Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM

YuengLinger

EOS R5
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,579
2,043
USA
ScottyP said:
Nice shots everyone. Does it seem this lens shoots with a little bit of a cool quality? Maybe I am used to my Sigma 35 which shoots a little warm.

Is your working monitor calibrated?
 

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,856
1,499
Here's a couple of shots from the last few days. Really like the 85 IS, the 85mm FL suits me so much better than the 135 and longer. My princess doesn't cooperate that much, but I'll take what I can get.

The one with the pink sweater and the one the chair are both with the Siros and triple diffused 1x4' stripbox. The one from outside is with the Siros and the BeautyBox65 without diffuser, just the deflector.


m679.jpg

m677_2.jpg

m678.jpg
 

Click

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 29, 2012
15,034
3,913
Canada
So cute :) Beautiful portraits, Viggo. I especially like the last one. Well done.
 

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,856
1,499
Click said:
So cute :) Beautiful portraits, Viggo. I especially like the last one. Well done.

Thanks Click! I so want a second light for some fill/edge, but hey :D
 

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,856
1,499
Sporgon said:
I can see that Viggo's daughter will be getting an agent soon and charging her Dad fir all this modelling ! ;D

Haha! Glad she doesn't read english, she needs no such ideas, lol ;D
 

Tyroop

EOS 90D
Jun 30, 2013
124
14
Some great shots in this thread. This is a lens that I'd really love to own, especially for the addition of IS, but my EF 85mm f/1.8 still produces pretty good images for an old lens. The image attached was taken with my old 40D, which has now bitten the dust. Lenses have been so good for so long that the law of diminishing returns applies. When I upgraded from the non-IS to IS version of the 70-200mm f/4L I loved the IS, but the improvement in IQ was barely noticeable. This is why I can't imagine there will be a massive improvement with a 70-200mm f/4L IS Mark 2 because the original is so good. Nice to be able to upgrade to the latest technology if you can afford it, but I think there's still a lot of mileage to be had from old lenses.
 

Attachments

  • water_market_7_external.jpg
    water_market_7_external.jpg
    179.7 KB · Views: 205

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,856
1,499
YuengLinger said:
Excellent portraits, Viggo. Great use of lighting.

Here's one that shows how a close, busy background is handled by the lens. She's about one meter in front of the shrub, and I'm about two meters from her. Heavy-overcast midday light, f/1.4, ISO 200, 1/1600th

While I see the 1.4L IS working very well with skin tones and colors in general, I'm kind of missing the "vintage" look of out-of-focus areas that the 1.2L produced. But giving up the slow AF was the right move. The IS, so far, doesn't seem as good as on the 100-400 II, or on the 70-200 2.8 II. What do you think?

Thanks!

I really like the bokeh of the 85 IS, both in your shot and others. The colors are great too.

I’ve tested the IS and it’s almost 100% hit with 4 stops and about 60-70% with 5 stops so I find it to be as spec’d. What I do notice with this and other IS lenses is that if you’re not already steady when activating IS it will perhaps use the “auto-panning” mode and not activate both directions. I then find it faster to let go the button until IS stops and then activate it again.
 

YuengLinger

EOS R5
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,579
2,043
USA
Viggo said:
YuengLinger said:
Excellent portraits, Viggo. Great use of lighting.

Here's one that shows how a close, busy background is handled by the lens. She's about one meter in front of the shrub, and I'm about two meters from her. Heavy-overcast midday light, f/1.4, ISO 200, 1/1600th

While I see the 1.4L IS working very well with skin tones and colors in general, I'm kind of missing the "vintage" look of out-of-focus areas that the 1.2L produced. But giving up the slow AF was the right move. The IS, so far, doesn't seem as good as on the 100-400 II, or on the 70-200 2.8 II. What do you think?

Thanks!

I really like the bokeh of the 85 IS, both in your shot and others. The colors are great too.

I’ve tested the IS and it’s almost 100% hit with 4 stops and about 60-70% with 5 stops so I find it to be as spec’d. What I do notice with this and other IS lenses is that if you’re not already steady when activating IS it will perhaps use the “auto-panning” mode and not activate both directions. I then find it faster to let go the button until IS stops and then activate it again.

Interesting observation. I'll try the same!
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,322
1,002
Yorkshire, England
Tyroop said:
Some great shots in this thread. This is a lens that I'd really love to own, especially for the addition of IS, but my EF 85mm f/1.8 still produces pretty good images for an old lens. The image attached was taken with my old 40D, which has now bitten the dust. Lenses have been so good for so long that the law of diminishing returns applies. When I upgraded from the non-IS to IS version of the 70-200mm f/4L I loved the IS, but the improvement in IQ was barely noticeable. This is why I can't imagine there will be a massive improvement with a 70-200mm f/4L IS Mark 2 because the original is so good. Nice to be able to upgrade to the latest technology if you can afford it, but I think there's still a lot of mileage to be had from old lenses.

