The Next Lens from Canon & NAB Announcements

[Sporgon]

In think the issue here is that we see what we want to see. I can absolutely see the difference in the images that my 135L makes - the smooth bokeh, the openness of the data, the pin sharp in-focus areas, generally the "magic" that people state this lens has. That is until the images get mixed up with others - then I can't tell the difference ! In fact I have been in the embarrassing position when one favourite image of mine that I swore was shot on the 135L turned out to have been actually shot on the 24-105L - of all lenses ! Ouch !

But that doesn't mean there's no difference, and that a shot at f4 would be exactly the same from both (give or take the 105 vs 135 focal length). You might have liked that favourite image even more if it'd been the 135L. Or it might even be that that particular image better suited the 24-105's characteristics and you wouldn't like the 135's rendering as much.

But either way it's not to say that you never want to use the 135 again unless you need an aperture wider than f4. I could well believe that, in general, you prefer images from your 135L, and that you think of that as a certain "magic" it gives.

I think that it probably means the difference is more important to me, the photographer, than anyone else.

 

[infared]

I think those who "think" they can tell the difference between a prime lens shot at f/1.2 and f/1.4 without clinical, identical shots are fooling themselves. I'm guessing they are suffering from confirmation bias. They look at a photo on flickr, see the EXIF data, and say to themselves, "Oh yeah, it definitely was XYZ lens, I had the eye to see it."

Develop a ton of random photos (say 8x12) that exist at various focal length and apertures, and I bet even the best of the best will struggle. The reality is that a focal distance plays a far greater role in bokeh and DOF than a small aperture change and that the focal distance isn't 100% apparent (an expert might have a good estimate) in a photo, especially if one doesn't know the exact focal length of the lens.

And not to take away anything from the the 85mm f/1.2 II. It's just that, in my humble opinion, the best lens in the world will never make a terrible picture look good, and an excellent composed, lit photo can look amazing with an iphone.

Ultimately it's the photographer and the photo opportunity. Splitting hairs over an Otus, Sigma Art, or Canon L glass is a bit foolish.

You have missed the point completely. Nobody in this thread has claimed they can distinguish a f1.2 and f1.4 shot from each other. The magic of the 85LII is often more apparent at f2.8. The razor thin DOF can sometimes come at the cost of ruining the depth rendering of a picture.

Yes, the focal length, lighting etc is more important, but that is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the same picture taken with different lenses at the same focal length all look the same, and most of the 85LII owners here seem to agree that they don't.

Why should we listen to the bunch of you that don't own the 85LII and are in denial?

Well...you, me and these cowboys "get" it. ...and we all have more fun no matter what lens we are using!!!! ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TuXRgMjwSg
Hopefully they could do their shootout over when the new Canon releases!!!!

 

[Larsskv]

You have missed the point completely. Nobody in this thread has claimed they can distinguish a f1.2 and f1.4 shot from each other. The magic of the 85LII is often more apparent at f2.8. The razor thin DOF can sometimes come at the cost of ruining the depth rendering of a picture.

Yes, the focal length, lighting etc is more important, but that is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the same picture taken with different lenses at the same focal length all look the same, and most of the 85LII owners here seem to agree that they don't.

Why should we listen to the bunch of you that don't own the 85LII and are in denial?

I thought the point was people saying a new 85 won't have the same "magic" as the 85L. I don't think it's unfair to ask what they meant.

"In denial". Listen to yourself. What is this, a cult? I owned the 85L. It's a fine lens, with well-known foibles. It didn't wow me enough to want to keep it, so I traded it in after a period of time.

Is this how you react to anyone questioning your beliefs? Asking for evidence? To present none and tell them they're simply wrong or unable to see the light?

Edit: PS this is not meant to impugn your character but there is such a thing as bias - and as mentioned above, confirmation bias. So the owners and lovers of this lens can "see" the difference. If others - disinterested third parties, especially - can't see it, then it's probably not there. That's how the world works.

GMCPhotografics has provided some very good images in this thread, that I think illustrates the qualities of the 85LII. If you don't accept he pictures as evidence, why don't you find some comparable images taken with other lenses, that offer the same depth rendering, background separation, color and bokeh, as the second picture GMCphotografics has provided? In stead of demanding more proof, maybe you should start with disproving the evidence that has already been provided.

 

[Maiaibing]

Any wild predictions on how much longer the 85 f/1.2 II will be in full service status? That is, eligible for repair by Canon before service life ends? I think they won't produce it much longer once the 1.4 is released, if at all. Just keep it as current until stocks are drawn down.

