Canon officially announces the RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS & RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

[flip314]

Please drop the price for Canon RF 85mm F1.2 L.

I do not want the Canon RF 85mm F1.2 L DS. I do not want any compromise on IQ.

The non-DS is $300 cheaper than the DS

 

[6degrees]

The non-DS is $300 cheaper than the DS

Need more cut to justify the price.

 

[Graphic.Artifacts]

Had a chance to demo the 70-200 and the regular 85 1.2 today as well as the other two RF IS trinity zooms. All very impressive to be sure. I really likes the new 70-200. I probably would have preferred a shorter throw from 70-200 but it seem tight and very well made. Too bad it doesn't mount on any of the 4 Canon EOS bodies that I own. The Draw on the conventional 85 1.2 seemed really superb as far as I could tell. Hope Canon is working on a killer R body for those lenses because the competition sure isn't resting. Personally I'd be aiming for something very similar to the Panasonic S1's but with Canon's superior DPAF. I'm still willing to give Canon some time assuming they are trying to get it right but the clock is ticking. The feature sets of the M62 and 1DX3 seem to indicate that Canon is moving in the right direction. In the meantime there are some really nice RF lenses out there looking for a good home.

 

[Michael Clark]

Please drop the price for Canon RF 85mm F1.2 L.

I do not want the Canon RF 85mm F1.2 L DS. I do not want any compromise on IQ.

Yes, because IQ is only about microscopic differences in acutance and absolutely nothing else whatsoever, right?

 

[Michael Clark]

In the UK the RF 85mm f1.2 USM DS is £ 3,249.00 as opposed to £ 2,799.00 for the regular version. £ 450.00 more is a hefty premium for an already expensive lens for anyone other than professionals making a living from either fashion, portraiture, weddings or food.
The RF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM is slightly more tolerable at £ 2,699.00 given the list price for the EF 70-200 f2.8L IS USM III is £ 2,149.00 (you can buy for £ 1,999.00).

The problem for Canon is the RP and R only have two non L affordable lenses the RF 24-240mm f4 - 6.3 IS USM and the RF 35mm f1.8 IS STM and this is certainly limiting purchasers. Now the holy trinity is delivered Canon needs to address the lower end and fast or risk losing out to Sony.

Go back to the RF 85mm f1.2L duo, they would have to be appreciably better than the EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM lens to tempt me as this lens is such a good all rounder and at £ 1,379.00 its almost half the price of the RF 85mm f1.2L IS USM. As for defocusing I can achieve similar results using a polyester filter from Lee Filters that maintains sharpness at the plane of focus but adds softness to out of focus areas for a few £ / Euros / Dollars (Polyester soft set in frames which fits their 100mm holder).

The EF 85mm f/1.4L IS is a good lens in terms of imaging a flat test chart and staying sharp all of the way out to the edges, but when using it to take photographs of a three dimensional world, I'm a bit underwhelmed by the character of out of focus areas for a "premium" prime lens. That's probably due to the effects of the amount of flat field correction needed to get that flat test chart performance.

 

[SecureGSM]

The EF 85mm f/1.4L IS is a good lens in terms of imaging a flat test chart and staying sharp all of the way out to the edges, but when using it to take photographs of a three dimensional world, I'm a bit underwhelmed by the character of out of focus areas for a "premium" prime lens. That's probably due to the effects of the amount of flat field correction needed to get that flat test chart performance.

I was a bit underwhelmed by the level of CA with the lens. That along affects the character of OOF areas quite a bit.

 

[Michael Clark]

I was a bit underwhelmed by the level of CA with the lens. That along affects the character of OOF areas quite a bit.

It doesn't necessarily have to. The (ancient) EF 135mm f/2 L has relatively high CA compared to many more modern lenses but also gives out of focus areas a buttery smooth look none of the "super sharp" lenses can duplicate.

 

[jd7]

I have to say the RF 70-200 2.8L IS and RF 85 1.2L DS do look good to me! Size and weight of the RF 70-200 seem fantastic (compared with EF versions),. Will have to see how it performs I guess, but seems like it will be great. And I didn't think I'd have any interest at all in the RF 85 1.2L DS, but I do like what I've seen so far. I still need to see a lot more sample photos from it yet, and I'm unlikely to spend the money on one really, but it's appealing to me more than I was expecting.

 

[londonxt]

The feature sets of the M62 and 1DX3 seem to indicate that Canon is moving in the right direction. In the meantime there are some really nice RF lenses out there looking for a good home.

I can offer simple home cooking

 

[glness]

From the news release: "The ninth and tenth lenses in the RF family are both powerful tools for photographers using the EOS R or EOS RP cameras, in particular, those shooting sports or wildlife photography with the RF 70-200mm F2.8L or portrait photography with the RF 85mm F1.2L USM DS."

Sure, the RF 70-200mm lens looks promising and innovative. However, what sports or wildlife photographer is going to want to put it on an RF mirrorless that only shoots 5 fps with AF?

 

[flip314]

Sure, the RF 70-200mm lens looks promising and innovative. However, what sports or wildlife photographer is going to want to put it on an RF mirrorless that only shoots 5 fps with AF?

In 1987, Canon released the mediocre EOS 650 to support its brand new lineup of EF lenses. It was 2 years until the EOS-1 came out, and by then everyone had switched to Sony.

 

[Kit.]

In 1987, Canon released the mediocre EOS 650 to support its brand new lineup of EF lenses. It was 2 years until the EOS-1 came out, and by then everyone had switched to Sony.

Almost. This one was A9 of that time (with Sony A mount).

