The Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM Has Started Shipping in North America

[Ozarker]

the perceived AF consistency issue of Sigma 85 Art is quite irrelevant to most studio shooters as you typically shoot stopped down to F8 or thereabouts and (preferably) tethered. events shooters is a completely different story though. the size, weight and AF speed/consistency is of paramount importance for this crowd.
there is a nice manual focus ring on the lens and it does work i have been told., there are some interesting MF only lenses around that are also less than great in AF department but still cost 3 times your new Canon.
It is all about confidence.isn't it.

I'm confident in Canon. Wouldn't pay for a Zeiss either. AF is important to me. It would still be important to me if I had a studio. I could always turn off the AF. Can't turn it on if it isn't there. If it is a Sigma lens it might as well not have AF. Don't like wasting shutter count when it can be avoided.

 

[Ozarker]

With all I've read about Sigma's problems with AF I would never buy one. If somebody gave me one I'd not take it out of the box. I'd immediately sell the Sigma and put the money towards a Canon lens. Every Canon lens I have performs very well in the AF department (The ones with AF.). For me there is no reason to pay for an AF turd from Sigma. I get those for free every morning and apparently more consistently than Sigma's AF. I can buy a Canon lens and be confident the got dang thing will work. If it breaks I know Canon will fix it and do so quickly. I don't personally care how much less the price of the Sigma is.

Before anyone says that I must have a lot of money to not worry about price I must tell you that you'd be wrong. I live on less than $20k a year and have to make every penny count when I buy my gear. I'm not about to hand Sigma a penny. Canon works for me every time. Canon gets my money because Canon instills confidence when it comes to quality.

I'll wait a couple of years to see whether a new 85 f/1.2L is released. If not, I'll buy the Canon 85 f/1.4L IS. I am confident either will be very good lenses.

This is the one thing that Canon can never compromise on... reliability! They are slow to introduce new features because they need to be work no matter what! Many of us will forgo the gadget of the day, or we will gladly pay a bit more for that feeling of trust and the knowledge that there is a real service department to back us up when S____ happens.....

Exacto mundo!!!

 

[jd7]

«Build quality: Draw»

I’m feeling this is judged by feeling the weight, and bouncing them around in the hand and go; “yeeessh, they’re equal”

I get the impression that is how most reviewers assess build quality - that and whether the exterior is metal or plastic (despite the high quality plastics available these days) - so personally I don't put much store at all by what reviewers say about build quality. The tear downs that Lens Rentals do are an obvious exception, although even then the real test is how a large number of copies of a lens perform over the course of years (if you can possibly get that information).

From what I've seen so far - but realising there isn't that much information available yet for the Canon - I would prefer the Canon 85 1.4L IS over the Sigma 85 Art for its lighter weight, smaller size and IS, but I would prefer the Sigma for its optics and price. From everything I have read, I am yet to be convinced there is a problem with the Sigma's AF (although I am sure there are bad copies out there, of course, just as I am sure there are bad copies of the Canon).

 

[Viggo]

Does anybody know if the 85 IS has a panning-mode with the IS? I know it doesn’t have the physical switch, but aren’t some of the new IS lenses auto-detecting when panning?


*EDIT* found the manual and indeed it does auto detect in both orientations. NICE!

 

[SecureGSM]

An interesting blog post by Lens Rentals:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/11/testing-lenses-best-individual-focus-mtf-curves/

Sigma Cine 85mm T1.5 (A.M.: 85 Art lens in cine body)

“... I am unworthy. There is moderately mind-boggling goodness all the way to the edge...”

(C) Roger Cicala

There is no chance for the new Canon 85 IS to come close to these results.

 

[Apop]

I guess (hope) it could mean there will be a successor to the 85 1.2 (without IS) 2600-3200$ somewhere in the coming years to go for stellar IQ.

The canon 85 1.4L IS still has my interest , but i'd have to treat it more as a F1.8 - F2.0 lens with the option of shooting 1.4 if incredible IQ is not a requirement

Looks to be a really nice jack of all trades , master of none type of lens

 

[privatebydesign]

There is no chance for the new Canon 85 IS to come close to these results.

Who cares?

What you are saying is a $1,600 AF lens with IS couldn't be as sharp as a $3,500 manual focus only cinema prime? What is your point? Something that has much less functionality and cost over twice as much is better in some areas?

Some of you guys really need to get a life. :

 

[neuroanatomist]

There is no chance for the new Canon 85 IS to come close to these results.

Who cares?

What you are saying is a $1,600 AF lens with IS couldn't be as sharp as a $3,500 manual focus only cinema prime? What is your point? Something that has much less functionality and cost over twice as much is better in some areas?

Some of you guys really need to get a life. :

+1

Guess what? I bet the Canon CN-E 85mm T1.3 is optically better than the Sigma 85/1.4A. But no one with a modicum of sense would compare the two.

 

[SecureGSM]

PBD,

So that you are aware. Sigma Cine 85 T1.5 is Sigma 85 Art : A$1,100 street price vs Canon 85 1.4 IS : A$2,300
I mentioned that. Get it now?
Roger clearly stated this: same optics.

Here:

“... Today, I’m going to present data from Canon, Sigma, Rokinon, and Zeiss Cinema primes. Why? Because those are the same as the photo primes optically, so what happens with the Cine lenses is representative of what will happen with photo lenses. ..”

(C) Roger Cicala

Roger gets it.

Neuro,

There is mtf for your Canon cine 85 T1.3 lens in that blog post as well.
Not even close. at least you tried.

Canon

Sigma

I suggest you read the article and what Roger and others have commented on the subject.

I am pretty confident that I am getting this life very well paying how much I paid for what Sigma 85 Art is.

Provided that in portraiture one rarely put his subject in the dead centre of the frame, the Sigma is the lens for portrait togs who get the life.

There some spectacular comments by Roger here as well.

Now, both of you guys do not care. That’s is obvious. Fine. Others do.

There is no chance for the new Canon 85 IS to come close to these results.

Who cares?

What you are saying is a $1,600 AF lens with IS couldn't be as sharp as a $3,500 manual focus only cinema prime? What is your point? Something that has much less functionality and cost over twice as much is better in some areas?

Some of you guys really need to get a life. :

 

[Apop]

PBD,

So that you are aware. Sigma Cine 85 T1.5 is Sigma 85 Art : A$1,100 street price vs Canon 85 1.4 IS : A$2,300
I mentioned that. Get it now?
Roger clearly stated this: same optics.

Here:

“... Today, I’m going to present data from Canon, Sigma, Rokinon, and Zeiss Cinema primes. Why? Because those are the same as the photo primes optically, so what happens with the Cine lenses is representative of what will happen with photo lenses. ..”

(C) Roger Cicala

Roger gets it.

Neuro,

There is mtf for your Canon cine 85 T1.3 lens in that blog post as well.
Not even close. at least you tried.

Canon

Sigma

I suggest you read the article and what Roger and others have commented on the subject.

I am pretty confident that I am getting this life very well paying how much I paid for what Sigma 85 Art is.

Provided that in portraiture one rarely put his subject in the dead centre of the frame, the Sigma is the lens for portrait togs who get the life.

There some spectacular comments by Roger here as well.

Now, both of you guys do not care. That’s is obvious. Fine. Others do.

There is no chance for the new Canon 85 IS to come close to these results.

Who cares?

What you are saying is a $1,600 AF lens with IS couldn't be as sharp as a $3,500 manual focus only cinema prime? What is your point? Something that has much less functionality and cost over twice as much is better in some areas?

Some of you guys really need to get a life. :

Nice to have information/data... , sharpness is only one of the aspects i take into consideration.

On a forum like this there seems to be a correlation between the numbers of posts and level of objectivity ;p.

 

[privatebydesign]

PBD,

So that you are aware. Sigma Cine 85 T1.5 is Sigma 85 Art : A$1,100 street price vs Canon 85 1.4 IS : A$2,300
I mentioned that. Get it now?
Roger clearly stated this: same optics.

Here:

“... Today, I’m going to present data from Canon, Sigma, Rokinon, and Zeiss Cinema primes. Why? Because those are the same as the photo primes optically, so what happens with the Cine lenses is representative of what will happen with photo lenses. ..”

(C) Roger Cicala

Roger gets it.

No the Sigma Art is not the Sigma Cine Prime, they have the same optical formula. They are not built to the same optical or mechanical standards.

The two lenses you compared are priced at $3,499 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=sigma%20cine%2085&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search= and $1,599 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1354803-REG/canon_ef_85mm_f_1_4l_is.html

Those are facts.

I get it.

"is representative of what will happen with photo lenses" NOT, the same as what will happen with photo lenses. He is saying these are not the results you will get with the same optical formula from a photo lens, but the general differences should translate. Yet you insist on comparing a Cine lens to the possible results from a photo lens, Roger doesn't.

Roger gets it.

Now to the the actual question you are burning up inside trying to hit everybody over the head with, is the new Canon 85 f1.4 L IS as sharp as the Sigma 85 Art? My answer is, who cares other than measurebators? The question anybody interested in taking pictures with any lens should be, is it sharp enough for my intended use and output? To which the obvious answer is yes, the Canon is plenty sharp enough for all but the most foolish of pixel peeping measurebators. Then the question becomes, how much do I value first party engineering over third party, how reliable is the AF, how much do I value IS, is weight a factor, etc etc.

Anybody that gives sharpness a second thought in any modern lens is missing so much, sharpness is so overrated and is just a given for these things nowadays. As a photographer go look at other photographers work, in print, up close, you will see bad processing, distortion, aberrations, clumsy cloning etc way before you think, 'it's not sharp'.

 

[Apop]

PBD,

So that you are aware. Sigma Cine 85 T1.5 is Sigma 85 Art : A$1,100 street price vs Canon 85 1.4 IS : A$2,300
I mentioned that. Get it now?
Roger clearly stated this: same optics.

Here:

“... Today, I’m going to present data from Canon, Sigma, Rokinon, and Zeiss Cinema primes. Why? Because those are the same as the photo primes optically, so what happens with the Cine lenses is representative of what will happen with photo lenses. ..”

(C) Roger Cicala

Roger gets it.

No the Sigma Art is not the Sigma Cine Prime, they have the same optical formula. They are not built to the same optical or mechanical standards.

The two lenses you compared are priced at $3,499 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=sigma%20cine%2085&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search= and $1,599 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1354803-REG/canon_ef_85mm_f_1_4l_is.html

Those are facts.

I get it.

"is representative of what will happen with photo lenses" NOT, the same as what will happen with photo lenses. He is saying these are not the results you will get with the same optical formula from a photo lens, but the general differences should translate. Yet you insist on comparing a Cine lens to the possible results from a photo lens, Roger doesn't.

Roger gets it.

Now to the the actual question you are burning up inside trying to hit everybody over the head with, is the new Canon 85 f1.4 L IS as sharp as the Sigma 85 Art? My answer is, who cares other than measurebators? The question anybody interested in taking pictures with any lens should be, is it sharp enough for my intended use and output? To which the obvious answer is yes, the Canon is plenty sharp enough for all but the most foolish of pixel peeping measurebators. Then the question becomes, how much do I value first party engineering over third party, how reliable is the AF, how much do I value IS, is weight a factor, etc etc.

Anybody that gives sharpness a second thought in any modern lens is missing so much, sharpness is so overrated and is just a given for these things nowadays. As a photographer go look at other photographers work, in print, up close, you will see bad processing, distortion, aberrations, clumsy cloning etc way before you think, 'it's not sharp'.

Interesting viewpoint, i take it then we should all conform to your interpretation..
supporter of subjective relativism by any chance?

I'll determine for myself what my requirements are ; I like a nice and comfortable observer to register the external world as perceived by us ; canon fits my hands better than other cameras i've tried

nothing wrong in comparing the different qualities of the glasses we give our observer ; those who don't care don't have to read anything about it....

, for those that do care about certain aspects of a lens (sharpness, contrast, aberrations , AF(speed , consistency) , IS effectiveness, vignetting , rendering , bokeh or whatever anyone is interested in.) it's only nice that there are lots of folks providing tons of information ( and a lot of unnecessary opinions )

 

[neuroanatomist]

Anybody that gives sharpness a second thought in any modern lens is missing so much, sharpness is so overrated and is just a given for these things nowadays. As a photographer go look at other photographers work, in print, up close, you will see bad processing, distortion, aberrations, clumsy cloning etc way before you think, 'it's not sharp'.

Sharpness is important – post processing can only create artificial detail, a sharper lens captures real detail. You can always soften an image, if desired.

But importantly, sharpness is just one of the myriad of characteristics of a lens. It gets hammered on by review sites, and thus receives an overinflated importance, simply because it is easy to measure.

 

[privatebydesign]

PBD,

So that you are aware. Sigma Cine 85 T1.5 is Sigma 85 Art : A$1,100 street price vs Canon 85 1.4 IS : A$2,300
I mentioned that. Get it now?
Roger clearly stated this: same optics.

