Nikon 85 vs Canon 85: I ran across this photo showing just how big f1.2 is on the back of an 85mm lens. Canon even has to have the contacts cover part of the rear element. I have never...

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I ran across this photo showing just how big f1.2 is on the back of an 85mm lens.
Canon even has to have the contacts cover part of the rear element.
I have never seen this sort of comparison before and it shows the difference in size needed for f1.2.
Not saying one is better than the other, both are great lenses just showing what needs to physically be done for f1.2.

(Download)

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Wow! Canon's thinking outside the box with those contacts. Interesting!

Kuzano

Since any sin on the glass for a rear element shows up much more in the final image than from the front and mid optics, the lens with the smaller optic reduces the risk of a negative impact on the final image should a flaw occur. Interesting that the mfrs are taking that into consideration. I'd say the Canon lens more reduces the risk involved there. It would be interesting to put a small "divot" in each of the rear elements and see what happens to the image.

When I buy lenses, I allow many sins on the front element (if it must be), but I won't buy a lens, any lens, that has flaws on the rear glass. That hunk of glass on the Nikon would be a bit put-offish to me.

Obviously testing will show the best lens, but if flaws exist, I don't want them on the rear glass.

And yet the first lens cap lost is the rear cap.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Which one is better is simple. The EF 85 f/1.2 is the better of the two. The Nikon is not f/1.2, it's a 1.4 lens. The Nikon F mount is not large enough for an 85mm f/1.2 rear element.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

I have a question. Since the light through the lens if conical, wouldn't the minimum diameter of the rear element depend on the distance of that element from the sensor?

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

rmorrison1116 wrote:

Which one is better is simple. The EF 85 f/1.2 is the better of the two. The Nikon is not f/1.2, it's a 1.4 lens. The Nikon F mount is not large enough for an 85mm f/1.2 rear element.

According to DXOmark the nikon is a much better lens:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikkor-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-f14G-on-Nikon-D3X-versus-EF85mm-f-1.2L-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III__388_0_270_795
But below is an interesting review with many images:
http://neilvn.com/tangents/review-zeiss-otus-85mm-f1-4-vs-canon-vs-nikon/

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

oldtigger wrote:

According to DXOmark the nikon is a much better lens:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikkor-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-f14G-on-Nikon-D3X-versus-EF85mm-f-1.2L-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III__388_0_270_795
But below is an interesting review with many images:
http://neilvn.com/tangents/review-zeiss-otus-85mm-f1-4-vs-canon-vs-nikon/

Yes, of course DXO has rated the Nikon better, in DXO land Nikon is always better. I don't own the Nikon lens but I'd speculate it focuses faster than the Canon. I do own the original version of the EF 85 f/1.2L and it may be slow but it's an amazing lens.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

rmorrison1116 wrote:

Yes, of course DXO has rated the Nikon better, in DXO land Nikon is always better. I don't own the Nikon lens but I'd speculate it focuses faster than the Canon. I do own the original version of the EF 85 f/1.2L and it may be slow but it's an amazing lens.

Has DXO ever rated a Canon product better than the Nikon?
Ps, Nikon doesn't have a f1.2. This was not intended as a pissing match about best but just an interesting observation. The contacts by the way have absolutely no effect on the image created. Yes it is slower focusing than newer lenses but again that is not what is being shown here.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Architect1776 wrote:

I ran across this photo showing just how big f1.2 is on the back of an 85mm lens.
Canon even has to have the contacts cover part of the rear element.
I have never seen this sort of comparison before and it shows the difference in size needed for f1.2.
Not saying one is better than the other, both are great lenses just showing what needs to physically be done for f1.2.

Going one stop larger means more size, more weight, and more money, while not necessarily getting better quality images.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

jerryc41 wrote:

Going one stop larger means more size, more weight, and more money, while not necessarily getting better quality images.

Marketing?

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

Architect1776 wrote:

...it shows the difference in size needed for f1.2. Not saying one is better than the
other, both are great lenses just showing what needs to physically be done for f1.2.

You showed what can be done if you have a large diameter mount like canon uses, but nikon
builds functional F1.2 lenses using the smaller nikon mount.
Some people got the idea i was trying to show that nikon was better than canon.
Actually i was pointing out that in real world shooting they both fall short of a decent lens like
the Zeiss.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

jerryc41 wrote:

Going one stop larger means more size, more weight, and more money, while not necessarily getting better quality images.

Common sense wins.

Bill_de Loc: US

Architect1776 wrote:

I ran across this photo showing just how big f1.2 is on the back of an 85mm lens.
Canon even has to have the contacts cover part of the rear element.
I have never seen this sort of comparison before and it shows the difference in size needed for f1.2.
Not saying one is better than the other, both are great lenses just showing what needs to physically be done for f1.2.

It is one thing to know that F1.2 needs a larger rear element. It is another to actually see the difference. Thanks for posting.

--

machia Loc: NJ

The keeper-rate with the Nikon is higher because it is sharper and focuses faster . The bokkeh on the Canon is superior but focusing is more critical . In everyday practical terms the Nikon is a better lens . But for portraiture the Canon is the winner by far .
DOX ? lol Very partial to Nikon !
But having said all that , I still prefer my Rokkor 85mm f1.7 when shooting film . Superior glass .

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I believe I read the longest lens the F mount will allow at f/1.2 is 50mm. It's diameter is to small for anything larger. This may be for AF lenses, I'm not sure.
Has DXO rated a Canon product better than a Nikon product?! Yes, but rarely. Does that mean most Nikon products are better than Canon?! Not really. Its a numbers game, statistics, and we all know statistics are like a bikini, what matters isnt what they show but what they don't. Does anyone who owns and uses the EF 85 f/1.2L believe it is a poor lens?! I doubt it, maybe, but very few. It's been described by many experts as one of if not the best portrait lens made and it produces extraordinary bokeh. Saying the EF 85 f/1.2 is not a decent lens is just silly and a bit arrogant and akin to brand snobbery. I own no Zeiss lenses, don't need to, 'cause in the real world, it really doesn't much matter. I doubt there's more than maybe a few people at best who could tell the difference between an image made with a Zeiss lens and any other top shelf lens from Japan.