Updated Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS Specifcations

[jdavidse]

I have been holding off for a while buying the 85mm f1.2L II because I don't want to deal with the focus misses or the focus by wire mechanism. I would have bought the Sigma had this new lens not been rumored. I am personally very excited about the specs- it seems a 1.4 as a compromise to achieve better focus and optics is a great trade. And the IS will just be icing on the cake. I don't expect it to be cheap, but for anything less than $2k, count me in.

In the meantime, I noticed it is the exact same length as the 35mm f/1.4L II, and the exact diameter of the 24-70mm f/2.8L II.

 

[Maiaibing]

I believe there were some discrepant opinions regarding whether or not the number of aperture blades affects the "roundness" of out of focus spheres. The 85 1.4L has 9 blades vs. 8 blades in 85 1.2ii. Can this make a difference?

Yes - if you are a bokeh freak (I am). Rounded blades also help. ;D

 

[Larsskv]

Hmmm....weight is only a bit lighter....it focuses a little closer and it's a little less stubby in size....hmmm....I think I'll pass. It sounds like a poor man's 85IIL.

Yep! I might have been tempted if it were less than 800 grams, but this one seems to come in very close to the 85LII. One good reason not to "upgrade".

Focusing speed is ok with the 85LII on the 1DXII, as long as you don´t have to focus from near to far away very often. Hopefully it will focus as accurate as the 85LII.

 

[scyrene]

It cannot replace the 85 1.2 II because the 85 1.2 is a compromise design not focused on charts or sharpness readings, but designed to make natural light portraits look amazing. I'd love it to focus faster, but I can't possibly imagine the 1.4L replacing it for my use anyway.

Now, of course, I may be wrong and it may turn out to be an incredible lens. But I suspect it'll be OK.

At the risk of reopening a rather rancorous debate on another thread a few months ago, and while I agree that the 85L can of course produce amazing portraits (and reportedly was designed with that in mind before anything else), I don't think under most circumstances, in a blind test, most people would be able to tell it apart from this new lens when shot wide open.

I expect the new 85 will be a little sharper, especially off centre, and hope it'll have less chromatic aberration, which I found too strong in the 85LII. With IS and especially if it has real manual focus, it will be a much more obliging beast for most, although the 85L(II) will retain its cachet and bragging rights as the widest aperture 85mm lens.

(I don't know why we call people like them "red heads", they're not)

The colour term 'orange' is a relative latecomer to the English language, named for the fruit, so things we'd use that word to describe now were often considered 'red', cf. robin red-breast (the British bird which originates the name is decidedly orange), red deer, etc.

I believe there were some discrepant opinions regarding whether or not the number of aperture blades affects the "roundness" of out of focus spheres. The 85 1.4L has 9 blades vs. 8 blades in 85 1.2ii. Can this make a difference?

Yes - if you are a bokeh freak (I am). Rounded blades also help. ;D

I may be wrong, so please someone inform me: I thought wide open, all lenses had a circular aperture, the aperture blades only kick in when stopped down, in which case the more there are, the better, and rounded is better than straight. Odd versus even numbers of blades also affects 'sunstars' differently.

 

[MrFotoFool]

It is surprising how much longer it is. However, going with the 77mm standard for filter size is a plus. All five of my lenses happen to be 77mm which makes using my polarizer so much easier. Addition of IS is also a huge plus.

However I have Sigma 85 f1.4 (the version prior to new Art) that works great, so I have no need to change. I am not a portrait shooter but love it for low light (city, late zoo openings, etc), so it is not ONLY a portrait lens.

 

[Cory]

I sincerely believe that with this lens on my 6D that I'll be able to get chicks.

 

[Jopa]

I sincerely believe that with this lens on my 6D that I'll be able to get chicks.

I think Canon should include this statement to their marketing materials!

 

[Jopa]

*FLUORINE* not *FLOURINE* !!!!

Flour + urine? Gross! Stupid Canon!

 

[grainier]

Wow, a kilo?

 

[Maiaibing]

I may be wrong, so please someone inform me: I thought wide open, all lenses had a circular aperture, the aperture blades only kick in when stopped down, in which case the more there are, the better, and rounded is better than straight. Odd versus even numbers of blades also affects 'sunstars' differently.

Correct - wide open there are no blades to interfere.

 

[ahsanford]

Wow, a kilo?

85 f/1.2L II: 36.2 oz
85 f/1.4L IS: 33.5 oz
85 Art: 39.9 oz
85 Otus: 42.4 oz

Additionally:

Samyang 85 f/1.2: 1.05 kg
Zeiss Milvus 85 1.4: 1.28 kg

So yes, they generally run heavy. However, a host of older/3rd party lenses are in the 500-700g range. Somehow the Nikon 85 f/1.4G is shockingly under 600g, which either means a lot of plastic or a very simple design, but I don't know much about it.

- A

 

[pwp]

Wow, a kilo?

85 f/1.2L II: 36.2 oz
85 f/1.4L IS: 33.5 oz
85 Art: 39.9 oz
85 Otus: 42.4 oz

Additionally:

Samyang 85 f/1.2: 1.05 kg
Zeiss Milvus 85 1.4: 1.28 kg

So yes, they generally run heavy. However, a host of older/3rd party lenses are in the 500-700g range. Somehow the Nikon 85 f/1.4G is shockingly under 600g, which either means a lot of plastic or a very simple design, but I don't know much about it.

- A

And the little old 85 f/1.8 specs:

Weight 0.93 lb / 425 g
Maximum diameter 3.0 in / 75.0 mm
Length 2.8 in / 71.5 mm
Filter diameter 58 mm

The new 85 f/1.4 sounds like a good one, but is unlikely to challenge the 70-200 f/2.8isII for a spot in my bag.

-pw

 

[hne]

Wow, a kilo?

85 f/1.2L II: 36.2 oz
85 f/1.4L IS: 33.5 oz
85 Art: 39.9 oz
85 Otus: 42.4 oz

Additionally:

Samyang 85 f/1.2: 1.05 kg
Zeiss Milvus 85 1.4: 1.28 kg

So yes, they generally run heavy. However, a host of older/3rd party lenses are in the 500-700g range. Somehow the Nikon 85 f/1.4G is shockingly under 600g, which either means a lot of plastic or a very simple design, but I don't know much about it.

- A

I was really, really hoping for something closer to the Nikon. I'm not so sure I'd be toting another brick around in my handbag (crumpler pretty boy xl). 5D+35/1.4+85/1.8 is already a bit on the heavy side at about 2kg on one shoulder for a whole day. Adding another 524g? Nah, then I'd have to take a backpack. I guress I won't be selling my 85/1.8 even if I'm getting the /1.4L IS.

 

[SecureGSM]

85 F1.4 IS lens is likely more suited for studio photography and outdoor portraits shot wide open. Having said that, I used 85 F1.4 glass for shooting portraits at dimly lit venues wide open when flash photography was not an option. I know quite a few wedding togs shooting entire wedding with 2 cams and 35 F1.4 and 85 F1.4.

The new 85 f/1.4 sounds like a good one, but is unlikely to challenge the 70-200 f/2.8isII for a spot in my bag.

-pw

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I may be wrong, so please someone inform me: I thought wide open, all lenses had a circular aperture,

It always amuses me that the 135L (an awesome lens) has fairly straight aperture blades (compared to newer designs) and the stopped down bokeh and out of focus rendering is not as nice as it is wide open. But you rarely hear of anyone complaining about it...I think because everyone uses it wide open. But stop it down to f2.8 or f4 and it's short comings are quite obvious.

 

[wockawocka]

Nice specs.

But I've said it before and it needs saying again. L series up the 1.8 and it'll be a nifty performer at half the weight of the current 85L.

 

[tapanit]

I may be wrong, so please someone inform me: I thought wide open, all lenses had a circular aperture, the aperture blades only kick in when stopped down, in which case the more there are, the better, and rounded is better than straight. Odd versus even numbers of blades also affects 'sunstars' differently.

Correct - wide open there are no blades to interfere.

Yes. That means it's possible to have perfectly round aperture at two settings, wide open and at one selected smaller aperture (say, f/1.8 or f/2.8 or whatever Canon wants). At all other settings there'd be corners.

 

[ScottyP]

I somehow never really warmed to my 85mm f/1.8. I've been thinking of selling but there were few nibbles on my Craigslist and everyone wanted to pay peanuts so I kept it. I think it is a combination of the focal length being just a little too long or short somehow, and the photos not being as contrasty as my 70-200. I also find that at a longer FL like this f/2.8 gives about as narrow a DOF as I really want. Any narrower and you get OOF ears, which I find makes people look weird; like they are doing a back float with ears underwater. I find despite the weight I go for the IQ and versatility of the 70-200 over the shallower dof and the1 1/3 stop of light of the 85.

Maybe I just need to leave the 85 on the camera for a month and force myself to get my head around it. Then maybe this new lens will appeal more strongly to me.

 

[jebrady03]

.. so with Sony, your family is desaturated?

You'd call this image I took of my son last night desaturated?

I didn't touch the vibrance or saturation sliders and I actually desaturated the greens by -10. I reduced the luminance on the orange and yellow sliders and I only increased the saturation of the orange slider by +10 (I overexposed slightly and had to correct it).

I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about because you haven't actually used the equipment, hence your link to something other than your own work.

 

[SecureGSM]

Scotty,

Let me share my thoughts. the hidden benefits of shooting 85 F1.4 or F1.8 lens stopped down to F2.8 are: much lower levels of CA and vignetting, better corner sharpness So there is definitely a point in shooting with a wide aperture prime stopped down.Or even step back a bit for increased DoF and shoot full body portrait.
The DoF, when shooting with 85mm lens at F1.8 and 5m to subject, is quite reasonable being 18cm in front of and 18cm behind the subject.

I somehow never really warmed to my 85mm f/1.8. I've been thinking of selling but there were few nibbles on my Craigslist and everyone wanted to pay peanuts so I kept it. I think it is a combination of the focal length being just a little too long or short somehow, and the photos not being as contrasty as my 70-200. I also find that at a longer FL like this f/2.8 gives about as narrow a DOF as I really want. Any narrower and you get OOF ears, which I find makes people look weird; like they are doing a back float with ears underwater. I find despite the weight I go for the IQ and versatility of the 70-200 over the shallower dof and the1 1/3 stop of light of the 85.

Maybe I just need to leave the 85 on the camera for a month and force myself to get my head around it. Then maybe this new lens will appeal more strongly to me.