Here:

“... Today, I’m going to present data from Canon, Sigma, Rokinon, and Zeiss Cinema primes. Why? Because those are the same as the photo primes optically, so what happens with the Cine lenses is representative of what will happen with photo lenses. ..”

(C) Roger Cicala

Roger gets it.

No the Sigma Art is not the Sigma Cine Prime, they have the same optical formula. They are not built to the same optical or mechanical standards.

The two lenses you compared are priced at $3,499 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=sigma%20cine%2085&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search= and $1,599 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1354803-REG/canon_ef_85mm_f_1_4l_is.html

Those are facts.

I get it.

"is representative of what will happen with photo lenses" NOT, the same as what will happen with photo lenses. He is saying these are not the results you will get with the same optical formula from a photo lens, but the general differences should translate. Yet you insist on comparing a Cine lens to the possible results from a photo lens, Roger doesn't.

Roger gets it.

Now to the the actual question you are burning up inside trying to hit everybody over the head with, is the new Canon 85 f1.4 L IS as sharp as the Sigma 85 Art? My answer is, who cares other than measurebators? The question anybody interested in taking pictures with any lens should be, is it sharp enough for my intended use and output? To which the obvious answer is yes, the Canon is plenty sharp enough for all but the most foolish of pixel peeping measurebators. Then the question becomes, how much do I value first party engineering over third party, how reliable is the AF, how much do I value IS, is weight a factor, etc etc.

Anybody that gives sharpness a second thought in any modern lens is missing so much, sharpness is so overrated and is just a given for these things nowadays. As a photographer go look at other photographers work, in print, up close, you will see bad processing, distortion, aberrations, clumsy cloning etc way before you think, 'it's not sharp'.

Interesting viewpoint, i take it then we should all conform to your interpretation..
supporter of subjective relativism by any chance?

I'll determine for myself what my requirements are ; I like a nice and comfortable observer to register the external world as perceived by us ; canon fits my hands better than other cameras i've tried

nothing wrong in comparing the different qualities of the glasses we give our observer ; those who don't care don't have to read anything about it....

, for those that do care about certain aspects of a lens (sharpness, contrast, aberrations , AF(speed , consistency) , IS effectiveness, vignetting , rendering , bokeh or whatever anyone is interested in.) it's only nice that there are lots of folks providing tons of information ( and a lot of unnecessary opinions )

You can do whatever you like, my suggestions are common sense and SecureGSM has been banging on and on across threads about how poor the sharpness of the Canon is against the Sigma, even though nobody has done comparative lab/resolution tests yet. Before that he was going on about how awesome his personal Sigma AF was, and wouldn't listen to any other Sigma owners who said theirs wasn't good.

My point was, if sharpness is your only purchasing metric then photography is probably not your main interest in camera lenses, and I don't have a problem with that, get whatever you want for whatever reason you want. But to make unfair comparisons opens a poster up to challenges. Comparing a same optical formula manual focus Cine Prime to a theoretical test of an AF and IS photo prime that cost less than half as much has limited real world relevance.

Further, if sharpness is your main goal you already have the options, just get an Otus, but that is not the market Canon are trying to compete in with the 85mm f1.4 L IS. Besides very few people, if any, could actually reliably tell the difference between shots taken with the Canon, the Zeiss or the Sigma when put in front of them as prints and if that is the case, which given other blind test results I don't doubt for a second, then other factors should be the deciding influences for people looking to buy a lens for the express purpose of taking pictures and showing them to people.

If the AF or IS or weight etc results in more keepers, then surely that is a more important metric than sharpness? Is that not just common sense?

I bought the 100L Macro over the non L macro, some say the L macro is slightly less sharp than the older and simpler lens, but guess what? The IS and more rugged build give me the confidence to get more keepers, so the llpmm and few hundred dollars more were worth it to me for my uses.

 

[Don Haines]

I bought the 100L Macro over the non L macro, some say the L macro is slightly less sharp than the older and simpler lens, but guess what? The IS and more rugged build give me the confidence to get more keepers, so the llpmm and few hundred dollars more were worth it to me for my uses.

several years ago, I was trying to make up my mind between the 100L and the regular 100 macro..... I had both of them borrowed and couldn't make up my mind if the L was worth the extra money or not..... until I tried taking pictures of butterflies in flight. The L lens had about 25 percent of the shots in focus, the regular 100 failed to hit focus, except for one or two times.... If you can't get focus, the sharpness or cost do not matter.

