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

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 02 Oct 2017 (Monday) 11:52
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

My first look at Canon's new 85 mm

 
eaglespremiers
Member
128 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 22
Joined Jul 2012
     
Nov 07, 2017 05:07 as a reply to  @ post 18490590 |  #91

Matter of preception I guess.
I prefer the image I'm getting out of the new lens more so than my old 85mm f/1.2L II.


Bendigo Wedding Photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
wallstreetoneil
Goldmember
Avatar
2,085 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 1201
Joined Nov 2014
Location: Toronto Canada
     
Nov 07, 2017 05:42 |  #92

eaglespremiers wrote in post #18490609 (external link)
Matter of preception I guess.
I prefer the image I'm getting out of the new lens more so than my old 85mm f/1.2L II.

I've relooked at all your pictures again + the new baby pics (the first one is great) - congratulations to you and mom.

All the posted pictures are all nice - I also really like your processing

The lens looks like a winner - especially with Canon L reliable AF (do you have any comments about the AF compared to other L glass (lets not compare to the 85Lii)

Always nice to have a poster give early feedback on a new lens.

Thanks for posting everything


Hockey and wedding photographer. Favourite camera / lens combos: a 1DX II with a Tamron 45 1.8 VC, an A7Rii with a Canon 24-70F2.8L II, and a 5DSR with a Tamron 85 1.8 VC. Every lens I own I strongly recommend [Canon (35Lii, 100L Macro, 24-70F2.8ii, 70-200F2.8ii, 100-400Lii), Tamron (45 1.8, 85 1.8), Sigma 24-105]. If there are better lenses out there let me know because I haven't found them.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
P4ulG
Senior Member
522 posts
Likes: 34
Joined May 2010
Location: Norfolk UK
     
Nov 07, 2017 07:14 as a reply to  @ post 18464901 |  #93

Yes £1560 in UK. Gets a very good write up.


Canon 6D Canon 600D Canons 24-105mm L 70-300mm L. 100mm F2.8 macro L IS. 16-35mm L nifty fifty. 55-250mm IS. Speedlights Siggy DG530 super Canon EX430II Vivitar 3700

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,980 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5106
Joined Sep 2007
     
Nov 07, 2017 07:59 |  #94

Ah-keong wrote in post #18490590 (external link)
seems like there is a bit of lack of the 3D magic that would come from the 50L and the 85 f/1,2L mark II :p

the SOOC baby pics look great. 50 and 85Lii are nice, but they do have serious issues. If you want the modern sharp wide open lens look, those older versions are not it.

modern look = 24-70Lii, 70-200Lii, 200Lf2, sigma art primes


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
... sorry. I got carried away!
Avatar
1,927 posts
Gallery: 56 photos
Likes: 889
Joined Nov 2016
Location: Abuja Nigeria
Post edited 10 months ago by DaviSto.
     
Nov 07, 2017 08:20 |  #95

Charlie wrote in post #18490670 (external link)
the SOOC baby pics look great. 50 and 85Lii are nice, but they do have serious issues. If you want the modern sharp wide open lens look, those older versions are not it.

modern look = 24-70Lii, 70-200Lii, 200Lf2, sigma art primes

I have a bit of difficulty with the idea of a "modern sharp wide open lens look".

I can see that a lot of lenses and sensors are being sold at photographers on two-dimensional sharpness just now. But it isn't clear to me that the type of image that they are particularly well-suited to delivering is actually what the consumers of visual imagery (modern or otherwise) most want to see. What is it that makes these 'modern look' lenses particularly well-adapted to current demand in terms of delivered images?

This is a genuine question btw ... and something I would really like to understand better. I'm not trying to have a 'dig' at you.


David.
Comment and (constructive) criticism always welcome.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,980 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5106
Joined Sep 2007
     
Nov 07, 2017 08:37 |  #96

DaviSto wrote in post #18490683 (external link)
I have a bit of difficulty with the idea of a "modern sharp wide open lens look".

I can see that a lot of lenses and sensors are being sold at photographers on two-dimensional sharpness just now. But it isn't clear to me that the type of image that they are particularly well-suited to delivering is actually what the consumers of visual imagery (modern or otherwise) most want to see. What is it that makes these 'modern look' lenses particularly well-adapted to current demand in terms of delivered images?

This is a genuine question btw ... and something I would really like to understand better. I'm not trying to have a 'dig' at you.

just very blistering sharp lenses wide open that also have intense blurring abilities. Combine those two with excellent color/contrast, and you get 3D pop.

The most classic example is anyone upgrading from the 24-70 mk 1 to mk2, 70-200 mk1 to mk2. Everything is just crispier, the contrast is just slicing, while older lenses may produce a slightly hazy/muted look.

I'm thinking with a blind comparison, you'de be able to pick out this lens vs the 85Lii. I'de need to see a little more samples to be sure.


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
12,811 posts
Gallery: 1230 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 8483
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Post edited 10 months ago by MalVeauX.
     
Nov 07, 2017 08:45 |  #97

DaviSto wrote in post #18490683 (external link)
I have a bit of difficulty with the idea of a "modern sharp wide open lens look".

