Canon 85mm 1.2L II - Impressions and questions

[Petraio Prime]

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.]

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.]

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.

You can find some useful info here:

chromatic

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.]

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.

You can find some useful info here:

chromatic

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]

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.

You can find some useful info here:

chromatic

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.

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]

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

2.

See how there is a subtle GREEN fringing that exists BEHIND the point of sharpest focus? And a PURPLE color fringing in front of the plane of best focus. Notice in the OOF or what many call the bokeh regions, there is a greenish tinge on the edges of things, and how the lettering on the white text is GREEN-tinged in the back, but purple in the front? See how at the front of the book's pages, where white meets black, there is a purple out of focus line,and how along the edges of the white cloth in the back, there is a green tinge around the white edges, in the out of focus areas? There is longitudinal chromatic aberration in the bokeh areas, both in front and behind the point of sharpest focus. (longitudinal CA also is called LO-CA, and bokeh CA, to a lesser extent--which is kind of a new nickname for it).

Longitudinal CA has two colors, not just one, like lateral color.

This book scene is a perfect demonstration of the appearance of LONGITUDINAL chromatic aberration, which is not correctable in software. This type of CA is often abbreviated as LO CA, for Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration...for obvious reasons. If a sample photo is done on a more or less flat, one-dimensional subject, LO CA can be impossible to see because there is no Front- and Back-of subject zone depth to show that the fringing exists as two different colors at differening focus distances.

Lateral chromatic aberration however, often called color fringing, is correctable in many software applications. Lateral color is pretty easily removed. LO CA however, is for keeps.

There is also something Canon calls birifringence (not sure if I am spelling that right)--which is what Canon calls digital chromatic aberration, and that is usually a strong purple in color, ad is some of the digital effect Petraio Prime was referring to.

A number of premium Nikkor lenses, like the 85/1.4 AF-D and the 135 f/2 AF-D Defocus Control exhibit longitudinal chromatic aberration when shot wide open or nearly so; by f/2.8, the Lo-Ca is almost totally gone, but it is a characteristics of their bokeh "signature"--but not all subjects will show this defect. it's absolutely worst wide-open,and on very strong,high-contrast edges, like in the example Neil showed, of white lettering against a dark book cover. Moral: when shooting white letters on book covers, stop down to f/3.5!

SO, there is purple birifringence (Canon's term for digital artifacting), longitudinal chromatic aberration or Lo-Ca, which is ALSO now coming to be called "bokeh CA", because it shows up mainly in "bokeh-type shots" people are doing, where there is actual "depth" to the subject, and then there is the simple, old-timey lateral chromatic aberration, often called "color fringing",and it is most visible around the edges of objects; using a teleconverter, like a cheap 2x, is a good way to introduce lateral color problems on an otherwise well-corrected lens.

 

[Petraio Prime]

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

2.
See how there is a subtle GREEN fringing that exists BEHIND the point of sharpest focus? How, in the OOF bokeh fregions, there is a greenish tinge on the edges of things, and how the lettering on ther white text is GREEN-tinged? See how at the front of the book's pages, where white meets black, there is a purple out of focus line,and how along the edges of the white cloth in the back, there is a green tinge around the white edges, in the out of focus areas? There is longitudinal chromatic aberration in the bokeh areas, both in front and behind the point of sharpest focus. (longitudinal CA also is called LO-CA, and bokeh CA, to a lesser extent--which is kind of a new nickname for it).

And how in front of the zone of sharpest focus, there is a PURPLE fringing???

That is a perfect example of LONGITUDINAL chromatic aberration, which is not correctable in software. This type of CA is often abbreviated as LO CA, for Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration...for obvious reasons. If a sample photo is done on a more or less flat, one-dimensional subject, LO CA can be hard to see because there is no Front- and Back-of subject zone depth to show that the fringing exists as two different colors...

Lateral chromatic aberration however, often called color fringing, is correctable in many software applications. Lateral color is pretty easily removed. LO CA however, is for keeps.

There is also something Canon calls birifringence (not sure if I am spelling that right)--which is what Canon calls digital chromatic aberration, and that is usually a strong purple in color, ad is some of the digital effect Petraio Prime was referring to.

