The Next Lens from Canon & NAB Announcements

[retroreflection]

50mm has 1.8, 1.4, and 1.2. Why not 85?
It would be an immense service to certain numerological OCD types.
If they are a bit too lettered, that 1.4L would be a rift in the perfection, though.

 

[Deleted member 378875]

Maybe this is being a bit dumb but perhaps Canon have got a large inventory of the existing lens which they want to sell before retiring it ?

 

[[email protected]]

Speculation:

I think the comparison here is going to be between this new lens and the Tamron 85 1.8 VC. Obviously, there are differences, but I think the break point in the Canon market is going to be those who are looking for IS and great IQ, but not willing to pay an extra $1200 for the last 5 percent of IQ that the Canon's Blue Goo will impart along with a fraction of a stop. I know this conundrum well because I faced it when I owned both the Tamron 35 VC and the Canon 35mm L II. I sold the canon, which at that point was an easier decision because the 35 doesn't have IS.

(The Sigma may or may not have better IQ, but it won't have OS, so it will be less comparable. They really should have put OS in that jar of Sigma glass.)

On the other hand, I wouldn't be shocked if real-world testing favored the Sigma for IQ. If they're beating Zeiss on that lens, anything's possible.

 

[ahsanford]

Canon may just want to carry a 'magic' / draw / bokeh line pair of specialty lenses:

EF 50 f/1.2L USM
EF 85 f/1.2L USM II

... and go huge with retrofocal Otus/Art killers that are built around uncompromising resolution:

EF 50 f/1.4L IS USM
EF 85 f/1.4L IS USM

And they'd sell both sets of 50s and 85s for different camps of shooters.

- A

 

[FTBPhotography]

Canon may just want to carry a 'magic' / draw / bokeh line pair of specialty lenses:

EF 50 f/1.2L USM
EF 85 f/1.2L USM II

... and go huge with retrofocal Otus/Art killers that are built around uncompromising resolution:

EF 50 f/1.4L IS USM
EF 85 f/1.4L IS USM

And they'd sell both sets of 50s and 85s for different camps of shooters.

- A

The most sensible post in this thread.

A lot of hate for the 1.2, probably from people who don't own it.

 

[FTBPhotography]

Completely off topic, but I'd love to see them produce another 50 1.0L. Just because.

if the first one was a failure, I'm sure a new one wouldn't be any better.

 

[Fleetie]

I'm confident that the much-loved 85/1.2L will remain in the line-up for the foreseeable future; so many people admire it and swear by it. I don't have one, but I wish I did.

That said, does anyone know the T-stop of that lens? And is it likely or possible that the new 85/1.4L IS will be able to equal it? Or exceed it? (Seems unlikely.) That might be one reason (as well as IS, and sharpness) to go for the new lens.

 

[Larsskv]

...because....My 85L f/1.2 II has magic inside that fat little barrel! It is an amazing lens, (some people recognize this..some don't)....

Well I have tried, very hard in the past, to find people that can authoritatively recognize it. And whilst some were very vocal and dismissive nobody I have found has ever been able to consistently and accurately pick the right lens in blind tests.

That isn't saying there is no point to the lens, there absolutely is, but people who claim 'magic' have never once managed to prove it.

One thing many people do "wrong" when they use the 85L is to shoot it at f1.2 all the time. I find it to be best/magic between f2 and f4.

Proof of magic? If you don't see it, then you don't. When I look at 50mm pictures on Flickr, I have found that I can often pick the 50L pictures from all other 50mm lenses. It is not because of bokeh, but a depth rendering that brings the picture to life. I haven't done the same comparison with the 85LII, but it shares this quality with the 50L.

 

[sanj]

My 1.2 is up for sale shortly.

 

[privatebydesign]

A lot of hate for the 1.2, probably from people who don't own it.

I don't hate the 1.2, I hate the pretentious bullshit that people come out with but can never back up. Further, your assumption implies they don't own it because they can't, not that they don't own it because they don't see the reason to.

I used to own an FDn 85 f1.2, it never really impressed so I never bothered with the AF version.

...because....My 85L f/1.2 II has magic inside that fat little barrel! It is an amazing lens, (some people recognize this..some don't)....

Well I have tried, very hard in the past, to find people that can authoritatively recognize it. And whilst some were very vocal and dismissive nobody I have found has ever been able to consistently and accurately pick the right lens in blind tests.

That isn't saying there is no point to the lens, there absolutely is, but people who claim 'magic' have never once managed to prove it.