It's really the micro-contrast and minimal CA at fast focal-ratios that normally are qualities found on a good modern prime, but now are found on good modern zooms.

There was a time of course we are all aware of when soft portraits were the thing. It's a fad. And lenses were made on purpose to produce a soft look.

Now the fad has gone the other way and we're on the hard chiseled high contrast look.

Very best,


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
... sorry. I got carried away!
Avatar
1,927 posts
Gallery: 56 photos
Likes: 889
Joined Nov 2016
Location: Abuja Nigeria
Post edited 10 months ago by DaviSto. (4 edits in all)
     
Nov 07, 2017 08:51 |  #98

Charlie wrote in post #18490693 (external link)
just very blistering sharp lenses wide open that also have intense blurring abilities. Combine those two with excellent color/contrast, and you get 3D pop.

The most classic example is anyone upgrading from the 24-70 mk 1 to mk2, 70-200 mk1 to mk2. Everything is just crispier, the contrast is just slicing, while older lenses may produce a slightly hazy/muted look.

I'm thinking with a blind comparison, you'de be able to pick out this lens vs the 85 1.2Lii. I'de need to see a little more samples to be sure.

This isn't really answering my question.

I can already see differences between the 85 1.2 Lii and the 85 1.4L IS and, for me, the advantage in 'pop' still clearly lies with the 1.2. That advantage partly comes from the 'dreaminess' that comes with the F1.2 (you might see this itself as the result of flaws attributable to the vintage of the design ... or you might see it more as the result of decisions the designers made about what compromises are best in delivering a desirable image).

I can, for sure, see other features of the 1.4 images that might well be preferred by some photographers ... and I think it is going to have some significant advantages in ease of use for people who need to work quickly and really don't want to miss a shot (wedding and event photographers?).

My question was really focused on the issue of whether the 'modern look' is more closely tuned to current tastes in visual imagery. It isn't to mine ... but I'm just one person.


David.
Comment and (constructive) criticism always welcome.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
fordmondeo
Goldmember
1,029 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 220
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Portsmouth England
     
Nov 07, 2017 09:51 |  #99

Charlie wrote in post #18490670 (external link)
the SOOC baby pics look great. 50 and 85Lii are nice, but they do have serious issues. If you want the modern sharp wide open lens look, those older versions are not it.

modern look = 24-70Lii, 70-200Lii, 200Lf2, sigma art primes

My 85 L ii is harp wide open where it counts and has no serious issues as far as I'm concerned.
I have the 70-200Lf2 and it in no way stacks up to the 85 re bokeh.
The 24-70Lii I sold as, whilst it was very sharp, was one of the most boring focal lengths I owned.

As for the modern "Modern look", you are bold enough to presume that everyone wants it and that sharpness is the "be all and end all".
To my mind, it is not. If it was, why on gods earth would anyone manufacture soft focus lenses?


Vaginator9000

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,980 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5106
Joined Sep 2007
     
Nov 07, 2017 09:52 |  #100

DaviSto wrote in post #18490706 (external link)
This isn't really answering my question.

I can already see differences between the 85 1.2 Lii and the 85 1.4L IS and, for me, the advantage in 'pop' still clearly lies with the 1.2. That advantage partly comes from the 'dreaminess' that comes with the F1.2 (you might see this itself as the result of flaws attributable to the vintage of the design ... or you might see it more as the result of decisions the designers made about what compromises are best in delivering a desirable image).

I can, for sure, see other features of the 1.4 images that might well be preferred by some photographers ... and I think it is going to have some significant advantages in ease of use for people who need to work quickly and really don't want to miss a shot (wedding and event photographers?).

My question was really focused on the issue of whether the 'modern look' is more closely tuned to current tastes in visual imagery. It isn't to mine ... but I'm just one person.

I dont consider dreaminess or glow to be the same as 3D pop.

The 50L/85L are certainly pleasing lenses, but then again, so is a $200 rokinon 85 f1.4 which can provide similar blur levels. Stop any of those lenses down to F2, and you see a massive improvement with contrast and sharpness (assuming no flare issues). Now imagine if you got that sort of IQ wide open....... some modern lenses CAN produce that type of quality wide open.


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,980 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5106
Joined Sep 2007
     
Nov 07, 2017 10:14 |  #101

fordmondeo wrote in post #18490753 (external link)
My 85 L ii is harp wide open where it counts and has no serious issues as far as I'm concerned.
I have the 70-200Lf2 and it in no way stacks up to the 85 re bokeh.
The 24-70Lii I sold as, whilst it was very sharp, was one of the most boring focal lengths I owned.

As for the modern "Modern look", you are bold enough to presume that everyone wants it and that sharpness is the "be all and end all".
To my mind, it is not. If it was, why on gods earth would anyone manufacture soft focus lenses?

I was stating lens attributes, not preferences. Sure the 70-200's cant match the 85 look, nothing really can, but blurring abilities the 135 f1.8 Art and Canon 200 f2L can match that blur. Different focal lengths have different properties and signature looks.

btw, Soft focus lenses... generally these lenses are very sharp in focus areas, while having the ability to knock out closer backgrounds. Laowa 105 softfocus has super high MTF scores.


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
... sorry. I got carried away!
Avatar
1,927 posts
Gallery: 56 photos
Likes: 889
Joined Nov 2016
Location: Abuja Nigeria
     
Nov 07, 2017 10:52 |  #102

Charlie wrote in post #18490755 (external link)
I dont consider dreaminess or glow to be the same as 3D pop.

The 50L/85L are certainly pleasing lenses, but then again, so is a $200 rokinon 85 f1.4 which can provide similar blur levels. Stop any of those lenses down to F2, and you see a massive improvement with contrast and sharpness (assuming no flare issues). Now imagine if you got that sort of IQ wide open....... some modern lenses CAN produce that type of quality wide open.

My copy of the 85Lii can be incredibly sharp wide-open across the full centre frame. It may drop off a bit towards the edges but not at all in any area of the frame where I am going to place my subject. I just don't care about edge sharpness. It's most likely distracting. And some fall-off towards the edges can contribute to 'pop'.

I don't always achieve that sharpness ... because I mis-focus or (much more likely) because I set too slow a shutter speed to eliminate photographer flutter. But I am getting less incompetent at this stuff. And focus failures are much less frequent with the 5Div than they were with the 5Dii.

When I get it right (more frequently than before, thankfully) the 85Lii images have a quality that I find simply stunning. It is unlike anything that I can get from any other lens I own. I do have the 135L ... the 200L F2 is right at the top of my wish list but still well down my reality list.

90% of the time, the 85Lii is the lens that is on my camera.

I agree that it doesn't deliver images with the same characteristics of more recent lenses. I'm just questioning whether the 'modern look' that these latterday lenses have is the 'look' that actually best sells pictures to people today. What do discerning people today (NOT photographers) most appreciate and value in a photographic image?


David.
Comment and (constructive) criticism always welcome.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,980 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5106
Joined Sep 2007
     
Nov 07, 2017 11:12 |  #103

DaviSto wrote in post #18490827 (external link)
My copy of the 85Lii can be incredibly sharp wide-open across the full centre frame. It may drop off a bit towards the edges but not at all in any area of the frame where I am going to place my subject. I just don't care about edge sharpness. It's most likely distracting. And some fall-off towards the edges can contribute to 'pop'.

I don't always achieve that sharpness ... because I mis-focus or (much more likely) because I set too slow a shutter speed to eliminate photographer flutter. But I am getting less incompetent at this stuff. And focus failures are much less frequent with the 5Div than they were with the 5Dii.

When I get it right (more frequently than before, thankfully) the 85Lii images have a quality that I find simply stunning. It is unlike anything that I can get from any other lens I own. I do have the 135L ... the 200L F2 is right at the top of my wish list but still well down my reality list.

90% of the time, the 85Lii is the lens that is on my camera.

I agree that it doesn't deliver images with the same characteristics of more recent lenses. I'm just questioning whether the 'modern look' that these latterday lenses have is the 'look' that actually best sells pictures to people today. What do discerning people today (NOT photographers) most appreciate and value in a photographic image?

Edge sharpness can be an issue if you use your lens for more than one purpose. 85mm is very nice for group portraits and blurry people on the sides can detract from a photo.

May or may not be an issue dependent on the intended print size.

in terms of sharpness, I'de rather a lens be uniformly decent than really sharp in center and high drop off on edges. It's more of a predictability thing, shooting without worrying about subject placement is generally more relaxing.


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ben805
Goldmember
1,197 posts
Likes: 96
Joined Mar 2007
     
Nov 07, 2017 13:41 |  #104

Newer "modern lens" with higher amount of glass elements/groups can often robbed the quality of light. A super sharp lens with capability to obliterate background don't necessary give you the 3D pop, a lot of Sigma Art lens from what I have seen do not have the "pop"...they often look uninteresting and quite flat to me. Awhile back I read somewhere the 3D pop consists of a blend of contrast, vivid colors, lighting direction, DOF, and decent sharpness at the plane of focus, with key element being the micro-contrast. You can check out this article below explaining the 3D pop in a more scientific way....

http://yannickkhong.co​m …es-or-the-death-of-3d-pop (external link)


5D Mark III, Samyang 14mm, 35LII, 85L II, 100L IS Macro, 24-105L, 70-200L 2.8 IS II. 580EX, AB400, AB800.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,936 posts
Gallery: 82 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3993
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited 10 months ago by TeamSpeed.
     
Nov 07, 2017 13:49 |  #105

I am personally very curious about the Rokinon 85mm f1.2, enough that I might buy it. It just depends if I can deal with MF or not, at least the aperture can be controlled electronically. Otherwise it will either be the Sigma ART or this new Canon one... I will have an 85mm again though for sure. :)


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

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

73,407 views & 100 likes for this thread
My first look at Canon's new 85 mm
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is francoisk71
912 guests, 384 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.