Until spare parts run out. This is Canon's declared policy. Based on previous lenses this can be anything from 2-3 to 10 years. Most lenses are repaired 4-6 years after end of production (but remember Canon may still sell lenses quite a long time after end of production).

The 200 f/1.8 L came with an extremely short repair window for such a crazy expensive lens (<3 years). There were a couple of lenses that just got their end of service notice (cannot find the link right now). Seem to remember one of these had quite a long repair window.

 

[Maiaibing]

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.

Spot on. T-stop is actually "only" f/1.4. ;D

 

[RunAndGun]

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?

It's not an "action" lens. Even a cursory search on the 85/1.2 would have revealed that the focus is very slow. I know I've mentioned more than once when discussions about it pop up. It's a beautiful lens that has a lot of things going for it, but focus speed isn't one of them.

 

[RunAndGun]

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.

Spot on. T-stop is actually "only" f/1.4. ;D

I would have put my money on T1.3. I have the stills version of the 85/1.2 and the CN-E version and the Cine is rated T1.3.

 

[YuengLinger]

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?

SOMEBODY had to be the last person on the planet Earth to discover this! :

 

[Loswr]

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?

I'm pissed, too. I bought a TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II and rarely get good shots because the autofocus doesn't work at all. I was even more pissed when I bought the TS-E 17mm f/4L and had the same problem! Now I read that a medium format light field view camera where every lens is a TS and focus is not needed is on the horizon?

 

[scyrene]

You have missed the point completely. Nobody in this thread has claimed they can distinguish a f1.2 and f1.4 shot from each other. The magic of the 85LII is often more apparent at f2.8. The razor thin DOF can sometimes come at the cost of ruining the depth rendering of a picture.

Yes, the focal length, lighting etc is more important, but that is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the same picture taken with different lenses at the same focal length all look the same, and most of the 85LII owners here seem to agree that they don't.

Why should we listen to the bunch of you that don't own the 85LII and are in denial?

I thought the point was people saying a new 85 won't have the same "magic" as the 85L. I don't think it's unfair to ask what they meant.

"In denial". Listen to yourself. What is this, a cult? I owned the 85L. It's a fine lens, with well-known foibles. It didn't wow me enough to want to keep it, so I traded it in after a period of time.

Is this how you react to anyone questioning your beliefs? Asking for evidence? To present none and tell them they're simply wrong or unable to see the light?

Edit: PS this is not meant to impugn your character but there is such a thing as bias - and as mentioned above, confirmation bias. So the owners and lovers of this lens can "see" the difference. If others - disinterested third parties, especially - can't see it, then it's probably not there. That's how the world works.

GMCPhotografics has provided some very good images in this thread, that I think illustrates the qualities of the 85LII. If you don't accept he pictures as evidence, why don't you find some comparable images taken with other lenses, that offer the same depth rendering, background separation, color and bokeh, as the second picture GMCphotografics has provided? In stead of demanding more proof, maybe you should start with disproving the evidence that has already been provided.

Well that's not how it works. You guys are making the claim, you provide evidence to back it up. And I mean actual evidence, not just a set of pretty pictures. Some of those portraits were great - but that doesn't prove anything. A combination of subject matter, photographer skill, light, focal length and aperture, subject distance, choice and distance of background, postprocessing, etc contribute to their quality. Some of those depend on the lens - but they aren't unique to it. Are you seriously saying if you were given a set of images with no other info, including some made with the 85L, you could pick out the ones that were (better than chance)? Do you really believe that? PBD says he's done this test, and nobody succeeded - perhaps he'll provide some images, but I suspect it wouldn't be worth his time.

The only lens I could have a good stab at identifying from images or footage is the MP-E - if it's an ultra macro with hexagonal specular highlights, then it's a good bet. That's quantifiable, and testable. "It's magical" isn't.

 

[ahsanford]

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?

I'm pissed, too. I bought a TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II and rarely get good shots because the autofocus doesn't work at all. I was even more pissed when I bought the TS-E 17mm f/4L and had the same problem! Now I read that a medium format light field view camera where every lens is a TS and focus is not needed is on the horizon?

It's the simplest gear-buying flowchart you will ever see:

1) Identify your needs (mount, crop-only vs. FF, focal length, prime vs. zoom, IS, aperture, sealing, focus speed, stills vs. video needs, etc.)

2) Line up your needs to the various lenses that might fit those needs.

3) Educate yourself. Read reviews from trusted sources on your possible/candidate lenses, talk to people on forums, chat up the guy in the local camera store (if you have one). Ask if a new version of this lens might be coming soon...

4) Make up your mind on the one lens you think you need.

5) Does this lens cost more than [your personal financial threshold of pain]?

• If yes, RENT BEFORE YOU BUY.
  
  
• If not, pull the trigger.

- A

 

[Sabaki]

So are we saying that if we own a zoom that covers the focal length of a prime, we should should skip the prime as there's no discernible difference in image quality?

 

[privatebydesign]

So are we saying that if we own a zoom that covers the focal length of a prime, we should should skip the prime as there's no discernible difference in image quality?

No, but if you started to look at blind tests you'd be shocked how often you couldn't tell the difference between the two.

When I went to EF from FD the biggest difference was the quality of the 2.8 zooms in the newer system (apart from the ultra wides which have subsequently improved just as much). I got the three f2.8 zooms as a starter to see what else I needed. I have added primes to that since 2004 but mainly for different reasons than image differences.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The first shot in this batch is a botch, in my opinion. You've blurred out her finger tips and whatever she is blowing, yet the distracting stubble on her right wrist is razor sharp. This shows a lack of control and judgment with the shallow depth of field.

I like the one of the bleach blond with curly hair, my favorite. The young man has a bit of glare, and the texture of his skin goes too quickly into blur for my taste. Finally, the couple, I'm sorry if the young man is in poor health, but, as captured, his cadaverous skin tones make him look off.
Pretty silly to be abstractly discussing something that can't be quantified if we can't even demonstrate it.

GMC was quite clear that in his view the lens has a specific use and he posted pictures to show how he uses it. Whether you like the pictures is irrelevant to how he chooses to use the lens.

If we are discussing what makes this lens special, I think demonstrated misuse can be fairly pointed out.

GMC claims that many photographers don't understand this lens. He has clearly made the point, though perhaps not in the way he intended.

Getting eyes in focus, if that is the goal of the photographer, is only one aspect of portraiture. Composition and a pleasing blending of all the elements makes for success.

As for commenting on the appearance of a subject, if lighting is used poorly and thus makes the subject look ill, that's certainly relevant. I did qualify my comment by hoping that the subject was not actually unhealthy. If GMC made the subject look as good as possible, then he did what he could. But if the young man is healthy, something in the lighting and processing went wrong.

Actually I think all you've done is expose your rather immature and sad attitude to other people's work. This is my work and my clients are more than happy with them, they are my judge not some weirdo on a forum. If you don't like them, so what? Keep your rather vile opinions to your self and crawl back to the negative pit that you've just came out from. It is really bad forum manners to criticise another photographer's work unless it's been requested. A critique improves wisdom, a criticism condemns. If you have some talent and have evidence then post it, let us all see it...or are you one of the modern forum trawlers who have lots of opinions and no portfolio of work?

You seem to be offended because I have shared my experience of using this lens in a professional context and I've shown some images that illustrate my point. Sorry if your opinion is different or that your ego is bruised because there are others here who have found this lens to be an amazing tool. Maybe the real take away here is "a lot of portrait photographers like this lens a lot. They appreciate the rendering and slim DOF that this lens offers, while putting up with its slow AF and other quirks because in their opinion that this niche lens that does something they can't get else where and are happy to pay for that tool.

Wisdom comes from experience. So don't trash some one who is wiser than you in a certain area. All you are doing is showing how naive you are on a world wide forum. This forum has many giants of photography walking through it's pages. It also has a lot of muppets. Who you are in private always gets exposed in public.

 

[Sabaki]

So are we saying that if we own a zoom that covers the focal length of a prime, we should should skip the prime as there's no discernible difference in image quality?

No, but if you started to look at blind tests you'd be shocked how often you couldn't tell the difference between the two.

When I went to EF from FD the biggest difference was the quality of the 2.8 zooms in the newer system (apart from the ultra wides which have subsequently improved just as much). I got the three f2.8 zooms as a starter to see what else I needed. I have added primes to that since 2004 but mainly for different reasons than image differences.

Yeah, blind tests differ in that way to shooting test charts which can be measured and differences defined.

I just think that these 'magic' lenses set themselves apart in maybe less than 5% of images they render.

 

[YuengLinger]

The first shot in this batch is a botch, in my opinion. You've blurred out her finger tips and whatever she is blowing, yet the distracting stubble on her right wrist is razor sharp. This shows a lack of control and judgment with the shallow depth of field.

