I sold my 1.8 for the 1.4IS for one reason - I couldn't get the 1.8 to focus right. EVER.
I've been quite pleased with the 1.4 and I do enjoy the colors I get out of it. While the bokeh isn't that of the 1.2, it's good enough for me and the focusing is noticeably faster.
I too loved the 85mm f/1.8 USM. That is a fantastic entry lens, especially when paired with the 50mm STM for wider shots. I took many great photos with that 85mm.
I eventually replaced it with the 135mm f/2. As long as you had the working distance, it was even more amazing! Then I replaced that lens with the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. I love that lens, although I haven't used it as much yet.
When the 85mm f/1.4 IS came out, I was very intrigued. That's a full two stops faster than my zoom. Four times the amount of light! Either less noise or four times faster shutter speed! It is so tempting and I'd be afraid to try one. I love primes and they generally please me in a way zooms cannot; However I cannot deny the flexibility that the 70-200 offers.
To me the question is one of trade-off of weight, cost and flexibility.
The IS of the 1.4 will give you more flexibility to choose your aperture, and the extra sharpness means you can shoot from farther away and crop --IOW it will substitute for a wider range of your 70-200mm
(BTW, note that another option is the 135L f/2.0. It's super lightweight, fast-focusing, and relatively compact. And it takes Canon teleconverters.)
anthonygh wrote:
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.
At full aperture.
---------------------------------------------
garyvot wrote:
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.
I was that poster- I wasn't trying to extol the virtues of the lens, but rather to set a performance 'floor' of a sort, in the sense that it isn't as sharp as the sharpest lenses in its class- probably the least sharp!- but it's still more than good enough, in agreement with your sentiment.
If this thread is still active, I upgraded my 85mm f/1.8 to the f/1.4 not too long after it came out. So I've been shooting with the new lens a few months now and can add some points.
For one, I used the 85mm f/1.8 for almost a decade. It replaced an earlier 50mm f/1.4 (another entry level prime) where the AF had failed; and for an entry-level prime, the 85mm was better than the 50mm in just about every way. The lens is well-built and feels solid, it's rugged and reliable. The photos I took while using this lens, portraits mostly; they weren't perfect but they were more than good enough for a lens that was both accessible and compact.
I went to the more expensive f/1.4 mostly for the wider aperture and the IS. If you want to talk about image quality, no, it's not a huge difference or "night and day" that many might expect. There is some fringing wide open, just not as obvious as the 85mm f/1.8. And I don't think either really has a dramatic effect on the photos taken with either lens -- the f/1.8 was already a pretty good lens in this respect.
The other thing I find in practice is the f/1.4 is notably more bulky than the more streamlined f/1.8. The smaller lens could easily fit in the same utility pouch along with the camera, the larger lens requires a dedicated pouch of its own.
johnctharp wrote:
I was that poster- I wasn't trying to extol the virtues of the lens, but rather to set a performance 'floor' of a sort, in the sense that it isn't as sharp as the sharpest lenses in its class- probably the least sharp!- but it's still more than good enough, in agreement with your sentiment.
“The least sharp” compared with what? I spent far too much time on another photography forum a long time ago arguing with 85/1.2 owners over what I saw on a light table under a 10X loupe... which was that in side-by-side comparisons, the 85/1.8 edged out the 1.2 for both contrast and resolution. The vast majority of counterarguments could be interpreted as “the 1.2 costs a lot more so it must be sharper.”
Now I only had one sample of each lens to compare, and the lensrentals blog has since shown us just how common copy variation is. But they were still in the same ballpark. Both were incredibly sharp by 1980s/1990s standards, Heck, better 85s from anybody other than Zeiss didn’t start popping up until well into the new millennium.
I still own the 1.8, despite now also owning the 1.4 IS. I’ve shot thousands of images with the 1.8 over two decades. I’ll keep it for nostalgia’s sake, even if I hardly ever mount it on a camera body anymore.
moondigger wrote:
“The least sharp” compared with what?
Well, Nikon's 85/1.8G, for one, and Sony's new 85/1.8 FE for another- or the Batis 1.8/85 FE or Tamron 85/1.8 VC.
All of these are newer of course, but they're also all better resolving at the widest apertures. Stopped down a bit they're all about the same; DPReview still uses the 85/1.8 USM at f/5.6 for their Canon comparisons and it can still show moiré in their detailed test patterns with a 5Dsr.
So I guess I started off on the wrong foot in my post; I mean to say that the 85/1.8 USM is a very good lens despite its age; it's not the absolute sharpest wide open and has a bit lower contrast, flaring, and CA- all of which can be used artistically!- but it's certainly more than good enough for modern portrait and landscape use.
It will just show its age shooting at the widest apertures in terms of acuity with (let's call it) extreme enlargement and close inspection, which is why I used the 'web usage' comparison where 8MP (4k) is about the top level of output, as the 85/1.8 USM is easily capable of 8MP.
I did not mean to imply that it's not also better than that, just that it's at least that good!
