Why no Canon 85 1.4L?

[Tom Stanworth]

I have a 135L and love it, but would like something shorter, fast and built like an L lens to compliment it. The 85 1.2 is enormous, heavy, expensive and even in Mk2 guise a slow focuser compared to smaller lenses. A 85 1.4L or even a 85 1.8L would be my cup of tea and I am a mite annoyed that Canon coninues to leave the gulf between the good value and superb 85 1.8 lens and the 1.2L. Surely there are others who feel the same. An 85 1.4 for $1000 or so would sell very well I am sure. If it comes down to it I would buy the 85 1.8 over the 1.2 at 1/6th the price and 1/3 weight but would rather put my money into L glass, get enviro sealing and better build with a size and price somewhere between.

Come on Canon, where is the 85 1.4L?

 

[ehparis]

Maybe it's because they have the 85 1.2L. The Nikon 85 f1.4 isn't exactly a toy when it comes to size. BTW there is a Nikon 85 f1.8 that's rather good and it's compact in size.

Personally I'm sticking with my Nikon 85mm f1.4 and liking every minute of using it.

 

[JosBurke]

I'm itching for the 85 1.8 Canon myself--supposedly a very good non L lens but no experience ! I almost bought one new under the latest rebate period ! Almost--as I almost had the money ! Actually I'd love the 85 1.2 L myself but rather pricey for me--I have the 24-105 L but I'd prefer a prime for portraits !! My pockets are deep but empty !

 

[Jeremy]

The 85mm f/1.8 is a fantastic lens and unless you need the extra stop up to f/1.2 then save the weight you have to carry and the extra grand it would cost you. I love my 85mm f/1.8.

 

[Petzi]

Come on Canon, where is the 85 1.4L?

That lens would be overkill. 1.2 and 1.8 are available, so why another lens in between?

 

[magic823]

I'd venture to say, because they don't want to.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you want a great piece of glass, get a lensmount adapter and pick up a used Contax 85mm f1.4. Takes a 67mm filter, produces awesome images. Manual focus though.

 

[Petzi]

I'd venture to say, because they don't want to.

Right. You can consider yourself lucky that they make fast primes in the first place. Most people buy slow zoom lenses.

 

[PhotoJim]

The 85/1.8 doesn't really need fluorite glass (the L in L lenses). That's why it's not an L lens.

I use the Nikkor 85/1.8 and it's amazing. I imagine the Canon equivalent is very good too. Try it, and if you really hate it, spend the extra few grand on the 1.2. You will probably end up liking the 1.8 just fine.

If you feel bad that the build quality is lower, buy three.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The old FD 85/1.2 L is a fantastic lens, if you don't need autofocus, and you can get one with an FD compatible body for less than the $1K you say you would spend on an 85/1.4.

 

[Lee Shively]

I've been lusting after the EF 85/1.8 for some time now myself. I don't need any speed faster than f/1.8 and that lens has a great reputation. Build quality of Canon's standard-issue prime lenses is fine with me--I wouldn't pay more for L-series build quality. (This might be a good reason why there's no 85/1.4L in the Canon line.)

For many years, I used the manual focus Nikkor 85/1.8 on F and F2 cameras. It was a fine lens--wide open it performed better than the 90mm Leitz Summicron I also had at the time.

 

[Petzi]

I've been lusting after the EF 85/1.8 for some time now myself. I don't need any speed faster than f/1.8 and that lens has a great reputation. Build quality of Canon's standard-issue prime lenses is fine with me--I wouldn't pay more for L-series build quality. (This might be a good reason why there's no 85/1.4L in the Canon line.)

I have it. It's a good lens. Remember, you've got to carry the bigger faster lenses, or you won't take any pictures with them at all.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I realise that the 85 1.2 and 1.8 dont leave a lot of room but I would argue that a 1.2 is more of a specialist tank, so in some respects am surprised that they have it and not a 1.4 (like Nikon). I guess it marks Canon out as 'unique' but I dont need such a large, slow expensive peice of uniqueness! I would have thought there would be more Canon users that would like a slighter faster L spec 1.4 lens and who would also not be considering the 1.2, but obviously not! Still, its a bummer. The 135 f2L is so incredibly good and relatively good value ($900) that a similarly pitched 85 1.4 would be great. The 'overcrowded niche' argument I am sure said that there would be no market for the 17-40 f4 and 70-200 f4....but that was shown to be untrue as people flocked to the L build & image quality for the same speed available as consumer lenses, happy at the saving over the 2.8 speed lenses. Canon just did their new 50 1.2 so obviously they are still investing in fast primes.

PPPPPPlease Canon an 85 1.4 for about $1K. Just for me.

 

[sanderx1]

The 85/1.8 doesn't really need fluorite glass (the L in L lenses). That's why it's not an L lens.

85mm anything doesn't really need fluorite glass. It doesn't really need aspherical either (or rather, might, dependeing on what you try to correct for). So from that point of view, you'd never have a 85mm L lens. There is no real definition to what makes an L lens.

 

[mawz]

The 85/1.8 is a superb lens, in fact it's a better general purpose short telephoto than the 1.2L is (Notably faster AF for one).

There's no real reason to make a f1.4L. The 1.8 is such a good performer that a 1.4L is needed.

PhotoJim: L glass no longer requires Fluorite elements, it's simply Canon's premium lens line, and is determined more by weathersealing than anything else nowadays (although many L lenses do still have fluorite elements).

 

[PatTrent]

A few years ago I owned the Canon 85 f/1.8 and it was a great lens. Beautiful Bokeh. I highly recommend it. I liked it even better than the
Nikon equivalent.

 

[JosBurke]

You guys are killing me-- I just happened to stroll into the local camera haven of junk/treasure to bowse for bargains or anything that catches my eye (read CHEAP too)--this is a used/vintage camera store--piles of MF gear--not show pieces though !! Back on track I just happened to notice an 85 1.8 there on the shelf with shade and caps----being the sucker I am I debated as I browsed the darkroom heap and finally broke down and bought it---glass is premo and it looks lightly used--$225--about a $100 under B&H new---I'm such a sucker but that's the one I've been wanting !

 

[elekm]

I don't think Canon believes there is enough difference between 1.2 and 1.4 to justify another production line for a fixed focal length lens. For the most part, the SLR market seems to love zooms.

 

[Abbazz]

Get a Helios 40-2 lens and a M42 to Canon adapter. 1.5/85mm, superb image quality, dirt cheap.

Picture taken with Helios 40-2 wide open

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/helios.html

Cheers,

Sebastien

 

[bjorke]

If you pay, they'll make it

 

[benjiboy]

The 85mm 1.2 L lens probably needs the low dispersion glass to correct the optical problems encountered in designing a lens of such extreme aperture that are not needed in the 1.4 or 1.8 versions,I have the 85mm 1.8 FD version, being a portrait photographer use it more than any other,and have done for about twenty years, all I can tell you Tom is its so good someone will have to prise it out of my cold dead hands!!

 

[Lee Shively]

Sometimes these threads give you motivation to do things that cost you money. Last week, I checked KEH's website and they had an "excellent" EF 85/1.8 for sale. Now they don't--I have it. KEH's "excellent" is my "like new without the box". The lens is immaculate.

I chased my dog around in the backyard and shot a roll of HP5 and processed the film last night. I doubt I'll print any of the photos but those negatives are really pretty. The lens is sharp all around but when wide open at f/1.8 it gives a great creamy smooth look. I'm gonna like this lens.