I like the one of the bleach blond with curly hair, my favorite. The young man has a bit of glare, and the texture of his skin goes too quickly into blur for my taste. Finally, the couple, I'm sorry if the young man is in poor health, but, as captured, his cadaverous skin tones make him look off.
Pretty silly to be abstractly discussing something that can't be quantified if we can't even demonstrate it.

GMC was quite clear that in his view the lens has a specific use and he posted pictures to show how he uses it. Whether you like the pictures is irrelevant to how he chooses to use the lens.

If we are discussing what makes this lens special, I think demonstrated misuse can be fairly pointed out.

GMC claims that many photographers don't understand this lens. He has clearly made the point, though perhaps not in the way he intended.

Getting eyes in focus, if that is the goal of the photographer, is only one aspect of portraiture. Composition and a pleasing blending of all the elements makes for success.

As for commenting on the appearance of a subject, if lighting is used poorly and thus makes the subject look ill, that's certainly relevant. I did qualify my comment by hoping that the subject was not actually unhealthy. If GMC made the subject look as good as possible, then he did what he could. But if the young man is healthy, something in the lighting and processing went wrong.

Actually I think all you've done is expose your rather immature and sad attitude to other people's work. This is my work and my clients are more than happy with them, they are my judge not some weirdo on a forum. If you don't like them, so what? Keep your rather vile opinions to your self and crawl back to the negative pit that you've just came out from. It is really bad forum manners to criticise another photographer's work unless it's been requested. A critique improves wisdom, a criticism condemns. If you have some talent and have evidence then post it, let us all see it...or are you one of the modern forum trawlers who have lots of opinions and no portfolio of work?

You seem to be offended because I have shared my experience of using this lens in a professional context and I've shown some images that illustrate my point. Sorry if your opinion is different or that your ego is bruised because there are others here who have found this lens to be an amazing tool. Maybe the real take away here is "a lot of portrait photographers like this lens a lot. They appreciate the rendering and slim DOF that this lens offers, while putting up with its slow AF and other quirks because in their opinion that this niche lens that does something they can't get else where and are happy to pay for that tool.

Wisdom comes from experience. So don't trash some one who is wiser than you in a certain area. All you are doing is showing how naive you are on a world wide forum. This forum has many giants of photography walking through it's pages. It also has a lot of muppets. Who you are in private always gets exposed in public.

So praise = critique, and criticism is unacceptable? You have been very personal in criticizing my critique! Nothing that I wrote evaluating your images was personally insulting, GMC. I stick to my charge that the first shot, while capturing the face itself nicely, was, as a whole, not pleasing at all because the fingertips and substance in her hands became a formless blob--a common mistake with this type of lens.

I was pointing out that claiming others just don't get it, don't understand this lens, needs to be backed up by solid examples of how to use it. I don't feel that is what you've offered here, and once an image is up as an example, I don't believe we step out of bounds commenting on it.

The thread is about gear. If somebody claims a lens is irreplaceable, then posts images that, in my opinion don't demonstrate that claim, should I not be allowed to point this out? Should I just say, "These don't back your assertion"? Or should I explain why they don't?

Please, all, if you are pleased with your images, if your friends, family, and clients are pleased, but somebody on a forum finds fault, be more confident and say, "While you may have intended to make a point, I'm happy with my work and will continue doing more of the same!"

Imagine slamming a client who was unhappy with work that was to be paid for. Not good for business.

 

[Ozarker]

So are we saying that if we own a zoom that covers the focal length of a prime, we should should skip the prime as there's no discernible difference in image quality?

No, but if you started to look at blind tests you'd be shocked how often you couldn't tell the difference between the two.

When I went to EF from FD the biggest difference was the quality of the 2.8 zooms in the newer system (apart from the ultra wides which have subsequently improved just as much). I got the three f2.8 zooms as a starter to see what else I needed. I have added primes to that since 2004 but mainly for different reasons than image differences.

Yeah, blind tests differ in that way to shooting test charts which can be measured and differences defined.

I just think that these 'magic' lenses set themselves apart in maybe less than 5% of images they render.

Yes, a blind test with a participant number of two. :

 

[Larsskv]

You have missed the point completely. Nobody in this thread has claimed they can distinguish a f1.2 and f1.4 shot from each other. The magic of the 85LII is often more apparent at f2.8. The razor thin DOF can sometimes come at the cost of ruining the depth rendering of a picture.

Yes, the focal length, lighting etc is more important, but that is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the same picture taken with different lenses at the same focal length all look the same, and most of the 85LII owners here seem to agree that they don't.

Why should we listen to the bunch of you that don't own the 85LII and are in denial?

