24/1.4, 34/1.4, 50/1.4, but no 85/1.4. Any reason?

Yes, because the Canon EOS mount is able to accommodate an 85/1.2, that's why. If Nikon's mount was able to do this, their lens would be an F1.2 instead of an F1.4 as well.

Why do you want an 1.4 if there is a 1.2

If you want something slower, just use the 1.8... or stop down

but canon has 50/1.0, 50/1.2, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 50/2.5...

Both the 85L and 85 1.8 are excellent. Why would you want anything more?

I've thought about this too...More than once to be honest. My thoughts were the cost justification, look at the difference in size and cost from the 50mm f/1.8 (mk I or II) to the f/1.4 and then to the f/1.2. the $200-$300 from 1.8 to 1.4 is acceptable for a 50mm I think. Now with the 85mm f/1.8 already above $400.00(new), I would imagine that a f/1.4 version might be to in the range of $1000-$1150. Also might hurt their 50L f/1.2 sales, that are proven throught the years and lines. Production cost vs. profit margin + low demand = no dice.

just my $.02, fwiw...

just curious...canon can make one more excellent lens such 85/1.4 and people will buy it...

Daan B wrote:
Why do you want an 1.4 if there is a 1.2

If you want something slower, just use the 1.8... or stop down

Because you cannot afford the cost, size and weight of the 1.2 and want faster than the 1.8. If they can make a 1.4 focus as fast as the 1.8, then many people will rather want the 1.4 instead of the 1.2.

I want an 85mm F1.7. I think Canon should make that.

Zeiss makes a 85/1.4 for Canon, if this is what you need to be happy. I have the 85/1.2 and had the 85/1.8. Both of them are outstanding IQ-wise, you cannot go wrong with either of them (as long as you understand what is each of them is good for).

henryng wrote:
Daan B wrote:
Why do you want an 1.4 if there is a 1.2

If you want something slower, just use the 1.8... or stop down

Because you cannot afford the cost, size and weight of the 1.2 and want faster than the 1.8. If they can make a 1.4 focus as fast as the 1.8, then many people will rather want the 1.4 instead of the 1.2.
Ok, so who would buy the 1.2 if they made a 1.4 like that? Or the other way around, if Nikon made a 1.2 instead, would anyone want a 1.4? Honestly, the 85 1.8 is pretty damn good. Also, the aperture difference between 1.4 and 1.2 is small. 1.2 and 1.8 is a more logical step.

I think because we already have an f/1.8 and an f/1.2.
And if you really want f/1.4 you can get the Zeiss with the Canon mount... I think the 85mm focal length is pretty well covered

At the "L" level, they have the 14/2.8, 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, and 135/2. All great lenses.

Strangely enough, Canon 50/1.0 and 50/1.2 don't have good reviews comparing to other prime Ls...

i think adding that would be pretty redundant.
Doesn't make too much sense business wise right?

kjrain wrote:
Strangely enough, Canon 50/1.0 and 50/1.2 don't have good reviews comparing to other prime Ls...
The negativety surrounding these lenses and other Canon stuff is mostly internet B.S.! Yes, there may be a few problems out there but, overall most of the complaints and problems you read about are blown way out of proportion. Then the flames are fanned by a large population of people who read it some where and know it's the truth. Ok, sorry about the rant. By the way, one lens I would never sell is my 50 1.0L, it's easily my favorite.

swnow wrote:
but canon has 50/1.0, 50/1.2, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 50/2.5...

For the record...Canon HAD a 50/1.0 and replaced it with the 50/1.2. Also the 50/2.5 is a true macro lens so it shouldn't be considered along side the other 50mm lenses.

Omar

swnow wrote:
24/1.4, 34/1.4, 50/1.4, but no 85/1.4. Any reason?

No 14/1.4, 15/1.4, 20/1.4, 28/1.4, 45/1.4, 60/1.4, 65/1.4, 90/1.4, 100/1.4, 135/1.4, 180/1.4, 200/1.4 Any reason?

lol

myself would love a 20 1.4...while we are at it there should be 35mm f2 USM