Would you buy a hypothetical 85mm f/1.4L portrait lens if...

[Sella174]

I'm holding out for the 85mm f/1.0 L, myself. More light, not less. IMO, the notion that sensor improvements negate the value of fast lenses is just silly. Sensor improvements make fast lenses more capable.

Yes. I want to be able use my aperture as much for creative decisions as just technical(exposure). It's baffled me for years hearing the excuse thrown around from manufactures and other photographers alike that we no longer need fast glass because cameras are now capable of ISO speeds in the realm of science fiction when all you had was film or even just 5-10 years ago with digital. Hell, because we have cameras that can shoot in the 100K+ and 200k+ ISO realms, should manufactures just start making all lenses starting at f/8? 8)

Depends, as there are two sides in this. There will always be a need for lenses with large apertures in certain focal lengths for the depth of field effect. However, at the other end, both high-ISO sensors and IS has negated the need for large aperture lenses for pure low-light photography. This means that an 85mm f/1.4 lens makes sense, because the aperture is used for DoF effect (29cm @ 5m); however, a 24mm f/1.4 lens makes absolutely no sense as such a focal length has already way too much DoF for it to be of any artistic value (423cm @ 5m), hence the huge aperture was purely for "available light" - which is not necessary anymore now with 4-stop IS and ISO12800 sensors being "standard".

 

[StudentOfLight]

I'm holding out for the 85mm f/1.0 L, myself. More light, not less. IMO, the notion that sensor improvements negate the value of fast lenses is just silly. Sensor improvements make fast lenses more capable.

Yes. I want to be able use my aperture as much for creative decisions as just technical(exposure). It's baffled me for years hearing the excuse thrown around from manufactures and other photographers alike that we no longer need fast glass because cameras are now capable of ISO speeds in the realm of science fiction when all you had was film or even just 5-10 years ago with digital. Hell, because we have cameras that can shoot in the 100K+ and 200k+ ISO realms, should manufactures just start making all lenses starting at f/8? 8)

Depends, as there are two sides in this. There will always be a need for lenses with large apertures in certain focal lengths for the depth of field effect. However, at the other end, both high-ISO sensors and IS has negated the need for large aperture lenses for pure low-light photography. This means that an 85mm f/1.4 lens makes sense, because the aperture is used for DoF effect (29cm @ 5m); however, a 24mm f/1.4 lens makes absolutely no sense as such a focal length has already way too much DoF for it to be of any artistic value (423cm @ 5m), hence the huge aperture was purely for "available light" - which is not necessary anymore now with 4-stop IS and ISO12800 sensors being "standard".

Wide maximum apertures are not only for shallow depth of field. If all you're after is a more blurred background then you could use for example an extension tube to move the subject proportionally closer to you than it is to the background.

Here are a few reasons why a wide angle, wide aperture lens is important to me. They might not be good reasons to everyone but they are good enough for me.

Anyway, the wider the max aperture the better the T-Stop usually is. The better the T-Stop (maximum transmission through a lens), the more light is available for the AF system to work. This can lead to improved low light focusing (all other factors being equal).

For flash photography: "Guide Number" / "f-Stop" = range
If you have sufficient DoF, a wider aperture allows you to place your flashes further from the subject (e.g. further out of frame) or to use a lower power setting so you can get more shots from your batteries, while not sacrificing IQ, which would happen if you were to simply jack up ISO.

Wide-field astrophotography??? I know this is a much more niche type of photography but the wider the max aperture the better. Shallow DoF has nothing to do with it, Ultra high ISO is pointless and IS is irrelevant. With ISO 12,800 you will get tons of noise and when you are trying to photograph little points of light, that kind of noise is seriously detrimental. No current lens will give you the required 9-or-so stops of stabilization for an exposure in excess of 20s.

 

[Sella174]

Wide maximum apertures are not only for shallow depth of field.

True, and I said so.

Anyway, the wider the max aperture the better the T-Stop usually is. The better the T-Stop (maximum transmission through a lens), the more light is available for the AF system to work. This can lead to improved low light focusing (all other factors being equal).

Also true, but advances in AF systems are also negating this point.

For flash photography: "Guide Number" / "f-Stop" = range
If you have sufficient DoF, a wider aperture allows you to place your flashes further from the subject (e.g. further out of frame) or to use a lower power setting so you can get more shots from your batteries, while not sacrificing IQ, which would happen if you were to simply jack up ISO.

"If you have sufficient DoF ..." This naturally depends on the lens focal length, subject distance and set aperture. With a 24mm lens (for example) you nearly always have heaps of DoF ... or heaps of barrel distortion.

Wide-field astrophotography??? I know this is a much more niche type of photography but the wider the max aperture the better. Shallow DoF has nothing to do with it, Ultra high ISO is pointless and IS is irrelevant. With ISO 12,800 you will get tons of noise and when you are trying to photograph little points of light, that kind of noise is seriously detrimental. No current lens will give you the required 9-or-so stops of stabilization for an exposure in excess of 20s.

Yes. So shame on Canon for not making such lenses for the 60Da ...

 

[StudentOfLight]

Sella, I guess we sidetracked the discussion a bit talking about wide and ultra wide FL, anyway to the OP's qusetion my reply is yes I would buy a 85mm f/1.4. I have the 135L and it is too long sometimes. I'd something like 85/1.4 or 100/1.4 that focuses as quickly as the 135/2.

 

[Loren E]

I'm holding out for the 85mm f/1.0 L, myself. More light, not less. IMO, the notion that sensor improvements negate the value of fast lenses is just silly. Sensor improvements make fast lenses more capable.

Yes. I want to be able use my aperture as much for creative decisions as just technical(exposure). It's baffled me for years hearing the excuse thrown around from manufactures and other photographers alike that we no longer need fast glass because cameras are now capable of ISO speeds in the realm of science fiction when all you had was film or even just 5-10 years ago with digital. Hell, because we have cameras that can shoot in the 100K+ and 200k+ ISO realms, should manufactures just start making all lenses starting at f/8? 8)

Depends, as there are two sides in this. There will always be a need for lenses with large apertures in certain focal lengths for the depth of field effect. However, at the other end, both high-ISO sensors and IS has negated the need for large aperture lenses for pure low-light photography. This means that an 85mm f/1.4 lens makes sense, because the aperture is used for DoF effect (29cm @ 5m); however, a 24mm f/1.4 lens makes absolutely no sense as such a focal length has already way too much DoF for it to be of any artistic value (423cm @ 5m), hence the huge aperture was purely for "available light" - which is not necessary anymore now with 4-stop IS and ISO12800 sensors being "standard".

this is just wrong.

1) IS has no affect on subject motion blur, where F1.4 provides a hell of a faster shutter speed for freezing motion than F2.8 for example (1/50th of a second vs 1/200th).

2) obviously low light photography has been benefitted by new sensors, but that certainly doesn't mean that new sensors negate the benefit of fast glass for low light shooting. I would MUCH rather shoot at F1.4 at night at ISO 1600 than F2.8 at ISO 6400. 1600 is a hell of a lot cleaner than 6400 even if today's 6400 wasn't possible in the days of older sensors.

3) Also ridiculous to say that a 24mm F1.4 doesn't provide shallow enough depth of field for a really pleasing effect when used well. If your subject is close to the lens and the background is a ways back, F1.4 at 24mm can provide great out of focus backgrounds, that are much more melted away and less distracting than shooting at F2.8.

In short, the above post is just perpetuating misinformation! I hope inexperienced photogs aren't mislead by it.

 

[dash2k8]

+1 to Loren.

 

[dash2k8]

To answer the original question, I'd buy it if I had the money. It's good enough as it is for my needs. Tried a friend's a while back and have been keeping an eye out for a used one at a good price.

 

[Eldar]

A fast focusing weather sealed 85/1.4L, with IS and optical performance in class with the current 85/1.2L II (hopefully with less CA) would be a very interesting lens. I have preordered the Otus 85, so I am not sure I would buy it though. But 85/1.4, with fast AF for use in a low light event environment, would fill a totally different need.

As for 1.2 vs. 1.4, I don't believe I would mind. I shot many f1.2 portraits, but the DOF is so thin and I believe f1.4 would give sufficient subject isolation. I actually prefer those closer to f2.0.

Canon is in a bit of a tricky situation though. The current lens used to rule the 85mm arena. Then people opened their eyes to manual focus Zeiss lenses, the Otus 85 is released and next in line is Sigma with an expected (optically) great Art lense (I would never buy it due to the AF issues though). So, if Canon wants to maintain their position, they probably have to do something, but what?

 

[AvTvM]

I would. If the 85/1.4 has IS, is optically at least as good as the upcoming sigma art (however good that one may be) and does not cost more than the sigma.

I would be even more interested in a new EF 100/1.8 IS ... Non L. Optically very good, attractively low price, meaning well below 500. ;-)

 

[Sella174]

...

this is just wrong.

...

In short, the above post is just perpetuating misinformation! I hope inexperienced photogs aren't mislead by it.

You keep telling yourself that and all will be fine.

 

[wickidwombat]

85 f1.4L IS and i'll be all over it

 

[Actionpix]

I am happy with my SIGMA f/1.4 85mm. When I have money I will buy the TAMRON f/2.8 24-70mm.

 

[chromophore]

Almost the entire reason for using the 85/1.2L design is precisely because it achieves f/1.2. Otherwise, shoot with the 85/1.8 and be done with it. I currently own the former and have owned the latter.

So no, I would not get an 85/1.4 even if it were a smaller, more durable, and faster-focusing lens, or even if it had IS, because the 85/1.2L II is a specialist design. It produces a very distinctive look that is particularly suited for flattering portraits in low-contrast lighting. Although it's not a perfect lens, in the right use cases, it performs stunningly well. A lot of the disappointment over the 85/1.2 design comes from people who use it when other lenses would be more appropriate.

As for an 85/1.0 design, it's not likely. It would need to come with at least an 85mm (more realistically, ~ 88mm) diameter front element, when most lenses of this class do not exceed the 77mm front filter diameter. It would be even heavier and fatter than the 85/1.2L II. The optical design certainly is doable, but the mechanics and ergonomics make it impractical, as it may even require a larger diameter ring USM than the 85/1.2L II--which, along with the superteles, is already in the largest class. Many considerations become easier at the shorter focal length of 50mm--not that the 50/1.0L was designed without its own compromises. I'd be happy if Canon revived the 50/1.0L, never mind an 85/1.0....