Which Canon 85mm Lens is for You?

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<iframe width="728" height="409" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/e_ZqsMK-hD8" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe><p>Which Canon 85mm lens is for you?</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCknMR7NOY6ZKcVbyzOxQPhw">Kai W</a> breaks down the trio of current 85mm offerings from Canon, the classic <a href="https://bhpho.to/2EQYVH7">EF 85mm f/1.2L II</a>, the brand new <a href="https://bhpho.to/2wsZaDB">EF 85mm f/1.4L IS</a> and the bargain <a href="https://bhpho.to/2sGRBJs">EF 85mm f/1.8</a>.</p>
<p>If we had to choose only one? I think it would be the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS, though I wouldn’t have any problems owning it alongside the other two 85mm options, because they can all fit different shooting situation.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[danfaz]

I've owned all three, and the new 1.4 is my favorite. Not quite the same bokeh as the 1.2, but you still get 3D effect, and its speed, IS, and weather-sealing is just no contest. Way more versatile.

 

[StoicalEtcher]

I've also had all three (still have 1.4 and 1.8). I'd add my 2p to danfaz view and agree the 1.4 is the one to choose.

I think the 1.8 has it's place as a great economy lens, and the 1.2 I loved for studio work, and would still have if it hadn't broken irreparably after a drop!

Stoical.

 

[arthurbikemad]

Sold my 1.2II, waiting for the 1.4IS 8)

 

[AvTvM]

easy! choose age-old Canon EF 85/1.8 for strong bokeh fringing all the way from f/1.8 to f/4.0 ... otherwise go with Tamron 85/1.8 VC for excellent IQ, IS, compact size and reasonable price.

or forget mirrorslapper lenses altogether and get an EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM ... excellent IQ, IS, super compact size, very affordable price ... ooops, not available yet. ;D

 

[aceflibble]

I'm on the Tamron 85 for now. Not terribly happy with it, but still preferable to any of the Canon ones. I've had the 1.8 and 1.2 several times before and was never happy with either of them. The 1.2's focusing is trash and the 1.8 is just a downgraded 100mm f/2. The 1.4 interested me at first, but after giving it a test, it became apparent very quickly that—at least the two copies which were made available to me—it's got an inconsistent rendering across the frame, with the center nice enough but the outer third having noticeably much less contrast. The colour rendering was also a touch cooler than the standard for Canon, which cause an inconsistency within a shoot. So I've ended up with the Tamron, which while having the lowest transmission and not terribly great focusing, is at least better both for manual and auto focus than the 1.2 and has mire consistent rendering and neutral colour than the Canon 1.4.

In truth, the very best 85 for me is actually the Nikon 105mm f/1.4. I sorely wish Canon would make a 100mm f/1.4L (and a 28mm f/1.4L, which they already filed the patent for; another lens Nikon has but Canon lacks) or I could adapt that Nikon to a Canon body with full functionality. (Or it'd be nice if Nikon bodies weren't so horribly cramped to hold; either way around works for me.) But since that's not on the cards, I'll keep slumming it with an 85 for now.

 

[peterzuehlke]

Tamron 85mm 1.8 (i need IS or VC or whatever) for performance shooting and did want to pay twice as much for the Canon and from what i have seen, maybe not get as good bokeh. The Canon shots i have seen, from the 1.4 IS seems to have more astigmatism.

 

[stevelee]

I had assumed that I would some day buy one of these now that I have a FF camera. I had been using the 50mm f/1.4 on my Rebel for that approximate crop range and DOF. I really liked the 85mm f/1.8 (I think it was) on my FT-QL, and my trinity in those days when zooms were not very good consisted of the 28, 85, and 200mm lenses when I was away from the rest of the arsenal.

Last week I was out taking shots of tiny crocuses with my 100mm non-L macro, when I got to talking with my neighbor who was washing her car, and the subject naturally turned to photography (which she had taken a course in at college). I told her the lens was good as a small telephoto as well as a macro, and said that it should be good for portraits. So she posed for me to take a head and shoulders shot, everything just set on auto. The results were good enough that the 100mm is now my portrait lens for the foreseeable future, and my GAS will be directed to focal lengths other than 85mm.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Tamron 85mm 1.8 (i need IS or VC or whatever) for performance shooting and did want to pay twice as much for the Canon and from what i have seen, maybe not get as good bokeh. The Canon shots i have seen, from the 1.4 IS seems to have more astigmatism.

I love that lens. I took it to Rwanda and shot gorillas with it, it never let me down. I recommend it to everyone who will listen.

 

[YuengLinger]

I think the biggest problem with keeping the 1.2 after buying the 1.4 is the risk of very high repair costs for the 1.2. Having that slight little difference in creaminess is not worth exposing myself to a bill of 800 or $1,000 or $1,200 for a lens that will be used so rarely now that I have the 1.4.

 

[mjg79]

An interesting video. I was surprised to see how much better the bokeh looked from the 1.2 though - I wonder how scientific the test was, perhaps he focused half an inch closer with it?

Almost every review/comparison I've seen has said the 1.2 remains the best rendering in terms of bokeh but that the 1.4 is so close as to be almost irrelevant. Yet in Kai's comparison the 1.2 looks miles better.

Here's an alternative take I found:

https://neilvn.com/tangents/bokeh-canon-ef-85mm-f14l-is-lens/

From this comparison again I would agree the 1.2 is the nicest rendering and has the nicest bokeh, partly due to the fall off in focus, partly due to the lower contrast and partly due to the softer bokeh balls. But there you can see the 1.4 IS is very close, at times hard to distinguish. Indeed Canon appears to have made a conscious decision not to chase Sigma and Zeiss on sharpness (Dustin Abbott found the Canon softer than the Sigma 85Art and Zeiss 85) but to try to achieve a best of both, being sharper than the 1.2 while keeping most of the rendering and avoiding the harsh Sigma bokeh.

Has anyone found any more direct and scientific comparisons? Or anyone lucky enough to own both keen to do some comparison shots? I have an 85 1.2 II and I use it almost exclusively for portraits so the IS and faster auto-focus isn't a huge deal to me but would be nice to have as long as I don't have to give up *all* of the magic the 1.2 II gives. I can't make up my mind whether to move to the 1.4.

If nothing else I feel videos like this show just what an amazing piece of engineering the 85/1.2 is. If I have been informed correctly it dates back in fundamental design to the FD mount 85/1.2. It's astonishing really that it still hangs with the latest lenses, indeed if one isn't looking at 100% it is perhaps still the best 85 there is for portraits. Astonishing for a decades old design.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

To be honest, Kai's reviews are fun (Top Gear style), I like them, but they have very little useful information. Not that there is no information at all, but not too much. First part of this review, for example (and in the previous ones as far as I can remember) he's comparing lenses by shots taken from different locations/angles.

Sharpness comparison is somewhat useful but isn't much detailed (you wanna see what happens in the centre vs corners), also vignetting and CA.
Bokeh comparison should've been done with different backgrounds, bokeh isn't only about highlights.

I'm looking at getting 85 f1/4L but haven't decided yet, my 70-200 f2/8L IS II works fine for portraits, although it's very heavy.

 

[michi]

I have had a EF 85 1.8 since the 90's paired with a Canon A2e back then. I never used it too much because results were always hit and miss, going from Digital Rebel to 7D and 5D II. AF wasn't reliable until I got a 5D IV which finally seemed to get about 85% of the shots in focus.

Finally shelled out the big bucks and got the 85 1.4. AF is always spot on. Images compared to the 1.8 pop and look amazing even wide open. The only thing I don't like is the really terrible purple and green fringing. When, for example, hair is lit by the sun from behind, it's a green and purple mess which even DPP can't fix. Not impressed at all with this. All in all, I do like the lens, but I don't think it's worth the current $1,600.

 

[slclick]

Tamron 85mm 1.8 (i need IS or VC or whatever) for performance shooting and did want to pay twice as much for the Canon and from what i have seen, maybe not get as good bokeh. The Canon shots i have seen, from the 1.4 IS seems to have more astigmatism.

I love that lens. I took it to Rwanda and shot gorillas with it, it never let me down. I recommend it to everyone who will listen.

Tha Tammy?

 

[YuengLinger]

Has anyone found any more direct and scientific comparisons? Or anyone lucky enough to own both keen to do some comparison shots? I have an 85 1.2 II and I use it almost exclusively for portraits so the IS and faster auto-focus isn't a huge deal to me but would be nice to have as long as I don't have to give up *all* of the magic the 1.2 II gives. I can't make up my mind whether to move to the 1.4.

For me, being able to lower my ISO and still get sharp shots at lower shutter speeds (because of IS and quicker AF) more than makes up for difficult to perceive lost "magic."

You make a good point about the 1.2 holding up for so many years, but another point: Canon has made an excellent follow-up with IS, quick AF, and better ergonomics for about 25% less sticker price.

I am not seeing any serious purple/green fringing--though it is there at f/1.4. And it cleans up completely in LR Classic CC. (At least "completely" enough for even very picky real-world use. In other words, it is an insignificant negative factor.)

An earlier post referred to "bragging rights" with 1/3 stop larger aperture. That gave me a chuckle as I tried to imagine a bride, a business person, an athlete, or a family member bragging to a friend, "Well, your portraits are fine, but MINE were taken with a lens that could go to 1.2. Of course the photographer used f/2 to get enough of my features in focus, but, WOW, that lens COULD have gone to 1.2."

Or how about a photographer, just as a session begins, bragging, "By the way, you are about to be photographed with a lens that can do f/1.2! Do you know how AWESOME that is?"

Yes, I had some brief moments of sentiment. I bought the 1.4, used it for a few days heavily, compared images taken with the 1.2, and knew right away there was no point keeping both. I really was fond of the 1.2, but I had an excellent copy in perfect working order that would get a good amount for resale. In time, not only would resale value go down, but a repair would really be frustrating to deal with, as I'd either have to sell very cheap or pay hundreds of dollars to get it working again. Now I'm stoked to have a very fast 85mm with quick AF and IS that works great for either sitting subjects or environmental portraits with some movement on location. Not to mention low-light events.

 

[mrgazpacho]

I had assumed that I would some day buy one of these now that I have a FF camera.
...
The results were good enough that the 100mm is now my portrait lens for the foreseeable future

Hmmm... thanks for the interesting perspective!

I have the 100 f2.8 IS Macro L ... might give it a trial for a couple of portraits to see how it works for me

 

[mjg79]

For me, being able to lower my ISO and still get sharp shots at lower shutter speeds (because of IS and quicker AF) more than makes up for difficult to perceive lost "magic."

You make a good point about the 1.2 holding up for so many years, but another point: Canon has made an excellent follow-up with IS, quick AF, and better ergonomics for about 25% less sticker price.

I am not seeing any serious purple/green fringing--though it is there at f/1.4. And it cleans up completely in LR Classic CC. (At least "completely" enough for even very picky real-world use. In other words, it is an insignificant negative factor.)

An earlier post referred to "bragging rights" with 1/3 stop larger aperture. That gave me a chuckle as I tried to imagine a bride, a business person, an athlete, or a family member bragging to a friend, "Well, your portraits are fine, but MINE were taken with a lens that could go to 1.2. Of course the photographer used f/2 to get enough of my features in focus, but, WOW, that lens COULD have gone to 1.2."

Or how about a photographer, just as a session begins, bragging, "By the way, you are about to be photographed with a lens that can do f/1.2! Do you know how AWESOME that is?"

Yes, I had some brief moments of sentiment. I bought the 1.4, used it for a few days heavily, compared images taken with the 1.2, and knew right away there was no point keeping both. I really was fond of the 1.2, but I had an excellent copy in perfect working order that would get a good amount for resale. In time, not only would resale value go down, but a repair would really be frustrating to deal with, as I'd either have to sell very cheap or pay hundreds of dollars to get it working again. Now I'm stoked to have a very fast 85mm with quick AF and IS that works great for either sitting subjects or environmental portraits with some movement on location. Not to mention low-light events.

That sounds a sensible approach. I'm sure you're right than on balanced the new 85 IS is a more practical lens.

I have a set up that I suspect is a fairly common combination - I have the 70-200 for when I must get the shot and the 85/1.2 for when I have time and want to create something special.

I think for a travel lens and for working photographers everything you say would apply 100% - I really struggle to imagine many in either group wanting to buy the 1.2 now. But for those of us who have it as a guilty pleasure and for whom practicality isn't the biggest issue then it becomes a tricky choice.

I think I'll wait and see if the price drops a bit for the new lens but it must be nice to have an 85 that tracks fast movement!

 

[Ian_of_glos]

Has anyone found any more direct and scientific comparisons? Or anyone lucky enough to own both keen to do some comparison shots? I have an 85 1.2 II and I use it almost exclusively for portraits so the IS and faster auto-focus isn't a huge deal to me but would be nice to have as long as I don't have to give up *all* of the magic the 1.2 II gives. I can't make up my mind whether to move to the 1.4.

For me, being able to lower my ISO and still get sharp shots at lower shutter speeds (because of IS and quicker AF) more than makes up for difficult to perceive lost "magic."

