Canon RF 85mm f/1.4L VCM on the Way

Sort by date Sort by votes
#22
Exploreshootshare said:
Could you please explain why and give some reasons. I am asking because most people on various who criticize the VCM line-up fail to provide reasons or explanations.

I hesitated a bit to try one at first. But a few weeks I rented the 50mm F1.4 VCM and I loved it! Btw: I am a 99% stills, 1% video shooter (97/3%). If the EF 35mm 1.4 L ii indeed is better, I´d be open to purchase one. Even though it would mean I´d have to use an adapter...
Click to expand...
Compared to EF 35mm 1.4L II, RF 35mm VCM is the cheaper lens with crazy levels of distortion and less smooth bokeh rendering. And it doesn't have the Blue Spectrum Refractive stuff the EF lens has to reduce CA's. It just seems optically inferior because they had to compromise because of video focus and a lower price tag.

So... waiting for the 1.2 version for photography. I hope it won't be huge. Or a Sigma or Viltrox perhaps...
 
Upvote 0
#24
Snapster said:
Compared to EF 35mm 1.4L II, RF 35mm VCM is the cheaper lens with crazy levels of distortion and less smooth bokeh rendering. And it doesn't have the Blue Spectrum Refractive stuff the EF lens has to reduce CA's. It just seems optically inferior because they had to compromise because of video focus and a lower price tag.

So... waiting for the 1.2 version for photography. I hope it won't be huge. Or a Sigma or Viltrox perhaps...
Click to expand...
I replaced EF 35mm 1.4L II, EF 24mm 1.4L II with the RF VCM versions for photography only and don’t look back.
Try them and you will love them.
Of course a RF 1.2 L version may be better, but much heavier, bigger, much more expensive. Maybe I will buy this version also, but will keep 1.4, because it’s the best compromise for me in most use cases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#25
An 85mm f/1.4 might be interesting to me, as I really couldn't quite get myself to spend the money on a heavy 85mm f/1.2 yet.
One thing I heard about the vcm lenses was, that they are rattling or making some kind of clicking noise, when they're not powered, because the coils don't get locked or something? Is that real or bs?
 
Upvote 0
#27
Daniel Lindblom said:
My guess is that this is going to be the last lens in this series. I can't see them going further than 85 mm in this design. A really nice set of small lenses.
Click to expand...
Whilst the 20/1.4 is nice, a 14/1.8 would be nicer for astrolandscape.
The Sigma version is a beast with lots of useful features but the Sony is compact @460gm, 100mmx83mm compared to 520gm, 100x76mm for the 20/1,4.
If the barrel width is the common feature then perhaps that could be a struggle but wishful thinking....
 
Upvote 0
#29
Snapster said:
Compared to EF 35mm 1.4L II, RF 35mm VCM is the cheaper lens with crazy levels of distortion and less smooth bokeh rendering. And it doesn't have the Blue Spectrum Refractive stuff the EF lens has to reduce CA's. It just seems optically inferior because they had to compromise because of video focus and a lower price tag.

So... waiting for the 1.2 version for photography. I hope it won't be huge. Or a Sigma or Viltrox perhaps...
Click to expand...
Thx for your explanation. I don´t mind the distortion if it controlled digitally. I´m all in about lighter and smaller lenses.
The booker rendering on the 50mm VCM is really nice. Of course, 50mm F1.2 is a bit dreamier, but not enough to justify weight and cost for me.

The "blue spectrum refractive element" that's missing sounds interesting. I'll look into it.
 
Upvote 0
#31
Snapster said:
A 35/85mm 1.4 combo is badly needed but so far the VCM line has been disappointing. For photography, the 35mm VCM is a downgrade from EF 35mm 1.4L ii. I wouldn't be surprised if the RF 85mm VCM would omit IS and be another downgrade from EF.

So haven't bought any VCM lenses yet. And not going back to adapting EF lenses for a front heavy setup. Luckily got a Samyang RF 85mm 1.4 before they disappeared from the market. It's pretty fantastic.
Click to expand...
Have you actually shot with any of the VCM lenses? I have the RF 35mm f2.4L VCM and the RF 50mm f1.4L VCM and I’m completely happy with the results in fact they have convinced me to use zooms less. I currently use the EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM which is brilliant but would switch to a VCM version to get a smaller lens & lighter weight given the EF lens needs the adaptor.
The RF 50mm f1.4L VCM has been so good I sold my RF 50mm f1.2L because the bokeh difference is tiny but it focuses quicker & more accurately, is lighter and very sharp.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
#34
jeffa4444 said:
Have you actually shot with any of the VCM lenses? I have the RF 35mm f2.4L VCM and the RF 50mm f1.4L VCM and I’m completely happy with the results in fact they have convinced me to use zooms less. I currently use the EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM which is brilliant but would switch to a VCM version to get a smaller lens & lighter weight given the EF lens needs the adaptor.
The RF 50mm f1.4L VCM has been so good I sold my RF 50mm f1.2L because the bokeh difference is tiny but it focuses quicker & more accurately, is lighter and very sharp.
Click to expand...
No because the multiple reviews of the 35mm VCM I read convinced me it's not worth the cost and I'd still want to upgrade from it later. I get by with the RF 35mm 1.8 even though it's not my favourite lens.
 
Upvote 0
#35
Snapster said:
No because the multiple reviews of the 35mm VCM I read convinced me it's not worth the cost and I'd still want to upgrade from it later. I get by with the RF 35mm 1.8 even though it's not my favourite lens.
Click to expand...

