85f1.2L II

[Deadpoet]

haha..I cant imagine what the price would be like if Canon puts IS into the 85mmf1.2L:sweat:

You really do not need IS for this lens, since you will be shooting wide open anyway. At that apeture, your shutter speed will be at a minimum 1/125-1/250. If you cannot hold this lens steadily at 125, you have other problems.

In low light, dial up the iso, you prob can still use 1/60. Why need IS?

 

[Snoweagle]

The IS function in short range zooms (e.g. EF-S 17-85 and 17-55) is also not necessary IMO, they just increase the price of the lens.

 

[Kongo]

Managed to try a copy of the 85L II in Hong Kong, during this exhibition:

http://forum.clubsnap.com/showthread.php?t=186240

I have not try the mk I b4, so can't tell how much it is faster.

The overall feel of the focusing speed is still quite a bit on the slow side. I will say it is faster than some 3rd party Sigma lens that I own, but noticeably slower than most other Canon lens I own like the 135f2L, 50f1.4 etc.

Anyway, I still think the AF speed is acceptable to me, though I'll agree that it might not be fast enuff to track moving objects.

Optical quality seems to be good if u managed to get the focusing right, the DOF should be shallower wide open judging from some pics posted in this thread:

http://avbuzz.com/bbs/model/model-thread-61684.html

 

[JediForce4ever]

You really do not need IS for this lens, since you will be shooting wide open anyway. At that apeture, your shutter speed will be at a minimum 1/125-1/250. If you cannot hold this lens steadily at 125, you have other problems.

In low light, dial up the iso, you prob can still use 1/60. Why need IS?

IS to stabilize the image when at f1.2, so your focus point wont be shifted so easily, as the DOF is real shallow.

 

[nightwolf75]

IS to stabilize the image when at f1.2, so your focus point wont be shifted so easily, as the DOF is real shallow.

erm... actually its not stablizing ur image. rather, the internal servos/gyros compensate the handshakes by making micro adjustments to the lenses (hence focusing)....

 

[Belle&Sebastain]

just tried the 85mm mk1 against the 1D in good light, i must say the focusing is rather fast and furious compared to the 2 digit series when i last tried (also in good light)

 

[John Tan]

Managed to try a copy of the 85L II in Hong Kong, during this exhibition:

http://forum.clubsnap.com/showthread.php?t=186240

I have not try the mk I b4, so can't tell how much it is faster.

The overall feel of the focusing speed is still quite a bit on the slow side. I will say it is faster than some 3rd party Sigma lens that I own, but noticeably slower than most other Canon lens I own like the 135f2L, 50f1.4 etc.

Anyway, I still think the AF speed is acceptable to me, though I'll agree that it might not be fast enuff to track moving objects.

Optical quality seems to be good if u managed to get the focusing right, the DOF should be shallower wide open judging from some pics posted in this thread:

http://avbuzz.com/bbs/model/model-thread-61684.html

huh? Slower than 50 f1.4?

 

[John Tan]

The IS function in short range zooms (e.g. EF-S 17-85 and 17-55) is also not necessary IMO, they just increase the price of the lens.

I don't mind IS built in as I can use better quality ISO like <ISO 400 rather than on 800~1600...

 

[Snoweagle]

I don't mind IS built in as I can use better quality ISO like <ISO 400 rather than on 800~1600...

Yeah u've got a point there. But the average user normally wouldn't need IS at this range.

 

[JediForce4ever]

Yeah u've got a point there. But the average user normally wouldn't need IS at this range.

define your term of average user

 

[Jeff]

I don't mind IS built in as I can use better quality ISO like <ISO 400 rather than on 800~1600...

actually, IS has got nothing to do with ISO. ISO is related to the sensor sensitivity towards light, while IS refers to anti shake through the use of a gyro motor. at any one time when light is poor, no huge aperture lens can auto focus. :sweat:

 

[Snoweagle]

define your term of average user

Average user....someone who's not so particular about having IS in their lenses.

 

[Kongo]

The 50f1.4 may be slower than 85f1.8 or 135f2, but I think it's still quicker than the 85L II..

I tried focusing from close distance to infinity and back a few times, will not say the AF is an instant process, even on a 1 series body, small af adjustments is adequately responsive though. I guess 1.8x improvements is not enuff to make it a quick silver..

huh? Slower than 50 f1.4?

 

[shinken]

actually, IS has got nothing to do with ISO. ISO is related to the sensor sensitivity towards light, while IS refers to anti shake through the use of a gyro motor. at any one time when light is poor, no huge aperture lens can auto focus. :sweat:

It may not be immediately related, but IS allows shooting at low shutter speeds under low lighting conditions, during which the shooter usually bumps up the ISO. In a situation where say, ISO 1600 is still insufficient, and aperture can no longer be opened up further, IS enables slower shutter speeds to be used to capture an image which would not have otherwise been possible. This, of course, assumes that motion blur (due to the slow shutter speed) is not an issue.

