Canon EF85 f1.2L USM

[rwg717]

I have read a few reviews on the EF 85 f1.2L and as I notice there are a few AP members who list this unit in their gear, I was wondering if anyone had a comment on these quotes:-

"The biggest downside to the original Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L USM Lens was the very slow focusing speed. If you were shooting portraits, it didn't matter. But, a lens this fast begs to be used for indoor action sports."

And then there's this:-

" I've determined that this lens model will occasionally mis-focus completely. The lenses do not front focus or back focus consistently and mostly focus dead-on. But there is a random situation that delivers a completely out of focus shot."

Are the above comments typical of this lens? As one of Canon's most expensive "black" lenses I was a bit shocked to read these apparent shortcomings and thought some members might be able to confirm that these criticisms are correct?
Richard

[jjphoto]

Any lens can miss focus, especially if you are careless or in a difficult situation. It's not a lens fault. Focus is determined by the camera, not the lens.

As for focus speed, yes, it's an absolute dog. Forget shooting sport or even kids with it, it won't cope. Having said that, it's quite an amazing lens and worth having for it's optical qualities. I really think it should be used as a manual focus lens but that's just me.

I'm not certain that the second (current) version is better as people seem to complain about significant CA wide open with the current version and I'm not sure this is an issue. I had the original EF 85mm f/1.2 as well as the FD 85mm f/1.2 and was quite happy with them however I eventually switched to Leica, specifically the R 80 Lux (F1.4), which although not as sharp as the FD or EF wide open it overtook the Canon lenses quite quickly and was 'better' for my purposes.

If you want to shoot action of any kind then forget the EF 85/1.2 ver1.

JJ

[maccaroneski]

I've been spending alot of time with a mate who has had this lens permanently attached to his 5D MkII and yes he reports it as slow to focus, but perhaps the other issue is user error due to shooting at 1.2?

But by golly he is getting sone absolutely beautiful shots with it.

[Xenedis]

I use the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM extensively for portraits.

Yes, it's the mark II version, which offers improvements over the initial version, such as faster AF.

I'm not the slightest bit interested in sports, but I have used this lens for bands, which is as challenging if not more so, as you're dealing with rapid movement in low light. While a lot of people would not recommend using such a lens for that type of application, it can be done; just be prepared for a lot more misses than hits and shoot accordingly. It takes more skill to shoot well with this lens.

The 85/1.2L (II) is known for its slow, focus-by-wire AF, which is normal. The objective element moves, and it's a thick, heavy bit of glass. As above, the mark II offers faster AF.

As for misfocus, I haven't heard of that being a particular issue, but I never looked into the first version.

Note that if you're shooting at f/1.2 it is very easy to render your subject OOF, and more so if you're shooting at the lens's minimum focus distance.

If you're interested in seeing what I've achieved with the 85/1.2L II, see my gallery of images captured with the 85/1.2L II (http://www.xenedis.net/viewalbum.php?a=72157600060851672).

it consists of mostly portraits (some shot at f/1.2), but there are a few other images there too.

If you're in the market for an 85L, you'd be better off going for the current version.

For comprehensive reviews of both lenses, check out The Digital Picture. Here are the reviews you want:

85/1.2L: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
85/1.2L II http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.2-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

[James Axford]

I own the 85 f1.2 mkI. I though of trading it in for the MkII but there in hardly any difference and a huge price difference.
Out of my 50 1.2 85 1.2 and 135 2 i would have to say my 85 would bring home the most keepers of portraits.
it's a love hate relationship. i hate it because it's just so heavy i can't bring it travelling. slow AF as you know, also doesn't do what well to focus in low light as my 50mm does.
but i love it because it just keeps giving me those amazing creamy photos.
many photos on my site with it.

[rwg717]

Many thanks learned members, this was sort of what I expected to hear, but I thought there was an "off-chance" the guy writing the review may have had no idea at all about what he was reviewing. When I read and condensed all the things you each have to say about the EF85 f1.2L the whole thing makes a lot more sense, actually I have more sporting lenses than I can use, I was more interested in the portrait aspect of the '85, the reviewer only mentioned the sport as a part of what I was trying to get at and each of you have addressed the problem.

By the way Xenedis, what fab. images in your collection....mind blowing stuff and the links you gave me on reviews was where I was quoting from, thanks again all:beer_mug:
Richard

[rwg717]

I own the 85 f1.2 mkI. I though of trading it in for the MkII but there in hardly any difference and a huge price difference.
Out of my 50 1.2 85 1.2 and 135 2 i would have to say my 85 would bring home the most keepers of portraits.
it's a love hate relationship. i hate it because it's just so heavy i can't bring it travelling. slow AF as you know, also doesn't do what well to focus in low light as my 50mm does.
but i love it because it just keeps giving me those amazing creamy photos.
many photos on my site with it.

Whooooshka.....have to agree (with everyone), tried mine out today, yep dead slow to focus and they call the 24-70 f2.8L "the brick", the 85 is a veritable "besser block":jumping11:
Richard

[Steadyhands]

Another 85L user here. I have used it for sports. One Volleyball comp I left my 85 F1.8 to home by accidenthttp://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_redface.gif when I did a last minute bag repack so it was the 85L for the day. Provided I was trying to get static shots it was fine. I couldn't use it to track a moving player, but could pre-focus on a player waiting to receive serve and re-focus if they had moved a little bit. This was the key thing, not trying to make the lens elements move large distances to get focus. I also got shots of the setters in mid air this way.

I echo the other comments about this lens for portraits, simply magic.

[JM Tran]

I want u to take a look at this comparison here between the latest Sigma 85 f1.4 vs. the Canon 85 L, it is not a scientific test but a subjective testing done by a user in real world situations.

http://hofferphotography.com/2010/11/16/my-sigma-85-f1-4-vs-canon-85l-review/

I do not use the 85L for wedding work as the ultra slow focusing means missed shots at crucial moments are inevitable, and manual focus at f1.2 is a hit and miss too

From that review the Sigma seems to have much much better AF speed, so I will consider it strongly in the near future for wedding photography.

[rwg717]

I want u to take a look at this comparison here between the latest Sigma 85 f1.4 vs. the Canon 85 L, it is not a scientific test but a subjective testing done by a user in real world situations.

http://hofferphotography.com/2010/11/16/my-sigma-85-f1-4-vs-canon-85l-review/

I do not use the 85L for wedding work as the ultra slow focusing means missed shots at crucial moments are inevitable, and manual focus at f1.2 is a hit and miss too

Most impressive, for the amount of work he does I'd tend to accept the comparisons he has made....thanks for that:)
Richard

From that review the Sigma seems to have much much better AF speed, so I will consider it strongly in the near future for wedding photography.

[mikspics]

the keg, hand grenade the chunk, i got one and as stated you cannot track moving targets with it....at extremes of it's focal length it is slow, but not so extreme and it will snap, at events like indoor basketball and the like you will need to prefocus but great results can be achieved, shooting at a wafer thin dof of 1.2 can often render someones nose tip in focus and oof all else.......:D

[rwg717]

the keg, hand grenade the chunk, i got one and as stated you cannot track moving targets with it....at extremes of it's focal length it is slow, but not so extreme and it will snap, at events like indoor basketball and the like you will need to prefocus but great results can be achieved, shooting at a wafer thin dof of 1.2 can often render someones nose tip in focus and oof all else.......:D

Yep, all taken in, the quotes in the original thread just surprised me a bit because of the sheer price of this lens. Anyway, my use of it will be for tri-pod mounted portraits etc. so the slow focus isn't a problem. BTW, I like "the keg" as a name for it:beer_mug:
Richard

[rwg717]

Now that I have such a comprehensive and expert respose to my original thread, I need some new opinions, is the 85 f1.2 a lens more suited to full frame cameras or 1.6X crop frame bodies? Whilst I realise this is largely governed by what you are trying to shoot, I'm thinking more of portraits. Perhaps it doesn't matter a "jot", just move the tripod back or forward to suit the scene:confused013
Richard

[DAdeGroot]

I haven't read all the responses, so apologise for double-ups in advance.

Yes, the 85/1.2L and it's successor, can be slow to focus, but it's a front element focus system and there's a LOT of glass to move.

On anything less than a 1 series body (with the exception maybe of a 7D), the outer focus points may result in a mis-focus. This is definitely the case on the 5DII, and I suspect is the same on any body with the fairly ancient 9 point AF system.

CA on the 85/1.2L II does exist, it's purple rather than red/cyan or blue/yellow, so correction is a bit trickier, but it's not massive and really only detectable when pixel-peeping or near enough to it.

I'm told it's possible to shoot sport with it, but pre-focusing on where the action will be is essential.

It's equally at home on a full-frame, APS-H or APS-C sensor body, but obviously becomes a tighter crop with the smaller sensors. So equally obviously, to get the same framing you would need to move further away and thus increase your depth of field and therefore lessen the beautiful creaminess of your background blur.

[DAdeGroot]

I do not use the 85L for wedding work as the ultra slow focusing means missed shots at crucial moments are inevitable, and manual focus at f1.2 is a hit and miss too


Whereas I have used the 85L to great effect at weddings, but usually for the posed shots after the ceremony. During the ceremony the 70-200/2.8L IS is my weapon of choice.

