neuroanatomist said:

They’re all 85mm lenses (or close enough with rounding). The likely patent for the RF 85/1.4 VCM has it as an 82.6 or 82.9mm f/1.45 lens, but similarly the likely patent for the RF 85/1.2 is 82.3mm f/1.24. The explanation is not a difference in real focal length.

I eschew YT videos (DIY home repairs notwithstanding) but I did scrub to the ~7 min mark to see it was a noted in a focusing speed comparison with objects arranged in a table and in a portrait comparison. The reviewer failed to provide the proper technical explanation, which is unfortunate but unsurprising.

What’s really going on is that the focal length of a lens is specified as the distance from the rear nodal point to the sensor with the lens focused at infinity. When a lens appears to have a wider FoV (shorter FL) with closer subjects (as in the YT reviewer’s examples), that’s due to focus breathing. That’s why, for example, the EF 100/2.8L Macro has the FoV of a ~68mm lens at 1:1 magnification.

Canon touts the 85 VCM as having minimal focus breathing, which is desirable in a lens intended for hybrid use (lack of focus breathing is one of the reasons cine lenses are so expensive). Focus breathing is not necessarily linear with subject distance, and I suspect what’s happening with the 85 VCM is that Canon’s design puts most of the breathing closer to infinity, so there’s relatively little change in FoV with subjects at different ‘normal’ (for people) distances. Doing so is facilitated with modern focus-by-wire lenses where a microchip instead of gearing is controlling focus motor movement.

Click to expand...

Exploreshootshare said:

Thx Richard!
I too wish y´all a merry Christmas and happy new gear...ups, I meant a happy new year of course

Click to expand...

el peso said:

Are you sure the compared lens is strictly 85 mm? Maybe its FL is longer than 85mm?

Click to expand...

EricN said:

It's an interesting concept. I have thought of anoth
using a curved sensor, but it's probably quite difficult manufacture and might potentially require a dedicated sensor and lens pairing

Click to expand...

Del Paso said:

I'm no scientist at all.
But wouldn't it be an easier way to get rid of all these geometric correction issues to "simply" design MF lenses and use them on FF (like TS lenses)?
Thus, they could make use of the best portion of a lens' projection circle. Could it be the recipe behind the RF 1,2 50 & 85 in order to also get sharp corners at f/1,2?
OK, cost would significantly go up...
But, as I wrote, I'm no scientist., and still hoping for a 35mm f/1,2...

Click to expand...

EricN said:

It's an interesting concept. I have thought of anoth
using a curved sensor, but it's probably quite difficult manufacture and might potentially require a dedicated sensor and lens pairing

Click to expand...

Richard CR said:

I recall when I did testing, I had a difficult time seeing the diffraction correction effects. They were quite subtle. The aberration correction, especially at the time the Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM, which had the worst PF known to the modern photography universe, would clean up amazingly well.

That was what impressed me the most - since PF was troublesome to correct in post.

Click to expand...

Chig said:

Yes, the SA can be nice for a dreamy look or a rather harsh look (with the 3rd shot at neutral setting) like these shots of my neighbour's magnoliaView attachment 227213View attachment 227214View attachment 227215

Click to expand...

Del Paso said:

I'm no scientist at all.
But wouldn't it be an easier way to get rid of all these geometric correction issues to "simply" design MF lenses and use them on FF (like TS lenses)?
Thus, they could make use of the best portion of a lens' projection circle. Could it be the recipe behind the RF 1,2 50 & 85 in order to also get sharp corners at f/1,2?
OK, cost would significantly go up...
But, as I wrote, I'm no scientist., and still hoping for a 35mm f/1,2...

Click to expand...

Click said:

Lovely shots, Sir. Merry Christmas!

Click to expand...

AlanF said:

I attempted some testing for the correction of diffraction using DLO and found limitations in lenses where it could be applied. It can be applied to the RF 200-800mm on the R5ii and with the 1.4xTC but it is not compatible with the 2x. It is compatible with the 2x on the RF 100-500mm. And it is not compatible with the RF 100-400mm on the R7. The DLO box was greyed out n those incompatible cases.

Click to expand...

AlanF said:

Thanks for the link, which I have now read and the subsequent discussion. I get your point about the number of pixels in the corners etc when compressed. It remains moot until someone has done the necessary investigation to discover whether there is the same amount of image quality and information content in the periphery of an image that is stretched by an analogue lens method or a mathematical method of expansion of the compressed periphery. Information is lost on compression and the question is whether the analogue lens method manages to avoid that loss by prevention or is it simply expanding the compression similar to digital? I don't know the answer. Do you know as I would like to learn whether it does? It probably depends on how much effort and expenses they put in.

Click to expand...

Richard CR said:

Richard CR said:

meh, sorry, i didn't like the 45mm f1.2 - it's a very specialized lens that you have to like the look out of the lens. if you don't, then it's dead to you. Not everyone wants a lens with that yes, it's a f/1.2, but it's a f/1.2 because they are allowing a literal dump truck of aberrations to exist.

And the Sony 50-150 is a lens that has never been done before, and it's optically, mechanically, everything, excellent.

if the 50-150 didn't make the cut as the best, then there's tons of others I would choose over the 45mm even if I had to take into account "bang for buck" - ie: the Sigma 200/2, or the freakishly incredible Sony 100mm Macro. there's just way too many amazing lenses out there this year, that in my mind would be above the 45mm.

I do like Canon making bang for the buck lenses that will have their followings - much like the EF mount, so it's all a good thing. as long as they fire the dude that decided the 75-300 was a good idea.

Click to expand...

Richard CR said:

meh, sorry, i didn't like the 45mm f1.2 - it's a very specialized lens that you have to like the look out of the lens. if you don't, then it's dead to you. Not everyone wants a lens with that yes, it's a f/1.2, but it's a f/1.2 because they are allowing a literal dump truck of aberrations to exist.

Click to expand...

Well clearly you don't know what "literal" means (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_and_figurative_language) but calling the RF 45mm a very specialised lens is bizarre: I spent most of Xmas Day taking family photos with it and it performed brilliantly and I found it very versatile as you'd expect with 45mm. It does have some minor flaws but they make barely any difference to the results in normal usage.

Click to expand...

SirIssacNewton said:

Christmas morning visitors! Taken with my Canon R8 and RF 600mm f11

Click to expand...

Exploreshootshare said:

Oohhhh, that sounds great!!! Enjoy it and have some fun. And maybe, just maybe, post a nice wintery pic here

Click to expand...