I do hope they make photo focused 24 and or 35. They'd cost twice as much as the VCM lenses, but they'd sell very well.

I love the 50 VCM, but none of the other ones are for me. An 85 1.4 will be. I still use the EF version, and I wouldn't miss IS.
 
Upvote 0
#36
Snapster said:
No because the multiple reviews of the 35mm VCM I read convinced me it's not worth the cost and I'd still want to upgrade from it later. I get by with the RF 35mm 1.8 even though it's not my favourite lens.
Click to expand...
I, for myself, have learned not to base decisions on internet reviews. I mostly don't even watch them anymore. Honestly, most of them suck and they all start... let´s take a look at the lens, it has button for...blablabla for 10 mins... Things like "since it is preproduction model I wasn't allowed to take any images" --> admitting your review is totally worthless... or: "in conclusion, center sharpness is great, it is a tiny bit softer in the corners. at 100% crop" --> applies to almost every lens...

The only reviews I watch and like are such things "one year with..." or an actual comparisons of two lenses with lots pics.

I listen to people who actually shoot with the particular lenses (like several members here raving about the RF100-400mm, it was great advice), or I go out and try them (even I have to rent it). Sometimes, I wait to buy it for a used price which I can easily retrieve a couple months later in case I don't like the lens after all. The third option obviously requires funding, but in the end, it is a cheap option.

For the 50VCM, yeah, reviewers raise serious doubt about it... but it performed absolutely admirably those 5 days I rented it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#37
Exploreshootshare said:
I, for myself, have learned not to base decisions on internet reviews. I mostly don't even watch them anymore. Honestly, most of them suck and they all start... let´s take a look at the lens, it has button for...blablabla for 10 mins... Things like "since it is pre-production model I wasn't allowed to take any images" --> admitting your review is totally worthless... or: "in conclusion, center sharpness is great, it is a tiny bit softer in the corners. at 100% crop" --> applies to almost every lens...

The only reviews I watch and like are such things "one year with..." or an actual comparisons of two lenses with lots pics.

I listen to people who actually shoot with the particular lenses (like several members here raving about the RF100-400mm, it was great advice), or I go out and try them (even I have to rent it). Sometimes, I wait to buy it for a used price which I can easily retrieve a couple months later in case I don't like the lens after all. The third option obviously requires funding, but in the end, it is a cheap option.

For the 50VCM, yeah, reviewers raise serious doubt about it... but it performed absolutely admirably those 5 days I rented it.
Click to expand...

Kinda both ways but not really. If you know the product is technically inferior, it's' not great motivation & pointless to some folks go try (rent it) anyways. Some products just aren't that great regardless if it's still usable. That being said, I've relied on TDP reviews for 14 years, and it has always given a great expectation of how a lens performs. Especially with copy variation - if you get a copy of a lens that supposed to be sharp in the center and yours is soft, well, you're informed enough to know something is off. For the amounts canon is charging especially, I wont personally would buy nor rent anything that is 'fine/okay' or otherwise hampered.

I've been using the lumix 50 for a month now, and its very very very good for a 1.8 on a 24mp body. Just wonderful and I'm glad i skipped the canon...uh..options. I saw penty of reviews beforehand, and knew what to expect. I'm glad the copy I received was everything i hoped.

Anywho cheers and happy shooting
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#38
"I listen to people who actually shoot with particular lenses (like several members here raving about the RF100-400mm)"
Depends on what I need a lens for.
If those users mainly need a lens to shoot dragonflies and birds, buying it could be a huge mistake for me. Using telezooms mostly for landscape and architecture, I need more than central sharpness. I tested the RF 100-400, and rejected it for my use. But if I needed a lens for birds or insects, I would have bought it on the spot!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#39
Del Paso said:
"I listen to people who actually shoot with particular lenses (like several members here raving about the RF100-400mm)"
Depends on what I need a lens for.
If those users mainly need a lens to shoot dragonflies and birds, buying it could be a huge mistake for me. Using telezooms mostly for landscape and architecture, I need more than central sharpness. I tested the RF 100-400, and rejected it for my use. But if I needed a lens for birds or insects, I would have bought it on the spot!
Click to expand...
In my case, it was recommended for being great with birds, insects (like bees) and as a general hiking lens. And that recommendation was/ is spot on! Of course, recommendations from other forum members should point out the use case, but if talk to them most of the users here will gladly do so.
 
Upvote 0
#40
I am struggling with this... I have the 50mm F1.4 VCM and it's really good, but also very much like my EF 85mm F1.4 L is. And indeed that's got IS. I probably keep using that one. The in-camera stabilisation is only 2 stops is that correct?
Question of course is if I really need IS? I wouldn't go below 1/125s with 85mm anyway.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
There Are Two More VCM Prime Lenses Coming
Replies
82
Views
12K
LPSDOTCOM
L
Canon Rumors
Is the Next VCM Prime Lens an RF 14mm f/2L VCM?
Replies
47
Views
5K
Ozarker
Ozarker
Canon Rumors
Two New Lenses, Including an RF 85mm f/1.4L VCM Coming September 9
Replies
170
Views
19K
scyrene
S
Canon Rumors
Canon Planning 3 More VCM L Prime Lenses
Replies
12
Views
3K
David - Sydney
D
Richard CR
Canon RF 85mm F1.4L VCM: The Portrait Specialist
Replies
15
Views
2K
Ozarker
Ozarker
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu