Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L DS USM, RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and other accessories will be announced soon

[ozturert]

Announcing a lens hood... Interesting...

 

[Viggo]

Only one photo taken with the DS-Lens. Does the background realy look better with DS?

A very important question. And to me, not at all. I like more blur, not better blur with less blur. And, I don’t know a lot about this, never had the interest, but how can it be a 1.2, when it’s not?

 

[BurningPlatform]

... And, I don’t know a lot about this, never had the interest, but how can it be a 1.2, when it’s not?

It is still 1.2, as the physical aperture is the same size as in the regular version. T-value, on the other hand, is another thing, as the transmittance is decreased "up to 1.5 stops,"

 

[akiskev]

Exellent news. Hopefully the RF will make EF 70-200 2.8 more affordable.

 

[YuengLinger]

The RF 70-200 can't come fast enough. At work we use shoulder bags, and the EF 70-200 just barely fits in upright. The RF will be the perfect size and it'll be so convenient to have a 24-70 sized 70-200.

Not when we get mist or, especially, grit, on the zoom barrel. No thanks!

 

[wockawocka]

Yes. I f you go to there website, Rudy does a demonstration. It is actually 1.5 stops light transmission difference. I personally did not find the difference between the two to make a difference to me. In other words, I am happy with what I have. I won't be missing anything.


https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...RF-85mm-F12-L-USM-vs-the-RF-86mm-F12-L-USM-DS

Thankoooooooo

 

[Ozarker]

To me the example photo has a much nicer background, out of focus highlites are rounder softer, and colors are muted rather than cat eye, the face has more depth of field. This caused one objectionable highlite on the model's left side, the others look better. The face looks more evenly illuminated, likely due to the greater depth of field. When you compare the two images there are a ton of tiny things that render differently, but the main effect is that the model seems to pop out with more separation from the background, and the background is smoother and muted.

If I were doing 95% portraits, I'd get the DS based on that photo, but we need to see more first.

You are right. The background is more subdued. One could say smoother. I'm wondering what the price difference will be? The real question for me is how it renders the backgrounds where no bokeh balls are present. The lens will probably be one of those rarities people will be seeking in 50 years.

 

[koenkooi]

You are right. The background is more subdued. One could say smoother. I'm wondering what the price difference will be? The real question for me is how it renders the backgrounds where no bokeh balls are present. The lens will probably be one of those rarities people will be seeking in 50 years.

You can see some side by side examples here. And ways to fake it. I hope the local rental place will get one so I can try it myself

 

[SteveC]

Announcing a lens hood... Interesting...

If I recall correctly they did patent some sort of collapsible lens hood that doubled as a lens cap when collapsed.

 

[scyrene]

That lenses are excellent, like all the others RF lenses. But... When will release Canon a Eos R "Pro" with IBIS stabilization, 2 SD slots and 4K without crop????!!!!!????!!!!! That´s what every profesional photographer that I know are waiting for. And, by the way... what about a RF 35 mm 1.4 lens????????? 35mm is "The" lens. Come on Canon!!

You can't know many professionals then, I doubt very much they're *all* bothered about this. And it's a bit tiresome that every time anything else is announced, people pop up saying the same thing. Patience - Rome wasn't built in a day! The RF system is only just over a year old!

 

[chrysoberyl]

Not when we get mist or, especially, grit, on the zoom barrel. No thanks!

Or just humidity which may condense later. And dust - that was a problem for the 'sealed' Milvus 100.

This lens is not for me.

 

[Berowne]

Think of an aperture which is not a straight circle but made from a radially symmetric graduated gray filter - clear in the center, -2 stops on the outside. Light passing through the outer "large aperture region" is muted by the filter and hence it has a smaller effect on the final image. The center portion going through the clear part of the filter has more effect.
The combined effect is a little bit more DOF but the focus transition zones are smoother.

An example of such a filter with 25mm diameter @ 600 USD - so the DS lens is maybe cheaper than buying a similar filter of the right diameter for the non-DS lens while having it on the wrong place

25mm OD1.0 Radially Variable ND Filter - 0@Center-Neutral Density Filters-Optical Filters-Singapore Optics Shop

25mm OD1.0 Radially Variable ND Filter - 0@Center,Neutral Density Filters,Optical Filters,Singapore Optics Shop

www.optics.sg

Thanks for the explanation, I can imagine it. This filter may in some way function like an aperture. But is not the DS element a radially symmetric graduated gray filter which is not clear in the center, but rather dark in the center? And would a radially Variable ND Filter with a clear center not work like an aperture, producing an image similar to one stopped down, which means with a less pronounced bokeh?