One thing many people do "wrong" when they use the 85L is to shoot it at f1.2 all the time. I find it to be best/magic between f2 and f4.

Proof of magic? If you don't see it, then you don't. When I look at 50mm pictures on Flickr, I have found that I can often pick the 50L pictures from all other 50mm lenses. It is not because of bokeh, but a depth rendering that brings the picture to life. I haven't done the same comparison with the 85LII, but it shares this quality with the 50L.

More often than not what stops me at an image is the light and the processing. People that own the 1.2's often know how to get that light and look, so my contention is they get great images not the lens gets great images. There are a few people who shoot the 135 f2 almost exclusively, what a bargain that lens is, but give them a 70-200 f2.8 and the images still stand out. There are some amazing, truly mind blowing users mainly in Eastern Europe of the very modest 50 f1.8 that stand out, again, I believe it is because they have an eye, not a 'magical' lens.

 

[sanj]

Lately. Not eatly.

@ Moderator. 8)

 

[sanj]

A lot of hate for the 1.2, probably from people who don't own it.

I don't hate the 1.2, I hate the pretentious bullS___ that people come out with but can never back up. Further, your assumption implies they don't own it because they can't, not that they don't own it because they don't see the reason to.

I used to own an FDn 85 f1.2, it never really impressed so I never bothered with the AF version.

...because....My 85L f/1.2 II has magic inside that fat little barrel! It is an amazing lens, (some people recognize this..some don't)....

Well I have tried, very hard in the past, to find people that can authoritatively recognize it. And whilst some were very vocal and dismissive nobody I have found has ever been able to consistently and accurately pick the right lens in blind tests.

That isn't saying there is no point to the lens, there absolutely is, but people who claim 'magic' have never once managed to prove it.

One thing many people do "wrong" when they use the 85L is to shoot it at f1.2 all the time. I find it to be best/magic between f2 and f4.

Proof of magic? If you don't see it, then you don't. When I look at 50mm pictures on Flickr, I have found that I can often pick the 50L pictures from all other 50mm lenses. It is not because of bokeh, but a depth rendering that brings the picture to life. I haven't done the same comparison with the 85LII, but it shares this quality with the 50L.

More often than not what stops me at an image is the light and the processing. People that own the 1.2's often know how to get that light and look, so my contention is they get great images not the lens gets great images. There are a few people who shoot the 135 f2 almost exclusively, what a bargain that lens is, but give them a 70-200 f2.8 and the images still stand out. There are some amazing, truly mind blowing users mainly in Eastern Europe of the very modest 50 f1.8 that stand out, again, I believe it is because they have an eye, not a 'magical' lens.

Agreed. Anyways there is no magic anywhere. Leave alone in a lens.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Canon may just want to carry a 'magic' / draw / bokeh line pair of specialty lenses:

EF 50 f/1.2L USM
EF 85 f/1.2L USM II

... and go huge with retrofocal Otus/Art killers that are built around uncompromising resolution:

EF 50 f/1.4L IS USM
EF 85 f/1.4L IS USM

And they'd sell both sets of 50s and 85s for different camps of shooters.

- A

The most sensible post in this thread.

A lot of hate for the 1.2, probably from people who don't own it.

Yes, I've used a 35mm f1.4L and 85mm f1.2 II L professionally for portrait and wedding work for many years and it's an excellent optic. But it's optimised for portraits, so having a sharper version doesn't really appeal to me. It's an extremely flattering lens for head and shoulders shots when used wide open. I have used it for landscapes and it's ok...but heavy and bulky and it's min aperture is only f16. It can't ever replace good 70-200 f2.8 LIS II....but it's not supposed to. While the zoomster can do portraits...it can't do them like a 85mm f1.2 IIL can. It's a combination of working distance, focal length and aperture that just work together so well. The "magic" with this lens is in it's light gathering capabilities. It seems to invent it's own light in dim lit scenes. I shot a wedding in the crypt of Canterbury cathedral lit only by candle light...no problems with this lens. But on bright sunny days (we do get them in the UK...honest) forget trying to shoot it wide open. You will bounce off your camera's fastest shutter speed all too easy. ND's become a must.
I'm not fussed about an IS system, if I can't shoot below 1/50th it's no use for portrait work.
While there are a lot of comparisons with the 135L, it's a very different animal. It works light levels that the 135L can't even dream of and it operates at a working distance that allows repore between photographer and client. Anyone who's used a 200mm f2.8 or faster will know that it's hard to work a shy client on a portrait or wedding shoot with a long lens.
Many don't understand the 85mm f1.2IIL, they look at lens charts or web reviews which generally take the lens out of context and measure against a datum that this lens simply wasn't designed for. It's a bit like complaining that a fisheye, macro or a TSe is too specific or dedicated. Well...these lenses aren't designed to be versatile, they have a specific function. If you don't need optimum potential in those genres...then get a more versatile lens...it's quite simple really.
I really like my 85mm f1.2 II L and It's more than payed for it's self with portfolio's worth of great images. But it you dislike this lens then you probably don't understand it or are using out of context. Here's a few examples:

These are 4 examples of an 85mm shot wide open at f1.2 on a full frame camera.

