Hands-on with new Canon L-series primes

Now now.....
Be nice....
:=)

@arbux: Yes, I had an issue. Yes, I have had no further problems. That's *only* because I'd handled the shift extremely carefully - far more carefully than I should have to (I don't mistreat my lenses). My point is that the rack is plastic - something I would not expect in such an expensive lens in a component that is obviously going to be under continual use.

So my point still remains valid. It most certainly is not "well machined" nor "oozes quality".

I’d love one with just an AF that doesn’t die

@Sdaniella "your shallow dof will soften more out-of-focus detail, ..."
But not the detail that is IN focus. Necessity of improved CA, contrast here.
Necessity of improved bokeh as well for out-of-focus detail.

Godiva - Thanks, I just thought it might stand for something as this line of Canon lenses goes back a long time.

keep it going!

I believe it originally stood for Low dispersion glass. (back in the FD mount days) That is what I always remembered. Canon says it stands for Luxury. Ive never heard anyone use that to describe L lenses, only low dispersion. Who knows?

I've never heard about the "Low dispersion" version, but I didn't photograph during the FD days. :) Interesting though!

Canon optics tend to be smaller than others (usually). This new 85mm f1.4 L IS will not be replaced for many years to come so Canon would be fo.lish to degrade optical quality for the sake of size.

@Wild - why would they come out with a "less than stellar" L lens? That makes no sense.

wow, you are something special.

The OP has said they expect it be "not stellar"

Catch up will you.

@Wild Light - So why would you think it possible they would do that?

@Wild - Go be nice, if you can. I'll ignore you now, so if you keep blustering about, I won't care. Hopefully you won't burst from my lack of response.

Plastics can be very sturdy. If one knocks the chip off, I'd worry about lens element out of alignment more.

Tilting lenses on a DSLR is rather limited...not on a view camera.

@Felipe
May I ask what was the main area of photography where you used the 45mm the most? I used mine mostly for product shots. Ideal focal lenght for small to medium size products allowing great control over depth of field.

I think with these already big and heavy lenses and the style of shooting associated with them the adapter wouldn't make much difference on the coming mirrorless bodies. And with a tripod mount the adapter could even provide a more balanced setup. If I hàd all the money in the world I wouldn't hesitate to get a Sony A9 or 7riii + a Canon 17mm TS.

@rurikw
so you think it is ok spending $$$$ on professional gear and professional cameras so you have to use and adapter? Adapters are interim solutions. Sure I use metabones on my sony bodies, but that is my choice to crossbreed products and brand, is fitting a a Canon lens on a Sony body. DLRs will die very soon, yet we have a new series of fancy lenses just released. Is Canon a bit crazy or their next generation cameras will still use the same mount?

armandino. I don't think DSLRs will die soon. There is no reason for. There are moments and situations where I (and other professionals) choose my DSLR over my Sony A7RII. Especially when it comes to speed, AF reliability and in wet or very dusty environment. Yes I have my Canon lenses adapted to my Sony and it works fine. Would Canon stop producing DSLRs I would buy another four 1DX just to have some for the future. Just in case.

"Another four 1D X" - someone won the lottery? :)

A mirrorless camera doesn't need to have a short flange distance. It can, or it could keep the existing EF flange.

@BEKippe
that is what I am asking myself, is it that what Canon has in mind? If so then there is a lost opportunity with wasted space. Either cases seems pretty much a lose-lose situation in my opinion.

You can buy some used previous generation t-se lens for 750-900 $ It has not bad optical perfomance, but you need extension tubes if you want 1:2 like in this new lenses.

You would have to be a fool (or super specialized... or rich AF) to actually buy these lenses. For an individual you can rent it at a straight up affordable cost.

Do you think canon makes its strategic development decisions based on what's for sale on ebay? I mean I wish they would!

wait for sony tilt/shift lenses, that will be so cheaper.. or any other brand.

It would be naive of any marketing team at these companies to not look at ebay before making design decisions. Trends are important as well as law of supply and demand...thats why Leica released 2 new old lenses. People whine about it here...but Leica is selling the Summaron just fine....and the ping pong racket camera. If someone wants to pay $12k...all the power to them.

That may also be a product of inflation... lenses don't get released that frequently. Those other cheaper lenses you remember are most likely older and the prices have stayed the same as economies of scale match with inflation to result in no price creep.

@Terrible - yep. Makes me want it

@stevo23 f/45 minimum? Man, that's a pretty tiny hole :)

Yep! Lot's of diffraction too. But if you're doing a product shot where focus and DOF are big, it might be acceptable for a certain purpose.

