Has anyone upgraded from the 85mm f/1.8 to the new 85mm f/1.4L IS lens?
I am actually pretty happy with my 85mm f/1.8. It is sharp and focuses pretty fast.
I miss the weather sealing, though.
I have found many reviews in which the new lens is being compared to the 85mm f/1.2L, but I am pretty sure many people chose the f/1.8 version in the first place because of the light weight and faster focusing. This is why I am asking here if someone made the jump from f/1.8 to the new f/1.4L IS.
So, if someone was able to compare the two lenses: is it a night and day difference in image quality?
Thanks!
BTW, I am also shooting with the 35mm f/1.4L II, the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, the "new" 24-70 f/2.8 and the 16-35mm f/4 IS on a 5D Mark IV. My two Mark III bodies have been degraded to backup bodies.
I am trying to replace the 70-200 on some jobs with a good 85mm because I am tired of carrying the weight of the 70-200 :-). The new 35mm is absolutely wonderful and worth every penny.
The 85/1.4L is sharper at the widest apertures; it's going to be 'night and day' on your screen depending on camera resolution, but the 85/1.8 USM (and almost every lens you can buy today) is still certainly competent for web output. The slower lens is still smaller and lighter.
For focus speed: I think that the 85/1.8 is still the faster focusing lens, but it's not a wide margin like it is with the 85/1.2L I/II.
If 85mm works for you, both lenses are great, but the 85/1.4L IS will give you a bit more flexibility while still working as an alternative for the 70-200. And at 30MP, you'll appreciate the IS, as it'll keep you from having to push the shutter speed beyond what most subjects need to counter camera shake.
The 85L-IS is far superior to the 85 in every category except weight. Focus speed is close with maybe the tiiiiiiiiniest edge to the f/1.8, however, servo performance I think is superior on the L. Don't get me wrong the f/1.8 is a nice little prime but the two aren't really comparable.
If 85 is a "go-to" focal length for you and you have the money the 85L-IS is incredible.
* It's more compact
* It's lighter
* It's much more affordable, which means I could replace it without concern or forethought if it were damaged, lost or stolen
Ways the f/1.4L is better:
* It's ~1/2 stop faster
* It's sharper, especially at wide apertures; it's also sharper away from the center of the frame even at smaller apertures
* It has better bokeh
* It has image stabilization
* It's weather sealed
I haven't compared focusing speed side-by-side, because they're both quick enough in real-world use that it doesn't matter which one is actually some fraction of a second faster or slower.
I'll quibble with johnctharp's comment that the 85/1.8 is 'competent for web output,' which sort of implies it's not competent for higher-resolution uses. I've been using my 85/1.8 for more than 20 years, frequently producing large prints and (in my film days) slides that were projected large, yet remained impressively sharp. It was one of the sharpest short teles for decades, and you had to spend money on a Zeiss or Leica to match it. Modern lens design, which basically ignores considerations like bulk and weight, does result in lenses like the new Canon 1.4L and the Sigma Art delivering higher resolution. But in practical terms that just means your output can be huge, rather than 'merely' large, before you start to see its limitations.
I'm not 100% sure which 135 mm lens Cliff is referring to, but I own the 135/2.0L. In my opinion, it's not really a suitable substitute for one of the 85 mm lenses, unless one were moving from a crop sensor body to a full-frame body and wanted the same framing they used to get with an 85 mm lens on the crop body.
85IS is much better in this regard but not 100% free, very minor amount that is easily correctable. I’ve had video footage ruined by 85ii in the past, it can exhibit extreme purple fringing. at f1.2 especially against backlight, not an issue with 85IS. 85mm f1.8 shouldn’t even be conpared here, that is consumer lens which is not resolving well on modern dslrs with poor contrast, fringing (purple and green), mediocre bokeh, etc.
Alanu wrote:
Does the new 85f1.4 Control purple fringing? The 85Lmk2 and f1.8 version are terrible for pf.
