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

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/

CanonYouCan wrote in post #18195433
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?

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.

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

CanonYouCan wrote in post #18195433
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/

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

Very best,

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

Very best,

Will it have a Red ring?

EightEleven wrote in post #18196983
Will it have a Red ring?

http://petapixel.com …portrait-photogs-rejoice/

As mentioned, 1.4L.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #18196992
http://petapixel.com …portrait-photogs-rejoice/

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..

EightEleven wrote in post #18196996
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,

mike_d wrote in post #18196136
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 $$.

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

Talley wrote in post #18210317
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.