Lots of reasons. It's like asking why a 135mm lens?

@Wild Light - seriously? I might ask, "can you read with comprehension"? But then I already know the answer, so I'm not sure what such an interrogative can be expected to yield in the way of heuristic value to even a learned reader in this frame of reference as it relates to image capture and processing.

@ stevo23 - Seriously. You can spare me of your malformed sesquipedalian psychobabble for a start.

@Wild - so there is my answer. Do you have a vision problem? I hope that's the case because the only other options are not things I want to think about you.

You need for one moment think of your question and then ask why a company as considered as Canon would spend untold research and development and manufacturing cost on something that there is seemingly no reason for. It's as stupid as asking why use a 135mm lens. Now run along, fool.

@Wild - so you refuse to read the thread or try to understand my thought process and then you call me a fool. What name should I call you? Chump? You certainly have a personality problem in addition to your stubborn unwillingness to comprehend what people are saying. So bugger off chump.

You asked a simple question, I answered it with a simple answer. You got bent out of shape.

Call me whatever you want, it really makes no difference.

Very good discussion here guys, thank you for the spirited info. I guess we need to wait for some proper sample images to know which is the best lens (for us)? Although what I had in mind was beyond a minimum sharpness level, the OOF rendering would be more important for portraits. If it was a landscape lens though...I want it super sharp from corner to corner for all the girls to admire. Good morning.

I still think the corner performance is skewing DXO's results and so isn't that relevant, more a function of their calculation process not being a good fit to the lens. The exposures you get from the lens (one of which I have) don't agree with that.

@Dr_Jon: would you care sharing 85L settings with a Sony FE 1,8 lens (whatever it is) in the exact same conditions?
Because, again, from past tests when I had both, the 85L was clearly NOT 1 1/3 stop faster in term of exposure. It was 1/3 of a stop faster at the very best from the Batis 85mm.
So unless you have evidences proving otherwise, my real experience matched exactly DXO findings.

An instant test (I have to go out) on an evenly lit surface, comparing 85 1.2 II with 70-200 f2.8 II (don't have the FE lens).

70-200 1/200 f/2.8
85 1/800 f/1.2

did you check the 70-200 T-stop? It is supposed to be 3.2 on DXO

I was going to use my light meter to get the definitive answer but the battery is flat (most odd as it isn't that old) and I can't find the spare so I'll have to wait for a new one to arrive. My summary would be I don't think the methodology DXO use to work out T-Stops is that useful. However when my cheapo CR123As arrive I'll be happy to update this. It really, honestly, isn't T1.7 anywhere near the centre though. Actually I looked and DXO say it's T1.5 on my camera...
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/EF85mm-f-1.2L-II-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R---Measurements__1009
(See "Transmission".) Which I still think is being skewed by the corners.

If the 70-200 has a transmission of 3.2, the 75L is giving you 2 stops so it would imply a transmission of 1 6-1.7.

So your findings match DXO and mine. The 85L is definitely not that "fast".

DXO say it's T1.5 on my camera (5Dsr, link above), is there anything faster per their ratings?
It rates the 35 f1.4 II at T1.7
the 50mm f1.4 at T1.6
and the 50mm f1.2 at T1.5 (but it's so soft wide open, unlike the 85).
The Sigma 85 f1.4 Art got T1.8, so 0.3 stops less than the 1.2
The 85mm Otus f1.4 scores T1.7, 0.2 T stops more than the Canon
Seems to be the fastest 85mm lens you can buy for Canon by at least 0.2 T stops.

I have not seen any T stop faster than 1.5

Again, according to your own test:
- 70-200 1/200 f/2.8
- 85 1/800 f/1.2

it implies that the 85L is 2 stops faster than the 70-200.
If Transmission of the 70-200 = 3,2, it means that Transmission of the 85L = 3,2 - 2 stops = 1.66

Bottom line: the 85L only advantage compared to every other 85 1,4 on the market (or even 85 1.8 like the FE 85 1.8 with T=1.8) is additional blur at 1.2.
But truth is that every comparison show little difference of DOF blur between 1.2 and 1.8 and 1.2 in a lot of case on FF is impractical, even for portrait, due to the too thin DOF.

When I switch to Sony and therefore sold the 85L (and 135L), I realized that 1.8 was already enough in term of blur and that I was not loosing actually anything (1/3 stop which is negligible) in term of speed.
Later on, the GM 1.4 was realized but the Batis and Sony FE 85 1.8 are so good wide open that, with stabilization, going to 1.2-1.4 makes less sense than on Canon where the 85L is really faster/better than the 85 1.8.