I can sympathise with you here. I've had around five or so copies of the 85/1.8 over the years, and my latest one, which is of recent production is head and shoulders above the others. Also moving to the 5DS from 5DII has meant that the AF accuracy is now on the nail about 90% of the time, and when you really ping the focus chromatic aberration is lessened.

The big issue for me though is camera shake. To optimise the 5DS's performance I'm having to shoot at least over the 1/250 to 1/500th region, depending upon how much coffee I've had or how pretty the model is. As the 5DS isn't the worlds best performing camera at higher ISOs I'm kinda thinking I need an 85 with IS.
 

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,856
1,499
A little update here, I’ve been going back and forth with afma between -3 and -4, it’s hard to tell the difference between those two, but I decided to take my own advice ; when the afma isn’t perfect the stability goes out the window. So while I can’t mostly tell if -4 or -4 is most accurate I can tell a huge difference in the stability. Going away from -3 and using -4 exclusively I’ve practically eliminilated all those “wth-misses” and while the 85 IS AF isn’t a match for the 35 L II, it’s now much more predictable and stable.
 

YuengLinger

EOS R5
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,579
2,043
USA
Viggo said:
A little update here, I’ve been going back and forth with afma between -3 and -4, it’s hard to tell the difference between those two, but I decided to take my own advice ; when the afma isn’t perfect the stability goes out the window. So while I can’t mostly tell if -4 or -4 is most accurate I can tell a huge difference in the stability. Going away from -3 and using -4 exclusively I’ve practically eliminilated all those “wth-misses” and while the 85 IS AF isn’t a match for the 35 L II, it’s now much more predictable and stable.

Nearly the identical experience and situation here with the AFMA. I think there is just too much glass moving to expect it to perform as a sports lens, but the odd misses, rarer now, are still disconcerting.

The 35mm 1.4 II is a true gem, but even it takes its time with AF going from mid-distance to close. Still, as you say, quicker!
 

CanonGrunt

C70
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2012
239
156
Shot at 1.4. Took it rather quickly so not my best, but the bokeh is quite beautiful on this lens. Colors are great.
 

Attachments

  • 22D53797-E738-4BF4-866B-6BC1BC94B91F.jpeg
    4.7 MB · Views: 183

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,203
908
Davidson, NC
CanonGrunt said:
Shot at 1.4. Took it rather quickly so not my best, but the bokeh is quite beautiful on this lens. Colors are great.

At 1.4 it makes your point about the lens much better than it shows the nice-looking dog. It would need to be stopped down to make the nose and the left ear both in focus at least for my tastes. I started to included the neckerchief in that, but it likely would be OK if the whole head were sharp.

Is the dog as nice as he/she looks to be?
 

CanonGrunt

C70
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2012
239
156
stevelee said:
CanonGrunt said:
Shot at 1.4. Took it rather quickly so not my best, but the bokeh is quite beautiful on this lens. Colors are great.

At 1.4 it makes your point about the lens much better than it shows the nice-looking dog. It would need to be stopped down to make the nose and the left ear both in focus at least for my tastes. I started to included the neckerchief in that, but it likely would be OK if the whole head were sharp.

Is the dog as nice as he/she looks to be?

Yes!! She's a sweetheart. Her name is Harley-Quinn. :) And, also yes, you would have to stop down to f/2 just to get her whole head in focus. A decent bokeh test though. Was also shot out 3 1/2 feet away from her.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,621
5,967
CanonGrunt said:
... you would have to stop down to f/2 just to get her whole head in focus. A decent bokeh test though. Was also shot out 3 1/2 feet away from her.

With respect, assuming the dog's head is around 6" from nose to ears and you were 3.5' away, you'd have to stop down to f16 to get the nose eyes and ears in "acceptable focus".

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
 

Click

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 29, 2012
15,034
3,913
Canada
CanonGrunt said:
Shot at 1.4. Took it rather quickly so not my best, but the bokeh is quite beautiful on this lens. Colors are great.

Very nice portrait. Well done, CanonGrunt. :)
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,203
908
Davidson, NC
privatebydesign said:
CanonGrunt said:
... you would have to stop down to f/2 just to get her whole head in focus. A decent bokeh test though. Was also shot out 3 1/2 feet away from her.

With respect, assuming the dog's head is around 6" from nose to ears and you were 3.5' away, you'd have to stop down to f16 to get the nose eyes and ears in "acceptable focus".

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Maybe the ear and the tip of the nose could be a little soft at some stop in between, then, and/or take a step back from the dog. But I like the effect of the distortion from being too close. Works better with dogs than with people, apparently. I do have an interesting print from about 1972 of a shot of a friend that I took with a fisheye lens. I must have been almost up to his nose. It may turn out that the dog picture would lose a lot its charm and immediacy with more thought in the technique.