 

[Jeff]

It may not be immediately related, but IS allows shooting at low shutter speeds under low lighting conditions, during which the shooter usually bumps up the ISO. In a situation where say, ISO 1600 is still insufficient, and aperture can no longer be opened up further, IS enables slower shutter speeds to be used to capture an image which would not have otherwise been possible. This, of course, assumes that motion blur (due to the slow shutter speed) is not an issue.

Actually if u look closer, it's quite clear why IS is a detriment to this lens. Just look at the DOF curve n u can understand why. compensating motion from e gyro motor alone will kill whatever precision this lens has. Resolution is of course quite unparalleled here at numerical aperture of 0.83. Well, some intel chips are made using such an aperture

At least quite undoable for e next 50yrs or so. e best set of lenses is still ur eyes.:bsmilie:

 

[canturn]

most pple who want this lens will shoot at wide open @ 1.2

for me, i will try to use MF as much as possible for better control of the focus point cos the DOF is so shallow.

even 1D has 45 AF points, using AF alone may not achieve the exact focus point that u want

The trick is to squeeze more shots and from there one of them will surely be sharp at the place you want :bsmilie:

I'm not joking, the 85 1.2L is one of the 3 lenses I use for wedding events.

 

[shinken]

Actually if u look closer, it's quite clear why IS is a detriment to this lens. Just look at the DOF curve n u can understand why. compensating motion from e gyro motor alone will kill whatever precision this lens has. Resolution is of course quite unparalleled here at numerical aperture of 0.83. Well, some intel chips are made using such an aperture

At least quite undoable for e next 50yrs or so. e best set of lenses is still ur eyes.:bsmilie:

Oh, I dun mind having it or not at all. The 85 1.2L is quite down my list of immediate wants on the wish list, so I'm not really thinking abt it.

I don't go round hunting lenses with IS, especially since I'm not a teleshooter. Just that many guys around are faulting lenses just because they have IS. These people may not need IS, or even want IS, but totally disregard the notion of the usefulness of it. The most popular argument is that large aperture can do the job. The only convincing argument (to me) is that IS increases the cost of the lens, a lens which they want, but would prefer to cheaper. Altho thats quite true, but it does the job differently, and everyone seemed to forget both can be used in tandem

IS, like autofocus, is just a feature to act as a tool ain't it? There used to be a time where the bulk of the people scoff at the need for AF. Why not get the 135F2L FD lens but the EOS 135F2 lens? People gradually embraced the convience AF had brought about, despite the higher prices. IS, is but an added feature for photogs to play with ya?

 

[Jeff]

Just that many guys around are faulting lenses just because they have IS. These people may not need IS, or even want IS, but totally disregard the notion of the usefulness of it.

of course it's useful. but i think no one is faulting anything, just its practicality based on current lens design for e Canonball. that said, i still lov my faithful n cheap 35mm. seriously all these adiitional technological improvement may perhaps help one in achieving certain shots which is impossible otherwise, but it still doesn't improve one's creativity or does it?

n i m beginning to suspect this is an elaborate scheme from manufacturers to psycho consumers into a buying spree. Just take a look how they used to advertise more mega pixels is gd until they hit on a stumbling block on poor signal to noise ratio. IS is gd, 3 stops of light. Anti-shake, see no blur. Oh vibration reduction, so clear! n so on. their point is to sell n no more. :bsmilie: i think what we all want is practical no nonsense/gimmick and all ye faith toy to be ur eyes in lieu. but this way all have to close shop liaoh.

 

[shinken]

I totally agree. Most of the features packed into stuff they sell these days are to create wants, more than satisfy needs that truly benefits the art of photography. I can only think of good resolution optics (for lens) that's truly beneficial. The rest are frills that help them generate sales faster, or jack up the shelf prices by making a feature mandatory for a lens that's the only kind of its range.

of course it's useful. but i think no one is faulting anything, just its practicality based on current lens design for e Canonball. that said, i still lov my faithful n cheap 35mm. seriously all these adiitional technological improvement may perhaps help one in achieving certain shots which is impossible otherwise, but it still doesn't improve one's creativity or does it?

n i m beginning to suspect this is an elaborate scheme from manufacturers to psycho consumers into a buying spree. Just take a look how they used to advertise more mega pixels is gd until they hit on a stumbling block on poor signal to noise ratio. IS is gd, 3 stops of light. Anti-shake, see no blur. Oh vibration reduction, so clear! n so on. their point is to sell n no more. :bsmilie: i think what we all want is practical no nonsense/gimmick and all ye faith toy to be ur eyes in lieu. but this way all have to close shop liaoh.