# Canon 85mm 1.2L II - Impressions and questions



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

For about a week now I have been testing my new 85mm 1.2L II, and wanted to give you my impressions.

I also have some questions that hopefully can be answered by the more experienced members.

*Impressions:*

Good news:

- The lens is extremely sharp, even when wide open. This was an important factor for me, and it does live up to the reputation in this aspect. :thumbup:

- The color and contrast are both excellent, and overall I am pleased with the image quality.

- Build quality is quite good, definitely lives up to L lens standards.

- The large maximum aperture provides a very bright viewfinder.

- The bokeh is so beautiful, make no mistake this lens is one of the best portrait lenses available. I am 100% pleased with this aspect of the lens. :thumbup:

*UPDATE:* In the interest of a fair review, I am posting 3 pics that display the beautiful bokeh this lens creates. I want everyone to understand that this is an outstanding lens despite its flaws(which are numerous).

These were all shot wide open handheld. I was able to(and required to) use extremely fast shutter speeds due to the large aperture.

1.
1/8000th sec






2.
1/8000th sec





3.
1/4000th sec






Bad news:

- The AF is quite bad. I knew this before buying it though, so it&#8217;s not that big of a deal to me. It was however worse than I expected. It is very slow and hunts a lot, even in good light. This lens is NOT suited for indoor sports/action photography, trust me on this one.

- It is quite heavy for an 85mm. This is to be expected for the speed of the lens though.

- It shows pretty significant chromatic aberration (my copy at least) in certain lighting situations. It seems to be especially bad when shooting reflective surfaces such as metal or high gloss plastics. It may be called purple fringing, as this is what it looks like to me. 

- The "fly by wire" manual focusing system is garbage in my opinion. I don't like it at all, and I wish it was the standard type. This may be a necessity due to the large aperture and lens design, I don't know.

- It is scary to mount because the rear glass is about exactly flush with the mount. No quick lens changes in the dark for this one.


*Questions:*

- Is the chromatic aberration I am experiencing due to the very large aperture, or the 85mm 1.2 lens design itself?

- Is it possible that I have an especially bad copy?

- Do lenses of this large an aperture usually experience bad chromatic aberration wide open?


- Could an UD element or two fix the chromatic aberration, and if so why didn't they use them for this lens? It is expensive and L glass, so I don't see why they wouldn't.

*CA Example Pics:*

Attached are some images that show the chromatic aberration at its worst. The CA present in these images is not typical, these were cherry picked specifically to show the CA issue the lens has.

These pics were all shot wide open, and handheld. Stopping down some virtually eliminated the CA in these same shots.

1.





2.





3.





4.


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 27, 2010)

I don't think many folks around here use that lens, it's an expensive one.  Although, there are a few, and the photos I've seen from it, are usually pretty sweet, with great sharpness and nice bokeh.  

I don't think I've ever seen CA as bad as this, not on images that are otherwise very sharp & well exposed etc.  I'd certainly be concerned about it.

You might want to try a broader search (Google) to see if others are experiencing the same thing.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 27, 2010)

I agree with Mike - for the cost of that lens, that amount of CA/purple-fringing is unacceptable.  My cheapie 70-300 "emergency" zoom does a better job.


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

Big Mike said:


> I don't think many folks around here use that lens, it's an expensive one. Although, there are a few, and the photos I've seen from it, are usually pretty sweet, with great sharpness and nice bokeh.
> 
> I don't think I've ever seen CA as bad as this, not on images that are otherwise very sharp & well exposed etc. I'd certainly be concerned about it.
> 
> You might want to try a broader search (Google) to see if others are experiencing the same thing.


 
Thanks Mike. :thumbup:

Ya I am concerned about it, and I plan on doing more research.

The review on the-digital-picture mentions this lens has CA issuse, and even specifically with reflective surfaces. He didn't post pictures of it though, and I am not sure exactly how bad the CA was.

I did cherry pick these based on their terrible CA. Most of the shots I took with it had very little to none, even wide open.

And like I said before stopping it down totally eleminated the problem. You don't buy this lens to shoot at f/8 though lol.

It seems that shooting reflective surfaces, especially when its into light is the problem. The one from the backside of the fan into the light is by far the worst.

Maybe I should talk to Derrel about this, he seemed to know quite a bit about the specifics of this lens and the CA issues it has. Maybe he can tell me if this is a normal level of CA for this lens in these situations.

I just want to know if I should be sending it to Canon for being defective or not.

What I find so strange is the massive CA on the white letters of the book. They arent even reflective as far as I can tell...this one stumps me. It is only part of the letters too, quite strange.


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

tirediron said:


> I agree with Mike - for the cost of that lens, that amount of CA/purple-fringing is unacceptable. My cheapie 70-300 "emergency" zoom does a better job.


