Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM coming May 9, 2019

[QuisUtDeus]

We're going to see a lot of sharp cat photos from rich peoples living rooms soon

And the internet will be a happier place for it.

 

[QuisUtDeus]

I agree. This is just as true today as in the film era.

I remember when I started shooting (maybe a decade ago) that caring more about the body than the lenses was supposed to be the mark of a newbie. That caring more about bodies has become the norm is... interesting.

I see more impressive shots from old bodies with excellent lenses than vice versa, though of course skill is the biggest predictor of quality.

 

[QuisUtDeus]

Well, we may not have cared about the body so much, but we certainly cared about the film.

Now the body is the film, so to speak, determining the look.

A decade ago the context was still entirely digital. If it were film, I wouldn't have been involved. The advice to people asking was still "get a cheaper body and a nicer lens or two".

 

[3kramd5]

Now the body is the film, so to speak, determining the look.

I don’t agree. It would be really hard to pick out a camera from the look of a photo. I’d go so far as to say it would be impossible, disregarding blind luck.

Lighting, optics, and processing after the fact are what by and large gives unique looks.

 

[Ozarker]

I don’t agree. It would be really hard to pick out a camera from the look of a photo. I’d go so far as to say it would be impossible, disregarding blind luck.

Lighting, optics, and processing after the fact are what by and large gives unique looks.

Yup! And the same during the film era. I belong to a FaceBook group for vintage lenses. People there are apt to post that they like the old manual film era lenses because they like the "film" look. It always gives me a chuckle. It fascinates me. It just seems I remember film and paper choice being huge determiners of "look" and that the "film look" actually comes from using film... not from the lens. I've even set up surveys (polls?) with side by side photos taken on the same subject, same camera, and then digital vs vintage lenses. Nobody has ever been able to tell the difference with any reliable accuracy. They say they can, but they all fail the test. Then they accuse one of rigging the survey. They cannot possibly be wrong. Some are even so bold as to put down exactly which lens was used. Funny as hell.

 

[Bob Howland]

One substantial difference is that they didn't bother with the EOS-1 until there were enough EF lenses that a pro would actually buy an EOS-1.

Not exactly. The EOS-1 was introduced in 1989. Also introduced that year was its holy trinity of lenses: 28-80 f/2.8-4, 20-35 f/2.8 and 80-200 f/2.8. The first four lenses introduced for the EOS system, in 1987, were the 50 f/1.8, 35-105 f/3.5-4.5, 35-70 f/3.5-4.5 and 100-300 f/5.6, definitely not high end. There were some very high end lenses introduced between 1987 and 1989 but in 1987, the Canon F1 using the FD lens mount was king and Canon was introducing lenses for both the FD and EOS mounts. There was even an 85 f/1.2 for the FD mount. The 50 f/1.0 was the first lens that Canon introduced for the EOS mount while stating that it could not be made for the FD mount. That was in 1989.

In 1987, I owned a serious FD system and was extremely annoyed that Canon didn't see fit to make an FD body that had an in-focus indicator in the viewfinder. It wouldn't have been difficult, although there was no way that an FD lens could have been controlled by an FD body. There simply wasn't room in the mount.

View by series - Canon Camera Museum

You can see Canon's cameras by product series.

global.canon

View by series - Canon Camera Museum

You can see Canon's cameras by product series.

global.canon

View by series - Canon Camera Museum

You can see Canon's cameras by product series.

global.canon

 

[Ozarker]

After seeing all the bokeh talk in the previous few posts, I must say that I am happy 99% of my photos do not have the bokeh balls... and I'm even more happy that bokeh balls do not make a photo great or not great. Unless, of course, most of the photography some people pursue is bokeh ball photography. Never had anyone complain about my bokeh balls.

 

[Ozarker]

The problem with the 50 isn't the nature of the vignetting, which is unavoidable, but its degree. Just like the 50L it's got so much of it that you're not getting f1.2 worth of DOF for most of the frame. In practice you're rather getting the DOF of a 50mm f1.4 lens that's well corrected for vignetting. I guess that this is just the result of the compromises that had to be made between marketing asking for a f1.2 lens that's sharp and a small size. IMO the 50 RF would have been a better tool had it been designed as a f1.4 from the start and nearly no one would have seen the difference in pictures.

It's totally the smart thing to do as they can sell it for €2500 euros and can introduce the RF mount with a fanfare but it's not really what serves the users the most IMO. I think that a 50mm f1.4 with low vignetting and zero astigmatism would have made for a more significant difference over previous designs.

Anyway I'm quite excited to see which design choices Canon will make with this new 85mm and how they'll implement the apodization exactly. For starters that it's a coating technology is quite something as Canon claims they could more easily implement apodization in various designs.

