Canon officially announces the RF 85mm f/1.2L USM

bhf3737

---
Sep 9, 2015
448
436
Calgary, Canada
www.flickr.com
Oversampling is the way to go. You get even more detail than 1:1 4K. It's the 4K method Z6/A7III/S1employ.
I know this thread is not about 4K video processing and we are off topic, so my apology.
"Oversampling is the way to go" is not necessarily the way to go, I think. In signal processing theory, oversampling (i.e. getting more samples from a signal, as in Nyquest theorem) introduces unwanted artifacts and aliasing and these two need to be filtered with a Low Pass filter, which is also known as AA filter. So you may end up with better noise control, at the expense of slightly more blurred picture. Doing so needs more processing power manifested by reduced battery life and more heat generated.
So an engineering decision for camera manufacturers is reaching a compromise between the sample size, crop factor, sensor read-out speed, processing power and heat management. Some manufacturers prefer to go for oversampling as you mentioned, the others may go for pixel binning (Z7?), line skipping (A7Riii) and cropping (EOS-R) or a combination of them. So far, no camera manufacturer has come up with a technology which is a clear winner here.
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,092
1,031
Alberta, Canada
"Many of us are still with Canon and are patiently waiting to finally get FF 4K (the only option for that in the cinema line costs $37,000)."

Oh I get it - it's like the patience of a child before Christmas. :) I think that's called impatience. ;)

Jack
 

Larsskv

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 12, 2015
763
183
The new RF 85 f1.2 L seems to fulfill the lust for sharpness that even the most demanding of us craves for. Personally I feel torn, as GAS drives me to get the best RF-lenses, but on the other hand, for portrait purposes especially, I find that sharpness is overrated. I think the EF 85 LII is sharp enough, even at f1.2, if the shot is perfectly in focus and not affected by chromatic aberration. Since I’m an idiot with GAS and too much money to spend, I guess GAS will win, and I will get it sooner or later anyway.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: sanj and caMARYnon

Cee Log

I'm New Here
Feb 13, 2019
14
8
I know this thread is not about 4K video processing and we are off topic, so my apology.
"Oversampling is the way to go" is not necessarily the way to go, I think. In signal processing theory, oversampling (i.e. getting more samples from a signal, as in Nyquest theorem) introduces unwanted artifacts and aliasing and these two need to be filtered with a Low Pass filter, which is also known as AA filter. So you may end up with better noise control, at the expense of slightly more blurred picture. Doing so needs more processing power manifested by reduced battery life and more heat generated.
So an engineering decision for camera manufacturers is reaching a compromise between the sample size, crop factor, sensor read-out speed, processing power and heat management. Some manufacturers prefer to go for oversampling as you mentioned, the others may go for pixel binning (Z7?), line skipping (A7Riii) and cropping (EOS-R) or a combination of them. So far, no camera manufacturer has come up with a technology which is a clear winner here.
I just think Canon went for the lazy route. Sony did battle heat management & battery life but now have it under control on their third gen cameras. Nikon/Panasonic got it right on their first attempt. The AA filter isn't anymore an issue by oversampling since Canon uses them anyways in 5DIV, EOS R/RP etc. There is just no valid reason why we should deal with a 1.8x crop in 2019. At least give us a pixel binned option. Canon goes that direction for 1080p since 5D2.. but for 4K it's 1:1 crop or nothing since 1DC came out in 2013. It made sense back then as that camera only had 18MP resulting in an acceptable 1.3x crop. Same with 1DX2. But for 5D4/EOS R the crop becomes insane, hence the backlash from the video community.

Sorry for the OT. I rest my case!
 

Hector1970

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 22, 2012
1,086
260
I fail to see the required relationship between body and lens prices. Of course the price isn't near the RP body price. But what does that have to do with it?

BTW: Both the R and RP are high end for the vast majority of people... no matter the lens.
I'm surprised you fail to see the relationship. For alot of people an R or RP is a financial stretch, the max they would pay for a camera. They are unlikely to buy the 85MM. If you can afford to pay for a 1DR paying for this lens is on'y a little additional extra.
 

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
3,110
634
I'm surprised you fail to see the relationship. For alot of people an R or RP is a financial stretch, the max they would pay for a camera. They are unlikely to buy the 85MM. If you can afford to pay for a 1DR paying for this lens is on'y a little additional extra.
Canon big whites end all discussion of pricing relationship with bodies. There's nothing to discuss, if you want a look, a perspective, a certain focal length... you pay for that glass. It has no bearing on the body you connect it to. Saying otherwise is grasping at straws and the only thin and slightly possible bearing is the fact there are only two price points for R bodies at this time. That conclusion will be left in the illogical dust once more R bodies are announced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cwall64

sanj

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 22, 2012
3,156
49
Is that because you believe your opinion represents that of the majority of video and/or hybrid shooters? I supppse that could be true, but I highly doubt you can support that claim with evidence.
He has at least one more person. Me. And Canon will up their game in the pro model. No stress.
 

Joules

EOS RP
Jul 16, 2017
274
181
Hamburg, Germany
At least give us a pixel binned option. Canon goes that direction for 1080p since 5D2.. but for 4K it's 1:1 crop or nothing since 1DC came out in 2013.
Are you sure Canon is using binning in any of their cameras for video?

