Some Information About the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS [CR3]

[Mika]

There's been some discussion on the optical design of the objective in this thread. I'm an actual optical designer, but not involved with Canon in any other way than that I just happened to select Canon's camera (20D) in 2006 and have been on that path ever since.

The most straight-forward objective type to design is the normal focal length, that is to say, objective focal length is approximately the same as the sensor diagonal (43.2 mm in full-frame). No doubt you can make it harder with some extra requirements like macro and low F-number, but typically this tends to work out so.

Telephotos are easier in a sense you typically need less elements and aspheres (barring telephoto zooms that can become quite complex), but the difficulty lies in the material requirements and centering tolerances. Two typical aberrations to combat against are spherical aberration and longitudal color; that's where calcium fluoride comes in to play. The focusing mechanism is also occasionally difficult as the mass moving should be minimized, and this is not easy to do always. Telephoto is a bit more stringent in the mechanics and assembly, but somewhat more easier to design optically.

Rectilinear wide-angles are demanding in a sense that there's usually no-avoiding aspheres, and the shorter the focal length, the harder it gets to correct for the distortion. Add in lateral color correction, and ultra-wide primes can become very challenging to design and require a lot of design and optimization time. Ultra-wide zooms are then another tale to tell.

However, the departure from 50 mm to 35 mm or 85 mm is not yet massive. These are still relatively normal focal lengths where the other requires a bit more positive power in front of the aperture stop, and the other a bit more negative.

I do believe the EF85/1.4 IS will be more expensive than EF85/1.2 II. I'm guessing 1.5x - 2x the current objective price. The reason lies in the image stabilizer; 85 mm objective at F/1.4 with a stabilizer is no easy feat, specifically if Canon is upgrading the objective resolution - which they'll likely do. Hopefully the its bokeh remains good, that seems to suffer with stabilized objectives. It does make me wonder whether EF85/1.4 IS is going to be focus by wire. Whether 85/1.4 includes BR remains to be seen.

 

[IglooEater]

So much talk of the Blue Refractive optics. Has Canon advertised it in any other lens than the 35mm 1.4L? I can't recall any mention of it. Canon certainly succeeded in their marketing of that one aspect/feature... other stellar lenses have come out since without any mention of BR

 

[BeenThere]

So much talk of the Blue Refractive optics. Has Canon advertised it in any other lens than the 35mm 1.4L? I can't recall any mention of it. Canon certainly succeeded in their marketing of that one aspect/feature... other stellar lenses have come out since without any mention of BR

Some information on Canon's BR and where they use it:

https://petapixel.com/2016/03/10/canons-new-blue-spectrum-refractive-lens-technology-works/

 

[jolyonralph]

Can I just note that the lens has a 'fluorine' coating, not a 'flourine' coating. At least I hope it's not coated in flour.

 

[tianxiaozhang]

I think the price will be around $1,000. I certainly don't think it's going to be north of $1,500

That would be ideal... I'd probably go for one on day 1...

 

[BeenThere]

If it's optically stellar, and why would they release an L lens that isn't, then I would say ~$2K is in the cards.

 

[Act444]

Looking at the prices of the other 85 1.4s, I think such a lens from Canon will be AT LEAST $2K - especially since IS is being rumored. If it can match or come real close to the performance of the Sigma 85 Art though, I think it will be worth every penny.

 

[jolyonralph]

At the end of the day it all comes down to image quality. The 35mm f/1.4 II justified its cost by it's incredible performance over the older lens. Ditto with the 100-400 II.

But, we don't have anything directly comparable - we can't really compare with either the 85mm 1.8 or the 85mm 1.2 as neither are really the same thing.

If canon can come out with an 85mm with stellar performance then I'm sure they'll price it as high as they absolutely dare.

But, I'm not so optimistic. If it's just good enough, better than the 85 1.8 (which isn't hard) and maybe comparable to the Sigma 85, albeit with VR, then it's unlikely to be priced higher than the 1.2, which will remain the specialist portrait lens.