And then some of us (me) add heavy vignetting to most shots anyway. So, while most assume vignetting is a bad thing, some of us (me, at least) happen to like it a lot.

 

[Ozarker]

I remember when I started shooting (maybe a decade ago) that caring more about the body than the lenses was supposed to be the mark of a newbie. That caring more about bodies has become the norm is... interesting.

"...skill is the biggest predictor of quality."

Skill? Nawwwwwwww.... Everyone knows that every possible shadow detail, aberration, vignette, etc., must be corrected in lens/camera. We pay so we don't have to have things like skill. If my photos suck, it's the gear.

 

[Fleetie]

... or something like a transparent (LCD) display in the lens with high resolution which creates the apodization pattern Some menu item where you can draw you own apodization pattern in-camera.

This could be really good.

It could give gimmicky bokeh effects like hearts and stars, but also more serious effects like gaussian, lorentzian, sinc, or uniform, hard-edged disc bokeh balls.

I can't see this being available for a long time, or probably never. Nice idea, though.

 

[PureClassA]

Again. Great lens. But dear lord please can we get an announcement on trinity L glass or non-L primes. 15-35, 24-70 2.8 IS si vous plait? Those 20 something non L EF primes are long in the tooth. RF versions?

 

[degos]

It just seems I remember film and paper choice being huge determiners of "look" and that the "film look" actually comes from using film... not from the lens.

I'm sure you are so experienced that you couldn't possibly be wrong, but film-era lenses also had different rendering than modern designed-for-digital. Partly due to leaded glass, more primitive and single-sided coatings and generally fewer optical elemens.

 

[Ozarker]

I'm sure you are so experienced that you couldn't possibly be wrong, but film-era lenses also had different rendering than modern designed-for-digital. Partly due to leaded glass, more primitive and single-sided coatings and generally fewer optical elemens.

True, but that isn't a "film look". That is from the lens. I own and use 40+ various M42 mount lenses on my 5D Mark III. A Helios 44-2 58mm f/2 lens can achieve a swirly bokeh, flairs a certain way, vignettes a certain way, renders colors a certain way. Has nothing to do with film. It is the look one can get from a particular lens. The "Helios look" in this case.

 

[sanj]

We're going to see a lot of sharp cat photos from rich peoples living rooms soon

Hahahah

 

[Mbell75]

One does get the impression that Canon had to release the mirrorless new generation of bodies and lenses ahead of their preferred schedule, which would probably have happened end 2019 with a pro IBIS and the RP together with 6-7 L lenses and 3-4 more mainstream and less expensive lenses like the 24-240. Nikon’s move and/or Sony’s growth forced an early and rather incoherent timing, with the R cobbled together and whatever lenses were ready for production, the rest following in a haphazard way. This is of course pure speculation

Yea, I mean Canon has only had what? FIVE YEARS of watching Sony? Embarrassing they took so long to get into FF mirrorless and they were still not ready.

 

[Mbell75]

The first "Pro" EOS body, the EOS-1, was not introduced for 30 months after the first EF mount camera, the EOS 650. This is nothing new.

That was 30 years ago when cameras were released at a snails pace and Canon was first in everything. Its not 1989 any longer and its this type of thinking that has Canon trailing WAY behind Sony in everything.

 

[Serenesunrise]

Yea, I mean Canon has only had what? FIVE YEARS of watching Sony? Embarrassing they took so long to get into FF mirrorless and they were still not ready.

Lol...Another Troll...
What is embarrassing is it has taken Sony five years.(.they are on their third version of the A7 and A7R ) and they still can’t design a great handling camera with easy menus.
The Sony FF camera’s are seriously flawed... but if you like that go ahead.

 

[Mbell75]

Lol...Another Troll...
What is embarrassing is it has taken Sony five years.(.they are on their third version of the A7 and A7R ) and they still can’t design a great handling camera with easy menus.
The Sony FF camera’s are seriously flawed... but if you like that go ahead.

A $60 grip takes care of the ergo problems for people with banana hands who like giant cameras and with 3 pages of favorites, The whole "confusing menu" thing is for dumb people.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Those 20 something non L EF primes are long in the tooth. RF versions?

They are from 2012. Practically infants in terms of lens age.

 

[3kramd5]

Well, look at the resolution. Higher resolution would rule the a7iii out. Look at the noise. Low noise in dark shots, or high dynamic range would rule the EOS R out, as would a stabilized 24/1.4 shot. I agree it's not a Velvia vs. Kodachrome difference.

I mean, sure you could count pixels and compare them to known camera specs. But looking at noise in a photo doesn’t really tell you anything unless you also know how it was shot.