 

[scyrene]

Canon may just want to carry a 'magic' / draw / bokeh line pair of specialty lenses:

EF 50 f/1.2L USM
EF 85 f/1.2L USM II

... and go huge with retrofocal Otus/Art killers that are built around uncompromising resolution:

EF 50 f/1.4L IS USM
EF 85 f/1.4L IS USM

And they'd sell both sets of 50s and 85s for different camps of shooters.

- A

The most sensible post in this thread.

A lot of hate for the 1.2, probably from people who don't own it.

Sorry, where's the "hate"?

 

[scyrene]

The "magic" with this lens is in it's light gathering capabilities. It seems to invent it's own light in dim lit scenes. I shot a wedding in the crypt of Canterbury cathedral lit only by candle light...no problems with this lens. But on bright sunny days (we do get them in the UK...honest) forget trying to shoot it wide open. You will bounce off your camera's fastest shutter speed all too easy. ND's become a must.
I'm not fussed about an IS system, if I can't shoot below 1/50th it's no use for portrait work.
While there are a lot of comparisons with the 135L, it's a very different animal. It works light levels that the 135L can't even dream of and it operates at a working distance that allows repore between photographer and client.

Well obviously a lens at f/1.2 is going to gather more light than f/2 or f/2.8. It's not magic, and it's not - as you say and I've seen in other gushing reviews - 'creating its own light'. It's just gathering more light than most lenses because it's got such a wide aperture.

Many don't understand the 85mm f1.2IIL, they look at lens charts or web reviews which generally take the lens out of context and measure against a datum that this lens simply wasn't designed for. It's a bit like complaining that a fisheye, macro or a TSe is too specific or dedicated. Well...these lenses aren't designed to be versatile, they have a specific function. If you don't need optimum potential in those genres...then get a more versatile lens...it's quite simple really.
I really like my 85mm f1.2 II L and It's more than payed for it's self with portfolio's worth of great images. But it you dislike this lens then you probably don't understand it or are using out of context.

With all due respect, PBD wasn't saying the 85L is bad, but that nobody can reliably tell its images apart from other lenses at similar focal lengths and apertures. And although some have claimed they can, nobody has yet - here or to my knowledge anywhere else - proven they can.

I'm not sure why some users of this lens get so defensive (talk of 'hate' above). It's a matter of bringing some empiricism to a world of 'magic'. The 85L is an excellent lens for portraiture - that's what it was designed for. But it is not magical, nor is any other lens. If it helps people justify their purchasing decisions, well that's up to them, but when discussing a range of lenses, and comparing them, it's of no use to anyone to talk in mystical terms, or to say that anyone disagreeing simply doesn't understand. I'm pretty sure PBD understand perfectly well. I owned the 85L and it's capable of producing beautiful images. But it is just a tool for a job, there's no need for all this cultlike lyricism.

To claim that a newer 85mm lens won't have the 'magic' of the 85L is meaningless and absurd. Nobody has seen images taken with this lens yet, and even when we do, if 'magic' cannot be measured or defined, then it is irrelevant to people attempting to decide between the two.

 

[Larsskv]

The "magic" with this lens is in it's light gathering capabilities. It seems to invent it's own light in dim lit scenes. I shot a wedding in the crypt of Canterbury cathedral lit only by candle light...no problems with this lens. But on bright sunny days (we do get them in the UK...honest) forget trying to shoot it wide open. You will bounce off your camera's fastest shutter speed all too easy. ND's become a must.
I'm not fussed about an IS system, if I can't shoot below 1/50th it's no use for portrait work.
While there are a lot of comparisons with the 135L, it's a very different animal. It works light levels that the 135L can't even dream of and it operates at a working distance that allows repore between photographer and client.

Well obviously a lens at f/1.2 is going to gather more light than f/2 or f/2.8. It's not magic, and it's not - as you say and I've seen in other gushing reviews - 'creating its own light'. It's just gathering more light than most lenses because it's got such a wide aperture.

