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

[mk0x55]

I've seen websites saying the RF50/1.2 is the sharpest lens ever made, others saying the Leice APO-Summicron 50/2 or the Otus 55/1.4.

But I haven't found any site that's tested even two of the three, has anyone else here?

Well, I'm not aware of anyone having tested the RF 50/1.2 against anything else in a scientific manner. Also, one would need some specialized machine for it, digital cameras for which the lenses with their mounts are made don't allow for it really. Consider only the RF glass. Currently, one can pretty much only test it on the EOS R, but the EOS R has only a 30mp sensor with an AA filter in front of it (not the best for testing close to pixel-level sharpness). For a comparison with the Milvus, I'd ask for nothing less than the 5DsR from Canon or something similar from some other brand (e.g., Sony A7R2/3 if it was possible). Ideally a specialized highly precise machine for testing MTFs like Zeiss' K8 and K9.

Second, sharpness is not everything. There are a dozen other attributes of a lens that are desirable and often not less important.

 

[Ozarker]

That’s going to be an amazing 3k lense to put on your RP ! Or maybe canon will come with a cheaper new model the « RPC » (really poor camera)to put even more expensive lenses ! How about a 9k lense on a 400Usd camera next time ! Genius strategy

Right up my ally, AvTvM, 4fun, mirage, proutprout, etc.

 

[Ozarker]

Second, sharpness is not everything. There are a dozen other attributes of a lens that are desirable and often not less important.

If sharpness were as important as some make it... we could all just buy into the "awesome photo" crowd. Fortunately, great photos can be made with any lens, and by anybody. Sharpness be damned!

 

[slclick]

I think it’s utter cr@p that great lens lenses are somehow a waste on lesser bodies... it’s not even close to be true..

Would I rather have the 200 f2 on the RP or an old 75-300 on a 1dx2? Easy...

I agree, if you do not think that glass is more important than the body you have another thing coming. Now true, having both excellent is double plus good.

 

[1611kjb]

I hope the list is not reflecting the order in which the lenses will be released, as I am primarily interested in the 70-200 L and would love to have it for a trip in late August. Also no indication of an RF Extender 1.4x or 2x, which would complement that lens well.

Interesting, I've been looking every which way at the mirrorless line and never considered tele-extenders. This will be important. It will be a long time before RF lenses equal EF lenses. So do you get the adapter and use an EF tele-extender, get an RF tele-extender and wait for RF long telephotos, or put an RF telextender on, then an adapter and then a long EF lens? Curious possibilities.

 

[1611kjb]

I think it’s utter cr@p that great lens lenses are somehow a waste on lesser bodies... it’s not even close to be true..

Would I rather have the 200 f2 on the RP or an old 75-300 on a 1dx2? Easy...

Unfortunately there's no escaping the fact that no quality of glass can make up for the little tiny pixels on an APS-C sensor. If you are planning on any cropping or enlarging, it will be come quite apparent. If you are using images SOOC, then it will matter a lot less. As you stretch out those little pixels, spaces appear in between and make a very soft picture. It isn't much and doesn't matter to most users, but to those who need it, you can't extract it out little pixels. The difference is a technicality to many, but in the purest form of a question an APS-C image is inferior to a full frame.

 

[Viggo]

Unfortunately there's no escaping the fact that no quality of glass can make up for the little tiny pixels on an APS-C sensor. If you are planning on any cropping or enlarging, it will be come quite apparent. If you are using images SOOC, then it will matter a lot less. As you stretch out those little pixels, spaces appear in between and make a very soft picture. It isn't much and doesn't matter to most users, but to those who need it, you can't extract it out little pixels. The difference is a technicality to many, but in the purest form of a question an APS-C image is inferior to a full frame.

Not arguing there, my point is simply that both the RP and the R are absolutely good enough for any RF glass planned or released.

 

[Ozarker]

Hmmmm.... RF 50mm f/1.2L, RF 85mm f/1.2L, RF 135mm f/1.2L? Will that be the "look what we can do" lens? (anywhere from 105mm -150mm would suit me fine)

 

[Del Paso]

That’s going to be an amazing 3k lense to put on your RP ! Or maybe canon will come with a cheaper new model the « RPC » (really poor camera)to put even more expensive lenses ! How about a 9k lense on a 400Usd camera next time ! Genius strategy

Canon should consult you with your deep knowledge of market-strategy next time...
What about waiting for the next bodies, instead of whining?

 

[Viggo]

Hmmmm.... RF 50mm f/1.2L, RF 85mm f/1.2L, RF 135mm f/1.2L? Will that be the "look what we can do" lens? (anywhere from 105mm -150mm would suit me fine)

100 f1.4 is at the top, top, of my list. Well, that and a Bron Para88

 

[MayaTlab]

To be clear I mean sites like dpreview.com, lensrental.com etc. that publish scientific ratings.


Most of the testing regimes don't use a camera at all, they use a purpose-built sensor in the test equipment.



Of course. I'd say bokeh might be the #1 appeal. And apodization filters may be the best way to get that, combined with center-to-corner round highlights. Apodization filters only give you the bokeh "amount" of a couple f-stops lower, too. So what might be interesting is a 100m f/1.0, that is made really cheaply and compactly, throwing sharpness out the window, but that is designed to have perfectly round highlights by f/1.4 or f/2.0. Then the filter knocks the perceived bokeh down to 100/2.8 levels or so... but it is PERFECT. That'd be a lens you'd recognize even in a 300x200 thumbnail is beautiful, even if it couldn't do more than 50% contrast at 30lpmm.

The existence of a DS version makes me wonder though about the bokeh quality of the standard version. I'm worried that it might be too much on the "optically perfect" side of things, macro style - as I believe that it's the sort of design that benefits the most from apodization - while typically highly praised portrait lenses, such as the Nikon 105mm 1.4, tend to preserve some carefully tuned aberrations to enhance background blur and transitions, as this article illustrates (the 50 RF does the same in the centre wide open) : http://www.bokehtests.com/styled/

My little finger tells me that R users might have to choose between a very gaussian blur or a very flat, perfect blur, while some may prefer a lens that's kind of half-way between the two (as the 50 RF is).

Also, the apodized lenses we're seen so far tend to quickly loose their blur qualities as the lens is stopped down. The Nikon 58mm, for example, was specifically designed to keep a smooth, somewhat gaussian blur quality to background OOF areas even when significantly closed down.

IMO Apodization is interesting but may prove to be, even from Canon, a double edged sword.

Given the 50 RF, I'm also worried about vignetting and off-centre bokeh. We'll know soon enough I guess.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Given the 50 RF, I'm also worried about vignetting and off-centre bokeh. We'll know soon enough I guess.

You could be worried...or you could learn to appreciate cat’s eyes...

 

[ethanz]

You could be worried...or you could learn to appreciate cat’s eyes...

Cue Don

 

[slclick]

I guess my Tammy 85 SP will stop working on May 9th. (fwiw, very underrated lens, love this chunk)

 

[deletemyaccount]

I'd be very curious to know how many are selling their DSLR's and EF mount lenses for this new very expensive gear.

 

[MayaTlab]

You could be worried...or you could learn to appreciate cat’s eyes...

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.

 

[MayaTlab]

There's no one best answer.

Agreed. I'm super curious to see how Canon's approach to engineering apodization, ie a coating, not an internal filter, will affect the results. Perhaps they'll be able to implement a more progressive gradient than the Sony STF which should help when closed down.

 

[Bob Howland]

I think it’s utter cr@p that great lens lenses are somehow a waste on lesser bodies... it’s not even close to be true..

Would I rather have the 200 f2 on the RP or an old 75-300 on a 1dx2? Easy...

I'd rather have the 24-240 on the RP than the 200f/2.

 

[Bob Howland]

I'd be very curious to know how many are selling their DSLR's and EF mount lenses for this new very expensive gear.

I won't, at least not really soon. At this rate, it'll be 2 or 3 years before Canon has the RF system components that I want.

 

[MayaTlab]

So maybe the idea of a lens giving perfect circles wide open just won't happen, since the aperture of any lens capable of that could also simply be opened up further to the point it has the mechanical vignetting and American football-shaped highlights.

It's an intuitive way of thinking about it, but I don't have the knowledge to be quite so sure that this is exactly how it works .

From what I've read the difficulty in managing aberrations isn't quite "linear" with increasingly wider apertures.

Now what interests me is that the RF 50/1.2 is designed to actually be sharp as heck wide open, with practically non-existent aberrations.

It has aberrations . Point light sources at the periphery show more aberrations than, for example, the Sigma 40mm 1.4. Perhaps some astigmatism but I don't know how to interpret these well (it could explain what I don't like about the RF's bokeh off centre). It's also got quite a bit of CA.
I mean, it's a very well corrected lens, that's for sure. But off centre it's a bit off the truly world class mark that's all the rage these days.

But what if they knew the lens would be used with an apodization filter? That practically none of the light from the elements' periphery would actually be ending up on the sensor, thanks to the filter?

You could argue that its vignetting already helps tremendously in that regard, at least in one axis .

I don't think there's any filter pattern you could use that would look good for multiple f-stops.

I have no idea about apodization filters - hence why I'm curious to see how Canon will implement apodization with the 85mm DS, but it's kinda possible with undercorrected spherical aberration. This is how the Nikon 58mm behaves when shooting a very small, bright (and here, green) point light source is shot slightly in front and behind the focal plane. The gradient you see between the centre and the edge of the background blur is maintained even when the aperture is closed down. Of course that lens is a very extreme design that puts all its eggs in one basket, but it's an illustration of how it's possible to get an "apodization" like gradient, even at smaller apertures, by biasing the blur quality in favour of rear gaussian smoothness (at the detriment of front side blur, sharpness, focus shift, etc.).


All the credit should go to Marianne Oelund, who initiated this thread on the subject, unfortunately now the pictures have been lost : https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4031515