For the 5D2 and 5D3 I'm almost certain they didn't. It's just line skipping, based on what I remember from the time I followed the magic lantern forum closely.
 

jonebize

I'm New Here
Dec 15, 2018
24
19
The reason everyone is complaining is because Canon does a poor job actually demonstrating the advantages of such a large, expensive lens. Look at the product description on Amazon. It's a list of the different types of lens elements and coatings. They think anyone has a clue what any of that is? Do they think anyone really understands the optical advantages of the new lens mount? They have to state (and show) the actual, experiential advantages that matter to the end user. So stupid. You shouldn't have to buy a $2,700 lens in order to actually see the advantages over the preceding model. Maybe this is why the camera industry isn't doing well.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
3,956
1,523
Irving, Texas
I'm surprised you fail to see the relationship. For alot of people an R or RP is a financial stretch, the max they would pay for a camera. They are unlikely to buy the 85MM. If you can afford to pay for a 1DR paying for this lens is on'y a little additional extra.
Because your implication that the lens is presented primarily (context of your statement) for the RP is flawed. The lenses and bodies are distinct and separate tools. I find it silly to criticize it for being out of line with the RP price when there is the R and further body and lens models to come. Don't you think Canon will later release non-L lenses? Then there is also the EF + adapter route. Canon is still giving the adapter away with purchase last I checked.

So lets look at the logic: The 1DX II is going for about $5400 right now. An EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III is $11,999. Is that just a little extra? Hmmmm....

For me a 1DX II is a financial stretch. If I bought a 1DX II I would be unlikely to buy the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III. Fortunately Canon also offers the EF 400mm f/5.6L. Then, what about those using a massive 400mm, 500mm, 600mm, or even 800mm on a 7D Mark II?

Lens price has zero to do with body price. Two different tools. The price of this new 85mm lens has zero to do with the price of ANY body. However, if I were to buy the RP (highly likely) I would also buy this lens because it fits my use case.

***Not knocking you personally. I just do not see what the price of the RP has to do with it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Douglas

LukasS

Yeap
Dec 24, 2014
106
5
Pricing is alright IMO, considering shrinking market, quality and longevity of the lens. It will last many bodies over and it's being built with the future in mind.

I'm considering moving to mirrorles Canon only due to 28-70 F2, my 24-70 2.8 is mostly used lens in my set and even having very cheap Canon RP with 28-70/2 is perfect for my use. I'm still waiting for pro mirrorles body, but in the meantime I will spend by the end of the year some cash on this set.

85/1.2 would be nice addition as well, as I love to shoot portraits and do them a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cwall64

sdsr

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 14, 2012
912
7
The price is very high no doubt.

But I have to admit, I think the the RF50 is worth it. And I didn’t like the 85 IS. So, I think it’s dumb we have to pay such a high price to get perfection, but I think it will be...
Yes, it probably is worth it, given what it is. But the price is so high not just because of "perfection" (I assume you're referring to wide-open sharpness, absence of aberrations etc.) but perfection in a 1.2 lens. It's not clear to me why the two have to go together, though. I think Nikon were smart to make the first primes for their Z cameras f/1.8 and save the faster ones for later. On Nikon forums there's endless complaint that the 50mm 1.8 is overpriced at c. $600. They miss the point because it too approaches optical perfection (again, in terms of sharpness and lack of aberrations wide open) but, because it's only 1.8, it's vastly cheaper (and much smaller and lighter) than the Canon 50 1.2; it's not just another nifty fifty. (Even so, I'm surprised Nikon dodn't charge more for it.) But at least these Canon 1.2 primes make the Sony FE 135 1.8 I just bought seem a relative bargain at only $1900 (relatively small, too)....
 
  • Like
Reactions: jonebize

RayValdez360

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 6, 2012
409
167
I know this thread is not about 4K video processing and we are off topic, so my apology.
"Oversampling is the way to go" is not necessarily the way to go, I think. In signal processing theory, oversampling (i.e. getting more samples from a signal, as in Nyquest theorem) introduces unwanted artifacts and aliasing and these two need to be filtered with a Low Pass filter, which is also known as AA filter. So you may end up with better noise control, at the expense of slightly more blurred picture. Doing so needs more processing power manifested by reduced battery life and more heat generated.
So an engineering decision for camera manufacturers is reaching a compromise between the sample size, crop factor, sensor read-out speed, processing power and heat management. Some manufacturers prefer to go for oversampling as you mentioned, the others may go for pixel binning (Z7?), line skipping (A7Riii) and cropping (EOS-R) or a combination of them. So far, no camera manufacturer has come up with a technology which is a clear winner here.
c100 is oversampled and it is still like the best 1080p camera out. the sensor is old as hell but it is sharper and has less noise than the 5d iv.
 

Larsskv

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 12, 2015
763
183
The computer generated mtfs Canon has released of the RF 85 f1.2 L compares favorably against Lensrentals mtf measurements of the Otus 85 and Sigma 85.

And that is at f1.2 compared to f1.4!

The best lens Lensrentals has measured wide open from an mtf standpoint is the new Sony FE 135 f1.8. The Canon RF 85 f1.2 seems comparable to the Sony.

But that is f1.2 vs f1.8!
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia