Torn on low light sports lens 85/135 RF

[KKCFamilyman]

Hey everyone,

I am torn on either the rf85 1.2 or rf135 1.8 for my kids track meets to keep the iso down. Also my sons water polo games. Of course portraits of the kids too. I am curious if anyone has a recommendation. I own the 70-200 2.8 and that is just not enough light on some of these night meets. I am not a pro but will invest if the glass is worth it.

 

[danfaz]

I've used both for indoor basketball games, and my vote is for the 135. I know it's a bit slower, aperture-wise, but the AF is significantly faster than the 85.

 

[Del Paso]

I've used both for indoor basketball games, and my vote is for the 135. I know it's a bit slower, aperture-wise, but the AF is significantly faster than the 85.

+1
Reason? Just the fact that I'm using the 135 (compared to the 85mm) 90% of the time. For me, 85mm is a bit too short...but that's a purely subjective opinion. In the end, nobody else can choose for you. Base your decision on which focal you'd be choosing in a "typical" situation if you had both lenses.

 

[Viggo]

I recently sold my RF 85 L to get the 135 f1,8 L just because of AF. The 85 is simply sublime in every aspect, couldn’t ask for more, except AF where it just doesn’t work for something moving…

 

[unfocused]

I’m not sure you will see any net gain. You gain about a stop in light, but you need to crop more to get the same framing.

Of course that assumes you are shooting the 70-200 at 200 most of the time.

 

[KKCFamilyman]

I’m not sure you will see any net gain. You gain about a stop in light, but you need to crop more to get the same framing.

Of course that assumes you are shooting the 70-200 at 200 most of the time.

I just need something in the 85-150mm range but f2 or better. The iso is 40k in my shots so if I can cut that in half that is the goal.

 

[unfocused]

I just need something in the 85-150mm range but f2 or better. The iso is 40k in my shots so if I can cut that in half that is the goal.

Sounds like the 135 is the way to go then, if you can get your hands on one.

 

[KKCFamilyman]

If I cannot get the 135mm in time. Does anyone have experience with the RF 85mm 1.2 in low light for sports? Track and water polo.

 

[Viggo]

If I cannot get the 135mm in time. Does anyone have experience with the RF 85mm 1.2 in low light for sports? Track and water polo.

Not those sports, but AF is the only reason I got rid of it, I can’t take the frustration

 

[davidespinosa]

A $2600 lens with slow autofocus ?
That's crazy !

Of course, slow is relative, but still...

 

[danfaz]

A $2600 lens with slow autofocus ?
That's crazy !

The RF 85 1.2 is not slow to focus. It's miles ahead of the EF version.
It's just not a sports lens, so its AF isn't as fast as a 70-200 or the new RF 135 with their Nano USM motors.

 

[Viggo]

A $2600 lens with slow autofocus ?
That's crazy !

Of course, slow is relative, but still...

It uses the biggest USM Canon makes, think it’s the same as the one in the 400 f2.8 III. But, the focusing group of the 85 is very heavy, so it takes time. But, yes, it smokes the EF version and many other older L-lenses.

 

[Maximilian]

Apart from the AF speed discussion, I would give another vote for the 135.

I've done indoor sports in different light conditions, even in the old film days.
From football (soccer) over volleyball to dancing, and even snooker.
Okay some might call billiards no sports but even here a fast AF is highly appreciated.
But I always needed focal length.
I love the 85mm FL for portrait, but for indoor sports it should be 135 to 200 at least.

 

[Viggo]

After getting to know the RF 135 I can clearly state that it is much better focusing than the RF 85 L. It’s faster for sure, getting much more keepers when things really move. But, what I really love is that when it misses, it misses by very little and gets quickly back on track. Where the 85 throws its hands up and racks focus and gives up the 135 stays on target.

 

[mawalker]

I've just replaced my Sigma Art 85mm with the RF 85mm 1.2 and whilst I'm yet to photograph a wedding, playing around with it in the house, it's slower than the Sigma (on the R5). And personally, for anything sporty, I'd go 70-200 F2.8 and not worry in the slightest about the ISO.

 

[AJ]

Another option to consider would be Sigma 105/1.4 (EF mount, adapted). This would get you half-way-in-between with regards to focal length and fstop. Not sure if you'd get the required AF speed, though. It would probably be wise to try it out first by renting, before buying.

 

[koenkooi]

Another option to consider would be Sigma 105/1.4 (EF mount, adapted). This would get you half-way-in-between with regards to focal length and fstop. Not sure if you'd get the required AF speed, though. It would probably be wise to try it out first by renting, before buying.

The 105 is very front heavy, especially using the EF-RF adapter. It also is even more comically large than the RF85L, it grabs a lot of attention.

 

[Doormat]

Like previous poster said
I’d stick with the fast 70-200 and bump the iso up.

I’m assuming you are using the R5 ?? (seems everyone and his dog has a R5 atm) lol

I don’t know enough about the R line to give advice, but for me personally, if I were photographing my son in low light sports events I’d be seriously tempted to dump my bodies and grab a used R3 with lower mp.

 

[Viggo]

After a lot of struggle with ye’ol firmware updates I now keep having 100% hit rate with fast moving subjects and 80% with blistering fast objects like tiny birds taking off. The 135 on the R5 is a dream come true for me…

 

[john1970]

Personally, I would stick with the 70-200 mm f2.8 and just increase the ISO as others have already suggested. If you are already at ISO 6400 or greater then I would consider the RF 135 mm f1.8 lens. I would rather have the zoom flexibility and deal with high ISO in post.