Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Lens Rumors and Predictions
Thread started 26 Nov 2016 (Saturday) 17:45
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Why no 85 1.2L IS to compete the new 85 1.4 Art ?

 
CanonYouCan
Goldmember
CanonYouCan's Avatar
1,451 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Oct 2010
Belgium
Nov 26, 2016 17:45 |  #1

Strange that Canon didn't made the 1.2L IS, maybe it's commercially seen and for next time as the 1.2's are legend :)

Just saw a comparison here, strange that the Tamron & 85 1.2LII would not be sharp...
http://petapixel.com ...eview-battle-85mm-lenses/ (external link)


6D | 24-70 2.8 L | 70-200 2.8L II
Tokina 17 3.5 AT-X PRO | Sigma 50 1.4 Art | Sigma 85 1.4 Art | 135 2L

Lighting : Godox AD600B TTL strobe & X1T-C | Canon 220 EX compact speedlite
Modifiers: 60cm Collapsible Silver Beautydish + grid | Godox 120cm Octagon softbox + grid
Tripod: Vanguard Alta 253CT carbon

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
mike_d
Goldmember
mike_d's Avatar
4,995 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Nov 27, 2016 13:02 |  #2

CanonYouCan wrote in post #18195433 (external link)
Strange that Canon didn't made the 1.2L IS, maybe it's commercially seen and for next time as the 1.2's are legend :)

I imagine the vast majority of 85L's are used in situations where IS is of absolutely no benefit, so why add additional elements and complexity?




LOG IN TO REPLY
Lichter21c
Goldmember
Lichter21c's Avatar
Joined Jun 2010
Kenosha, WI
Nov 27, 2016 21:03 |  #3

I have the 85 1.2 II, and I will NEVER need IS. its just not that kinda lens. Its a heavy beast to begin with... I dont need the extra size and weight. 9/10 I'm either using artificial lighting, or natural light and shooting quite wide (often 1.2).

the only time I use IS, is sports lenses that help me pan. or the macro to help keep the subject in the frame.

other than that, I dont want to pay for the extra cost, or deal with the extra weight and size.


1Dx | 5DMKIII | 16-35 IS L | 28-70 L | 70-200II L| 24 3.5L TSE | 35
F2IS | 85 L | 100 L | 400 L |
Gear List
flickr (external link)
FACEBOOK (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
SMP_Homer
Cream of the Crop
SMP_Homer's Avatar
5,414 posts
Joined Mar 2008
London, Ontario
Nov 28, 2016 08:47 |  #4

IS on a 85/100mm lens is a nice-to-have thing, but far from a must-have thing - even the 135L, I've never used it and thought I wish this had IS


5D3 x2 / 5D2 / 1D IV / 6D
Sig85 /35L/100L/135L/16-35L II/70-200L II/100-400L
B400 x2 / B800 x2 / ABR800 / VML x2
600EX x5
TT5 x8 /
PW TT1 / AC3 x3 / AC9 x4

LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Nov 28, 2016 10:56 |  #5

CanonYouCan wrote in post #18195433 (external link)
Strange that Canon didn't made the 1.2L IS, maybe it's commercially seen and for next time as the 1.2's are legend :)

Just saw a comparison here, strange that the Tamron & 85 1.2LII would not be sharp...
http://petapixel.com ...eview-battle-85mm-lenses/ (external link)

Probably because there's an 85mm F1.4L IS on the way to compete.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
EightEleven
Car enthusiast and an all around nice guy
Joined Nov 2012
Northeast Georgia
Nov 28, 2016 11:49 |  #6

MalVeauX wrote in post #18196926 (external link)
Probably because there's an 85mm F1.4L IS on the way to compete.

Very best,

Will it have a Red ring?


Ron Snarski
flickr (external link)
C&C always welcome!

LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Nov 28, 2016 11:54 |  #7

EightEleven wrote in post #18196983 (external link)
Will it have a Red ring?

http://petapixel.com ...portrait-photogs-rejoice/ (external link)

As mentioned, 1.4L.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
EightEleven
Car enthusiast and an all around nice guy
Joined Nov 2012
Northeast Georgia
Nov 28, 2016 11:59 |  #8

MalVeauX wrote in post #18196992 (external link)
http://petapixel.com ...portrait-photogs-rejoice/ (external link)

As mentioned, 1.4L.

Very best,

Awesome! Thank you for sharing..
I am still on the fence for the 85FL.. looking for a better blur when I cant stretch out to 200mm.
Hopefully, the 1.4L will be sharper than the 1.2L..

Any talk of cancelling production on the 1.2L.. Seems like a cheaper (sharper?) 85 would be fighting for the same shelf space..


Ron Snarski
flickr (external link)
C&C always welcome!

LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Nov 28, 2016 12:10 |  #9

EightEleven wrote in post #18196996 (external link)
Awesome! Thank you for sharing..
I am still on the fence for the 85FL.. looking for a better blur when I cant stretch out to 200mm.
Hopefully, the 1.4L will be sharper than the 1.2L..

Any talk of cancelling production on the 1.2L.. Seems like a cheaper (sharper?) 85 would be fighting for the same shelf space..

Dunno,

The 200 F1.8 became a 200 F2 IS after all...

85 F1.2 really is not a very practical lens and F1.2 is not much different from F1.4. I'm sure someone will say opposite, but just compare the same image at F1.2 and F1.4 and to me it's not enough to worry over. A faster focusing F1.4 with IS will be the better more versatile lens. 85L F1.2 to me is a total niche lens--if it were fast to focus, like 135L fast or even 85 F1.8 fast, then maybe that would be different, but it's a pig.

I think they dropped to F1.4 to gain IS. The build size for the F1.2 to add IS would be enormous and even heavier. I think, just my opinion, that the F1.4L IS will replace it ultimately in the long run.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
18,413 posts
Joined Nov 2007
Bay Area, CA
Dec 11, 2016 20:40 |  #10

mike_d wrote in post #18196136 (external link)
I imagine the vast majority of 85L's are used in situations where IS is of absolutely no benefit, so why add additional elements and complexity?

Hum, I could use IS all on 85L II, same with IS on 135L. For some reason Canon thinks no. BTW - So does Fuji the other brand that I own, would have liked IS on that 90mm f2. Charge me a bit more. It is only $$.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Talley's Avatar
10,122 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Joined Dec 2011
Houston
Dec 11, 2016 21:58 |  #11

I don't think they could pull off a 85 1.2 IS within the limitations of the flange distance and overall optical design of the 1.2. There is NO room in there to squeeze in IS. I can get a 1.4 though... it helps alot.

Too me Canon will continue to discontinue the 1.2... it's just not possible to better it's optics. Moving to 1.4 will be killer and will be a good lens. In the mean time I will continue to enjoy my art :)


5D4 |12mm 2.8 FE | 16-35L 2.8 III | Σ 35A | Σ 50A | Σ 85A | 200 F2 IS | 1.4xIII
X-T20 | X-E3 | 18/2 | 35/1.4 | 56/1.2 | 18-135
My Gear Archive

LOG IN TO REPLY
quickben
Fairy Gapped
quickben's Avatar
Joined Mar 2004
Whitley Bay, UK
Jan 01, 2017 03:31 |  #12

Talley wrote in post #18210317 (external link)
I don't think they could pull off a 85 1.2 IS within the limitations of the flange distance and overall optical design of the 1.2. There is NO room in there to squeeze in IS. I can get a 1.4 though... it helps alot.

Too me Canon will continue to discontinue the 1.2... it's just not possible to better it's optics. Moving to 1.4 will be killer and will be a good lens. In the mean time I will continue to enjoy my art :)

The limiting factor when designing a 1.2 lens is the width of the mount, nothing to do with flange distance (also the reason why Nikon can't do 1.2 as the F-mount is a bit smaller than EF mount). Same for IS.

The reason is probably because the focusing element in the 1.2 will be huge and heavy and therefore the gyro to float it would need to be huge as well.


Fighting the war against the unnecessary use of the Book Worthy Smiley
My name is Gary, not Ben.
6D 24-70/2.8VC 85/1.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

2,241 views & 3 likes for this thread
Why no 85 1.2L IS to compete the new 85 1.4 Art ?
FORUMS News & Rumors Lens Rumors and Predictions


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00159 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is jackkk
962 guests, 412 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016