Comparing the Canon 85mm f/1.4L IS Against the Competition

Talk to any photographer who specializes in wedding or portrait photographer, and you’ll get a unanimous agreement as to what the preferred focal length – the 85mm. And with good reason; the 85mm is such an incredible focal length because of the nearly true to life compression it provides (with limited to no barrel distortion), and the options available have always been renown for being incredibly sharp. With an extensive range of brands and lens mounts, it should come to little surprise to know that the 85mm is one of the most common focal lengths in photography. And when talking 85mm, it’s impossible not to mention the lens which has often been called the crown jewel of the focal length, the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II. But while being the crown jewel, Canon just recently announced a new lens in this beloved focal range, swapping out a 1/3rd of a stop for a few stops of IS with the Canon 85mm f/1.4L IS. But how does it compare against the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II? And how does it compare to the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art – our current king of the sharpness (for under $2500; I’m looking at you Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4). Well let’s take these three lenses out for a test drive, and see how well they perform in real life situations.

I’ll start by saying that this is a practical look into the new Canon 85mm f/1.4L IS and its competition. While I won’t contain any MTF charts here (though I know Roger will have some soon), I will look to see how this lens holds up on location, against its esteemed competition. So without wasting too much time, let us look to see how these three giants hold up when put against each other.

Image Quality

I want to start by taking a look at the photo quality of the three lenses. My testing began with taking these lenses to the park with my model and shooting at three different apertures for all three lenses: f1.4, f1.8 and f2.8 as well as f1.2 for the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II. All these photos were taken in a controlled environment (or as controlled as one can be), using the Canon 5DSR.

Canon 85mm Comparisons

Canon 85mm f/1.2L II at f/1.2

Canon 85mm Comparisons

Canon 85mm f/1.2L II at f/1.4

Canon 85mm Comparisons

Canon 85mm f/1.4L IS at f/1.4

Canon & Sigma 85mm Comparisons

Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art at f/1.4

This first set of comparisons reveals that the Canon 85mm f1.2L II has the best bokeh of the three lenses. As expected, it has best ability to create depth and separate the subject from the background which is essential in a portrait lens. It gives a dream-like look to the image that is unmatched by the others. This is not to say that the other lenses can’t hold a candle to the f/1.2. On the contrary, they all have a pretty similar look at f/1.4. In fact, it was surprising to me that if I pixel peep these photos, the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art has the sharpest image by a small margin over the new Canon 85mm f1.4L IS. The Canon 85mm f/1.2L II is the softest of the three, which is expected from such an older design.

Caon 85mm Shoot Out and Comparison

Canon 85mm f1.2L II @ f1.8

Canon Verse Sigma Comparison

Canon 85mm f1.4L IS @ f1.8

Sigma and Canon Comparison

Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art @ f1.8

Things shape up a little more evenly at f1.8. All three lenses perform almost exactly the same. The bokeh looks exactly the same and sharpness is exceptional. Once again, I found that the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art seemed to be sharper, something that Roger had alluded to in his initial testing of the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art. This could come down to a few factors including my model not keeping as still as she was supposed to. Whatever the case, all three performed exceedingly well and pretty evenly, and look identical without pixel peeping.

Canon 85mm Comparisons

Canon 85mm f1.2L II @ f2.8

85mm Comparisons and Shootout

Canon 85mm f1.4L IS @ f2.8

Sigma verse Canon 85mm

Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art @ f2.8

Once again, at f/2.8 all three lenses perform exactly the same and are all gorgeous and sharp. Obviously stopping down decreases the ability for the lenses to separate the subject from the background but they show their absolute sharpness at this point and the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II is the softest still, but we’re really splitting hairs to criticize it for the subtle difference. Once again, the differences are marginal with regards to sharpness which could be due to my model not being perfectly still but it brings me to my next point.


I’d like to discuss why there needed to be a new Canon 85mm f1.4L IS lens: Focus. The Canon 85mm f/1.2L II has one major shortcoming that the other two lense don’t. The focus is extremely slow and noisy. It’s been an issue for years all of us portrait photographers have learned to deal with it. Another small issue with the lens that falls under this category is that the front element extends when focusing (this is a very small quibble but worth mentioning). The Canon 85mm f1.4L IS has luckily fixed this problem, and to a pretty high degree. Not only is it much faster than the 1.2, with the addition of IS, it has the added benefit of Stabilization. This separates this lens from the others by a pretty large margin. It makes focusing in low light that much easier. Here are a couple low light shots I took with the Canon 85mm f1.4L IS including a pitch black shot of a huddle of giraffes at the Memphis Zoo (taken handheld, not perfectly sharp but I was surprised by how well it came out as I couldn’t see to focus).

