The Next Lens from Canon & NAB Announcements

[Larsskv]

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.

There are many factors that play together in every picture, light and shadows, the angle of light and shadows, colors, distance to subject, angle of subject etc, which will make it impossible to reliably pick out the picture taken with the 85LII from a bunch of other 85mm lenses. Asking for such proof of the 85L magic is therefore asking for the impossible.

What I can say is that every time I edit pictures from the 85L, I am amazed by them. Why isn't it like that when I use the 70-200, or the 85 f1.8?

I would also like to refer to the pictures GMCPhotographics have provided above. Do you see how "true to life" they look? The faces are rendered with depth and stands out from the background. They have a large format look to them, that I don't see to the same degree in the zoom lenses.

Please also have a look at the pictures I have linked to in this thread, comparing the 50ART and the 50L:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31362.120

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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 ...

Well, you can guarantee that a group of scientists will suck the joy and life out of any emotional content. An aesthetically pleasing shot is not a technically perfect shot (what ever that is) or a shot taken with an optically flawless lens. it's one that attracts an pleasing emotional response. While probability may well adhere to science, people are emotional beings and photography is about capturing engaging images. It's the difference between a Magnum photographer and a local photo club photographer.

 

[infared]

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.
[/quote]

Well...I bet we enjoy creating images more than most with "our" magic lens! What a bunch of negative, elitest and ever-so boring "experts" here. LOL! 8)

 

[vscd]

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.

I guess the magic of love to a woman cannot be obtained by their "specifications". Other people will never know why someone is totally addicted to a person they wouldn't meet by their own. Maybe they can understand that she's good looking, maybe she can do someting others can't do... but the magic and the difference to other women, also looking good, is only visible for a very small amount of people who know the advantages and disadvantages I sometimes don't understand what people like on a specific other person, but they do. And *they* know what they like in a very specific way.

Ok, this is a very strange comparision but the 85L has indeed an own signature and I like the way it draws pictures. The new distagon optics are very sharp but optics which are very high corrected have their flaws on bokeh and are very large and have a lot of elements in it. Ergo a worse T-Stop than an old Planar/Gauss Design. Sharpness on the 85L is no problem, even not at f1.2 in the center which was a problem on the old 50 f1 and even on the 50 f1.2.

...and by the way, get a good read at http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2017/04/01/why-sharpness-is-overrated

 

[Luds34]

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.

I agree completely.

You have a tough audience though. I love this forum but it can get a bit elitist. Whether it's not appreciating Canon's $2k+ offerings (like one should) or refusal to shoot any 3rd party lens, there are plenty who are stuck in "their way" and won't change their opinion.

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.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

I guess the magic of love to a woman cannot be obtained by their "specifications". Other people will never know why someone is totally addicted to a person they wouldn't meet by their own. Maybe they can understand that she's good looking, maybe she can do someting others can't do... but the magic and the difference to other women, also looking good, is only visible for a very small amount of people who know the advantages and disadvantages I sometimes don't understand what people like on a specific other person, but they do. And *they* know what they like in a very specific way.

Ok, this is a very strange comparision but the 85L has indeed an own signature and I like the way it draws pictures. The new distagon optics are very sharp but optics which are very high corrected have their flaws on bokeh and are very large and have a lot of elements in it. Ergo a worse T-Stop than an old Planar/Gauss Design. Sharpness on the 85L is no problem, even not at f1.2 in the center which was a problem on the old 50 f1 and even on the 50 f1.2.

...and by the way, get a good read at http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2017/04/01/why-sharpness-is-overrated

Two major issues with your comment.

1/ Even a blind man can see the love of a good women, so not being able to illustrate a visual difference in lens characteristics when challenged just makes that position look even more foolish.

2/ Who said anything about sharpness? A quick search of my posting history would demonstrate I am way ahead of you and Erick on that.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21449.msg407730#msg407730
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29294.msg583489#msg583489
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29469.msg588102#msg588102

 

[The Flasher]

I'm too practical to be a lens snob, but in this profession shooting anything under f2 is too risky in my experience. Canons, Sigmas - too many soft eyes, not enough DOF buffer for fashion etc. I understand the appeal of razor thin focus plane, but commercial demand for this effect is just as thin. Does this mean I don't want one? On the contrary, I do, I'd just never use it.

A 24-70 2.8 IS on the other hand...

 

[Luds34]

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.

Wow, I'm a little bit speechless. Not only have you deviated from the conversation at hand (turning capabilities of a camera lens into a critique of one's photos), you REALLY deviated by going all "Reality TV" and casting judgement on an individual's appearance (what does that have to do with photography?). In the world of the interwebs I get one can see a lot of noise, but I was disappointed to see it on this forum.

Alot I could be said in rebuttal however I'll focus on just one of your points, your critique of the first photo. In portrait photography 101, the vast majority of photos say get the eyes in focus. And this photo follows this paradigm. Aka, the face (eye) is the focus point and the forearm/wrists so happen to be in the focus plane and not surprisingly the hands are not and therefore out of focus. And you criticize this??? :

disappointed...

 

[drmikeinpdx]

I rented the 85 1.2L a couple of years ago and did a couple of nude photoshoots with it mounted on my 5D3. It was fun to play with the razor thin DOF, but I decided I didn't like seeing parts of a face blurry. Other body parts can be blurry, but not the face.

It's all a matter of personal taste, in my opinion. I realize that a lot of photographers love the dreamy look of F/1.2 but I rarely have a use for it. If I need that I can get it with my 50mm 1.2 L, which I use at F/1.4 to get just a bit more DOF while retaining nice background bokeh.

I kept using my old Canon 85 1.8, usually at around F/2.2 and that generally gave me adequate DOF as well as good subject/background separation.

I now have the Tamron 85 1.8 VC stabilized lens and I'm quite happy with it. It's a reasonable size, very sharp, nice bokeh, consistent fast autofocus.

I'm keeping my old Canon 85 1.8 around to use as a 135mm equivalent on my Rebel-class bodies. The compact size fits them nicely.

 

[ahsanford]

Also, any guess on the likelihood Canon moves away from focus by wire with this new EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM? Canon was the best show in town for 85mm lenses for some time, but the field is somewhat saturated with rcent high quality options now: Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss, etc. and I believe all of those lenses focus mechanically and not by wire.

So it's one thing for Canon to say 'we are maintaing our legacy of FBW with the new 85L', but the competitors are in the stronger position on this feature, are they not?

- A

 

[Larsskv]

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?

 

[reczey]

I hope it will not be an L lens, but it will be a 'matching pair' for the 35mm f/2 IS. I hope Canon will continue the 'line' they started with the 24mm f/2.8 IS, 28mm f/2.8 IS, 35mm f/2 IS...

 

[scyrene]

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 ...

Well, you can guarantee that a group of scientists will suck the joy and life out of any emotional content. An aesthetically pleasing shot is not a technically perfect shot (what ever that is) or a shot taken with an optically flawless lens. it's one that attracts an pleasing emotional response. While probability may well adhere to science, people are emotional beings and photography is about capturing engaging images. It's the difference between a Magnum photographer and a local photo club photographer.

He's not sucking the joy out - he's bringing the discussion back down to earth. "The new 85 won't have the same magic as the old one" is a pretty useless statement if nothing can be presented to illustrate what is meant. What are people trying to decide between the two meant to make of that? Nobody's telling existing 85L owners to stop using it. You're welcome to get all misty-eyed about it, and by all means enjoy what you do - I hope everyone doing photography enjoys it (at least to some extent) or else do something else. But when we're comparing equipment, saying "lens X has this magical quality that can't be explained, and can't be seen by people in images unless they are true believers" is of zero use or validity beyond the confines of those people's heads.

[T]he 85L has indeed an own signature and I like the way it draws pictures. The new distagon optics are very sharp but optics which are very high corrected have their flaws on bokeh and are very large and have a lot of elements in it. Ergo a worse T-Stop than an old Planar/Gauss Design. Sharpness on the 85L is no problem, even not at f1.2 in the center which was a problem on the old 50 f1 and even on the 50 f1.2.

If it has a signature - by which you must mean a set of unique properties that set its images apart from those produced by all other lenses - then the test that PBD proposes (and has done) ought to prove it: it should be possible to tell that lens apart by its "signature". If not, then it's not a signature unique to this lens. That's not sucking the fun out of photography, it's not hating, it's just puncturing myth with a bit of level-headed objectivity.

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.

Spot on. And it's nothing to be embarrassed by - no matter how good a photographer you are, it is not possible to consistently correctly predict what lens took what shot (or even, as you say, what precise FL or aperture was used). And boiling it down to what can be shown and measured is of great value - because it helps new photographers understand their craft without mystery, can help us choose what kit will best serve our needs, and can help us all better understand what actually makes the images we like best the way they are. Not "use this lens, it's magical" but e.g. "use this combination of focal length, aperture, subject and background distance to get this look".

 

[scyrene]

Also, any guess on the likelihood Canon moves away from focus by wire with this new EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM? Canon was the best show in town for 85mm lenses for some time, but the field is somewhat saturated with rcent high quality options now: Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss, etc. and I believe all of those lenses focus mechanically and not by wire.

So it's one thing for Canon to say 'we are maintaing our legacy of FBW with the new 85L', but the competitors are in the stronger position on this feature, are they not?

- A

Isn't the received wisdom is Canon used focus-by-wire because the moving lens elements were so large and heavy? Perhaps if this new lens is f/1.4 they might choose a conventional mechanical MF. I certainly hope so. I didn't like the 85L's focus by wire, although I mostly use AF so it's not a deal breaker.

 

[Mikehit]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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 !

 

[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.

 

[AJB]

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.

I agree that people probably can't pick which lens took a given picture by looking at that picture on its own and so, in that sense, the characteristics are probably not readily identifiable/recognisable. The same applies to different but similar apertures.

But, I don't think that makes those characteristics irrelevant... I can readily believe that one lens renders slightly (subjectively) better pictures than another at the same focal length/aperture. It might be that seeing EXACTLY the same scene shot from 2 different lenses I'd prefer one of those 2 lenses in almost all cases, and that would make it a "better" lens to me. I could express that by saying it has some sort of "magic" that I can't put my finger on compared to the other one.

But in the real world we never take 2 simultaneous pictures from the same place with 2 different lenses so no, I couldn't point to any given pictures which show why I prefer one or the other.

Just because I can't identify which lens took which picture from a random set of different pictures doesn't negate that "magic"/rendering/image characteristic - a particular lens just seems to give pictures I'm happier with in general.

(And, just for the record, the nearest I've got is a 100 2.8 L macro and a 50 1.8 II, so I'm not defending any given lens I own).

 

[AJB]

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.