 
Well what I was mostly asking was if ultra fast lenses like this tend to have this problem.

Like is it something specific to this lens design (or my copy), or do all lenses this fast struggle with CA problems. Thats where I am in the dark.

I do believe that the 85mm 1.2 by nature has CA problems, since I read a lot of reviews stating this.

It is situational though, and as long as you arent shooting something reflective its pretty much a non-issue.

It is still dissapointing for the price though, I will admit.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 27, 2010)

The bad chromatic aberration of both the 85mm f/1.2-L and the L-II versions is pretty disappointing to many people who shell out that kind of money for premium glass.What you've encountered in your tests is pretty much expected from the lens.

The 50/1.2-L has a similar degree of CA. As you've found, not "all" subject matter will create the problem in such an obvious manner. I've seen it most on backlighted subjects, or subjects with strong,clear highlighted edges, and on bright subjects that have a lot of reflections, like the surface of ponds or lakes at wedding reception areas, or in seaside family portraiture,where there's bright sun reflecting on water or other surfaces. I tried to bring this point up a couple of weeks ago, about the 85/1.2-L II having a bad bokeh "signature" under a few very specific conditions, and got jumped on by a Canonista who couldn't accept that such a high-ticket, desired lens had any problems, whatsoever. But, as you've found out, when you look at ALL of a horse's teeth, there might be one or two bad ones...but hey, if he can still chew, right? Does one or two bad teeth make a horse totally useless?

This kind of a lens issue is one of the things that really, under "Most" situations, is not a big deal. Nikon's 180mm f/2.8 AF-D has a very similar propensity toward strong purple fringing when shot in the same circumstances...it's there, and normally it is not noticeable--BUT, when shooting shiny, smooth-edged metalwork, like the fan grilles, well, if a lens fringes like that then, well...that's the way it does its thing...so you need to either stop the aperture down to where the CA is less-pronounced, or use another lens. Like you said Neil, "it is still disappointing for the price though, I will admit." Yes, Neil, the same sentiment is expressed in reviews of both 50 and 85 1.2-L lenses...by most reviewers and owners....but, it's just one of those things that Microsoft would call  a feature! A 600 horsepower engine usually gets lousy gas mileage..but has killer power...85mm at f/1.2 is a bleeding edge design...it's a bit hairy on the bleeding edge...

There are many shooting scenarios where the chromatic aberration of the 85/1.2-L II is quite unnoticeable...like you said, these samples come from lots of tests, and are the worst...so, you have to decide if this degree of CA is okay, or if the 85/1.8 isn't a better choice..I am impressed by Canon's 85/1.8 EF...I think it's a very good lens.


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

Derrel said:


> The bad chromatic aberration of both the 85mm f/1.2-L and the L-II versions is pretty disappointing to many people who shell out that kind of money for premium glass.What you've encountered in your tests is pretty much expected from the lens.
> 
> The 50/1.2-L has a similar degree of CA. As you've found, not "all" subject matter will create the problem in such an obvious manner. I've seen it most on backlighted subjects, or subjects with strong,clear highlighted edges, and on bright subjects that have a lot of reflections, like the surface of ponds or lakes at wedding reception areas, or in seaside family portraiture,where there's bright sun reflecting on water or other surfaces. I tried to bring this point up a couple of weeks ago, about the 85/1.2-L II having a bad bokeh "signature" under a few very specific conditions, and got jumped on by a Canonista who couldn't accept that such a high-ticket, desired lens had any problems, whatsoever. But, as you've found out, when you look at ALL of a horse's teeth, there might be one or two bad ones...but hey, if he can still chew, right? Does one or two bad teeth make a horse totally useless?
> 
> ...


 
Thank you so much Derrel, I really appreciate it.

This is by far the most helpful post I have seen here. :thumbup: You are a true source of valuable knowledge to us.

Ya I guess this lens will be a love/hate thing for me. I am on the fence now if I think it was even worth the money or not. Its unique at least, Ill give it that.

My god its got a large aperture though, and it produces some serious bokeh.


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

I wanted to thank you Derrel, but I can't. :mrgreen:

Is there a limit to the number of thanks you can do in a day or something? I am still a nooblet on this stuff.

Another question.

Do you think that the CA problems the lens has is mostly a result of the large aperture, or a design flaw?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 27, 2010)

Yes, there is a maximum number of thanks, and it is on a per day limit. Not sure what the limit is.

I think the CA issues with the 85/1.2 are mostly due to the extremely large aperture at that focal length; however, that said, I think Canon could have reduced the CA problems with some wild rare-earth type glass and an aspherical design implementation, but that might have added another $500 (or more!) to the retail price. Lens design is always a series of compromises. Either way, it is what it is...


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jul 27, 2010)

I see similar issues with the 85 1.8 in very harsh circumstances although I don't know if it's quite as pronounced as the above examples.


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Yes, there is a maximum number of thanks, and it is on a per day limit. Not sure what the limit is.
> 
> I think the CA issues with the 85/1.2 are mostly due to the extremely large aperture at that focal length; however, that said, I think Canon could have reduced the CA problems with some wild rare-earth type glass and an aspherical design implementation, but that might have added another $500 (or more!) to the retail price. Lens design is always a series of compromises. Either way, it is what it is...


 
Ya this was what I was thinking too.

I looked the lens up in my Lens Work III book, and it has no UD elements. Methinks that if they added one or two it might solve the problem.

Whats $500 more on a $2000, very special purpose lens anyways? It would be so worth it to me, and id shell out $500 right now to totally eliminate the problem.

Canon should have thought about this, especially since the version II wasn't released that long ago. I am starting to think this was just a bad decision on their part.

I know they have UD elements that big, because they use much bigger ones on the big telephotos.

I am not very happy with Canon right now, shame on them lol. 

Ill get over it though, I got a lot of love for them. :mrgreen:


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

bentcountershaft said:


> I see similar issues with the 85 1.8 in very harsh circumstances although I don't know if it's quite as pronounced as the above examples.


 
I wouldn't think so, I am guessing this lens is one of the worst of the high end lenses for CA.

As Derrel said it seems to be mostly caused by the massive aperture.

Canon really should have taken steps to control the CA though, for the price of this lens. I cannot believe that it was not possible for a modest price increase.

Maybe they will make a version III that will correct the issue. If they did I would have a hell of a time selling mine for a descent price to upgrade though lol. Everybody would want the new one.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jul 27, 2010)

I shot a piece of aluminum foil real quick with the 85 1.8 at three different exposures to see how that affected the c/a.  For the way I shoot this rarely comes up with this lens.  Mostly with high contrast or back lit shots that I normally wouldn't shoot wide open anyway.  If this lens (the 1.8) had a closer mfd I might be inclined to use it differently and I might fine it to be more prevalent though.  I guess it's a case of it's limitation actually helping for once.


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

I can't see the pics.....

When I get off work maybe I can see them at home.

What do the pics show lol...I am very curious?


----------



## usayit (Jul 27, 2010)

For what it is worth, my E60 version of the 50mm Noctilux will also show CA with strongly backlit subjects @ f/1.  Then again.. its an non-aspherical optical design from the 70s.   Leads me to believe its a function of shooting at such a large aperture...


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 27, 2010)

Chromatic aberration affects primarily long and very long lenses (180mm and up), not so much fast ones. Fast lenses are usually more affected by other aberrations, such as coma and astigmatism. 

For that reason, I am somewhat sceptical that's what we are seeing here in your images. There could be other factors with a digital system.

You can find some useful info here:

chromatic


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

usayit said:


> For what it is worth, my E60 version of the 50mm Noctilux will also show CA with strongly backlit subjects @ f/1. Then again.. its an non-aspherical optical design from the 70s. Leads me to believe its a function of shooting at such a large aperture...


 
Thanks for the input. :thumbup:

This is very useful knowledge for me, trying to determine if my lens is defective or not.

I am pretty sure at this point that its just the large maximum aperture, and most likely the lack of CA correcting elements causing it.

I am not going to send it in to Canon.


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Chromatic aberration affects primarily long and very long lenses (180mm and up), not so much fast ones. Fast lenses are usually more affected by other aberrations, such as coma and astigmatism.
> 
> For that reason, I am somewhat sceptical that's what we are seeing here in your images.
> 
> ...


 
Hmm...

I will read up on this stuff more I guess.

Darrel thinks that my results are at least common for this lens. I agree with him, from what I have read.

Now exactly what is causing it.....


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Chromatic aberration affects primarily long and very long lenses (180mm and up), not so much fast ones. Fast lenses are usually more affected by other aberrations, such as coma and astigmatism.
> 
> For that reason, I am somewhat sceptical that's what we are seeing here in your images.
> 
> ...


 
Oh what makes me think its the large aperture, is that its only bad wide open.

I would think this would mean that its a result of being such a fast lens, at least partly.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 27, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Chromatic aberration affects primarily long and very long lenses (180mm and up), not so much fast ones. Fast lenses are usually more affected by other aberrations, such as coma and astigmatism.
> ...



I am not sure that's what it is. The reason is that CA is usually subtler than this and doesn't look like this. There could be some artifacts that come into play only in digital systems. Try using it on a film body to see.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 27, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> For about a week now I have been testing my new 85mm 1.2L II, and wanted to give you my impressions.
> 
> 2.
> 
> ...


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 27, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > For about a week now I have been testing my new 85mm 1.2L II, and wanted to give you my impressions.
> ...


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

Thanks again Derrel.

