The Next Lens from Canon & NAB Announcements

[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.

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.

I'm also an amateur, a weekend snapper for the most part.

I often look at images shot on my 400 f/5.6, compare it to a 600mm on full frame and think the difference isn't noticeable. Until I see those images the 600mm nails perfectly and I realize there's some places my 400 just can't go.

 

[infared]

This room reeks of Canarrogance. :'(

 

[CanonGrunt]

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...

Ditto. If it turns out to be in that 'line', it's a good bet that it'll be released alongside the new 6D. That 'line' has found a loving home among the 6D video enthused owners. If it has IS, I'd be willing to bet it's going to be part of that 'line'.

 

[ahsanford]

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...

Ditto. If it turns out to be in that 'line', it's a good bet that it'll be released alongside the new 6D. That 'line' has found a loving home among the 6D video enthused owners. If it has IS, I'd be willing to bet it's going to be part of that 'line'.

A 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 update will happen, but we are not sure they'll get IS and as rumored here at CR it's possible those lenses get the focus-by-wire Nano USM treatment. Canon may be giving up on proper ring USM in mid-level lenses. :'(

- A

 

[PHOTOPROROCKIES]

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...

Ditto. If it turns out to be in that 'line', it's a good bet that it'll be released alongside the new 6D. That 'line' has found a loving home among the 6D video enthused owners. If it has IS, I'd be willing to bet it's going to be part of that 'line'.

A 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 update will happen, but we are not sure they'll get IS and as rumored here at CR it's possible those lenses get the focus-by-wire Nano USM treatment. Canon may be giving up on proper ring USM in mid-level lenses. :'(

- A

Will most likely be an L lens, and I cannot wait for it to get here! ;D I do agree the 85mm f/1.8 and 50mm f1.4 need updated but this will be an entire new L lens. ;D I also am expecting it to blow the Sigma 85 art out of the water, just hoping canon doesn't disappoint.

 

[Luds34]

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?

No I have not missed the point. Take 100 random photos shot with a list of various 85mm lenses (Canon f/1.2, f/1.8, the new Tamron, the new Sigma, etc.) And blindly ask someone to tell me which lens each photo was shot with. Like I suggested, develop 8x12's, lay them out on the table and tell me you can match random shots to a specific lens because it has that magic that one can just recognize? No, It's impossible. And that was the point a number of us were making.

Heck, just the different magnification of viewing the exact same image at different sizes has a dramatic afffect as we go from small web (facebook) to regular web size to small print, medium print, large print. That's why even knowing the focal length that a picture was shot at, it can be pretty difficult to guess/gauge the aperture that was used.

And this doesn't mean we all shoot with a kit lens. Of course various lenses provide something more, something different, something even a bit unique. I'm sure the 85mm f/1.2L is a fantastic piece of glass. But to pretend it's difference is so vast, so clearly different from any other similar lens, that it falls into the realm of magic? That any photo taken with it can easily be recognized? That is just plain naive thinking.

 

[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?

No I have not missed the point. Take 100 random photos shot with a list of various 85mm lenses (Canon f/1.2, f/1.8, the new Tamron, the new Sigma, etc.) And blindly ask someone to tell me which lens each photo was shot with. Like I suggested, develop 8x12's, lay them out on the table and tell me you can match random shots to a specific lens because it has that magic that one can just recognize? No, It's impossible. And that was the point a number of us were making.

Heck, just the different magnification of viewing the exact same image at different sizes has a dramatic afffect as we go from small web (facebook) to regular web size to small print, medium print, large print. That's why even knowing the focal length that a picture was shot at, it can be pretty difficult to guess/gauge the aperture that was used.

And this doesn't mean we all shoot with a kit lens. Of course various lenses provide something more, something different, something even a bit unique. I'm sure the 85mm f/1.2L is a fantastic piece of glass. But to pretend it's difference is so vast, so clearly different from any other similar lens, that it falls into the realm of magic? That any photo taken with it can easily be recognized? That is just plain naive thinking.

I wish you had read my posts more carefully, and with good intentions, and you wouldn't have made all these false claims about what I mean.

That said, I don't think it would be impossible to pick out the 85LII shots. I wouldn't get them all right, but I would pick out more of them than coincidence would indicate.

Don't get so hung up on the word magic. We're not talking Harry Potter here. Replace magic with better look, and you should get the idea.

 

[ahsanford]

Skating past the immortal debate of 'magic' vs. 'that MTF looks way better' :, let's pivot a bit.

What's the value proposition of this new lens?