I thought the point was people saying a new 85 won't have the same "magic" as the 85L. I don't think it's unfair to ask what they meant.

"In denial". Listen to yourself. What is this, a cult? I owned the 85L. It's a fine lens, with well-known foibles. It didn't wow me enough to want to keep it, so I traded it in after a period of time.

Is this how you react to anyone questioning your beliefs? Asking for evidence? To present none and tell them they're simply wrong or unable to see the light?

Edit: PS this is not meant to impugn your character but there is such a thing as bias - and as mentioned above, confirmation bias. So the owners and lovers of this lens can "see" the difference. If others - disinterested third parties, especially - can't see it, then it's probably not there. That's how the world works.

GMCPhotografics has provided some very good images in this thread, that I think illustrates the qualities of the 85LII. If you don't accept he pictures as evidence, why don't you find some comparable images taken with other lenses, that offer the same depth rendering, background separation, color and bokeh, as the second picture GMCphotografics has provided? In stead of demanding more proof, maybe you should start with disproving the evidence that has already been provided.

Well that's not how it works. You guys are making the claim, you provide evidence to back it up. And I mean actual evidence, not just a set of pretty pictures. Some of those portraits were great - but that doesn't prove anything. A combination of subject matter, photographer skill, light, focal length and aperture, subject distance, choice and distance of background, postprocessing, etc contribute to their quality. Some of those depend on the lens - but they aren't unique to it. Are you seriously saying if you were given a set of images with no other info, including some made with the 85L, you could pick out the ones that were (better than chance)? Do you really believe that? PBD says he's done this test, and nobody succeeded - perhaps he'll provide some images, but I suspect it wouldn't be worth his time.

The only lens I could have a good stab at identifying from images or footage is the MP-E - if it's an ultra macro with hexagonal specular highlights, then it's a good bet. That's quantifiable, and testable. "It's magical" isn't.

So you make the rules? GMCPhotografics provided example pictures. If you're correct, it should be easy to find pictures taken with other lenses that have the same look to them. But hey, you didn't.

But since you claim the burden of proof is on us, and we haven't persuaded you, you have certainly convinced me that I, and the many who find the 85LII special, is totally wrong about it's qualities. What a relief. Now I can sell all my equipment and settle with a rebel and a kit lens. :

Sarcasm aside, I can't reliably pick out shots made with the 85LII in a bunch of pictures, but statistically I think I will be able pick it out more often than coincidence would indicate.

 

[vscd]

The only lens I could have a good stab at identifying from images or footage is the MP-E - if it's an ultra macro with hexagonal specular highlights, then it's a good bet. That's quantifiable, and testable. "It's magical" isn't.

I would also recognize a 80-200L, especially at the wide end because it has the old Petzval-Look..which is somehow characteristic. Also the 8-15L is very unique @8mm

In my opinion the 85LII has a very own signature on colors and bokeh. I recognized this after I replaced the old 85mm f1.8 with the 85L. If someone needs it, hmm, may be questionable but I think I would see the difference between a 85mm f1.8 and a 85mm f1.2 @OpenAperture. But of course the 85L has way more advantages over the 85mm f1.8. It's sharper, has ETTL-II, weathersealing (kind of) and the biggest plus... the Viewfinder is more than two times as bright as a f1.8 lens. Focus in low light may be slow but it's still working.

I don't understand the attitude "you can't tell the difference anyway". With this attitude we could all work with a 28-300L. Why primes? Why L-lenses? Only for the red ring porn?

 

[Larsskv]

So are we saying that if we own a zoom that covers the focal length of a prime, we should should skip the prime as there's no discernible difference in image quality?

No, but if you started to look at blind tests you'd be shocked how often you couldn't tell the difference between the two.

When I went to EF from FD the biggest difference was the quality of the 2.8 zooms in the newer system (apart from the ultra wides which have subsequently improved just as much). I got the three f2.8 zooms as a starter to see what else I needed. I have added primes to that since 2004 but mainly for different reasons than image differences.

Yeah, blind tests differ in that way to shooting test charts which can be measured and differences defined.

I just think that these 'magic' lenses set themselves apart in maybe less than 5% of images they render.

I think you are on to something. I have many pictures from my 85LII, 35LII and 50L that doesn't look special at all, but when they do, they really do!

I am just an amateur. I end up with many pictures of the same people, in comparable situations. I don't think it is coincidence that my favorite pictures are from prime lenses, and not zooms. And the thing is, the L primes I have make pictures that look better than most of the non L primes I have used. What a shock.