I didn't really know any of this before.....

Well at least I am in the right place to learn. :mrgreen:


----------



## Derrel (Jul 27, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:
			
		

> It seems a bit more than I would expect from this class of lens.
> 
> Well, Petraio, I agree...there is more of an issue than many buyers of the 85 1.2-L II expect...most reviewers make comments about this issue, and how that, at this price point, and this class of lens, that Canon did not better-correct the lens...
> 
> ...


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 27, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 27, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jul 27, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> I can't see the pics.....
> 
> When I get off work maybe I can see them at home.
> 
> What do the pics show lol...I am very curious?



Well I crinkled up the foil to have many reflective points and there are purple outlines of the smaller blown out reflections.  I'm not sure which type it is but based on what Derrel and Prime have suggested I'm guessing that I'm experiencing a digital abstraction.


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Just for the heck of it, I googled the 80mm Summilux-R for comparison:
> 
> Leica Summilux-R 80mm f/1.4 (E67) Lens Review
> 
> ...


 
I would have to admit, I would like a Leica lens.

Time to do some research....


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 27, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Just for the heck of it, I googled the 80mm Summilux-R for comparison:
> ...



The digital sensor may be just too flat to help out here...color film is quite thick, and the red focusing a little deeper is not as big an issue. Lenses designed for color film may look worse with the sensor.


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

bentcountershaft said:


> I shot a piece of aluminum foil real quick with the 85 1.8 at three different exposures to see how that affected the c/a. For the way I shoot this rarely comes up with this lens. Mostly with high contrast or back lit shots that I normally wouldn't shoot wide open anyway. If this lens (the 1.8) had a closer mfd I might be inclined to use it differently and I might fine it to be more prevalent though. I guess it's a case of it's limitation actually helping for once.


 
This is very interesting.

I am able to see them now, since I am at home.

Thanks for the pics related to the topic. :thumbup:


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

*UPDATE:* In the interest of a fair review, I am posting 3 pics that display the beautiful bokeh this lens creates. I want everyone to understand that this is an outstanding lens despite its flaws(which are numerous).

These were all shot wide open handheld. I was able to(and required to) use extremely fast shutter speeds due to the large aperture.

1.
1/8000th sec
.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




2.
1/8000th sec





3.
1/4000th sec


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 27, 2010)

I can still see the CA on the 2nd one man. CA is very easy to fix though.  What do you do in Japan?  Which Yakuza do you work for?  Where do you get all this $$?  LOL.


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> I can still see the CA on the 2nd one man. CA is very easy to fix though.


 
You beat me to it.

I was just about to post that I thought I saw CA in #2. Its not very bad though, like the 4 CA example pics.

Do you just clone it out or something? I suck at PS lol.

You got to admit that this lens is pretty impressive. I cant wait to do some real work with it.

Its like Derrel said, its like a race car. It goes really fast, but it might just blow up on you lol.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 27, 2010)

this is the method i use all the time.

Correcting Chromatic Aberrations


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> this is the method i use all the time.
> 
> Correcting Chromatic Aberrations


 
Thank you for the info.

This is good to know.

Heres my attempt at fixing it.

Before:





After:


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> I can still see the CA on the 2nd one man. CA is very easy to fix though. What do you do in Japan? Which Yakuza do you work for? Where do you get all this $$? LOL.


 
LOL

I work for the U.S. Air Force as a civilian contractor.

The money came from saving during my 8 years in the Navy.

I did like 12 deployments to Afghanistan, Kuwait, Oman and the Philippines during my service. They pay you a lot of extra money for being over there.

It's mostly gone now though lol, but at least I got some top gear to show for it! :mrgreen:


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

I just realized that #3 probably would have been better with the focus point in the center of the shot, not at the bottom.

You guys agree?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 27, 2010)

You didnt really fix it LOL.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 27, 2010)




----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

I need to practice with PS more...I can see that.

Its more fun for me to shoot than to edit.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 27, 2010)

Neil.. I have used PS for a while.  Just recently started shooting.  I always love PP more than shooting  .


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

^^^
My new photo editor


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 27, 2010)

Sure.  How much per hour?


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

Im broke now lol.

Can I pay you in rice maybe? My wife's parents can get it for free from time to time!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 27, 2010)

Only if you put unagi and nori around it.


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

I don't even know what those are lol.

I am eating yakisoba right now. :thumbup: Damn its good.

The wife made it from the ready-made noodles you get at the grocery store.


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 27, 2010)

By the way Schwetty, I got a LOT of pics of Japan.

Let me know if you ever want to edit some. I can just throw a bunch down for you to work on.

When I say a lot, I mean a lot lol. Like probably over 5,000.

Some of the ones from the past aren't that creative though because I was a total noob.

Lots of pics of temples and stuff like that.


----------