A number of premium Nikkor lenses, like the 85/1.4 AF-D and the 135 f/2 AF-D Defocus Control exhibit longitudinal chromatic aberration when shot wide open or nearly so; by f/2.8, the Lo-Ca is almost totally gone, but it is a characteristics of their bokeh "signature"--but not all subjects will show this defect. it's absolutely worst wide-open,and on very strong,high-contrast edges, like in the example Neil showed, of white lettering against a dark book cover. Moral: when shooting white letters on book covers, stop down to f/3.5!

SO, there is purple birifringence (Canon's term for digital artifacting), longitudinal chromatic aberration or Lo-Ca, which is ALSO now coming to be called "bokeh CA", because it shows up mainly in "bokeh-type shots" people are doing, where there is actual "depth" to the subject, and then there is the simple, old-timey lateral chromatic aberration, often called "color fringing",and it is most visible around the edges of objects; using a teleconverter, like a cheap 2x, is a good way to introduce lateral color problems on an otherwise well-corrected lens.

It seems a bit more than I would expect from this class of lens. You can see a bit of lateral CA in this shot (to show you what lateral CA actually looks like):

At the bottom of the cap there is a slight purple line, and above it, a slight yellow line.

May be easier to see here in crop:

Taken with 350mm Telyt-R f/4.8.

Yes, there is both lateral and axial CA. I'm still unsure though that's what we are seeing here.

It could be a digital sensor interaction, not sure.

 

[Neil S.]

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]

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...

The same thing is said about Canon's 50mm f/1.2-L and its chromatic aberration and corner resolution performance.

Same with Canon's 24mm f/1.4-L wide-angle lens...compared to the brand-new Nikkor 24/1.4 AF-S G, the Canon has simply atrocious edge performance, full of coma, where the Nikkor is much,much better corrected.

But then P-P, you're shooting Leica lenses that are designed with price points that are well over double what Canon had when they computed their lenses,and Leica's standards are for those of connoiseurs, while Canon's standards are for working professional photographers, who shoot,process,and sell pictures...

I know what Neil meant when he said "What's another $500," on a $2,000 lens, but when the design was computed, the retail price was much lower than it is today. People have been commenting for years, and over thousands of posts, that Canon lens prices are typically lower than Nikon's prices...well...there's a reason for that...it costs a huge amount of money to correct a lens to the Nth degree...Leica will spend that money, hence $3,595 50mm f/1.4 lenses...with Nikon's 50/1.4 at $485 and Canon's 50mm f/1.4 originally at $349...the last little bit of performance costs a huge amount of money...If the 85/1.2-L is stopped down to f/2.8, the lens is,in terms of everyday use, pretty damned good!

Cindy Crawford had a mole on her face...

 

[Petraio Prime]

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...

The same thing is said about Canon's 50mm f/1.2-L and its chromatic aberration and corner resolution performance.

Same with Canon's 24mm f/1.4-L wide-angle lens...compared to the brand-new Nikkor 24/1.4 AF-S G, the Canon has simply atrocious edge performance, full of coma, where the Nikkor is much,much better corrected.

But then P-P, you're shooting Leica lenses that are designed with price points that are well over double what Canon had when they computed their lenses,and Leica's standards are for those of connoiseurs, while Canon's standards are for working professional photographers, who shoot,process,and sell pictures...

I know what Neil meant when he said "What's another $500," on a $2,000 lens, but when the design was computed, the retail price was much lower than it is today. People have been commenting for years, and over thousands of posts, that Canon lens prices are typically lower than Nikon's prices...well...there's a reason for that...it costs a huge amount of money to correct a lens to the Nth degree...Leica will spend that money, hence $3,595 50mm f/1.4 lenses...with Nikon's 50/1.4 at $485 and Canon's 50mm f/1.4 originally at $349...the last little bit of performance costs a huge amount of money...If the 85/1.2-L is stopped down to f/2.8, the lens is,in terms of everyday use, pretty damned good!

Cindy Crawford had a mole on her face...

Well the thing is I have never seen axial CA like that (that amount) from any lens, if that's actually what we are seeing here. Certainly, my 90mm Summicron-R (1st version) shows none of it (that I can detect), and I don't think the 80mm Summilux-R has anything like that. Usually, fast lenses have a lot of coma, not CA. This causes a bit of overall loss of contrast, but not what we see here. Despite that, Leica redesigned the 90mm Summicron and R version too, to be ASPH and APO.

If this actually is axial CA, I am a bit shocked. Could the lens used? Could it have been knocked? That could cause problems.

 

[Neil S.]

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...

The same thing is said about Canon's 50mm f/1.2-L and its chromatic aberration and corner resolution performance.

Same with Canon's 24mm f/1.4-L wide-angle lens...compared to the brand-new Nikkor 24/1.4 AF-S G, the Canon has simply atrocious edge performance, full of coma, where the Nikkor is much,much better corrected.

But then P-P, you're shooting Leica lenses that are designed with price points that are well over double what Canon had when they computed their lenses,and Leica's standards are for those of connoiseurs, while Canon's standards are for working professional photographers, who shoot,process,and sell pictures...

I know what Neil meant when he said "What's another $500," on a $2,000 lens, but when the design was computed, the retail price was much lower than it is today. People have been commenting for years, and over thousands of posts, that Canon lens prices are typically lower than Nikon's prices...well...there's a reason for that...it costs a huge amount of money to correct a lens to the Nth degree...Leica will spend that money, hence $3,595 50mm f/1.4 lenses...with Nikon's 50/1.4 at $485 and Canon's 50mm f/1.4 originally at $349...the last little bit of performance costs a huge amount of money...If the 85/1.2-L is stopped down to f/2.8, the lens is,in terms of everyday use, pretty damned good!

Cindy Crawford had a mole on her face...

Well the thing is I have never seen axial CA like that (that amount) from any lens, if that's actually what we are seeing here. Certainly, my 90mm Summicron-R (1st version) shows none of it (that I can detect), and I don't think the 80mm Summilux-R has anything like that. Usually, fast lenses have a lot of coma, not CA. This causes a bit of overall loss of contrast, but not what we see here. Despite that, Leica redesigned the 90mm Summicron and R version too, to be ASPH and APO.

If this actually is axial CA, I am a bit shocked. Could the lens used? Could it have been knocked? That could cause problems.

I highly doubt it was used. Bought it retail from B&H.

I havent knocked it, cant say for sure nobody else did.

Its also very situational. I have lots of pics that show zero CA, even wide open. But I can kind of predict now when it will show up.

Derrel listed many of the situations it can show up with this lens, in an above post.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Well the thing is I have never seen axial CA like that (that amount) from any lens, if that's actually what we are seeing here. Certainly, my 90mm Summicron-R (1st version) shows none of it (that I can detect), and I don't think the 80mm Summilux-R has anything like that. Usually, fast lenses have a lot of coma, not CA. This causes a bit of overall loss of contrast, but not what we see here. Despite that, Leica redesigned the 90mm Summicron and R version too, to be ASPH and APO.

If this actually is axial CA, I am a bit shocked. Could the lens used? Could it have been knocked? That could cause problems.

I highly doubt it was used. Bought it retail from B&H.

I havent knocked it, cant say for sure nobody else did.

Its also very situational. I have lots of pics that show zero CA, even wide open. But I can kind of predict now when it will show up.

Derrel listed many of the situations it can show up with this lens, in an above post.

Just for the heck of it, I googled the 80mm Summilux-R for comparison:

Leica Summilux-R 80mm f/1.4 (E67) Lens Review

You may want to check out that lens. Do you really need f/1.2?

Digital sensors are flat, color film has some depth. The red-recording layer is at the bottom, and this may tend to mitigate the effects of axial CA to some extent.

 

[bentcountershaft]

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.]

Just for the heck of it, I googled the 80mm Summilux-R for comparison:

Leica Summilux-R 80mm f/1.4 (E67) Lens Review

You may want to check out that lens. Do you really need f/1.2?

Digital sensors are flat, color film has some depth. The red-recording layer is at the bottom, and this may tend to mitigate the effects of axial CA to some extent.

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

Time to do some research....

 

[Petraio Prime]

Just for the heck of it, I googled the 80mm Summilux-R for comparison:

Leica Summilux-R 80mm f/1.4 (E67) Lens Review

You may want to check out that lens. Do you really need f/1.2?

Digital sensors are flat, color film has some depth. The red-recording layer is at the bottom, and this may tend to mitigate the effects of axial CA to some extent.

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

Time to do some research....

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.