[JM Tran]

Whereas I have used the 85L to great effect at weddings, but usually for the posed shots after the ceremony. During the ceremony the 70-200/2.8L IS is my weapon of choice.

yeah that might work for u but not good enough for me, posed shots right after ceremony might last about 30 mins max, and I didnt see the use of it for that either since I dont shoot groups at f1.2 its a waste, other lenses like my 70-200 L, or 24-70 for example will do the job better. But it is exceptional for creative shots or for couple/individual shots on location - when time is not of the essence.

I had a quick test of the new Sigma 85 f1.4 yesterday, and hands down I am willing to say it is a lot better than the Canon 85 L, much faster and accurate focusing and lock, lighter and smaller which is great, and no diff in IQ. I dare say this will be a weapon for wedding photographers soon once ppl see the benefits it has over the Canon 85 L - and inspires more confidence in shooters in dark and low light environments. I will possibly buy one next month when I am in HK for shoots.

[rwg717]

I haven't read all the responses, so apologise for double-ups in advance.

Yes, the 85/1.2L and it's successor, can be slow to focus, but it's a front element focus system and there's a LOT of glass to move.

On anything less than a 1 series body (with the exception maybe of a 7D), the outer focus points may result in a mis-focus. This is definitely the case on the 5DII, and I suspect is the same on any body with the fairly ancient 9 point AF system.

CA on the 85/1.2L II does exist, it's purple rather than red/cyan or blue/yellow, so correction is a bit trickier, but it's not massive and really only detectable when pixel-peeping or near enough to it.

I'm told it's possible to shoot sport with it, but pre-focusing on where the action will be is essential.

It's equally at home on a full-frame, APS-H or APS-C sensor body, but obviously becomes a tighter crop with the smaller sensors. So equally obviously, to get the same framing you would need to move further away and thus increase your depth of field and therefore lessen the beautiful creaminess of your background blur.

Indeed, I have just discovered the purple caste, not severe but how to get rid of it? Try not to make the string too long, I don't usually fiddle with this element too much so might take a bit of coaching?:D
Richard

[Othrelos]

there are many ways you can remove purple fringing, by selectively reducing the saturation in the magenta channel, or by using lens correction features of a raw converter like DXO. There are many theories about what cause Purple fringing ranging from the absurd to the statistically improbable. But what I do know is that it seldom appeared on film, it's only on digital sensors where it rears it's ugly head.

I don't really use my canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II all that much, At the moment I have been using the Leica 80mm f/1.4 Summilux-R modified to fit on my 1DsMK3. I find the manual focusing of the Leica lens to be a world apart from manually focusing the 85L, which is frankly, a terrible lens for manual focusing. On APS-C DSLR cameras I typically use a 50mm f/1.2 lens. The pentax 50mm f/1.2 I have used has very well controlled CA/PF considering it was made at the height of the film era.

[DAdeGroot]

yeah that might work for u but not good enough for me, posed shots right after ceremony might last about 30 mins max, and I didnt see the use of it for that either since I dont shoot groups at f1.2 its a waste, other lenses like my 70-200 L, or 24-70 for example will do the job better. But it is exceptional for creative shots or for couple/individual shots on location - when time is not of the essence.

Focus isn't so slow that you can't use it in those circumstances. Post wedding shots for me are usually 30mins to 1hr depending on the couple.

I have noticed that the focus speed and accuracy is greatly improved on a 1 series body. The 5D struggles on the outer focus points so a different technique is required.

[DAdeGroot]

Indeed, I have just discovered the purple caste, not severe but how to get rid of it? Try not to make the string too long, I don't usually fiddle with this element too much so might take a bit of coaching?:D
Richard

I find LR3's lens profile correction does the job admirably.

[pollen]

The reviewer is spot on about the lens's faults

and here's another one, excessive chromatic aberration in high contrast situations:

http://dawei.zenfolio.com/img/s6/v6/p209951947.jpg

Put off this lens yet? :D

Still, all in all, if I only had one lens, this would be it

[rwg717]

The reviewer is spot on about the lens's faults

and here's another one, excessive chromatic aberration in high contrast situations:

http://dawei.zenfolio.com/img/s6/v6/p209951947.jpg

Put off this lens yet? :D

Still, all in all, if I only had one lens, this would be it

No, not put off at all by the above. I think it's a great lens, my problem isn't as shown above it's more a slight tint which I discovered how to correct since the previous post. Thanks for the input:)
Richard

[DAdeGroot]

The reviewer is spot on about the lens's faults

and here's another one, excessive chromatic aberration in high contrast situations:

Put off this lens yet? :D

Still, all in all, if I only had one lens, this would be it

That example has been tweaked somewhat (massive saturation boost for starters).

In actuality the purple fringing is never that bad. It's there, for sure, but goes away as you stop down and is easily fixed in LR.

[pollen]

No, it definitely hasn't been tweaked, it's straight out of the camera. After much usage experience, I have found the issue is non existent indoors in low light. It's only an issue with high contrast reflective lighting (e.g. a sunny day), either white on black backgrounds, or chrome/silver/metallic objects.

Whilst I don't have any proof that it hasn't been tweaked, I also haven't got any incentive to misstate this fact though

[DAdeGroot]

No, it definitely hasn't been tweaked, it's straight out of the camera. After much usage experience, I have found the issue is non existent indoors in low light. It's only an issue with high contrast reflective lighting (e.g. a sunny day), either white on black backgrounds, or chrome/silver/metallic objects.

Whilst I don't have any proof that it hasn't been tweaked, I also haven't got any incentive to misstate this fact though

I apologise unreservedly then.

I had assumed that because I have never seen such a vivid purple in any of my use of this lens that it was tweaked, but I'll gladly take your word that it has not.

[petercee]

85L II is well envied by all other manufacturers. It is, in my research, revered and denounced only by those who don't wish to pay the considerable imposte.
There are qualities this lens, and it alone, can deliver.
So it surprises me that Sigma – a manufacturer with a somewhat dubious reputation – has surpassed the Canon with its new 85 f/1.4. See post. (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?71645-Canon-EF85-f1.2L-USM&p=730897#post730897)
Love to see some sample images.

[petercee]

Those who want a Canon lens with 85mm focal length to use for indoor sport, should consider 85 f/1.8... well that and the new Sigma 85 f/1.4

[Xenedis]

Those who want a Canon lens with 85mm focal length to use for indoor sport, should consider 85 f/1.8... well that and the new Sigma 85 f/1.4

The Canon EF 85mm f/18 USM is a fantastic lens; I used to own one.

It is very sharp, focuses quickly, is considerably lighter, smaller and cheaper than the 85/1.2L; and delivers very pleasing results.

I'd recommend it to anyone for whom cost is a primary consideration. While the L delivers 'wow-factor' images and has a signature element in its images, the 85/1.8 is an excellent lens.

[rwg717]

Many thanks to all the contributors to the thread, I had no idea how much interest the debate would generate. In my limited experience with the 85 f1.2 I found it difficult to master for the first couple of weeks but now think it is best used in manual mode rather than Tv, especially in studio shoots which is where I will mostly use it:santa:
Richard

[rwg717]

Thought I would post this one as an example of what the 85 f1.2 does, very tricky to use in low light, this one at f3.2 and I wasn't game to go any lower than that, probably better at f4....


http://i1026.photobucket.com/albums/y330/rswilliamsports/Personal/IMG_0087X_edited-2.jpg

This subject was the only one who volunteered for the shoot, when I mentioned I was looking for human subjects I almost instantaneously emptied the house!!!!!:confused013

Difficult with such a small subject, probably be easier with a full size adult but I think with this sort of light f4 would be a better bet:D
Richard

[pollen]

haha my 85LII has never come off f/1.2

If I'm using f/3.2 or f/4 or whatever, I prefer a 70-200!

[Digiphilic]

Hi,
I have had this lens for a few months now and I love it.

The focus at times can be slow but it's not that slow. If I can do it right, the IQ is tack sharp but it can be tricky shooting at F/1.2 as the DOF is so shallow. I have never had one photo that was completely out of focus (whoever said that must have got terrible camera shake!). The color and contrast from this lens is superb.

When it comes to portraits, this is the one I have on all the times.

[rwg717]

Have to agree with all the above, seems to me it is a lens which has a deliberate purpose more than an opportunistc one. Mine is almost entirely used on a tripod and I can get by with another camera, yes I use the 70-200 too and as brilliant as it is the 85 gets it for IQ every time.:D
Richard

[MaxKlimov]

I went into a different direction for all AutoFocus i need i use 24-70 and then portraits and studio work and everything else where i dont need AF but need fast 85mm lens i use Contax Zeiss 85/1.4 converted to Canon costs 600-800 bucks on ebay - has unique 3D pop up, almost "filmish" look - which Canon glass will not ever be able to give (unless you do loads of Post Process work)...

And thats not the only Contax Zeiss Glass i use - if you want your shots look different and want their bookeh to have a soul but not the absolutely perfect, synthetic look, Canon lenses are producing, and can sacrifice AF, you should look into Contax Zeiss C/Y or Leica-R glass. There is also Zeiss ZE and ZF but they are very expensive and people are still arguing if they are any better then original Contax Zeiss T* glass. IMO