Canon 85mm Comparisons

Canon 85mm f1.4L IS @ f1.4

Canon 85mm f1.4L IS @ f1.4

Canon 85mm f1.4L IS @ f1.4

The Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art is a very middle of the road lens with regard to focus. It’s not super fast but it’s certainly not slow. It’s very accurate and works really well. No complaints there at all.


Here’s where things bet a lot more interesting (in case they weren’t already). I weighed each of these lenses with a clear filter installed and their front and rear caps on as well. The new Canon 85mm f1.4L IS is the lightest of these three lenses clocking in at 1009 grams. The Canon 85mm f1.2L II came in second at 1034 grams and the Sigma 85 f1.4 Art was a whopping 1216 grams. The extreme weight of the Sigma definitely has an effect when hand-holding and it really causes a lot of fatigue quickly. The new Canon 85mm f1.4L IS feels a little front heavy in the hand and I could see it giving my arms a workout after a while. Funny enough, even though the Canon 85mm f1.2L II is heavier, because it is shorter it has better balance on the camera. I felt a lot less strain carrying the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II around. All this said I think the benefits the Canon 85mm f1.4L IS add outweigh the balance issues I have with it.


I probably sound all over the place in this comparison and probably haven’t helped you make a final decision on which of these lenses is the best fit for you. The thing is, there are pros and cons for each of these lenses. Let’s break them down like this: The Canon 85mm f1.2L II is the standard and is really middle of the road in this comparison. It’s a great lens with that dreamy bokeh but is the most expensive and is slow to focus. The Canon 85mm f1.4L IS performed amazingly with everything I threw at it. It’s sharper than the 1.2, faster, and has image stabilization but is still pretty expensive. The budget Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art lens is sharp and quick but is really heavy. My new choice to keep in my camera bag for a wedding is definitely going to be the new Canon 85mm f1.4L IS for the image stabilization alone. That adds a whole new layer to the focal length and is a great addition. Does it de-throne the Canon 85mm f1.2L II as the portrait standard? I don’t think so. The bottom line is: If you’re looking to create that dreamy, airy look, there is no better option than the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II. But if you’re looking for a solid 85mm, with sharpness and speed, it’s hard not to pay attention to both the Canon 85mm f/1.4L IS and the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art. Below you will find several other example photos taken with the Canon 85mm f1.4L IS. I had a ton of fun with it.

Canon 85mm f1.4L IS @ f1.4

Canon 85mm f1.4L IS @ f1.4

Canon 85mm f1.4L IS @ f1.4

Author: Phillip Pettit

I’m a photo technician and video enthusiast. By day, I inspect lenses and cameras as well as assist with gear questions and recommendations and by night, I practice photography and videography for fun and professionally. I’m a tech guy by nature so I enjoy testing all the new gear and giving my impressions.

Posted in Equipment
  • Slap it on a Sony a7rIII. Now itโ€™s stabilized and you can focus with accurate peaking in the EVF or on the back.

  • Ioannis Stavrou.

  • Ioannis stavrou

    Thank you for your nice compliment Roger!! Just don’t spent any money on camera and lens this period of time. In the upcoming years you will see 100-120MP sensor camera with bigger size of sensor.

    Just to let you know another secret because of your compliment:

    Do you remember that old Canon/Nikon/Kodak ext around $50 film camera??

    Are they stronger(in terms of resolution) than a PHASE ONE XF for example?

    $50 Film Vs $48,990 medium format

    Each film pixel represents true R, G and B data, not the softer Bayer interpolated data from digital camera sensors. A single-chip 87 MP digital camera still couldn’t see details as fine as a piece of 35mm film.

    Since the lie factor factor from digital cameras is about two, you’d need a digital camera of about 87 x 2 = 175 MP to see every last detail that makes onto film.

    Camera companies manipulate people in our days by selling us SAND for GOLD price

    Love you all

  • Is that you, Billy Madison?

  • Ioannis stavrou

    I am ready to help you Roger regarding Modulation Transfer Function results. Thanks for posting this.

    1. Most lenses perform best in the center, causing the results to curve downward to the right.
    2. For each set of tests, spatial frequencies (lp/mm) evaluated are 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 lp/mm. Because higher spatial frequencies are more demanding on a lens, they result in lower MTF scores.
    3. Regarding the below RULES BE CAREFUL:
    10 lp/mm > 0.9 is high contrast and punchy, hard to tell lenses measuring this high apart in terms of contrast.
    10 lp/mm 0.5 is very sharp
    30 lp/mm > 0.3 is sharp if you sharpen a bit
    30 lp/mm < 0.2 is getting soft
    *****These are not absolute rules, and importantly, they are not very accurate if the lens and sensor do not behave well together. For example, in a symmetrical wide-angle lens with a very high angle of incidence on the sensor in the corner.
    4. No lens has a perfect MTF score.

    In general, MTF is a measurement of the optical performance of a lens but this is NOT THE ANSWER FOR AN ENGINEERING TEST SO THAT YOU CHECK PERFORMANCE.



    This is a Leica Lens by Walter Mandler. Is extremely rare and precious as a pearl.
    ***The secret composition***
    NaP03 …………………………….. .. 1,6%
    Ba(P03)2 ………………………….. .. 5,0%
    AI(P03)3 ………………………….. .. 15,7%
    Mng ………………………………. .. 5,6%
    Can ………………………………. .. 17,9%
    Ser ……………………………….. .. 18,9%
    Ban ………………………………. .. 10,8%
    AIF3 ……………………………….. .. 20,6%
    KHFz ………………………………. .. 3,13%
    K2TiF5 …………………………….. .. 0,6%

    I forgot to mention that I am a scientist and please forgive my overall type of talk. Its because I know the secrets and I mistakable show power.


  • Such very strong claims for a lens with really poor resolution. Fanboy much?

  • Ioannis stavrou



  • Ioannis stavrou

    If this is true… Would you like to hold on your hand a Schneider-Kreuznach FF PRIME T2.1 / 75MM CANON EF?? ****THIS BRAND WILL KILL ANY CANON LENS**** THIS IS WHEN YOU TRANSFORM YOUR CAMERA INTO SUPER-CAMERA!! AVAILABLE FOR CANON / NIKON / SONY & PL

  • Dillan K

    You’re absolutely right! I’m sorry, I really didn’t understand why you and others were getting upset about the article.

    It isn’t democracy. It’s freedom of speech. You’re right, on this site, we are free to voice opinions. I should respect that.

  • Federico Gallinari

    As you can choose to ignore my post!
    If someone write something to internet, in a public and international site….he must accept that all the people can give them opinions,
    It’s called: “democracy”

  • Dillan K

    I’m saddened that they didn’t review an FD 85mm f/1.2L. This review isn’t complete!

  • Dillan K

    You can choose to ignore it, if you don’t like it. I don’t understand the angst. Of course, you’re one of a crowd, here.

  • Tom Stanworth

    I agree about the AF. For portraits, I have never found the 85 1.2 L II AF to be an issue, because once already in the ballpark it is quick enough. Not that I’d use it for moving subjects mind you…. That said, I am sure the 85 L is enough quicker to make the photographer feeling much more confident shooting people in more of a candid (wedding?) setting, or modelling where they’re on their feet and shifting back and forth a lot.

  • Michael Clark

    All you have to do is compare a classic “shoulder” pose shot with a macro lens to one shot with a traditional portrait lens to see the difference. The one shot with the flat field macro has a spot of the fabric on the shoulder that is practically yelling, “Look at me! Look at me! Look how much sharper I am than the weave of the rest of the fabric of this shirt/blouse/jacket!”

  • colt15

    @Michael Clark For a champion of the “real world,” it sounds like you’re preferring an image that’s a less accurate depiction of reality over a more accurate one. As such, it’s just an aesthetic choice. Charts aren’t the only thing that can be used to test. Almost any static scene can be shot under controlled conditions. A few months ago, I read several incredibly long arguments at dpreview about old lenses and “3D pop.” The advocates sounded a lot like the people who argue that moon landings were faked. Whenever you mention side-by-side controlled tests that would reveal the advantages they claim exist, they change the subject. I’m glad lens design has proceeded in the direction it has.

  • Michael Clark

    Have you ever shot with the EF 135mm f/2 L? In my opinion it is the best bang/buck ratio in all of telephoto land, even of it does cost around 2X the price of the EF 85mm f/1.8.

  • Michael Clark

    Character: Uncorrected field curvature that makes it not so good for shooting flat test charts but gives it characteristics when shooting portraits in a three dimensional world that lenses highly corrected for field curvature with flatter fields of focus can’t match. Smoother bokeh, for one. The obsession with performance shooting flat test charts is driving lens design now, not how a lens renders the real world for most photographers.

  • Michael Clark

    Uncorrected field curvature that makes it not so good for shooting flat test charts but gives it characteristics when shooting portraits in a three dimensional world that lenses highly corrected for field curvature with flatter fields of focus can’t match. Smoother bokeh, for one. The obsession with performance shooting flat test charts is driving lens design now, not how a lens renders the real world for most photographers.

  • carpandean

    Looking at the photos in the first set, I definitely liked the Canon 85/1.4’s bokeh better than the 85/1.2’s, especially when comparing both at f/1.4 (f/1.2 helps the older lens a little, but when I pulled them up side-by-side, I still found the f/1.4’s to be smoother.) The paragraph that followed really surprised me, as I couldn’t understand the (as Jack put it) “surety” of the statement.

    However, I’m glad that you pointed out the difference in setup and specifically the distance to subject. It’s not really a fair comparison.

  • appliance5000

    or EVF with image magnification – I never trust peaking . You can get nikon /sony adaptors with electronic pass through to control the aperture – I think.

  • Ha ha, almost! Now imagine to manually focus a 105/1.4 lens wide open ๐Ÿ™‚ The main reason why my Otus 85 is now mostly collecting dust… I use to shoot with a Zacuto finder, but it’s a pain. It would probably work on a Sony mirrorless body though (EVF + focus peaking).

  • appliance5000

    Get an adapter and slap it on. Dreams can come true.

  • Arthur Meursault

    If it makes it possible to adapt many different brands of lenses to a common device then everyone would call that an adapter.

  • Blake

    yep, it’s my go-to recommendation to anybody with a Canon DSLR that asks “what should I get to move beyond my kit lens”.

    As it’s quite luminous, a $20 macro extension tube turns it into a very useful (yet compact) macro lens as well, & if you don’t go nuts & use a short one you retain AF capability.

    Another neat trick: while you lose infinity focus with a macro extension tube, if you use a short one (e.g. 12mm) you still have a few meters of focal range to work with, which extends the “reach” of a short telephoto like this. e.g. I’ve used this technique to get much “closer” to flowers that were simply unreachable otherwise.

    & a little 12mm extension tube is so cheap & light, you can always keep one in your bag.

  • mais51

    I suppose there is no point of bringing out the Nikon lens here – this is a Canon specific test, having said that I agree with you.

  • mais51

    If you really want to know head over to the, they’ve tested both Nikon 85 AFS F1.4 and the latest Canon 85 F1.2 – the results will surely surprises you – suffice to say that the Canon is nowhere nearly as good as the Nikon.

  • whensly

    The Canon 85mm f1.8 is nothing to sneeze at and cheap! Might not be the Bokeh MONSTA that the Canon 85Mk II is but so what? A. It’s not that far off under the right circumstances and we don’t all shoot portraits wide open.
    Working in studio or with strobes you’re usually stopped down and at that point nobody on the planet can tell the difference. Oh and the Canon 85m f1.8 is about $350 new.

  • TinusVerdino

    An undefinable quality :p

  • Bob B.

    Well, true: “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” I like my background SOFT to bring out the subject and create that “mood”. For me the Canon f/1.2 II does it best, (especially with a little tweaking in post production), and it would look a LOT softer than the new Canon f.1.4 IS if the subject was kept at equal distance from the camera in this test. Having the subject closer than all the other lenses definitely blurs the background more for the Canon f/1.4 IS “relative” to the other lenses. So this is not a fair comparison for bokeh. The bokeh for the new lens is harsher than the f/1/2 II, and that is the downside of the ever-so-slightly sharper, more modern new lens. They are both great lenses for different reasons. Hence. Phillips frustration. LOL!

  • colt15

    Define “character.”

Follow on Feedly