as well as taking the hit on AF/aberration/etc.

My guess is that the drawing won't be like the 85 f/1.2, which will be a big difference for people looking for the exotic look. I just bought a 50 f/1.2 L not because it's the sharpest lens, because Sigma and Zeiss do it better, but because of the fantastic rendering it gives me for my professional work. People who need the 85 f/1.2 will still buy it regardless. All of the sample images I've seen with the 85 f/1.4 L IS haven't looked nearly as "special" as the 1.2, but I still pre-ordered the 1.4 because it will be much more efficient at its job, and that pays the bills too. I look at it this way: for events and other fast paced shooting situations, get the 1.4. But if you've got time to get the stars aligned, the 1.2 will still give you the ultimate in image quality, including from a "drawing" perspective.

 

[Diltiazem]

Sample images in Flickr.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/142429005@N06/36080797903/in/photostream/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/142429005@N06/36080795093/in/dateposted/

 

[aceflibble]

My guess is that the drawing won't be like the 85 f/1.2, which will be a big difference for people looking for the exotic look. I just bought a 50 f/1.2 L not because it's the sharpest lens, because Sigma and Zeiss do it better, but because of the fantastic rendering it gives me for my professional work. People who need the 85 f/1.2 will still buy it regardless. All of the sample images I've seen with the 85 f/1.4 L IS haven't looked nearly as "special" as the 1.2, but I still pre-ordered the 1.4 because it will be much more efficient at its job, and that pays the bills too.

See, I sold my two f/1.2Ls (the first version a while back; bought the mk II hoping it'd solve my complaints and sold that when it didn't) specifically because neither lens managed to provide either a 'special' look nor a technically proficient one. (My work has historically been a 50/50 split, sometimes needing absolute technical perfection and other times needing a lot of purposeful imperfection as clients' style dictates.)
In other words, they were far too generic to be of any use to either side of my work, and given the size and value of them, I couldn't in good conscience justify keeping them for personal/casual shooting. (As it happens, I moved to the 100mm f/2.8L IS for the technical stuff and for the 'special' work I just gave up on Canon and switched to Mamiya 6x7 with a Hasselblad digital back.)

But I should also disclose that I had the same experience with the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 , their 85mm equivalent. So maybe I should just stop paying attention to 85s.

 

[Chub84]

My guess is that the drawing won't be like the 85 f/1.2, which will be a big difference for people looking for the exotic look. I just bought a 50 f/1.2 L not because it's the sharpest lens, because Sigma and Zeiss do it better, but because of the fantastic rendering it gives me for my professional work. People who need the 85 f/1.2 will still buy it regardless. All of the sample images I've seen with the 85 f/1.4 L IS haven't looked nearly as "special" as the 1.2, but I still pre-ordered the 1.4 because it will be much more efficient at its job, and that pays the bills too.

See, I sold my two f/1.2Ls (the first version a while back; bought the mk II hoping it'd solve my complaints and sold that when it didn't) specifically because neither lens managed to provide either a 'special' look nor a technically proficient one. (My work has historically been a 50/50 split, sometimes needing absolute technical perfection and other times needing a lot of purposeful imperfection as clients' style dictates.)
In other words, they were far too generic to be of any use to either side of my work, and given the size and value of them, I couldn't in good conscience justify keeping them for personal/casual shooting. (As it happens, I moved to the 100mm f/2.8L IS for the technical stuff and for the 'special' work I just gave up on Canon and switched to Mamiya 6x7 with a Hasselblad digital back.)

But I should also disclose that I had the same experience with the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 , their 85mm equivalent. So maybe I should just stop paying attention to 85s.

Certainly, nothing for a DSLR, no matter how highly touted, will be able to recreate the magic of 6x7 or larger formats. So yes, I agree if that's what you're looking for, but then that comes with its own hurdles as well. I used to shoot 6x6 film and know exactly what you're talking about, but that in itself is not practical enough for the majority of my clients. Horses for courses.