I purchased an 85/1.8 a few years ago to fill the 70-100 mm gap between 24-70 and 100-400. I actually find the lens just fine for landscape use, especially at f/5.6-8. It's not especially well corrected at the wide apertures and I would not use it for the borka at wide apertures. I was not pleased to find that it is not supplied with a lens hood (Canon cheap-skates).
The EF 85 F1.8 is an old design and close to a bargain lens. It was an expedient for me when I shot Canon. I kept is as a general purpose fast focus alternate to the 85L MKI. The 85L IS is a modern design and, except for size/weight can be a fine general purpose high IQ FL.
I never thought of the 85mm as a portrait FL (I use 135 to 200mm and longeron FF). I think of my 85s as a long 50mm since I never bother to carry a 50mm FL. FYI, the Sony 85mm F1.8 is a modern design and, to my mind, the best of the F1.8 85 FLs. Light, sharp wide open and well priced.
But then I shoot Sony now and keep my many EF lenses for adaption (15mm FE, 17mm TSE, 35L, 85L, 135 F2.0, 200 F2.0, 300mm F2.8, 400mm F2.8 IS and 600mm F4.0).
Canon users have another reasonably affordable option in the Tamron SP 85 f/1.8 VC, good sharpness wide open, nice bokeh and much smaller than the Sigma Art and better built with sealing and very good IS. Sigma is all about sharpness, not the nicest bokeh, still has a lot of CA, weighs a ton and if I wanted f/1.4 I'd pay the extra for the Canon every day of the year. The Canon renders a more pleasing shot to my eye as does the Tamron.
Yes, I decided to get the 85mm f/1.4L IS.
I really like it, but it is a lot heavier than my old 85mm f/1.8. The image quality is excellent. I absolutely prefer the colors the 85mm f/1.4L IS produces.
When I am in a controlled environment like an indoor boudoir shoot, I love the 85mm lens. When I shoot a wedding, I usually like to have my trusty 70-200 on one camera and some wider focal length on the other. I have found that the 85mm doesn't give me the extra reach that I sometimes need. I have also noticed that I miss the flexibility the zooms offer. I shoot a lot of weddings, and I need to be ready for anything within a split second. Then again, wedding venues are really dim at times. This is when the 85mm would come in during a wedding.
You have to keep in mind how much of your image you would like to have in focus. Shooting a portrait with an 85mm lens at f/1.4 can easily lead to one eye out of focus if the subject's head is ever so slightly at an angle to the camera's focal plane.
In my case, I don't regret getting the 85mm f/1.4L IS even though I don't use it as much as I had originally expected. It will not replace my 70-200 for my wedding work. It is more a supplement for certain types of shoots and low light situations.
My longest focal length on my Canon cameras is 200mm, and I have never really found the need for anything longer.
I have the 85/1.8. On my 5D4 it is at least as good as the 70-200/2.8 L IS (mkII). It has minimal vignetting and a little CA, mostly at full aperture, easily fixable. At f2.8 it is near perfect. I have several L lenses and cannot see any difference in colour rendition. Focusing is fast and accurate. Obviously it lacks IS.
As far as I can see, and I am very picky on IQ, the only reason to change to the 1.4 would be IS. I don't think a (less than) half stop difference in aperture is of any practical relevance, and the 1.8 is smaller and lighter. Disregard the comment above about web use, the 85/1.8 can easily produce excellent A2 prints.
On a crop body (80d, 7D2) it works beautifully as a 135mm equivalent.
Canon even list it as recommended for the 5DS/R bodies:
SoundHound wrote:
The EF 85 F1.8 is an old design ... The 85L IS is a modern design ...
the Sony 85mm F1.8 is a modern design ...
I'll never understand why people stress the date of a design for objects whose technology fundamentals are consolidated since decades. Actually, there are many lenses dating back to '80s which outperform many "modern designs".
With reference to medium telephoto primes, just think about the Nikkor 105/2.5 or the Leica 100/2.8 Apo Macro.
I use the EF 85/1.8 USM on EOS M3, a camera with a pixel "density" surpassing EOS 5Ds.
The lens is very sharp on such a demanding sensor, with excellent bokeh.
The only drawback is a quite visible LoCA (bokeh fringing) at the larger apertures, however even a modern design such as the Zeiss 100/2 Makro-Planar shows the same issue. To avoid it, an apochromatic design would be needed, at 4-5 times the price.
nputtick wrote:
I have the 85/1.8. On my 5D4 it is at least as good as the 70-200/2.8 L IS (mkII). It has minimal vignetting and a little CA, mostly at full aperture, easily fixable.
I'm not sure but I read somewhere that LoCA could depend not only on lens design (i.e. CA correction) but also on the sensor. Nevertheless, my experience with M3+85/1.8 combo is that LoCA is not "easily fixable". I use three raw converters: DPP, Capture One and ACR. ACR works better (although not perfect) insofar as LoCA correction is concerned.
nputtick wrote:
the 85/1.8 can easily produce excellent A2 prints.
Agree 100 %