1) IS - video people, low light folks should love this. (Also possibly an industry first? I'm not aware of another FF f/1.4 IS lens unless you count bolting an f/1.4 prime on an IBIS A7 or Pentax body.)

2) We presume it will be sharper -- it is 11 years newer, after all.

3) We might get the BR gunk here, given that the last L prime to be released also got it (the 35L II).

4) We might get a mechanical focusing ring back (i.e. RIP focus by wire)

5) It's possible this new lens sheds some weight, but perhaps not -- most of the other 85 f/1.4 designs of late that we've seen (Art, Milvus, Otus) are in that 40-45 oz. neighborhood, but there are some exceptions to that.

And we don't know this new lens's price. Could be the same as the f/1.2L II given all the 'new' they've packed in it + IS, which might actually trump the f/1.2 in the market's eyes.

- A

 

[Hector1970]

As a 85mm 1.2 owner I'll give my two cents.
As lens go it's difficult to use . It's slow focusing.
I've found it incredibly sharp stopped down in a studio.
Used at 1.2 I have to take a few shots each time to ensure eyes are in focus.
It takes a little time and patience but it can produce a beautiful image .
. I know people want to measure that or say show me in comparison to another lens.
It's just a pleasing photograph it produces.
It's what stops users selling it. It's not the most practical lens but it can produce a special photograph .
I know some people here are more interested in the technical side and MFT charts.
I'm more interested in the result, the final image.
For me it's a lens worth keeping for those special moment.
The 70-200 2.8 II is much more reliable and flexible.
I too unfortunately like both the 50 1.2 and 50 1.4 which both produce great images.
My 1.4 is a bit soft at 1.4 but I like the look. My 1.2 is sharp and I like the way it renders the background.
I expect the new 85mm 1.4 will be good, sharp and fast focussing.
Il skip it as the 70-200mm will do that.
The 85mm 1.2 will be kept for that 1.2 look.

 

[infared]

As a 85mm 1.2 owner I'll give my two cents.
As lens go it's difficult to use . It's slow focusing.
I've found it incredibly sharp stopped down in a studio.
Used at 1.2 I have to take a few shots each time to ensure eyes are in focus.
It takes a little time and patience but it can produce a beautiful image .
. I know people want to measure that or say show me in comparison to another lens.
It's just a pleasing photograph it produces.
It's what stops users selling it. It's not the most practical lens but it can produce a special photograph .
I know some people here are more interested in the technical side and MFT charts.
I'm more interested in the result, the final image.
For me it's a lens worth keeping for those special moment.
The 70-200 2.8 II is much more reliable and flexible.
I too unfortunately like both the 50 1.2 and 50 1.4 which both produce great images.
My 1.4 is a bit soft at 1.4 but I like the look. My 1.2 is sharp and I like the way it renders the background.
I expect the new 85mm 1.4 will be good, sharp and fast focussing.
Il skip it as the 70-200mm will do that.
The 85mm 1.2 will be kept for that 1.2 look.

I feel that way, too. I have no doubt that the new 85mm will "out perform" the 85mm f/1.2L II by "modern standards".
This new lens will most likely be a whole different beast, aimed at hi-Rez sensors.
It may well be class-leading with all the optical qualities of the new 35mmL (albeit longer focal length), plus IS, and weather-sealing. I am guessing It will also most likely be in or above the $2K price range. At least it is possible. It will also, most likely be a whopper to hold.
I cannot give up the look of my 85mm f/1.2L II, nor financially justify owning both. LOL!
I am thinking that my choice will be to perhaps purchase the new Sigma 135mm f/1.8 as that would broaden the focal ranges in my quiver, give me a modern uber-sharp, fast-focusing lens in the same general focal range area of the 85mm. That combo would give me more versatility, and no-doubt save me some money knowing newly-released prices of fat Canon L glass. Time will tell...at any rate it will be an exciting lens, no doubt.

 

[scyrene]

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.

Not my rules, but the rules of rationalism, empiricism. Try this as a general background: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence (here the extraordinary claims would be either that the 85L is "magical" or that you can pick out images taken with it better than chance, if given a selection taken at various apertures and focal lengths with it and other lenses. Further down, you say don't get hung up on the word "magic". Okay, maybe this has all been taken to an extreme. I just want to know the properties of a lens. Subjective opinion is relevant of course, as some things are hard to measure. But conversely, it doesn't mean that everything people believe is true (in lenses or anything else).

Once again, and for the last time, nobody has told you to sell your 85L (I don't know how many times I have to say that, perhaps you have magical reading skills too : ). Nobody has even said this isn't an excellent lens - indeed it is, and produces excellent images in some circumstances. But so will a new 85 f/1.4. No pixie dust, just a combination of lens design and skilled photography.

Anyway, I'll stop hijacking the thread now.

 

[scyrene]

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?

Well even if you can't reliably tell e.g. an image taken with the 85L and another with the 70-200 2.8, the 85L has features that recommend it in some situations - most notably the wider maximum aperture. You're eliding two different points here - the discussion arose from people saying a new 85mm lens won't have some "magic" that the 85L does. Choosing between an 85mm f/1.2 and an 85mm f/1.4 is much trickier than e.g. the 85L and a 28-300L. So we'd look at things that separate them. If this magic can't be reliably identified, then it can't really be used as a recommendation for one over the other. That doesn't mean one lens can be used for all subjects in all situations - nobody has ever made that claim, and it would be ludicrous to do so.

Clearly all lenses have properties that recommend them for certain uses. But in other situations the differences may not matter. For medium aperture portraiture in controlled light the 100L macro, 100 f/2, 85mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.8, 70-200 f/2.8 etc may all be similar enough (i.e. impossible to reliably tell apart) that choosing one or another is academic. That is not to say each of those lenses won't excel in other ways - you'd choose the 85L for ultimate low-light use or shallw DOF, the zoom for flexibility, the macro lens for macros, the 85 1.8 for lowest cost, etc. Not to mention AF speed and accuracy, how intimidating they are to subjects - or even how good it makes the photographer feel to have a given piece of kit.

Reliance on terms that cannot be quantified, measured, or even illustrated, is silly. If people want to say the 85L's bokeh is smoother, or that the new 85mm's AF is faster, or whatever, that's great - they can be measured. To say "you need an 85L cos it's magical but you can't see that in images unless you're a true believer" is of no use to anyone. I can't believe this is even controversial.

 

[scyrene]

Skating past the immortal debate of 'magic' vs. 'that MTF looks way better' :, let's pivot a bit.

What's the value proposition of this new lens?

1) IS - video people, low light folks should love this. (Also possibly an industry first? I'm not aware of another FF f/1.4 IS lens unless you count bolting an f/1.4 prime on an IBIS A7 or Pentax body.)

2) We presume it will be sharper -- it is 11 years newer, after all.

3) We might get the BR gunk here, given that the last L prime to be released also got it (the 35L II).

4) We might get a mechanical focusing ring back (i.e. RIP focus by wire)

5) It's possible this new lens sheds some weight, but perhaps not -- most of the other 85 f/1.4 designs of late that we've seen (Art, Milvus, Otus) are in that 40-45 oz. neighborhood, but there are some exceptions to that.

And we don't know this new lens's price. Could be the same as the f/1.2L II given all the 'new' they've packed in it + IS, which might actually trump the f/1.2 in the market's eyes.

- A

IS would be great (I'm a firm supporter of it even in wide aperture lenses). Less chromatic aberration - the 85L had rather a lot wide open. Sharpness is very good in the older lens, despite its wider aperture, so they needn't push that too much. Mechanical manual focus would be a great help.

 

[Luds34]

I wish you had read my posts more carefully, and with good intentions, and you wouldn't have made all these false claims about what I mean.

That said, I don't think it would be impossible to pick out the 85LII shots. I wouldn't get them all right, but I would pick out more of them than coincidence would indicate.

Don't get so hung up on the word magic. We're not talking Harry Potter here. Replace magic with better look, and you should get the idea.

Well, I apologize if missed the nuance of your specific points. By the time I responded a lot of discussion had gone by and at that point one's response can kind of be a general response to the entire discussion, even though I specifically responded to you. In short, of course the "magical" 85mm f/1.2 can produce a "better look", I'm not disagreeing. I just think as pros and enthusiasts we get too caught up in the gear and exaggerate how much better it is. My point is that, more often than not, it's not much.

 

[Luds34]

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?

Clearly all lenses have properties that recommend them for certain uses. But in other situations the differences may not matter. For medium aperture portraiture in controlled light the 100L macro, 100 f/2, 85mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.8, 70-200 f/2.8 etc may all be similar enough (i.e. impossible to reliably tell apart) that choosing one or another is academic. That is not to say each of those lenses won't excel in other ways - you'd choose the 85L for ultimate low-light use or shallw DOF, the zoom for flexibility, the macro lens for macros, the 85 1.8 for lowest cost, etc. Not to mention AF speed and accuracy, how intimidating they are to subjects - or even how good it makes the photographer feel to have a given piece of kit.

Reliance on terms that cannot be quantified, measured, or even illustrated, is silly. If people want to say the 85L's bokeh is smoother, or that the new 85mm's AF is faster, or whatever, that's great - they can be measured. To say "you need an 85L cos it's magical but you can't see that in images unless you're a true believer" is of no use to anyone. I can't believe this is even controversial.

+1

Echoing my thoughts, just articulated much better.

 

[Talys]

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?

Clearly all lenses have properties that recommend them for certain uses. But in other situations the differences may not matter. For medium aperture portraiture in controlled light the 100L macro, 100 f/2, 85mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.8, 70-200 f/2.8 etc may all be similar enough (i.e. impossible to reliably tell apart) that choosing one or another is academic. That is not to say each of those lenses won't excel in other ways - you'd choose the 85L for ultimate low-light use or shallw DOF, the zoom for flexibility, the macro lens for macros, the 85 1.8 for lowest cost, etc. Not to mention AF speed and accuracy, how intimidating they are to subjects - or even how good it makes the photographer feel to have a given piece of kit.

Reliance on terms that cannot be quantified, measured, or even illustrated, is silly. If people want to say the 85L's bokeh is smoother, or that the new 85mm's AF is faster, or whatever, that's great - they can be measured. To say "you need an 85L cos it's magical but you can't see that in images unless you're a true believer" is of no use to anyone. I can't believe this is even controversial.

+1

Echoing my thoughts, just articulated much better.

I totally agree. Like most equipment, it's all a matter of compromises -- the decision for a lot of people is to buy the best lens for the one purpose, and then to just make it work for the other uses where it might not be technically the best lens, but the differences are academic.

Just because every piece of equipment has something that makes it stand out doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of overlap in usefulness.

 

[ahsanford]

Just because every piece of equipment has something that makes it stand out doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of overlap in usefulness.

Yep. 35L II vs. 35 f/2 IS is a great example of that, as is 24-70 f/2.8L II vs. 24-70 f/4L IS, as is... hell, half the portfolio now that I think about it.

- A

 

[Larsskv]

I wish you had read my posts more carefully, and with good intentions, and you wouldn't have made all these false claims about what I mean.

That said, I don't think it would be impossible to pick out the 85LII shots. I wouldn't get them all right, but I would pick out more of them than coincidence would indicate.

Don't get so hung up on the word magic. We're not talking Harry Potter here. Replace magic with better look, and you should get the idea.

Well, I apologize if missed the nuance of your specific points. By the time I responded a lot of discussion had gone by and at that point one's response can kind of be a general response to the entire discussion, even though I specifically responded to you. In short, of course the "magical" 85mm f/1.2 can produce a "better look", I'm not disagreeing. I just think as pros and enthusiasts we get too caught up in the gear and exaggerate how much better it is. My point is that, more often than not, it's not much.

We can settle our little dispute here. The 85LII won't look special in every image, far from it, and that is why illustrating it's qualities is difficult. I hope people reading this thread has noted that many owners of the 85LII find it to be unrivaled in certain situations, despite its chromatic aberrations and slow focus. And yes, it is a speciality lens that works best for portraits.

 

[paulrossjones]

<p>We have been told that this lens will not replace the EF 85mm f/1.2L, and that the classic 85L will remain current in the lineup for the foreseeable future.</p>

Why? Who would buy such lens?

Heavier, older, no IS, probably a lot less sharp at any aperture and maybe more expensive. Pretty sure the 1.4 will have weather sealing too.

The difference between f/1.4 and 1.2 is insignificant.

the look of 1.2 compared to stopping down to 1.4 really is significant. I find the 85 1.2 at 1.2 , canons prettiest lens. I am sure the new 1.4 will be sharper, but when you use the 85 1.2 its the feel of the lens thats the most important thing.

 

[infared]

<p>We have been told that this lens will not replace the EF 85mm f/1.2L, and that the classic 85L will remain current in the lineup for the foreseeable future.</p>

Why? Who would buy such lens?

Heavier, older, no IS, probably a lot less sharp at any aperture and maybe more expensive. Pretty sure the 1.4 will have weather sealing too.

The difference between f/1.4 and 1.2 is insignificant.

the look of 1.2 compared to stopping down to 1.4 really is significant. I find the 85 1.2 at 1.2 , canons prettiest lens. I am sure the new 1.4 will be sharper, but when you use the 85 1.2 its the feel of the lens thats the most important thing.

Don't look now...but the "experts" are about to set you straight on that comment. Good luck!