Close Menu

    Canon explains the defocus smoothing in the new Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS lens

    By 30 Comments1 Min Read Canon Lens News
    rf85ds 728x462 - Canon explains the defocus smoothing in the new Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS lens

    Defocus smoothing is a new coating from Canon that will improve the look of out of focus areas/bokeh in your images.

    Canon USA explains the technology behind this new feature in the video above.

    Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM $2699 | Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS $2999

    Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    30 comments

    1. Too bad these aren't filters you can screw on and off. I personally prefer the non-DS bokeh, but it would be nice to have the option to smooth them out from time to time.
    2. Too bad these aren't filters you can screw on and off. I personally prefer the non-DS bokeh, but it would be nice to have the option to smooth them out from time to time.
      Technically they are, they just cost $3k.
    3. A little off topic, but with a projected cost of $2,699 for the RF 70-200 f/2.8L I'd imagine the rumored RF 70-135mm f/2L to be upwards of $3,500+. OUCH! It'll be a bitter pill, but I'll just have to swallow it.
    4. ... I personally prefer the non-DS bokeh...
      It is quite funny that my wife - non photog - prefers the non-DS bokeh, too.
      Showed the comparison to a photog friend of mine (Nikon) and he was in love with the DS bokeh.

      I am so-so. I'm used to the "classical" bokeh and I suppose that's why I like it, too.
      But I also see the DS bokeh as really good, esp. if in-fokus sharpness stays close to the non-DS lens.

      But as the prices of both are far from what I'd be willing to pay for such a lens, I can stay relaxed ;)
    7. This is definitely a "rent before you buy" kind of lens. Losing all the light gathering advantage of an f/1.2 lens for a smoother background might be worth it...if the rendering is truly unique. We all buy lenses for the aesthetic they provide, so I will be renting this to see how it works. Might add something special for the RF mount, but I don't believe this could actually be a practical replacement for my needs of an 85mm prime. But maybe a standalone portrait lens with controlled light?
    8. ...Losing all the light gathering advantage of an f/1.2 lens for a smoother background might be worth it...
      ...But maybe a standalone portrait lens with controlled light?
      I've read about the lower transmission here in the forum. But I didn't see the source for this.
      Is this lower transmission compared to the non-DS or how does that perform?

      If so, then your last statement seems to be fully correct.
    9. I've read about the lower transmission here in the forum. But I didn't see the source for this.
      Is this lower transmission compared to the non-DS or how does that perform?

      If so, then your last statement seems to be fully correct.
      Yeah, the 1.5 stops difference and a deeper DoF statement is on Canon website. So valid.
    10. Yeah, the 1.5 stops difference and a deeper DoF statement is on Canon website. So valid.
      WOW! o_O

      Thanks for clearing that up.

      So that and the price gap would lead me directly to the non-DS version - if I was in the market for a 85/1.2.
      But I'd be more in a market for a non-L, non-DS 85/1.8.

      And as long as Canon does not start to build more consumer/amateur focused RF lenses I'll stay happy with all my EFs ;)
    11. I want to see more examples of what the background looks like when there aren’t any bokeh balls. I saw one or two samples with an evenly blurred background and suddenly “huh, hm, that’s interesting”. It looked REALLY good compared to the examples where they just show the effect with round lights.
    16. In a way. Front element and rear. Two filters.

      The way I understood it is that apodization filters need to be really close of the aperture, so a front or back filter won't do much.
    17. The way I understood it is that apodization filters need to be really close of the aperture, so a front or back filter won't do much.
      Like I said, it could be worthwhile if it were about 80% appealing as the real thing. Especially for those who already own the normal 1.2.

      Personally normal looks just spectacular.
    18. The shown examples are much nicer than anticipated. Although I'd be satisfied with photos from both versions. I think the size of final print would matter quite a bit. Around 16 inches and bigger, the DF files should become more apparent.
    19. In a way, sounds similar to what is going on in the motion/“Cine” world right now, with a lot of lens manufacturers releasing “soft” versions of their lenses, where they’re essentially messing with(even removing) the lens coatings, but they’re going for the whole image, not just the bokeh. Sigma’s ‘Classic’ Cine Primes just announced in the last several months are the same f-stop as their existing high-speed Cine Primes(most* are f/1.4 / T1.5) but because of the coating manipulation/differences, they are slower in actual light transmission, going from T1.5 to T2.5.

      *14mm & 135 are slower at f/1.8 / T2 in standard high-speed version and go to f/1.8 / T3.2 in the soft versions.

      20, 24, 28, 35, 40, 50, 85, 105 are all f/1.4 / T1.5 in standard versions

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment