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

[Cwall64]

I’ve seen many professional portrait and wedding photographers with an 85/1.2. Had one myself, swapped it for the f/1.4 IS version (although cost was not a factor in that decision).

I love the EF 50 1.2 and the EF 85 1.2 II, when i bought the R i bought the RF 50 1.2, and now i have pre-ordered the 85. I do not understand what all the complaining is about - if it will not pay for itself over the time you want to depreciate it for the business, don't buy it. at that point it seems like a perfect candidate to rent when needed... And Canon will come out with the f/1.8 or 1.4 over time.

I would love to own a BIG white 300, 400,etc EF, but i only use a couple of times a year so easier to rent than buy... But i do not see all the complaining of cost on them.

 

[Ozarker]

I love the EF 50 1.2 and the EF 85 1.2 II, when i bought the R i bought the RF 50 1.2, and now i have pre-ordered the 85. I do not understand what all the complaining is about - if it will not pay for itself over the time you want to depreciate it for the business, don't buy it. at that point it seems like a perfect candidate to rent when needed... And Canon will come out with the f/1.8 or 1.4 over time.

I would love to own a BIG white 300, 400,etc EF, but i only use a couple of times a year so easier to rent than buy... But i do not see all the complaining of cost on them.

They complain for the same reason potential clients might complain about the cost of a shoot. Silly thinking. There are lots of things in life people want, but don't want to pay for... then act persecuted on forums.

 

[David the street guy]

They complain for the same reason potential clients might complain about the cost of a shoot. Silly thinking. There are lots of things in life people want, but don't want to pay for... then act persecuted on forums.

It seems reasonable (and even sometimes useful) to complain about the cost of things we need to pay for (electricity, food, public transit, etc.), but not so much for things we want but easily can do without, like a photoshoot or an amazing new lens…

It would be totally irresponsible for me to buy the RF 85 f/1.2, but I hope many people will do, and I can't wait to go to my local store to try it!

 

[koenkooi]

Canon released an interview and 2 showcases by ambassadors last week: Interview with developers

Fluff pieces, but it does show more sample images and photos of the lens itself next to other RF lenses.

 

[Mort]

No, not throwaway, but not high-end either. I think they're right where the 5D4 and 6D2 are in terms of position in the lineup, though I think the R might be a little below the 5D4 in a couple of ways. I like the ruggedness of the Mk IV and it is just a great all-around performer to me.

I have the RP also, and I really like it. It's what I chose to get a taste of the full frame mirrorless, given that I have a number of Canon lenses on hand.

How do you like the RP? I played with it in store and came away with the thought that if my 6D died tomorrow, I'd probably snag one of those as cheaply as I could as a holdover camera. Loved how small, yet comfortable it was, especially with the RF 35 on it.

 

[Viggo]

I saw a review of the 85 RF where they stated pretty much what we all expected, but they were quite disappointed with corner and edg performance regarding sharpness. Anyone seen this in other reviews, are there other reviews yet?

 

[koenkooi]

I saw a review of the 85 RF where they stated pretty much what we all expected, but they were quite disappointed with corner and edg performance regarding sharpness. Anyone seen this in other reviews, are there other reviews yet?

I've only seen a single indenpendent review so far, this one. All the others I can find were Canon sponsored where the harshest criticism was "maybe a bit large". Do you have links for the review(s) you encountered?

 

[stevelee]

I saw a review of the 85 RF where they stated pretty much what we all expected, but they were quite disappointed with corner and edg performance regarding sharpness. Anyone seen this in other reviews, are there other reviews yet?

A lot of folks consider fuzziness around the edges of an 85mm lens to be a feature, not a bug. I would think those who want an f/1.2 to include a lot of them.

 

[Viggo]

I've only seen a single indenpendent review so far, this one. All the others I can find were Canon sponsored where the harshest criticism was "maybe a bit large". Do you have links for the review(s) you encountered?

I believe it was this one:

Canon RF 85mm F1.2L USM review

Is this the lens that could make Canon portrait photographers switch to the mirrorless RF format?

www.digitalcameraworld.com

 

[Viggo]

A lot of folks consider fuzziness around the edges of an 85mm lens to be a feature, not a bug. I would think those who want an f/1.2 to include a lot of them.

I have the RF50 and it’s not soft at the edges, and that doesn’t take away for any background or smoothness. So I don’t think it NEEDS to have fuzzy edges to have nice background.

 

[Del Paso]

RF 1,2/85: next DXO victim.

 

[koenkooi]

Some more test pictures: pictureline.com. A huge difference in CA in the FoCal shots.

 

[stevelee]

I have the RF50 and it’s not soft at the edges, and that doesn’t take away for any background or smoothness. So I don’t think it NEEDS to have fuzzy edges to have nice background.

My point was more that if you are going to have the background out of focus anyway, corner sharpness is not a big concern.

And I was partly speaking out of my own experience of going to full frame. I used the 50mm f/1.4 with my Rebel for my portrait lens. I already had the 100mm f/2.8 macro, so it was my portrait lens when I first got the 6D2. The results can look a little too, I don't know, "clinical" maybe. So when the refurbed 85mm f/1.8 was on sale, I bought it, even though I don't take a lot of portraits. It was cheap enough to get to have on hand. I've made some nice photos with it, though not a real head-and-shoulders portrait yet.