I can't understand why people talking about Sony (and how well they will do the same Canon products and how fast is A9) when Canon presents his lenses: it's an obsession. Use your Sony and fell happy to do it without talking about Canon...

photomedium, you moron. Why would I waste time trolling a fool like you? Please learn about photography before addressing me again.

@lalilulelo I do like Canon lenses and used them on my Sony, but I just don't like using Canon bodies.

I don't know Rick, you maybe right, maybe it's the rest of the world wrong in thinking that with the current sensor technology processing and optics, between 40-50MP for FF is pretty good.
I think the probability is slightly higher that you are just full of it.
LOL.

No, photomedium, the rest of the world does not believe Sony cameras and lenses are pretty good, Not even close. Fake laughing won't make you look any less stupido than you are.

I know several intelligent Sony users and they can discuss the camera, flaws and benefits, without interpreting criticism as an assault on their manhood.

I understand that there are Sony users around that like to talk about Sony in any thread. Some pretty big trolls too.
However, Sony cameras are getting so good that are not just surpassing Canon cameras in overall usability, they do so with native Canon glass. Now some Sony cameras can even use Eye AF on Canon lenses. It is a fact that Sony users are VERY interested in Canon glass almost as much as Canon users, so Canon users should get used to see Sony users merging into their threads.

@Rick Knepper
"Sony hasn't released a FF camera that hasn't been flawed in some significant way"
I think your statement is a bit hyperbolic here. The new Sony generation is nailing it. The A9 is one of the best cameras on the market with no significant flaws. The A7RIII seems to be following suit.
Canon at the moment basically has no answer to these two cameras. 1DXII and 5DIV are excellent but too conservative in their design and specifications. 5DSr produces shear high res images, in a very limiting body (and limited file malleability for today standards).
Btw Tony & Chelsea just compared the A7RIII with the D850 than they seem to favour the A7RIII. Considering that the D850 is pretty much universally considered the best all rounded camera, well.... you might need to be a bit more conservative in your statements.

armandino, I agree. Sony is good enough to be a 2nd/backup camera in my bag except for these omissions (I am mostly medium format these days and who knows, I may eventually just buy a 2nd GFX or an X1D instead). I am simply expressing my frustration that every Sony FF release since the A900 has had a major flaw or omission that doesn't check a major box on my needs list.

1.) A900 - no Live View, no lenses
2.) The SLT cameras - Is that salami, lettuce & tomato? No lenses.
3.) A7 - low resolution, few lenses.
4.) A7r - issues with its RAW image quality, few lenses
5.) A7r II - minor bump in resolution, heavy lenses inappropriate for camera
6.) A7r III - No bump in resolution.

Such cameras as the A9 and the A7s series are not cameras I am interested in. I am only talking about cameras with features I need.

These are my complaints. What a nut job like photomedium prefers has no bearing on my needs.

Hi Rick
sure, but then what does Canon has to offer for you needs? It does not seem to me that currently Canon has more, actually less. I do not think that the 8 MP difference between the A7RIII and the 5DSr makes up for the overwhelming list of features (and DR) that the A7RIII has over it. What the heck I would take even the A7RII (and indeed I did) over 5Ds.

Armandino,

I moved to Sony and moved back, due to the flaws mentioned.

For me the critical flaws where he poor battery life, the shutter issues (particularly th A7r), and the general glitchiness.

Happily back in the canon Body camp. Nikon would be just as good, but I have canon system.

@armadino, you must have missed this: "(I am mostly medium format these days and who knows, I may eventually just buy a 2nd GFX or an X1D instead)."

I've been a two (or even 3 and 4 camera) guy for a long while. I don't get trapped by a lack of features in owning just one camera. With my current setup - two cameras, I have more DR and resolution than Sony provides plus sharper lenses. I would like to use Sony to adapt manual focus 35mm lenses from Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander etc.

Tom Holly, I remembered the shutter issues just after posting and perhaps was too lazy to go back and edit but forgot all about the battery life.

@Rick,
you are putting words in mouth. Please learn to read yours and other people's posts, cretino.
Nikon just launched a camera that was, guess what, between 40-50 MP.
Canon tops the res at 50MP, sony is at 42 whatever (for very logical and well thought out reasons BTW). So the WHOLE industry is at that level right now. However, If Sony had gone to 100 MP I am sure you would have found some other nonsense to complain about.