Many don't understand the 85mm f1.2IIL, they look at lens charts or web reviews which generally take the lens out of context and measure against a datum that this lens simply wasn't designed for. It's a bit like complaining that a fisheye, macro or a TSe is too specific or dedicated. Well...these lenses aren't designed to be versatile, they have a specific function. If you don't need optimum potential in those genres...then get a more versatile lens...it's quite simple really.
I really like my 85mm f1.2 II L and It's more than payed for it's self with portfolio's worth of great images. But it you dislike this lens then you probably don't understand it or are using out of context.

With all due respect, PBD wasn't saying the 85L is bad, but that nobody can reliably tell its images apart from other lenses at similar focal lengths and apertures. And although some have claimed they can, nobody has yet - here or to my knowledge anywhere else - proven they can.

I'm not sure why some users of this lens get so defensive (talk of 'hate' above). It's a matter of bringing some empiricism to a world of 'magic'. The 85L is an excellent lens for portraiture - that's what it was designed for. But it is not magical, nor is any other lens. If it helps people justify their purchasing decisions, well that's up to them, but when discussing a range of lenses, and comparing them, it's of no use to anyone to talk in mystical terms, or to say that anyone disagreeing simply doesn't understand. I'm pretty sure PBD understand perfectly well. I owned the 85L and it's capable of producing beautiful images. But it is just a tool for a job, there's no need for all this cultlike lyricism.

To claim that a newer 85mm lens won't have the 'magic' of the 85L is meaningless and absurd. Nobody has seen images taken with this lens yet, and even when we do, if 'magic' cannot be measured or defined, then it is irrelevant to people attempting to decide between the two.

I find it quite arrogant to dismiss the opinion of so many users of the 85LII, and deny it isn't special. It does have qualities that other lenses don't have. I have had the 85 f1.8, several copies of the 24-70 f2.8 LII and the 70-200 f2.8 (non is) and while they are very good, they lag behind the 85LII and they don't give as pleasing images. And I don't think it is because of the light gathering or the creamy bookeh.

Yes, it is hard to define the magic, but many owners of the 85LII recognize it and can't be convinced by "non believers" that they are wrong, and neither can you.

 

[privatebydesign]

I find it quite arrogant to dismiss the opinion of so many users of the 85LII, and deny it isn't special. It does have qualities that other lenses don't have. I have had the 85 f1.8, several copies of the 24-70 f2.8 LII and the 70-200 f2.8 (non is) and while they are very good, they lag behind the 85LII and they don't give as pleasing images. And I don't think it is because of the light gathering or the creamy bookeh.

Yes, it is hard to define the magic, but many owners of the 85LII recognize it and can't be convinced by "non believers" that they are wrong, and neither can you.

What rubbish.

"I believe and they believe so you can't tell us we are wrong", then illustrate it? You can't, nobody reliably and consistently can. Lens performance is not unquantifiable it is a visual medium, if you can't illustrate something it isn't there.

Magic is an illusion, a false idea or belief. I have been shooting professionally since 1978 and I have never met a single person, and I have tried, who can reliably and consistently tell images shot with pretty much any specific lens let alone the 50 and 85 f1.2's. Now I am not saying there is no point to having one, indeed I have owned both, but unless you or anybody else can start backing up your assertions in this visual medium with visual identification those reasons do not include a 'unique' look. Heck use one because it gives you that special mojo, one of my best friends swears by his 85 f1.2 MkII, he is never without it, when he gets it out his bag his eyes just light up and he shoots differently, it gives him an energy no other lens does. Does that feeling translate to his images? I don't see it and I have tried really hard, I'd love a convincing reason to buy an 85 f1.2.

 

[hubie]

Perhaps Magic can be defined as a sum of optical aberrations and imperfections such as haze in the image under certain light conditions, vignetting etc... something that seems pleasing to our eye and sets a lens 'apart' from a clinical, optically superior lens ...

 

[privatebydesign]

Perhaps Magic can be defined as a sum of optical aberrations and imperfections such as haze in the image under certain light conditions, vignetting etc... something that seems pleasing to our eye and sets a lens 'apart' from a clinical, optically superior lens ...

Maybe it can, and that is an excellent contribution to the thread. But my point is if those characteristics are not readily identifiable/recognisable, and they aren't by the lenses proponents, then it is irrelevant.

 

[AAPhotog]

Im pissed. I just bought the 85mm L II a little over a month ago and rarely get good shots because of the slow as ****** auto focus. now I read a new one is finally on the horizon?