After the 24-105 II and the 6D II, I'm not convinced that "highest quality regardless of the price" is on the agenda.

 

[YuengLinger]

$2199 USD when first released. And for a year or so after. Save up.

Just guessing.

 

[blackcoffee17]

So much talk of the Blue Refractive optics. Has Canon advertised it in any other lens than the 35mm 1.4L? I can't recall any mention of it. Canon certainly succeeded in their marketing of that one aspect/feature... other stellar lenses have come out since without any mention of BR

http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-600mm-f4-do-br-at-canon-expo/

 

[Jopa]

yeah, another affordable and fast focusing lens

...and is an affordable lens

The Otus 85 doesn't have BR and it's a decent lens nevertheless

Ok, how bout the Milvus 85 then?

Funny But... MF focus speed completely depends on you!

Concerning affordability - I believe it's about the same price as the 85/1.2 II, so it's definitely comparable.

 

[iowapipe]

An fast prime like this would benefit greatly from BR optics technology.

I'm going to be really disappointed if Canon doesn't incorporate it into this lens.

Really? Are you optics designer?

I am only physicist and no specialist in optics: In my opinion BR is helpful for HIGH APERTURE WIDE ANGLE lenses but not effective and/or efficient for tele lenses.

Hmm, I'm a PhD in Astrophysics (Physics degree with a specialization in Astronomy) with a reasonable understating of optics, but not highly compound systems found in camera lenses... and I don't feel the need to spout my degree or LACK OF UNDERSTANDING of an area of optics I've never studied....

Please note I only replied in kind (with capitalizations, like yours) to illustrate my point. Citing a degree in an area unrelated to the one being discussed is no way to engage in a discussion other than to attempt to cow people who may feel intimidated and therefore not offer their opinions or insights.

 

[ahsanford]

I find it interesting that a lens that (most of us) would peg north of $1500 now has some rumored component/element 'tells' that imply it may not be that expensive.

My gut still says:

• It's an L prime, and not a 'slow' one like the relatively inexpensive 100mm f/2.8L Macro, 200mm f/2.8L II, 400 f/5.6L, etc. Fast L primes are historically quite pricey.
  
  
• An f/1.4L IS lens is an industry first for a FF system (if I'm not mistaken), so there's a strong cachet of 'have your cake and eat it too' best-ness for the money-is-no-object crowd. Consider: this would not be unlike an EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS surfacing, which Canon would surely ask around $2k for.
  
  
• It will (likely, speculating) have modern ring USM with FTM mechanical focusing -- not focus by wire -- so it's AF speed and handling will likely entice current 85 f/1.2L II users.
  
  
• It's a 50+ MP world these days and it's a very competitive world these days. I don't think Canon will pump out a 'meh' staple professional tool like an 85 f/1.4. If this was only an enthusiast-grade tool to sit behind the f/1.2L II on the prestige ladder, I don't think it would be an L lens -- I think they'd have just made an 85mm f/1.8 USM II in that case.

...and that would (in my mind) trump any tells that Canon found a way to keep the elements reasonably priced. I'm still expecting a pricey lens here -- north of $1500 -- but I could be wrong.

- A

 

[Yasko]

I think I'm not out on a limb when I say that the new lens might very well be around 2000$. Definitely more expensive than the f/1.2... didnt I read something like the build is similar to the 35 f/1.4? So I guess the price will be, too.

Especially as an optics designer said, that 35 and 85 is pretty much the daily bread and not too far away from the normal focal length which is around 40-50 cm on full frame.

Have a nice monday (I'm out of salt... .)

 

[Viggo]

The 35 L II was nearly twice the price of the 35 L. And it doesn't have IS... I'm thinking this lens, if built and priced similar to 35's will be way north of 2K. The 85 L is $1900 after all these years, are we looking at 2799 on launch here?

I could certainly see it in Norway for close to $3500.

 

[hne]

I find it interesting that a lens that (most of us) would peg north of $1500 now has some rumored component/element 'tells' that imply it may not be that expensive.

My gut still says:

• It's an L prime, and not a 'slow' one like the relatively inexpensive 100mm f/2.8L Macro, 200mm f/2.8L II, 400 f/5.6L, etc. Fast L primes are historically quite pricey.
  
  
• An f/1.4L IS lens is an industry first for a FF system (if I'm not mistaken), so there's a strong cachet of 'have your cake and eat it too' best-ness for the money-is-no-object crowd. Consider: this would not be unlike an EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS surfacing, which Canon would surely ask around $2k for.
  
  
• It will (likely, speculating) have modern ring USM with FTM mechanical focusing -- not focus by wire -- so it's AF speed and handling will likely entice current 85 f/1.2L II users.
  
  
• It's a 50+ MP world these days and it's a very competitive world these days. I don't think Canon will pump out a 'meh' staple professional tool like an 85 f/1.4. If this was only an enthusiast-grade tool to sit behind the f/1.2L II on the prestige ladder, I don't think it would be an L lens -- I think they'd have just made an 85mm f/1.8 USM II in that case.

...and that would (in my mind) trump any tells that Canon found a way to keep the elements reasonably priced. I'm still expecting a pricey lens here -- north of $1500 -- but I could be wrong.

- A

I previously wrote that I don't dare guess the price of a Canon EF 85/1.4L IS, but that I fully expected it to be more expensive than the 35/1.4L II.

$1200-$1600 is the price range of lenses that are long in the tooth or even had a replacement released. Like 50/1.2L, 100-400L, TS-E 90, 70-300 DO, 300/4L IS. That's no bracket of lenses I see Canon releasing new lenses in. Especially nothing world-first like an f/1.4 with image stabilizer. No, either a price in the $1000-$1200 range or $1800-$2200 is my guess. If it is truly coming in between the 85/1.8 and the 85/1.2L, it'd put a bet on just over $1000 and my piggy bank would cry, but if it is anything close to the image quality of the last few L lenses (except perhaps the 24-105/4L II) then definitely we'd be looking at a $2000 lens and me selling a fair chunk of gear to finance a new lens.

 

[Larsskv]

Given the seemingly low number of expensive lens elements, and the competition from the new Sigma 85ART, I would not be too surprised if it is released at a "lower price point", at least lower than the 35LII. To justify a higher price than the 35LII, it should be both better and smaller and lighter than the Sigma, which must be a difficult task. The IS will trigger a premium, but IS could be to some degree defend it from being less sharp than the Sigma, and therefore not raise the price as much as it will if it matches the Sigma in terms of sharpness.

 

[Viggo]

Given the seemingly low number of expensive lens elements, and the competition from the new Sigma 85ART, I would not be too surprised if it is released at a "lower price point", at least lower than the 35LII. To justify a higher price than the 35LII, it should be both better and smaller and lighter than the Sigma, which must be a difficult task. The IS will trigger a premium, but IS could be to some degree defend it from being less sharp than the Sigma, and therefore not raise the price as much as it will if it matches the Sigma in terms of sharpness.

I will gladly pay $1500 extra to have working AF ;D

 

[jolyonralph]

You're all fools!

The price of this lens will be determined by two factors.

1) Cost of manufacture

2) The price the market will bear.


The first is fixed, the second depends on what people EXPECT they should have to pay for the lens.

So every time someone mentions in a public forum that they think this lens will be expensive, it's another point towards Canon raising the entry price.

Of course it's too late now, Canon will have committed to the launch price already.

 

[YuengLinger]

You're all fools!

The price of this lens will be determined by two factors.

1) Cost of manufacture

2) The price the market will bear.


The first is fixed, the second depends on what people EXPECT they should have to pay for the lens.

So every time someone mentions in a public forum that they think this lens will be expensive, it's another point towards Canon raising the entry price.

Of course it's too late now, Canon will have committed to the launch price already.

So guessing the price is driving up the price? Interesting.