 

[Viggo]

My point was more that if you are going to have the background out of focus anyway, corner sharpness is not a big concern.

And I was partly speaking out of my own experience of going to full frame. I used the 50mm f/1.4 with my Rebel for my portrait lens. I already had the 100mm f/2.8 macro, so it was my portrait lens when I first got the 6D2. The results can look a little too, I don't know, "clinical" maybe. So when the refurbed 85mm f/1.8 was on sale, I bought it, even though I don't take a lot of portraits. It was cheap enough to get to have on hand. I've made some nice photos with it, though not a real head-and-shoulders portrait yet.

Corner sharpness is a big issue as soon as I compose another way than dead center, so pretty much always.

 

[koenkooi]

My point was more that if you are going to have the background out of focus anyway, corner sharpness is not a big concern.

And I was partly speaking out of my own experience of going to full frame. I used the 50mm f/1.4 with my Rebel for my portrait lens. I already had the 100mm f/2.8 macro, so it was my portrait lens when I first got the 6D2. The results can look a little too, I don't know, "clinical" maybe. So when the refurbed 85mm f/1.8 was on sale, I bought it, even though I don't take a lot of portraits. It was cheap enough to get to have on hand. I've made some nice photos with it, though not a real head-and-shoulders portrait yet.

The 85mm f/1.8 can be the poster child for DLO. With the data loaded into the camera DPP4 does a much better job than LR for pulling out details and fixing other lens issues. For me the frustration with the DPP UI, the 30 seconds per picture and size increase from ~25MiB CR3 to ~130MiB tiffs is worth it when using the the 85mm wider than f/2.8.
I wish Canon would allow storing more EF lens profiles in the camera, if you don't have the profile you need to do more manual labour in DPP I'm very happy that on RF the lens itself has the DLO data, so no more futzing around with EOS utility.

 

[Larsskv]

Corner sharpness is a big issue as soon as I compose another way than dead center, so pretty much always.

If we are lucky the lack of edge sharpness is a result of field curvature/not having a flat focus plane. If so, when focusing at the edge, you will hit the actual focus plane and get a much sharper result than the test figures suggests.

 

[stevelee]

I’m generally mystified by discussions of how to get autofocus to choose left eye vs. right, and the like. If I am using DOF that shallow, I am likely to use manual focus unless maybe a first shot fortuitously got what I was trying for.

If I want greater DOF, I stop down, and other optical issues abate anyway.

I don’t begrudge others’ having different styles and priorities. But I don’t always understand what they are trying for well enough to relate to what they say.

I realized when I ordered the 85mm f/1.8 that buying it could turn out to be mostly a waste of money for me. But it wasn’t a lot of money. Eventually I will use it enough to learn its peculiarities well enough to know when to use it vs. the 100mm vs. the 24-105 zoom.

 

[Ozarker]

I saw a review of the 85 RF where they stated pretty much what we all expected, but they were quite disappointed with corner and edg performance regarding sharpness. Anyone seen this in other reviews, are there other reviews yet?

For portrait guys (well, for me) corner sharpness isn't a big deal, especially wide open and especially if I crop. Looking straight ahead, my peripheral vision isn't sharp. I'm hoping the same is true for everyone. Seems more natural to me. The architecture and landscape folks will be interested in this lack of corner sharpness, I guess, but they'll be stopping down anyway. Or I think they would. I guess my big photography sin is never checking out the corners or pixel peeping or reading MTF charts. For all I know, all my lenses are crap.

If I had the money I would be all over the RP and 85RF, 50RF, 28-70RF... corner sharpness or not.

Some people would say the RF "L" lenses wouldn't be appropriate for the RP. To that, I just chuckle.

 

[BillB]

I’m generally mystified by discussions of how to get autofocus to choose left eye vs. right, and the like. If I am using DOF that shallow, I am likely to use manual focus unless maybe a first shot fortuitously got what I was trying for.

If I want greater DOF, I stop down, and other optical issues abate anyway.

I don’t begrudge others’ having different styles and priorities. But I don’t always understand what they are trying for well enough to relate to what they say.

I realized when I ordered the 85mm f/1.8 that buying it could turn out to be mostly a waste of money for me. But it wasn’t a lot of money. Eventually I will use it enough to learn its peculiarities well enough to know when to use it vs. the 100mm vs. the 24-105 zoom.

I like to pair the 85f1.8 up with the 16-35f4 to add some length to all that wide angle. flexibility without adding a lot of weight. I also like the combination of the 85mm and the 40mm, but the combination isn't really that much lighter than the 24-105.

 

[BillB]

For portrait guys (well, for me) corner sharpness isn't a big deal, especially wide open and especially if I crop. Looking straight ahead, my peripheral vision isn't sharp. I'm hoping the same is true for everyone. Seems more natural to me. The architecture and landscape folks will be interested in this lack of corner sharpness, I guess, but they'll be stopping down anyway. Or I think they would. I guess my big photography sin is never checking out the corners or pixel peeping or reading MTF charts. For all I know, all my lenses are crap.

If I had the money I would be all over the RP and 85RF, 50RF, 28-70RF... corner sharpness or not.

Some people would say the RF "L" lenses wouldn't be appropriate for the RP. To that, I just chuckle.

If you are shooting an 85mm f1.2 lens wide open, how often are you going to have the corners inside the depth of field anyway?