 

[privatebydesign]

I bought the 100L Macro over the non L macro, some say the L macro is slightly less sharp than the older and simpler lens, but guess what? The IS and more rugged build give me the confidence to get more keepers, so the llpmm and few hundred dollars more were worth it to me for my uses.

several years ago, I was trying to make up my mind between the 100L and the regular 100 macro..... I had both of them borrowed and couldn't make up my mind if the L was worth the extra money or not..... until I tried taking pictures of butterflies in flight. The L lens had about 25 percent of the shots in focus, the regular 100 failed to hit focus more than one or two times.... If you can't get focus, the sharpness or cost do not matter.

Thanks Don, I thought I was alone for a while there.

 

[Don Haines]

I bought the 100L Macro over the non L macro, some say the L macro is slightly less sharp than the older and simpler lens, but guess what? The IS and more rugged build give me the confidence to get more keepers, so the llpmm and few hundred dollars more were worth it to me for my uses.

several years ago, I was trying to make up my mind between the 100L and the regular 100 macro..... I had both of them borrowed and couldn't make up my mind if the L was worth the extra money or not..... until I tried taking pictures of butterflies in flight. The L lens had about 25 percent of the shots in focus, the regular 100 failed to hit focus more than one or two times.... If you can't get focus, the sharpness or cost do not matter.

Thanks Don, I thought I was alone for a while there.

It is a gear site..... sometimes we get lost in the specs and fail to consider how well (or not) items work.... and particularly when you get into poor conditions..... just about everything works great on a nice sunny day, but head out into the bush at dusk when the flies are out and the sun is low on the horizon and behind clouds and then see how well that picture of a 12 point buck turns out....

 

[leadin2]

I bought the 100L Macro over the non L macro, some say the L macro is slightly less sharp than the older and simpler lens, but guess what? The IS and more rugged build give me the confidence to get more keepers, so the llpmm and few hundred dollars more were worth it to me for my uses.

several years ago, I was trying to make up my mind between the 100L and the regular 100 macro..... I had both of them borrowed and couldn't make up my mind if the L was worth the extra money or not..... until I tried taking pictures of butterflies in flight. The L lens had about 25 percent of the shots in focus, the regular 100 failed to hit focus more than one or two times.... If you can't get focus, the sharpness or cost do not matter.

Thanks Don, I thought I was alone for a while there.

Same experiences. I owned both but sold the old 100. The 100L was definitely the keeper due to the useability.

 

[Random Orbits]

...

Further, if sharpness is your main goal you already have the options, just get an Otus, but that is not the market Canon are trying to compete in with the 85mm f1.4 L IS. Besides very few people, if any, could actually reliably tell the difference between shots taken with the Canon, the Zeiss or the Sigma when put in front of them as prints and if that is the case, which given other blind test results I don't doubt for a second, then other factors should be the deciding influences for people looking to buy a lens for the express purpose of taking pictures and showing them to people.

If the AF or IS or weight etc results in more keepers, then surely that is a more important metric than sharpness? Is that not just common sense?

I bought the 100L Macro over the non L macro, some say the L macro is slightly less sharp than the older and simpler lens, but guess what? The IS and more rugged build give me the confidence to get more keepers, so the llpmm and few hundred dollars more were worth it to me for my uses.

If the 85 f/1.4L IS has AF as good as the 35L II, then I'll be interested in it. I tried taking pictures of indoor volleyball earlier in the week, and I was hitting ISOs around 6400-12,800 (shutter speed around 1/500s) with the 135L at f/2. The 135mm focal length was too long for where I was standing but 35mm was too wide. The 50L and 85L II don't focus (accuracy and speed) as well as 35L II and 135L.

 

[LSXPhotog]

I had a bit of a setback yesterday due to illness and I wasn't able to complete the testing I wanted. Now I'm behind on product images I'm doing, so I think I may have to put this project aside until the weekend. I have a shoot on Sunday where I plan to put the Canon 85mm through its paces...and I may almost exclusively use the lens, as it's a family portrait session.

So this new lens is incredibly sharp. I am honestly at the point where I think the lens is every bit as sharp as the Sigma. In the corners, the Art lens definitely has a slight advantage and it crushes it with axial chromatic aberrations. The Canon isn't on the same playing field in this regard, and that's a bit of a let down, but it's much better than any other 85mm aside from the Art and Zeiss - not bad company to come in third to.