 

[Kit Lens Jockey]

I was curious about the 85 DS lens until I saw a little while ago that the coatings cause it to lose 1.5 stops of light transmittance. I'll never own this lens over the non-DS version because of this. A slightly nicer background absolutely isn't worth 1.5 stops of light to me. I'm surprised they even bothered making this lens for the few who will probably choose it over the normal version. But, good on them I guess.

Also really not interested in the extending 70-200. My 70-200 f2.8 II is a tank and works great on the R.

 

[wockawocka]

And, by the way... what about a RF 35 mm 1.4 lens????????? 35mm is "The" lens. Come on Canon!!

TBH, the EF 35mm 1.4 mkii going to be hard to beat. It's cheaper and lighter to use that.

 

[Kit Lens Jockey]

what about a RF 35 mm 1.4 lens????????? 35mm is "The" lens. Come on Canon!!

I'm sorry, you're mistaken. 50mm is "the" lens, and they've already released a good one of those.

 

[blackcoffee17]

That lenses are excellent, like all the others RF lenses. But... When will release Canon a Eos R "Pro" with IBIS stabilization, 2 SD slots and 4K without crop????!!!!!????!!!!! That´s what every profesional photographer that I know are waiting for. And, by the way... what about a RF 35 mm 1.4 lens????????? 35mm is "The" lens. Come on Canon!!

They launched 10 amazing lenses in a year. I'm sure 24 and 35mm L lenses are also in development, just like a 100-400.
They cannot launch 50 lenses in a year, patience. In the meantime the EF 35mm works perfectly and it's quite amazing.

 

[mb66energy]

Thanks for the explanation, I can imagine it. This filter may in some way function like an aperture. But is not the DS element a radially symmetric graduated gray filter which is not clear in the center, but rather dark in the center? And would a radially Variable ND Filter with a clear center not work like an aperture, producing an image similar to one stopped down, which means with a less pronounced bokeh?

EDIT Just read your question again: If you look at the sample images (link some posts above) you see that the DS lens makes smaller bokeh balls, but with a nicer (= missing) outline. /EDIT

The apodization filter works like an aperture but with a gradient - not a hard transition between 100% transmission and 0% transmission like a standard aperture. Usually bokeh balls are images from the aperture - at f/8 you can see very often the number of blades, wide open you see the aperture defined by the smallest "hole" in the light path. The apotization filter close to the aperture blades makes a soft transition of clear in the center to dark in the outside and the bokeh balls reflect (not optically) the softer transition from the bright center to the dimmed outer regions.

Another argument for "clear in the center" is the fact that stopped down the DS lens works like the non-DS lens. Here you use only the clear part of the "filter" hence there is no difference to other lenses.

If you want to experiment a little bit cut out a star shaped hole with the outer diameter of a bright short tele lens and put it on the lens front. Wide open you will see a star shaped bokeh, stopping down the effect is vanishing because the effective aperture is inside the star shaped hole. And if you do not like to bother with a star shape, use a flat rectangle to make rectangularish bokeh "balls" ...

Here an example (I am trying to avoid some work I do not like to much ...

The pattern to hold in front of a lens (in my case the EF-M 32, f2/100mm would be better, diameter of the hole (external) ca. 20mm)



Now @ MFD & f/1.4 - star shaped bokeh "balls" - if I had opened the lens and put the paper in the aperture plane the outer stars wouldn't be so crippled, but I like that lens and disassembling is much easier than assembling
The lowest "star-circle" bokeh structure ist partly limited by the star in front of the lens, partly by the builtin aperture)


And last image MFD and f/8 or f/11 (now DOF is so deep that you can see the pattern in front of the lens but the stars have vanished from the LEDs but you can see the 7-blade-heptagon (o.k. if you look with the knowledge that the EF-M has 7 pblades) on some "bokeh balls"

 

[YuengLinger]

You can't know many professionals then, I doubt very much they're *all* bothered about this. And it's a bit tiresome that every time anything else is announced, people pop up saying the same thing. Patience - Rome wasn't built in a day! The RF system is only just over a year old!

Right, Scyrene. I've been reading about the crisis of a single card slot for months now, and hearing about it in youtube vids. I do prefer that second slot, JUST IN CASE. But worrying about losing one card worth of shots out of thousands of cards full of shots means giving up ALL shots that COULD be taken with RF primes. Talk about a no-brainer choice!

Yes, I understand that there are portions of weddings that must be captured and preserved to get paid and reduce lawsuits and ill will. Yes. But there are other parts of weddings that the best RF prime lenses can capture better than anything else available right now, parts that will not void contracts, etc. As said, details. Spontaneous portraits of groom, bride, and their key friends and family. Sure, it would be heartbreaking to lose, in that one out of a 1000 weddings, some of those beautiful extra shots, but not devastating. In fact, in the heat of the event, few members of the weddings would even remember being photographed in moments that were not directly related to the key narrative.

And for really careful photographers who do want to use these incredible primes right now, use 16GB SD cards and change 'em out more often. Or maybe 32GB is a better balance.

Point is, serious, results oriented photographers are going to grumble about the current limit of a single card slot, but I do know top notch wedding photographers who aren't giving up the creative and quality advantages of the RF primes just because of an extremely rare card failure issue. Phew, all the things to worry about? Physical damage to cameras, or theft, or, heaven forbid, accidents on the way to a venue or on the way home...Please. I think we are hearing the gnashing teeth of keyboard bound photographers who obsess over specs and features rather than get out and take photos.

And we might be hearing from those poor souls who believe that waiting until Canon produces a two-slot camera--holding out, withholding funds--is a way of speaking truth to power, of scolding those corporate scrooges. Fine. More power to you, honey. Leave the rf primes to those of us who say, "Damn the torpedoes!"

Just my opinions!

 

[alejandrobox]

You can't know many professionals then, I doubt very much they're *all* bothered about this. And it's a bit tiresome that every time anything else is announced, people pop up saying the same thing. Patience - Rome wasn't built in a day! The RF system is only just over a year old!

You can't know many professionals then, I doubt very much they're *all* bothered about this. And it's a bit tiresome that every time anything else is announced, people pop up saying the same thing. Patience - Rome wasn't built in a day! The RF system is only just over a year old!

I know at least 200 wedding photographers and recently I was in a meeting with almost 50. No one want to spend money in a camera with just 1 slot. It´s ridiculous. What bothers me and I don't understand is why Canon do that. It´s not something that they can´t do. Rome was not built in a day but I am sure that the Colosseum began by having good foundations. Basic should be first. And double slot is something basic for professionals who are being paid to get something that cannot be repeated.

 

[alejandrobox]

Right, Scyrene. I've been reading about the crisis of a single card slot for months now, and hearing about it in youtube vids. I do prefer that second slot, JUST IN CASE. But worrying about losing one card worth of shots out of thousands of cards full of shots means giving up ALL shots that COULD be taken with RF primes. Talk about a no-brainer choice!

Yes, I understand that there are portions of weddings that must be captured and preserved to get paid and reduce lawsuits and ill will. Yes. But there are other parts of weddings that the best RF prime lenses can capture better than anything else available right now, parts that will not void contracts, etc. As said, details. Spontaneous portraits of groom, bride, and their key friends and family. Sure, it would be heartbreaking to lose, in that one out of a 1000 weddings, some of those beautiful extra shots, but not devastating. In fact, in the heat of the event, few members of the weddings would even remember being photographed in moments that were not directly related to the key narrative.

And for really careful photographers who do want to use these incredible primes right now, use 16GB SD cards and change 'em out more often. Or maybe 32GB is a better balance.

Point is, serious, results oriented photographers are going to grumble about the current limit of a single card slot, but I do know top notch wedding photographers who aren't giving up the creative and quality advantages of the RF primes just because of an extremely rare card failure issue. Phew, all the things to worry about? Physical damage to cameras, or theft, or, heaven forbid, accidents on the way to a venue or on the way home...Please. I think we are hearing the gnashing teeth of keyboard bound photographers who obsess over specs and features rather than get out and take photos.

And we might be hearing from those poor souls who believe that waiting until Canon produces a two-slot camera--holding out, withholding funds--is a way of speaking truth to power, of scolding those corporate scrooges. Fine. More power to you, honey. Leave the rf primes to those of us who say, "Damn the torpedoes!"

Just my opinions!

When a client is paying you to capture unique moments that cannot be repeated, to take risk is not an option. I have to buy a camera that I only should use for details like you said? It´s that a joke? To spend 2000 dollars in a camera with one slot is not an option if you are a wedding photographer and don´t want to take risk. Among other things, because my prestige (and my money should be in risk). And I don´t understand why Canon do it. 2 slot is something really basic in a profesional camera.