I actually think that 85mm may be a little short for portraits, but I think it could be a good compromise. During some shoots it will not be able to replace my 70-200, but I am hoping to at least replace it during family sessions or during a wedding for example. The compression will not be the same at 85mm and 200mm of course, but I guess the bokeh might be somewhat comparable when I shoot the 85mm at larger apertures. I also appreciate being able to stay close to my subjects. I dont't like to yell at them from far away like I sometimes have to do with my 70-200 when I shoot it at 200mm :-). Or I can pause and walk over to them, but this is always an interruption in the flow of the shoot. So I will try to find my way with the 85mm focal length. It is also a creative challenge for me.
It is interesting that artsf mentions the colors. This is something I was hoping to hear (or the GAS part of me was hoping to hear) :-). I have found a noticable difference in color between other cheaper or some older lenses and my latest L lenses. I haven't seen side by side images of the 85 1.8 and the new 1.4L yet, though.
Moondigger, you mentioned that you own both lenses. May I ask if you could post two pictures shot at the same settings with each of the two lenses?
The 85 f/1.8 seemed to present a cooler colour when I owned it. If you compare many of the older L glass to the newer mk2 versions they all have a "new" canon colour to a degree. Look at the 35Lmk1 and compare the colours to your mk2. Same goes for the older 24Lmk1, 24-70Lf/2.8mk2, 16-35Lmk2, 70-200 f/2.8IS mk1, 85L f/1.2 mk2 etc etc.....they all have a different look in sharpness and colour vs the fresh newer gen lenses. Analyze even the 35 f/2IS and it looks more similar to the newer 35L mk2 render than the old 35L mk1.
If you compare the colours you get from even a 100L IS vs older 100L you can see a difference in colour. The 85 f/1.8 is really a great lens for the price but it's definitely no comparison or competitor to the 85 f/1.4IS.
Bensandiego I would think it's a no brainer to go from an 85 f/1.8 to a fast AF 85L f/1.4IS. You'll get smooth melting bokeh compared to the potentially contrasty/nervous bokeh of the 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2. I much preferred the 70-200 f/2.8IS mk1 bokeh than the newer mk2 version.
If you wanted to save some $$ with a different FL you can maybe consider the cheaper 135L f/2. But again that lens does not have the same kind of colour render like the newer Canon nano coated glass.
The 85mm would be great family session lens BUT for my style I'd rather use the 70-200 as you'd need to stop down the 85mm anyways to assure that everyone is in focus with no soft eyes in a group shot. I've had plenty times where I regret not using the longer lens as I can vary perspective by changing the subject/lens distance while I change the FL of the zoom.
I need to pickup a new Canon 85 f/1.4 to replace my 85L f/1.2mk2. I want faster AF and similar bokeh. However you can laugh at me that I would actually prefer using my Fuji X-t2 with 56 f/1.2 (85mm equiv) in some cases rather than lugging another Canon body with 85L f/1.2mk2. All depends on the situation......Then again I'm now shooting Sony too so the Gmaster 85 f/1.4 is something else I'm considering.
If you think you dig your 35Lmk2 just think you'll get virtually identical colours and contrast with the 85L f/1.4IS. They go hand in hand in "modern" canon colour/sharpness look.
I have the 1.8 as well and am facing more or less the same dilemma. I am mostly interested in colour and CA which are the major weaknesses of the 1.8 otherwise excellent. I’ve tried the 85mm 1.4 Canon and the 85mm Art: though for limited time, the Art’s IQ blew me away and imo is better than the Canon 1.4 in almost every department and not by a small margin but c’mon that weight and size for a prime...no thank you.
How can you even compare the two lenses? I’ve owned all three L versions and the 85/1.4 is the first that I’d even consider using in AF mode. The first frames from the 1.4 stood out for their vibrant colors. I suspect that you’ll feel the same whether you buy an 85LII or 85/1.4. Of course, if you’re shooting anywhere near wide open it’s foolish to use AF unless your focus point is smack dab in the middle or you’re losing files. I’m old school, I Focus and expose manually every time to ensure that I’ll miss very little.
bensandiego wrote:
I actually think that 85mm may be a little short for portraits, but I think it could be a good compromise...