/s

 

[Michael Clark]

In 1987, Canon released the mediocre EOS 650 to support its brand new lineup of EF lenses. It was 2 years until the EOS-1 came out, and by then everyone had switched to Sony.

Nah, but a lot of Canon FD shooters did switch to Nikon, some out of necessity and others out of spite.

They all came running back, and brought a lot of other long time Nikon shooters with them, when the advantages of an all electronic connection between the camera and body and Ring USM AF motors could be fully exploited by the late 1989 EOS-1 and its 1994 followup EOS-1N. Within 3-4 years of the introduction of the EOS-1 Canon passed Nikon as the system of choice for photojournalists and professional sports/action shooters. At the Seoul 1988 Summer games Nikon was still the dominant camera system in use. At the 1992 games in Barcelona it was split about 50/50 and the tide had clearly turned. By Atlanta in 1996 there were almost no Nikons to be seen in a sea of white lenses.

 

[privatebydesign]

Nah, but a lot of Canon FD shooters did switch to Nikon, some out of necessity and others out of spite.

They all came running back, and brought a lot of other long time Nikon shooters with them, when the advantages of an all electronic connection between the camera and body and Ring USM AF motors could be fully exploited by the late 1989 EOS-1 and its 1994 followup EOS-1N. Within 3-4 years of the introduction of the EOS-1 Canon passed Nikon as the system of choice for photojournalists and professional sports/action shooters. At the Seoul 1988 Summer games Nikon was still the dominant camera system in use. At the 1992 games in Barcelona it was split about 50/50 and the tide had clearly turned. By Atlanta in 1996 there were almost no Nikons to be seen in a sea of white lenses.

Two big decisions Nikon made that were the route cause of their electronic and then digital issues and subsequent sales demise. One, the decision to put the AF motor in the body rather than the lens all whilst keeping that darn F mount, and two, the decision that 135 format digital sensors 'were not needed or desirable' so it took them way too long to offer them and because of that their 'best' lenses image circle didn't even cover the ff format! At the last count there were around 50 different F mount 70-200 f2.8's

They have since gone back on all of it, they put the AF motors inside the lenses creating untold compatibility issues within the overstretched F mount, they have changed the mount, and they are now fully embracing the market demand for above average priced FF censured bodies.

 

[Michael Clark]

Two big decisions Nikon made that were the route cause of their electronic and then digital issues and subsequent sales demise. One, the decision to put the AF motor in the body rather than the lens all whilst keeping that darn F mount, and two, the decision that 135 format digital sensors 'were not needed or desirable' so it took them way too long to offer them and because of that their 'best' lenses image circle didn't even cover the ff format! At the last count there were around 50 different F mount 70-200 f2.8's

They have since gone back on all of it, they put the AF motors inside the lenses creating untold compatibility issues within the overstretched F mount, they have changed the mount, and they are now fully embracing the market demand for above average priced FF censured bodies.

It was over in the 1990s before anyone offered a full frame digital sensor. Keeping clunky mechanical interfaces from the late 1950s to control aperture as well as AF is what did them in. Canon introduced USM AF motors in 1987 and introduced the EOS-1 in 1989 that could take advantage of the all electronic interface between the camera and lens.

Canon took over as the market leader in 1996 on the basis of AF performance and hasn't looked back since.

Not only was AF performance superior, but so was consistency of exposure from frame-to-frame. This did not become critical until the dawn of the digital age, when it became a deal breaker for folks doing time lapse photography.

I will agree that Nikon's reluctance to sell a FF digital camera for five years from late 2002, when Canon introduced the 1Ds, until late 2007 when Nikon finally introduced the D3 hurt their ability to compete in the "pro" market segment.

 

[Michael Clark]

From the news release: "The ninth and tenth lenses in the RF family are both powerful tools for photographers using the EOS R or EOS RP cameras, in particular, those shooting sports or wildlife photography with the RF 70-200mm F2.8L or portrait photography with the RF 85mm F1.2L USM DS."

Sure, the RF 70-200mm lens looks promising and innovative. However, what sports or wildlife photographer is going to want to put it on an RF mirrorless that only shoots 5 fps with AF?

One of the first lenses Canon released in the EF mount back in 1987 was the EF 300mm f/2.8L USM (the very first USM lens). The lens had a focus preset function, full-time manual focusing, and electronic ring powered manual focusing which allows the focusing speed adjustment in three steps.

The EOs-1 body was not introduced until two years later in 1989. Patience, my friend. Have some patience.

 

[Act444]

Yes, the body that will fully utilize these new killer RF mount lenses does not exist yet. I don’t doubt that it will eventually though.

 

[jeffa4444]

The EF 85mm f/1.4L IS is a good lens in terms of imaging a flat test chart and staying sharp all of the way out to the edges, but when using it to take photographs of a three dimensional world, I'm a bit underwhelmed by the character of out of focus areas for a "premium" prime lens. That's probably due to the effects of the amount of flat field correction needed to get that flat test chart performance.

The more I use it, the more I love it for portraits. I dont shoot test charts.

 

[JTP]

I got to shoot with the RF 70-200 2.8 at the expo @ the Javits center. It's absolutely incredible! I also have the RF 85mm 1.2, RF 28-70 f2, & RF 50mm 1.2 and I'm excited for the addition of the RF 70-200 to my bag.

 

[SecureGSM]

I got to shoot with the RF 70-200 2.8 at the expo @ the Javits center. It's absolutely incredible! I also have the RF 85mm 1.2, RF 28-70 f2, & RF 50mm 1.2 and I'm excited for the addition of the RF 70-200 to my bag.

Great. What is so incredible about this lens from your perspective? A genuine question. Thank you.