You make a good point about the 1.2 holding up for so many years, but another point: Canon has made an excellent follow-up with IS, quick AF, and better ergonomics for about 25% less sticker price.

I am not seeing any serious purple/green fringing--though it is there at f/1.4. And it cleans up completely in LR Classic CC. (At least "completely" enough for even very picky real-world use. In other words, it is an insignificant negative factor.)

An earlier post referred to "bragging rights" with 1/3 stop larger aperture. That gave me a chuckle as I tried to imagine a bride, a business person, an athlete, or a family member bragging to a friend, "Well, your portraits are fine, but MINE were taken with a lens that could go to 1.2. Of course the photographer used f/2 to get enough of my features in focus, but, WOW, that lens COULD have gone to 1.2."

Or how about a photographer, just as a session begins, bragging, "By the way, you are about to be photographed with a lens that can do f/1.2! Do you know how AWESOME that is?"

Yes, I had some brief moments of sentiment. I bought the 1.4, used it for a few days heavily, compared images taken with the 1.2, and knew right away there was no point keeping both. I really was fond of the 1.2, but I had an excellent copy in perfect working order that would get a good amount for resale. In time, not only would resale value go down, but a repair would really be frustrating to deal with, as I'd either have to sell very cheap or pay hundreds of dollars to get it working again. Now I'm stoked to have a very fast 85mm with quick AF and IS that works great for either sitting subjects or environmental portraits with some movement on location. Not to mention low-light events.

Thank you for your considered and well reasoned summary. You have confirmed what I think I already knew - that I better trade my F1.2L ii in for a F1.4L before it is too late and before there are so many second hand F1.2s around that its trade in value drops through the floor. However, it is difficult to part with a lens that has served me well for many years and which has produced some breathtaking shots on so many occasions.

With the remark about bragging rights - I was really referring to other photographers not models or family members. Apparently some camera manufacturers don't have an 85mm F1.2 lens available at all, and it is always fun being able to claim that the extra 1/3 stop has made all the difference, allowing me to take a shot in almost complete darkness. Actually most of my family already think I am stark raving bonkers and can't understand why I haven't replaced my camera with a mobile phone yet.

 

[Larsskv]

Has anyone found any more direct and scientific comparisons? Or anyone lucky enough to own both keen to do some comparison shots? I have an 85 1.2 II and I use it almost exclusively for portraits so the IS and faster auto-focus isn't a huge deal to me but would be nice to have as long as I don't have to give up *all* of the magic the 1.2 II gives. I can't make up my mind whether to move to the 1.4.

I have made this comment in another thread, but I would like to add it here as well.

As some of you might remember, I love my 85LII. However, GAS took the better of me, and I added the 85L f1.4 IS to my kit about 7 weeks ago. The new lens is really, really good. The AF is much faster than the 85LII and very precise, better than my 35LII. The IS makes a significant difference. It is also sharper wide open, and light transmission seems very good. Vignetting is comparably good as well. Minimum focusing distance is also significantly closer than the 85LII. All summarized, the 85L f1.4 is better than the 85LII at “all” factors that can be measured in an objective way.

All this said, I still think the pictures I get from the 85LII is more desirable, in terms of background separation and that 3D-effect that makes subjects appear more life like. The 85L f1.4 takes very nice pictures, but they don’t have the same degree of wow factor that makes me fall in love with many of the 85LII pictures. My wife seems to agree. I should add that my primary use for the 85LII is portraits, and usually within the range of minimum focusing distance and up to two meters. My favorite aperture with this lens is f2.

Please note that I haven’t done any scientific comparison yet, and I am aware that my opionion is subjective.

Anyway, I do belive that I will keep both lenses. If I were to choose only one, it would be the 85LII, but that is because I use the 85mm focal length mainly for portraits, within 3 meters. For everything else, I think the new 85L f1.4 is the better choice.

 

[JoFT]

for me 85mm is one of my favorite focal length.... And I do have a couple of them.

• Zeiss Planar f14.
• Sigma f1.4 (non Art)
• Zeiss Milvus f1.4

And I tested another couple like

• Tamron 85mm f1.8

My favorite is the new EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM! It is the most versatile one. The killer argument against all 3rd party is AF confidence. This is where then Canon shines!!!


In terms of IQ: Yes the Canon is an excellent peace of glass - even if pixel peeping shows some advantages here and there in favor of other lenses - but these are no killer points - like AF confidence....