Depends on the portrait you want. Head shot? Yeah, probably a little short, unless you're going for a certain (non-traditional) look. But it's quite suitable for head-and-shoulders shots and wider.
The compression will not be the same at 85mm and 200mm of course
Side note: compression is entirely a function of distance-to-subject. You'll get the same compression from an 85 mm lens as you will from a 200 mm lens, if you shoot them both from the same distance, and then crop the 85 mm shot to the same framing as the 200 mm shot. Obviously a longer focal length will give you more working distance, and therefore more compression for the same framing. But this is entirely a function of your distance-to-subject.
I also appreciate being able to stay close to my subjects. I dont't like to yell at them from far away like I sometimes have to do with my 70-200 when I shoot it at 200mm :-).
See above. Staying close to your subjects will give less compression, no matter what focal length you use. Getting further away will increase compression.
It is interesting that artsf mentions the colors. This is something I was hoping to hear (or the GAS part of me was hoping to hear) :-). I have found a noticable difference in color between other cheaper or some older lenses and my latest L lenses. I haven't seen side by side images of the 85 1.8 and the new 1.4L yet, though.
I think many photographers trying to decide which gear to purchase today put too much emphasis on 'glass color.' This was an important consideration back in the film days, especially for those of us shooting slide film. There was no post-exposure adjustment of color. What hit the film in the camera was what you ended up with, period.
But now, color balance, saturation, hue, and even color contrast are all almost infinitely adjustable post-exposure. The subtle differences between (for example) the 85/1.8 and the 85/1.4L don't really matter to me anymore. I get what I want in terms of color no matter what lens I use. I have a super cheap Russian-made manual focus lens I shoot on my Canon bodies sometimes (with an adapter). The color and contrast are noticeably different vs. every other lens I shoot with. But it doesn't matter -- I created a Photoshop Action that adjusts hue +4, saturation +9, green channel -5, contrast +3, etc. (Not the actual values -- I don't remember what they are now.) But all I have to do to make frames from that Russian lens look like Canon glass is press one hot key.
I suppose if somebody shot a lot of video, and didn't want to have to adjust color timing for every shoot, then the glass color might matter more to them than it does to me. But even then, the 85/1.8 and 85/1.4L aren't that different. The color temperature of the ambient light you're shooting in will vary a lot more over the course of a day than the difference between these two lenses.
Moondigger, you mentioned that you own both lenses. May I ask if you could post two pictures shot at the same settings with each of the two lenses?
I don't have any like that saved, but there are numerous comparisons available out on the web. Here's one from YouTube. It's in a foreign language, but the on-screen comparisons are easy enough to understand:
If I have a few minutes later today, I may take a couple comparison shots. But trust me -- the difference in color between these two lenses is minimal, and rather easily compensated for post-exposure.
Alanu, I am actually tempted to use my Fuji 50mm f/2 lens with my X-T20 sometimes instead of bringing my Canon 5D Mark IV. I have also considered getting the Fuji 56mm. However, the Canons are the most ergonomic and intuitive cameras in my hands, so I usually bring these to paid gigs :-). I am playing with the X-T20 and may even try the X-T2 soon. The reduced weight is a tremendous advantage, and the IQ is very good, too (at least in good light).
I have also been afraid to lose the flexibility of a zoom, but I have seen so many wedding photographers on shotkit who use only a few primes that I thought there must be a way to get rid of the heavy 70-200 :-)).
Moondigger, thank you for explaining what causes compression in the image. I am sure this is something that is often misunderstood or mistaken. I have actually not expressed it correctly either when I said that a focal length of 200mm compresses the image more than 85mm. I am glad you pointed out that this wasn't precise (or wrong, I should say). :-)
Thank you also for the interesting links. Regarding the difference in color, i guess I will try if I can match my 85mm f/1.8 to my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM.
