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

Aug 26, 2015
1,380
1,042
I'd be very curious to know how many are selling their DSLR's and EF mount lenses for this new very expensive gear.
New gear is always very expensive (does not matter if it is a new EF lens or a new DSLR or anything that is new) and it always gets discounted as time goes on.
It just seems that it is even more costly, if one is buying a lot of it in one go. Switching to mirrorless (with native lenses) is expensive, doesn't matter which brand (or it is a compromise in sensor size, etc. etc.) and using an adapter is a viable solution as well

on the other hand all this new gear also pushes down the value of older gear, that was excellent yesterday - and is just as excellent today
 
Upvote 0

Bob Howland

CR Pro
Mar 25, 2012
917
588
I agree, if you do not think that glass is more important than the body you have another thin[k] coming.
That was very true in the film era with manual focus cameras. Then, the camera was largely a box to hold film and a shutter and to mount lenses. It is much less true in the era of a digital sensor inside an autofocus camera body.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 22, 2012
4,472
1,327
Canon isn't forcing me to do anything. My 2012 body works just great and my lenses from STM to L with or without IS all work great and 100% of the image quality rests with me. No copouts.
All my gear got stolen. I am rebuilding my list. I shoot wildlife and video. So am waiting for a pro body. And thanks for the reply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,091
12,855
NICE....i mean, with no IBIS, and no stabalization, on a much lighter body...going to be interesting times in hit-rate land. Maybe.

"but its the technique"

Yeah, sure it is. it's also a lack of a feature. Happy shooting!
I’m so sorry your camera can’t achieve a shutter speed of 1/100 s or faster. Mine can, so I’ll be just fine. Or I’ll use my 85/1.4L IS with the adapter. Choice is good. You’re choosing to petulantly whine. Good for you.
 
Upvote 0
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.
... 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.

But major drawbacks are that it is polarizing (sometimes helpful, always loosing ~1 stop of light) and I am not shure if it is possible to make optically "clear" displays with very uniform transmission and at least 128 precise gray levels ...

EDIT: Forgotten to say that there are some revived lens designs where the f-stop is chosen by f-stop-slots like the petzval from lomo: https://shop.lomography.com/en/petzval-85-artlens-canon?country=de -- make your own filters via 3D printing or / and painting with a gray marker on glass ...
EDITEDIT: Lomo thought about customization: right item of https://shop.lomography.com/en/petzval-special-aperture-blades
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
85/1.4 IS is already a very good lens and it can be bought for less than £1100 in UK. It also works on both EF and RF mount for those who own both DSLR and MILC. While this new lens will for sure be awesome, it will be also expensive but how much better it will be? DS version is at least supposed to bring something not currently available.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
OK, say that "gap in the back" is 25mm. That means that to allow a TC, the EF lens needs 44mm film-to-flange distance plus 25mm = 69mm.

It's possible that the RF, with a 20mm film-to-flang disance, would be happy with 20mm + 25mm = 45mm. IF shorter film-rear element distance helps with telephotos, then the RF would still have an advantage.

On the other hand, even if the distance isn't crucial, I imagine they'll come out with RF versions of telephotos anyways. Even if it's not optically superior, simply being able to work without an adapter will appeal, on grounds of simplicity, reliability. Remember, the point of the EF mount was autofocus, yet Canon was happy to make some manual-focus-only lenses (the TS series) that couldn't take advantage of "the whole benefit of EF lenses." Canon didn't say, manual focus so might as well only release with the FD mount...

The difference is EF and RF are both EOS mounts with all electronic connections that speak the same exact language. This makes an EF to RF adapter little more than an extension ring with full communication. It's even less impactful optically speaking than an extender is, yet the top pros have no qualms about slapping an EF 1.4X III between their 1D X Mark II and a 400/2.8 III, 500/4 II, or 600/4 III.

That was hardly the case with the mechanically linked FD mount that had a shorter registration distance that the newer EF mount.

"Adapter" only becomes a dirty word when it forces compromises in functionality or optical performance.

An EF to RF adapter does neither.

Adapting an EF lens to an RF camera does not diminish the functionality of the EF lens at all, other than maybe slower AF speed due to the RF camera not having as powerful batteries as a 1D X or even LP-E6N powered 5/6/7 series camera. This is already the case with smaller EF cameras, such as the Rebels. They also AF slower with the same EF lenses than the 1 and 5/6/7 series do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
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 :)

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Hey Maya,

Thanks so much for the interesting reply! I absolutely did not realize CA was the specific cause of these bad bokehs, but more importantly I never realized that front bokeh and back bokeh circles would be so complimentary.

In the case of the tests Marianne Oelund has realised, it's rather spherical aberration that's at play, as she only tested for one color (green). And it's only valid in the centre of the frame, off-centre other aberrations pile up I believe to make things even way more complex.

Fine-tuning spherical aberration to enhance background blur comes at the cost of foreground blur. Besides in the case of the Nikon 58mm the aberration is so extreme that focus shift is significant and resolution not quite excellent.

Marianne has also made tests with a white point light source (sorry I couldn't find the thread she posted these photos in) :
184170
I think that these full spectrum tests are less representative of a lens' spherical aberrations - perhaps because it's difficult with common means to test lenses with very small and precise point light sources - but more so of its CA in the transition zone.

A more concrete illustration of what the blobs above mean :
184171

It's from Lenstip's AF / LOCA test, and it's the Nikon 105mm 1.4. That lens is specifically designed to preserve some degree of spherical aberration to enhance background blur smoothness and progressive transitions : you can still read the "lensalign" text much further beyond the focal plane and it progressively blends in the overall background blur in a gaussian way (that corresponds to a blob with a brighter centre than the edge, like an apodised lens). The front bokeh however has been made significantly harsher / busy (that corresponds to a blob with a brighter edge and a darker centre). When you close the aperture, it's the equivalent of cutting the extreme edge of the blobs above. So a lens like the one below may show traces of edgy bokeh at f1.4 but will look completely smooth at f2 :

184173

This is the reason why I always prefer to shoot my Canon 50mm STM at f2.5 at a maximum, provided there's enough light. Wider than that and bokeh starts to get edgy in the centre.

An apodised lens can do what the Nikon 105mm 1.4 does for both the front and the background blur (it's not quite the same but kinda). To do so in an equal fashion between front and rear, it's better for it to be very "neutral" in terms of spherical aberration, hence why I'm a little bit worried abut the 85mm RF non-DS version.

These might be gimmicky but you could also have filters such as: 1) clear center spot surrounded by ND. Things would be be sharp front to back due to a pinhole effect, but also surrounded by blur. Almost like a double-exposure wide open and stopped down. 2) shapes such as stars. 3) random scattering of pinholes, giving the most jarring bokeh...

Bring on the gimmicks :D. I'd love that. Although it's not at the aperture stop, has anyone experimented with the EF to RF drop in filter adapter to see if interesting effects can be obtained bokeh wise ?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0