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

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
3,501
1,104
Irving, Texas
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.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
3,501
1,104
Irving, Texas
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Larsskv and Dantana

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
3,501
1,104
Irving, Texas
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

Watching for pigs on the wing
Nov 22, 2010
375
5
48
Manchester, UK
www.facebook.com
... 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.
 

degos

EOS 80D
Mar 20, 2015
199
122
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.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
3,501
1,104
Irving, Texas
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.
 
Last edited:

Mbell75

I'm New Here
Oct 21, 2018
23
8
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

I'm New Here
Oct 21, 2018
23
8
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

EOS R, 7D, AE1 P
Mar 27, 2019
4
3
Ipswich
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

I'm New Here
Oct 21, 2018
23
8
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.
 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
290
113
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.
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.
 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
290
113
The advice to people asking was still "get a cheaper body and a nicer lens or two".
To each their own. I always had a EOS-1Ds MkIII in my backpack... with the first-generation EF 50mm f/1.8. I could make a good argument for a high-end camera and a standard lens; arguably next thing you need isn't a second lens but bounceable flash...
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,041
375
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.
 

PureClassA

Canon since age 5. The A1
Aug 15, 2014
1,622
195
Mandeville, LA
Shields-Photography.com
They are from 2012. Practically infants in terms of lens age. :p
Yes I was being a bit silly and sarcastic with that one because I selfishly would like to have some RF primes. I just acquired the 351.4 mk2 and 85 L 1.4 EF lenses in the last couple years.

That’s why I’d like to see some more like the RF 35 Macro. Basic non-L glass of great quality and lower tier pricing. Not to mention RP owners need some cheaper glass asap. The mount adapter works great, but adds a lot of extra length to my L glass on there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
680
298
What I'd love is a slot to stick in your own filter, and have a suite of filters with transmissions of say T/2, T/2.8, T/4, etc. Even for a given T there are infinite different gradations you could use giving different highlight shapes. There's no one best answer.
You're a century or so late.

184191


184192
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
680
298
Right.

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.

In contrast, since all EF lenses (and Leica M and many other!) lenses can be used on the RF, there are actually far more lenses for an RF camera than an EF camera at this point. I don't think it will be a 30 month wait. More likely by next Jan 2020 so pros can get used to them before the Olympics.

BTW the "pros" don't just include telephoto users at the events themselves but videographers doing interviews and so on.

Nowhere did I predict a 30 month span between the EOS R and the first "pro" RF body. I just made an observation about what happened 30 years ago.

Nowhere did I say pros "only" use telephoto lenses. But in the Canon system, only telephoto lenses accept Canon extenders. So in the context of Canon extenders, pros and amateurs alike may only use telephoto lenses with extenders.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
680
298
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.
Most advanced shooters still understand that great lens plus mediocre camera will almost always get much better results than mediocre lens and great camera.