Canon RF 85mm f/2 IS STM in the pipeline [CR1]

Etienne

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 19, 2010
1,409
217
Ottawa Ontario
You would be revealing a pretty low level of competence if you are claiming the 24-105 f/4 is anything less than an excellent, professional level lens. I'm always surprised by the lack of regard the lens gets here, though, so you wouldn't be alone. Look back through the past 20 years--and even this year!--of PPA magazine to see how often the lens was used for their cover photos. And if you could get your hands on a copy of any year's Loan Collection, you'd see how often it is used for award winning photos. Landscape and nature photographers have been using it as a reliable and amazingly flexible lens for years also.

You were just being flip, right? A little tongue and cheek to be provactive? ;)
I am quite familiar with the 24-105 f/4L IS ... I've had one for a dozen years.
Pros use primes and f/2.8 zooms for a reason. I have never seen a pro use a 24-105 f/4 zoom on a job, although I'll take your word that photos from that lens are showing up from time to time. But at the end of the day, the pro workhorse lenses are the f/2.8 zooms and the primes.
I'm actually surprised at the loyalty to the f/4 zoom on this thread, maybe it's the convenience and affordability factor and it may be the only L lens that some people ever buy (because it's in a kit) in which case they would certainly be blown away by the quality.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
The more new lenses the better, people buy into a new system like RF once they see multiple choices for their glass (primes or zooms, pro or not, IS or not, etc..) and especially, for non-professionals, if there are alternatives to $3,000 superlative designs... With a selection of focal lengths starting at 18mm (excellent), it would be disappointing to stop at 85mm, why not a 135mm 2.8 IS (similar to the venerable FD 135mm f:2.5)?
I think we'd be far more likely to see a 135/1.8 L or 135/2 L in the RF mount first.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
I would prefer an 85/1.8 instead of the IS but if that one is sharp at 1/2 and still has nice bokeh, then okay.
Meh. The EF 85mm f/1.8 is really a T2.1 lens. Canon has gotten more "honest" in their max aperture claims in the last few years, so an RF85mm f/2 would probably be just as fast as the EF 85mm f/1.8.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
It is nice to have something to chat about in these dull lookdown days but thinking about it I don't think an RF 85 F2 will be made. Canon have had an EF 85mm 1.8 for years now going to F2 would be a step backwards, surely an RF 85mm 1.8 IS would be more likely and feel like an upgrade given it had IS
Except the EF 85mm f/1.8 has a T-stop of T2.1.

In recent years Canon's newer lenses are much closer in T-stop value to their specified f-number than in the early 1990s or even the late 2000s. Probably as a result of improved anti-reflective coatings and also coating the back of some lens elements (needed because digital sensors are much more reflective than film is and can cause ghosting without the additional coatings on the rear of lens elements).

The EF 24-105mm f/4 (2005), for instance, is T5 to T5.2 across it's zoom range. The EF 24-70mm f/4L (2012) is T4 from 24-50mm and T4.1 at 70mm.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Andy Westwood

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
The EF 85 mm f/1.8 isn't at all bulky, so perhaps they could give it that slight bump in aperture?
The EF 85mm f/1.8 is a T2.1 lens. Based on Canon's more recent lens output that have T-stop values much closer to their advertised f-numbers than lenses released in the 1990s, I'd expect an RF 85mm f/2 to also be about T2.1.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
Why not non-L lenses up to 200mm f2.8? Canon used to do this and the 200mm f2.8 for amateur sports people with kids might be nice. Who knows though with high ISO's available now?
The EF 200mm f/2.8 L is very affordable at less than $1K, but it is an "L" lens.
 

picperfect

EOS 80D
Mar 29, 2020
112
91
The EF 24-105mm f/4 (2005), for instance, is T5 to T5.2 across it's zoom range.
interesting. Do you have a source/link? And are there also T-stops known for the later version EF 24-105 Mk. II and RF 24-105 ? Thanks!

If true it fully confirms my long held suspicions and even exceeds them as far as the extent of lying goes. Imaging gear makers also lie regarding focal length of lenses - especially zooms. Their product claims are typically wider than true on wide end and shorter than true on the long end. Just the "lying amounts" are differing, anything between "acceptable rounding" of 1 or 2% all the way to insidious 10+%.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
Is the ask for IS as strong as it used to be for future IBIS bodies? Let's think in terms of keeping size and weight to a minimum. Fuji is a good model for this line of thought.
The RP has no IBIS and whatever very low cost body eventually replaces it will probably not be an IBIS body. It only makes sense that the cheapest lenses aimed at users of the cheapest bodies might have IS to make both the bodies and the lenses more attractive. At this point I'm sure Canon can put IS in an 85mm f/2 cheaper than they can put IBIS in an RP...
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
"cheap". oh well. I would not hold my breath. I expect € 699 MSRP for a Canon RF 85/2.0 IS.

Canon EF 85/1.8 is reasonably priced at € 375, a bit faster, but no IS.
RF 35/1.8 IS = € 549.
Tamron 85/1.8 VC = € 699.
Sony FE 85/1.8 = € 499 - but no IS.
EF 85mm f/1.8 hasn't alway been that cheap, though. It's a 1992 vintage lens that introduced for 58,000 yen which was worth about $458 USD in 1992. With inflation, $458 USD in 1992 is worth $844 in 2020.

Not really faster, either as the EF 85mm f/1.8 is a T2.1 lens. Canon's more recent lens offerings have T-stop values much closer to their marketed f-numbers than in the past.
 

picperfect

EOS 80D
Mar 29, 2020
112
91
The EF 200mm f/2.8 L is very affordable at less than $1K, but it is an "L" lens.
hmmm. "very affordable" is a relative term. I consider € 779 quite a lot of money for the age-old EF 200/2.8 L (Mk. II = same optical formula), especially when compared to much more universally usable and better IQ EF 70-200/2.8 L IS (any version of it). Not to mention 3rd party 70-200/2.8 with IS, like the Sigma Sport or Tamron G2.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
28th years to give it IS but to remove 1/3rd of a stop and an ok autofocus system?

Is this the "Revolution" of the R mount? or R stands for "maRketing"?

I would expect at least, the same specs the past lens had but with real improvements (e.i RF 85mm f1.8 IS USM)

And don't get me wrong, I understand there are improvements on, for example, better edges of the frame, better contrast, but maybe they shouldn't have changed the mount for that.

Let's hope this CR1 is just that, a CR1.
Dirty little secret: The EF 85mm f/1.8 is a T2.1 lens.

I'd expect an RF 85mm f/2 to also be right around T2.1.

Canon's current lenses tend to have T-stop values closer to their f-number rating than they did in years past.
 
Last edited:

picperfect

EOS 80D
Mar 29, 2020
112
91
Is the ask for IS as strong as it used to be for future IBIS bodies? Let's think in terms of keeping size and weight to a minimum. Fuji is a good model for this line of thought.
It is an urban myth that IS adds a lot of size or weight to a lens. Witness for example Canon EF 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 versions with and without IS. Hardly much difference. And the price differential is also largely marketing/profit, rather than truly cost-related. In a lens with quite small moving AF lens elements like an 85/1.8 or f/2.0, impact of IS on size, weight and cost (for maker) are likely below 10% for each of those measures.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
interesting. Do you have a source/link? And are there also T-stops known for the later version EF 24-105 Mk. II and RF 24-105 ? Thanks!

If true it fully confirms my long held suspicions and even exceeds them as far as the extent of lying goes. Imaging gear makers also lie regarding focal length of lenses - especially zooms. Their product claims are typically wider than true on wide end and shorter than true on the long end. Just the "lying amounts" are differing, anything between "acceptable rounding" of 1 or 2% all the way to insidious 10+%.
Here's a comparison of the EF 85mm f/1.8, EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS, and EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS II at DxO.

Click on 'Measurements' and then 'Transmission' to see the measured T-stop numbers and the difference from f-number to T-stop below that.

The EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS II is about 1/3 stop faster than the older 2005 version. The original is 2/3 stop slower, the II is 1/3 stop slower than f/4.

The EF 24-70mm f/4 is an honest T-4 at all focal lengths below 50mm and only T4.1 at 70mm.

They have not tested the EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS, RF 24-105 IS, nor RF 85s yet. The RF 28-70mm f/2 L is T2.2 across the entire range.

Keep in mind that a lot of those gains with the newer lenses are the result of better lens coatings that do not lose light from reflections. They may have the same size entrance pupils as the older lenses, but more of the light makes it through the lens elements.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
I am quite familiar with the 24-105 f/4L IS ... I've had one for a dozen years.
Pros use primes and f/2.8 zooms for a reason. I have never seen a pro use a 24-105 f/4 zoom on a job, although I'll take your word that photos from that lens are showing up from time to time. But at the end of the day, the pro workhorse lenses are the f/2.8 zooms and the primes.
I'm actually surprised at the loyalty to the f/4 zoom on this thread, maybe it's the convenience and affordability factor and it may be the only L lens that some people ever buy (because it's in a kit) in which case they would certainly be blown away by the quality.
I've seen lots of pros use an EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS on the job. It's an indestructible lens that can take abuse and keep on working. Not all pros shoot fashion portraits in a studio in NYC. Some are war correspondents or work in other harsh environments.

The original EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L had a bad habit of getting knocked out of alignment at the slightest bump to the front barrel due to most of the optical adjustments being placed at the front of the lens (Roger Cicala mentions it in this blog entry and goes into more detail in this one). I've got both the original 24-70/2.8L and 24-105/4L IS. I use the 24-105 a lot more than the 24-70 because most of my work is done in crowds, many of them very rowdy, and on sports sidelines. IS comes in handy more than another f-stop when shooting music festivals from the wings on temporary outdoor stages that vibrate with the music, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

usern4cr

EOS 80D
Sep 2, 2018
187
138
Kentucky, USA
There is quite a lot of posts of declared f# vs measured t# and phrased in such a way to indicate (to me) that any difference is "lying" by the manufacturer. You do know that these are 2 different things? f# is for the focal length / diameter of the entrance pupil ignoring light loss through the lens. t# is the same but then also takes light loss into account. All lenses have light loss, and with the number of elements in some lenses ranging from 10 to 20 I'm actually surprised that the light loss is as low as reported.

If you want to talk about "lying" from the manufacturers, you should talk about declared values vs measured values for the same thing, such as focal length, or for f#, or for t# (which is rarely declared). I've seen many patent disclosures that list the focal length & f# as declared in the name of the lens, and then the measured value (by the manufacturer) of both which are indeed quite different. I have noticed that the focal length & f# values in the name are almost always shifted in favor of better values for the manufacturer. Those differences are often so different that I would consider them lying, indeed. If you want to know the true value of lying then the tester must mention the declared value for focal length, f# and t# (if any) and then the measured value for each of focal length, f#, and t#. Then you'd really know.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
hmmm. "very affordable" is a relative term. I consider € 779 quite a lot of money for the age-old EF 200/2.8 L (Mk. II = same optical formula), especially when compared to much more universally usable and better IQ EF 70-200/2.8 L IS (any version of it). Not to mention 3rd party 70-200/2.8 with IS, like the Sigma Sport or Tamron G2.
$750 (for the EF 200mm f/2.8 L @ B&H) is a lot cheaper than $1,800 (for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III at B&H). It's also considerably less than $1,260 and $1,200, respectively, for the Sigma Sports and Tamron G2 at B&H.

I'll have to disagree with you about IQ of the 70-200/2.8 lenses versus the 200/2.8 and 135/2 (which have very similar optical designs).
The newer 70-200/2.8 lenses may be "sharper" on the edges (and thus get better "single number" scores from testing sites), but the bokeh is nowhere near as smooth as the 135/2 and 200/2.8. My EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II is a workhorse for sure and I use it a lot. But if I know I can get away with only using 135mm, I'm grabbing the EF 135mm f/2 L EVERY.SINGLE.TIME. There's no comparison in the smoothness of the out of focus areas.

Then there's the whole complexity problem of optical alignment with zoom lenses like the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II/III with 23 elements in 19 groups. Again, Uncle Roger doesn't pull any punches regarding how difficult it is to find zoom lenses like these in "near perfect" alignment. He puts it even more succinctly here (emphasis added by me in the excerpt below):

First, most (but not all) of you are aware that zooms are not primes. Every zoom ever made is better at specific focal lengths than at others. I know many of you don’t want it to be so, because you want to know this zoom scores 72.1 and this other one is a 68.4. But MTFs are useful for grown-up photographers who consider their lens a tool. These photographers want to know where their tool works best and worst so they may use its strengths and avoid its weaknesses. You will sometimes find that brand X’s zoom is better at one end, and brand Y’s zoom better at the other. So it goes.

Second, while I’m not going to put out variance graphs (yet), remember that all zooms vary more than primes. All. Every one ever. There are no exceptions. So the average zoom MTF is a broad brush; you can get tendencies from this but not ‘this is how your copy will look pixel peeping information.’ The average data may show that the Wunderbar 70-200mm is sharper at 70mm than at 200mm. Something like 15% to 30% of copies, though, might be sharper at 200mm so if yours is sharper at 200mm, well good for you. Similarly, the Wunderbar may be sharper than the Ultraboy 70-200mm on average. But if you compare one copy of each, 20% to 30% of the Ultraboys could be sharper than the Wunderbar.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
There is quite a lot of posts of declared f# vs measured t# and phrased in such a way to indicate (to me) that any difference is "lying" by the manufacturer. You do know that these are 2 different things? f# is for the focal length / diameter of the entrance pupil ignoring light loss through the lens. t# is the same but then also takes light loss into account. All lenses have light loss, and with the number of elements in some lenses ranging from 10 to 20 I'm actually surprised that the light loss is as low as reported.

If you want to talk about "lying" from the manufacturers, you should talk about declared values vs measured values for the same thing, such as focal length, or for f#, or for t# (which is rarely declared). I've seen many patent disclosures that list the focal length & f# as declared in the name of the lens, and then the measured value (by the manufacturer) of both which are indeed quite different. I have noticed that the focal length & f# values in the name are almost always shifted in favor of better values for the manufacturer. Those differences are often so different that I would consider them lying, indeed. If you want to know the true value of lying then the tester must mention the declared value for focal length, f# and t# (if any) and then the measured value for each of focal length, f#, and t#. Then you'd really know.

I'm not sure who your response is to, because you don't use the "reply" function, but nowhere have I said they were "lying" or intentionally misleading. I've even mentioned at least once that most of the gain in f-number vs. T-stop is due to improved anti-reflective coatings and using AR coatings on the back side of some lens elements to deal with ghosting due to reflection of far flatter and more reflective digital sensors as compared to film.

I've only said that the net amount of light making it out the back of the lens with Canon's newer lenses tend to show less of a difference between f-number and T-stop than their older lenses, such as the EF 85mm f/1.8 from way back in 1992, did.

Everyone is moaning about how a proposed 85mm f/2 lens would be a "downgrade" or a "step back" from the EF 85mm f/1.8. All I'm pointing out is that, functionally speaking, the EF 85mm f/1.8 from 1992 is probably not any faster than an 85mm f/2 lens from 2020.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,842
2,814
Irving, Texas
I am quite familiar with the 24-105 f/4L IS ... I've had one for a dozen years.
Pros use primes and f/2.8 zooms for a reason. I have never seen a pro use a 24-105 f/4 zoom on a job, although I'll take your word that photos from that lens are showing up from time to time. But at the end of the day, the pro workhorse lenses are the f/2.8 zooms and the primes.
I'm actually surprised at the loyalty to the f/4 zoom on this thread, maybe it's the convenience and affordability factor and it may be the only L lens that some people ever buy (because it's in a kit) in which case they would certainly be blown away by the quality.
Actually, there is a working pro on this forum that takes fantastic photos (automobiles) with a 24-105 f/4 zoom. Just because you haven't seen a pro use one means nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

slclick

Cyclist, photog, drummer & sardonic haiku writer
Dec 17, 2013
4,021
1,901
It is an urban myth that IS adds a lot of size or weight to a lens. Witness for example Canon EF 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 versions with and without IS. Hardly much difference. And the price differential is also largely marketing/profit, rather than truly cost-related. In a lens with quite small moving AF lens elements like an 85/1.8 or f/2.0, impact of IS on size, weight and cost (for maker) are likely below 10% for each of those measures.
No one is suggesting it's a huge difference yet there is a difference. And that EF tele zoom you use as a reference? I can notice the size and weight. many can. many have. No myth.