@Tom Holly
A7R is 2 generations behind. I do not think you can complain about shutter or battery with the A9 or the A7RIII. Tony & Chelsea just compared the D850 and the A7RIII and personal preferences aside (that is ergo) the A7III is simply more camera for the money. Canon, well we already knew when the 5DIV came along that their step was just too short.

Armando,
A9 has electronic shutter banding issues which appear in skies, and also under LED lighting.

Maybe Sony got it right with the a7riii, but every sony camera since forever has been lauded as the canikon killer, and I’m a little tired of all the crying wolf...

If Sony gets it together and produces a solid reliable camera that just works, I will maybe try Sony again. Until then I am a skeptic.

@Tom Holly
you must be kidding me. I shot about 1/4M pictures with my A9, correct, you heard me, 250,000 clicks since May. I might have 100 images with banding under very specific specific LED conditions not a single case of banding in skies. I shoot sports, night events, dance, weddings, you name it. I owned every single Canon body worth having, I still have a 1DX collecting stuff on the shelf.
Your comments are the stereotype who knows it all but personal experience next to zero. You tried a 4 years old model you did not like, you think you are an expert.

I'm not an expert, I just don't like sony bodies. I haven't tried A9 or A7Riii admittedly, but i heard the "game changer" stories about the A7/A7r/A7rII etc. And then each new release is the real "game changer", supposedly fixing all the lessons learned from the previous sony camera.

If you love the a9 and shoot 5000 shots a day with it, then good for you.

@Tom Holly
"I'm not an expert, I just don't like sony bodies"
fine with that, then avoid making uninformed statements:
"A9 has electronic shutter banding issues which appear in skies, and also under LED lighting."
Canon & Nikon cameras miss out on many features like IBIS, Eye AF, no blackout, silent shooting, 20fps that "banding" really seem such a lame defence especially considering that in the very rare case you can still shoot with the mechanical shutter.
Did I mention that if I had a 1DXII or the D5 I would have to likely replace the shutter within one year? I did replace the shutter on my 1DX after 18 months from new at 380,000 actuations, so I am not making it up. A9 electronic shutter does not move parts, so no wear.

What’s uniformed about mentioning banding? You said banding has affected 100 of your shots over past 6 months. You’re quite entitled to say that doesn’t matter, just as I’m happy to disregard IBIS and 20fps as relevant.
But in all seriousness, use Sony if you consider them better. Doesn’t worry me.

You don’t care about electronic banding, I don’t care about IBIS and 20 FPS.

It’s Ok. We can prefer different systems.

I’m simply not a fan of Sony cameras. I find them gadgety and glitchy. You think they’re the answer, and that’s fine with me.

armandino,
my educated guess it there has been ZERO experience with Sony from these jokers. Rick got on my radar when he was complaining about the A7rIII receiving 'no bump in resolution'.
It is my fault for having no patience for fools...
You want to complain about the A7rIII? Complain about something real like:
-no fast cards (as least both cards should be UHSII),
-the fake touchscreen,
-lack of GH5-like flip-out screen for vlogging.
-the fact that unless you have ladies fingers you can't grab the camera when a fat lens is mounted...

Armadino,

Like I said, I don’t care if you prefer Sony. No skin off my nose. It’s true I haven’t bought another Sony since A7R. Yet each new Sony released is THE ONE. The magic camera that tidies up the problems, so clearly there are still issues with Sony.

I’m sure the a9ii and A7R4 will be the same. We will be told that THESE are the giant killers. These are the one that should have Canikon quivering with fear...

@photomedium
agreed. I would have loved 10 bit video and 4K@60 but I understand that is likely to be left for the A7SIII.
However your list seems pretty minor compared to the deficiencies of the 5DIV and the D850. To me the A7RIII actually marries the benefits of the two cameras leaving out their deficiencies, while adding the benefits of a mirrorless.

That's odd photomediore. I thought Sony cameras in general were for juvenile hands. Hey photomoron, unlike yourself, I never talk about stuff I know nothing about.

@ Dr Blackack - yes it's funny that the most popular thread has zero likes.

What uncertainty? If you want a FF mirrorless mount, Canon certainly doesn't make one. And if you need that now, you're not using Canon anyway.

The next generation of canon and nikon Mirrorless FF cameras to replace dslrs are under development and the sensor will be a different distance from the lens mount requiring a new mount unless you accept optical compromises so the concern is why invest thousands now when we don't know what's happening yet. I thought everyone knew all this ☺

For a manual focus lens I don't see a problem with adapters. And they will give a solution to use your glass on a new mount.

@Nikoncanon: first, lots of photographers don't plan on moving to mirrorless as soon as FF mirrorless comes up.
Second, there are photographers who need these lenses and don't have a year to wait for hypothetical new cameras.
Three: I say hypothetical 'cos no one knows if FF mirrorless Canon and Nikon are both preparing will be high end cameras like D850 or low end ones like 6DII.
Four: yet, lots of photographers probably have questions about compatibility between lenses and mirrorless cameras to come. It would be a good thing that Canon/Nikon answers these...

@Anvil. They don’t have mcedium format mirrorless either. You should wait for that as well.

@borax all good points but the patents are leaking onto the rumour sites combined with the big guys clearly can't let Sony steal the lead without a response to take the ground back. It's just weak to base your premium cameras around an archaic mirror bouncing up and down when a IS mirrorless alternative is the only sensible way forward. Also I can't imagine too many people need a new lens right now, most can hold on a year to see what happens

@baldcol this is the biggest change in years since I started in 1970, removing the mirror, with implications for your system and lens compatibility, sorry you don't 'get It'. I said most people don't need a new lens don't know about you I have around 20 I don't need another this year. Hope you actually see the year out as you seem worryingly preoccupied with death...

"rumour sites"
You just said it: rumors. Not everybody buys 3 k$ or 6 k$ materials for only the 6 next months. Last optic I bought was a 16-35mm maybe 3 years ago. Good lens, fine price. Didn't thought too much about it. My next move would probably be to replace both my 24-70 and 5DII camera. For me, it's a long term investment. I don't plan it according to rumors.

"It's just weak to base your premium cameras around an archaic mirror bouncing up and down"
You're so smart, smarter than so many many people 'round...

"Also I can't imagine too many people need a new lens right now"
Then again... so smart.

Nikoncanonfan... yes, canon and Nikon are developing FF MILC but they didn’t say it’s a replacement for their FF DSLR

@vignes I full expect the next 1dx to be mirrorless with more pixels and good eye autofocus tracking, if not I'll be very disappointed and a little cross to be honest. It is a concern as you say they may only do it lower down the line

There is no reason to make the 1DX mirrorless, and many reasons not to do that.

@yake well there's mirror vibration taking the edge off sharpness, bulk, you can't have amazing eye tracking autofocus without a evf which is so important to me. I had all this on an olympus em1 i tried for a while theres no reason not to transfer this to FF. Really don't want to go Sony I'll give them a couple more years. What are the reasons no to? Can't think of any...

@Nikoncanonfan 1DX is a pro camera, highly sports & news oriented. Think pro football in the rain, for example. Mirror vibration is a complete non-issue. Eye tracking too is a complete non-issue. Every day, pros make a bazillion very sharp, in-focus pics with this camera, none of which are affected by mirror vibration or lack of eye tracking. Sharp photos are so ridiculously easy to accomplish with a 1DX. So Canon isn't going to radically change its flagship for such trivial features.

Bulk can be an issue, but bulk can also be an advantage. For one thing, the bulk of the 1DX allows for an incredible battery. For another thing, it allows for support of huge telephoto lenses. A small camera (like a Sony) has severe handling issues for some kinds of photography. Put a big lens & flash on a small camera and you are likely to get severe wrist pain when working for hours. There's no such issue with a big camera because you have a much sturdier grip, and your wrist isn't being twisted.

I suppose... I use a 1dx for people and art photography not sports I just like the build. Also a 7dii again for build don't like the 6d it's too flimsy. I'll get a mirror less pro eventually as you say it's just a matter of time

"you can't have amazing eye tracking autofocus without a evf which is so important to me."

Why?

Canon "TS-E lenses have a massive image circle", that is a challenge for smaller Sony FE mount when lens is shifted to extreme, isn't it?

i was gonna comment on the prime lens zoom ring thing, glad i scrolled down and saw it was already covered. and then covered up by sony lol

Yeah i think the farther away the lens is the less tilt and or shift you will be able to do because the light coming through will be cut off by the mount or where the adaptor mounts to the body. Sound Right?

On second thought, it looks like the Sony mount may be a tiny bit smaller than the sensor, so maybe it is a problem! -
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/comp-700x348.jpg

Might be a little vignetting maybe or some diffused shadow lines in the image. I'm sure there will be an answer to these questions soon enough. Im a little curious now.

In other words, the questions may be a good one. The SL's diameter is large enough not to occlude the sensor, but the problem with all flange cameras is that part of the camera can occlude the image-taking lens. It's also why pancake cameras are still realistic options for serious architecture photographers.