I will keep you guys posted on my buying decision.
I'm passing my 85 1.8 along to a family member with an 18 MP Canon ( the 7D ). It was a handy lens but I tried it on the 5D IV and wasn't happy with the resolution on the 30 MP camera. I haven't made up my mind yet about the the 85 1.4. I've been reading some of the comparisons of the 35 f/1.4 I and II - they're in a similar vein to what Alunu writes here, that is, a gain in clarity but something of a loss in the atmospherics of the images. ( I have the 35 II but haven't yet used it enough to compare it with the creaminess of the original ). I had been wondering if the same trade-off applies to the 85 f/1.4 versus the 1.2. You do get some of that newer-lens 'clinical' look with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II zoom, but it's a wonderful utility lens and well up to the camera. My favorite lens, the winner and champion, 5D I to 5D IV, remains the 135 f/2.
bensandiego wrote:
Thank you very much for all your helpful answers.
Alanu, I am actually tempted to use my Fuji 50mm f/2 lens with my X-T20 sometimes instead of bringing my Canon 5D Mark IV. I have also considered getting the Fuji 56mm. However, the Canons are the most ergonomic and intuitive cameras in my hands, so I usually bring these to paid gigs :-). I am playing with the X-T20 and may even try the X-T2 soon. The reduced weight is a tremendous advantage, and the IQ is very good, too (at least in good light).
I have also been afraid to lose the flexibility of a zoom, but I have seen so many wedding photographers on shotkit who use only a few primes that I thought there must be a way to get rid of the heavy 70-200 :-)).
Moondigger, thank you for explaining what causes compression in the image. I am sure this is something that is often misunderstood or mistaken. I have actually not expressed it correctly either when I said that a focal length of 200mm compresses the image more than 85mm. I am glad you pointed out that this wasn't precise (or wrong, I should say). :-)
Thank you also for the interesting links. Regarding the difference in color, i guess I will try if I can match my 85mm f/1.8 to my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM.
I will keep you guys posted on my buying decision.
Interested to hear if you decided to get the 85 f1.4 IS. I have a VERY similar kit to yours right now (5D IV, 16-35 f4L IS, 35 f1.4L II, 85 f1.8, 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 1.4x tc II) and am currently debating between upgrading my 85 f1.8 to the 85 f1.4L IS for better portraits (my 70-200 is currently my go-to portrait lens...the weight doesn't bother me), or stick with what I've got for portrait work and get a 100-400 II to play with for sports and long, compressed landscapes. I realize they're two completely different lenses, for two completely different uses, but my budget will only allow for one of the two this year.
Another relatively fast lens to consider in this focal range is the Canon 100mm f2. For portraits I liked it much better than the 85mm 1.8. Less CA wide open and to my eyes, it creates a smoother background.
Where I live (UK) if I am interested in a particular lens the local dealer is happy for me to turn up with my camera...spend 10 minutes taking shots....and waiting to see what I think.
Not a good selling strategy unfortunately as I then spend ages fine tuning the images in PS ...and usually conclude I should stay with what I have.
OK...the newer stuff does have benefits...but at a cost. And the benefits are often minimal. Someone mentioned the sharpness of the 1.8 and it would be good for web use. I have news for that poster...that lens is good for A2 prints....like, clumps of mascara on the eyelash showing good.
anthonygh wrote:
Someone mentioned the sharpness of the 1.8 and it would be good for web use. I have news for that poster...that lens is good for A2 prints....like, clumps of mascara on the eyelash showing good.
At full aperture.
Yeah totally. "Good for web use" is just hyperbole. Or maybe he had a bad copy...
The deficiencies of the 1.8 lens do not really include lack of sharpnes in my experience. It does not deliver the most delicious bokeh, and it has some CA. (as does the 1.4 IS), but it is sharp enough for professional use in nearly all situations.
