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

slclick

Cyclist, photog, drummer & sardonic haiku writer
Dec 17, 2013
4,021
1,901
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.
Primes vs Zooms with primes coming out on top without egos involved used to be a thing, not a thing any longer. Yet some keep their ego in the argument. ymmv.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

picperfect

EOS 80D
Mar 29, 2020
112
91
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.

Myth.

EF 70-200 / 4 L 705 grams vs. 4 L IS (Mk. I) 760 grams, both exactly same size.
If you were blindfolded and get 1 of each in your hands, I don't think you could tell which is which. And even less so, when both would be attached to the same model camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slclick

slclick

Cyclist, photog, drummer & sardonic haiku writer
Dec 17, 2013
4,021
1,901
Tell you what, you so desperately need to win, I'll roll over and end this nonsense.

Press Release:

"No difference, I just used them side by side in Wisconsin and Bernie and I both concede!"
 
  • Haha
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

AEWest

EOS 80D
Jan 30, 2020
152
169
$1.000.00 is not affordable for a very large portion of the population of users.
The word "affordable" is a very imprecise word - it means different things to different people.

So marketers can get away with using it very widely and not be worried about getting sued - even $100K cars can be considered "affordable" if their competitor's cars are say $125K.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
Nov 7, 2013
2,836
837
Germany
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.
I don't know why my post made you laugh and "Meh".
I didn't compare any f-stops of the old EF to f-stops of the new RF lenses.
So my statement stays the same:
"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."
Maybe you could tell me what is funny with half a 1/3 step of more light? Or a lens that delivers IQ wide open.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
Myth.

EF 70-200 / 4 L 705 grams vs. 4 L IS (Mk. I) 760 grams, both exactly same size.
If you were blindfolded and get 1 of each in your hands, I don't think you could tell which is which. And even less so, when both would be attached to the same model camera.
FACT: EF 70-200mm f/4 L released in 1999 - in use weight with hood and tripod ring: 924g - Manufacturer published weight (lens only): 705g
FACT: EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS released in 2006 - in use weight with hood and tripod ring: 969g - Manufacturer published weight (lens only): 760g
FACT: EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS II released in 2018 - in use weight with hood and tripod ring: 979g - Manufacturer published weight (lens only): 800g

In use weight with hood and tripod ring as listed at The-Digital-Picture
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
I don't know why my post made you laugh and "Meh".
I didn't compare any f-stops of the old EF to f-stops of the new RF lenses.
So my statement stays the same:
"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."
Maybe you could tell me what is funny with half a 1/3 step of more light? Or a lens that delivers IQ wide open.
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.
 

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
749
564
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.
But wouldn't the depth of field be at least somewhat different? If you're going for that "shallow depth of field" effect, how different are the two?

Come to think of it, seeing as how I own one of those f/1.8s, I can try figuring it out.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
But wouldn't the depth of field be at least somewhat different? If you're going for that "shallow depth of field" effect, how different are the two?

Come to think of it, seeing as how I own one of those f/1.8s, I can try figuring it out.
I think to most users, the difference in DoF between an f/1.8 and f/2 lens is far less significant than the difference between 1/40" and 1/60" in low light. And the shutter speed is determined by the T-stop number, not the f-number.

An f1.8/T2.1 lens would give marginally shallower DoF than an f2/T2.1 lens, but would not allow for any faster shutter speed. So it would not be any "faster", even if it does give slightly shallower DoF.

Even f/2 at 85mm is shallow enough to only be usable in a very controlled situation where your human subject is able to hold poses without moving for more than just a few fleeting moments.
 
Last edited:

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
749
564
I think to most users, the difference in DoF between an f/1.8 and f/2 lens is far less significant than the difference between 1/40" and 1/60" in low light. And the shutter speed is determined by the T-stop number, not the f-number.

An f1.8/T2.1 lens would give marginally shallower DoF than an f2/T2.1 lens, but would not allow for any faster shutter speed. So it would not be any "faster", even if it does give slightly shallower DoF.

Even f/2 at 85mm is shallow enough to only be usable in a very controlled situation where your human subject is able to hold poses without moving for more than just a few fleeting moments.
Well, I just ran the experiment, looking at bokeh (I don't disagree with your point about exposure times--thank you for the clear explanation, too, it was one more bit of technical education for me). There is a noticeable difference with the lens at f/1.8 focusing on near clutter with a painting about 20 feet beyond, bokehed out, versus same lens, same camera (an M50) at f/2.0. A face on the painting that's about a foot tall still has darker areas for eyes and mouth at 2.0, and loses about half that on its way to being a uniform pink blur at 1.8. (Hypothetically, 1.6 or maybe 1.4 would reduce it entirely to a pink blur.)

But it's not a gigantic deal-breaker difference, except maybe to a bokeh fanatic. Still, I'd pay a bit extra for it if I had the option to.

And I'm glad to see signs of RF lenses for mere mortals being developed. It shows, I think, that Canon really does want "regular people" (well, regular people who prize full frame, admittedly that's already a pretty select group) to move there and it's not going to remain a boutique (albeit backward compatible) mount any more within the realm of full frame.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
Well, I just ran the experiment, looking at bokeh (I don't disagree with your point about exposure times--thank you for the clear explanation, too, it was one more bit of technical education for me). There is a noticeable difference with the lens at f/1.8 focusing on near clutter with a painting about 20 feet beyond, bokehed out, versus same lens, same camera (an M50) at f/2.0. A face on the painting that's about a foot tall still has darker areas for eyes and mouth at 2.0, and loses about half that on its way to being a uniform pink blur at 1.8. (Hypothetically, 1.6 or maybe 1.4 would reduce it entirely to a pink blur.)

But it's not a gigantic deal-breaker difference, except maybe to a bokeh fanatic. Still, I'd pay a bit extra for it if I had the option to.

And I'm glad to see signs of RF lenses for mere mortals being developed. It shows, I think, that Canon really does want "regular people" (well, regular people who prize full frame, admittedly that's already a pretty select group) to move there and it's not going to remain a boutique (albeit backward compatible) mount any more within the realm of full frame.
It seems to me that the amount of out-of-focus blur and the qualities of the bokeh aren't usually included in what is referred to as "lens speed". Saying a lens is "faster" means it allows a shorter shutter time than a lens that is "slower". If I want to talk about out-of-focus blur and bokeh, I'll talk about a "wider aperture" lens, not a "faster" lens.
 

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
Nov 7, 2013
2,836
837
Germany
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. ...
Where is MY moan? Where is MY complain?
Why should you generalize and project YOUR opinion about others on my post? (n)
And why EVERYTHING in bold??? (n) :rolleyes:

By the way:
Because I see this f/1.8 patent I would not talk about an 30 year old lens design...
If this is optically not so good as an f/2.0 design then i still state
... but if that one is sharp at 1/2 and still has nice bokeh, then okay. (edit: okay to the f/2.0 design, if you don't understand)
But you should better make an excuse to anyone that you've embedded in your generalization. :mad:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

picperfect

EOS 80D
Mar 29, 2020
112
91
Even f/2 at 85mm is shallow enough to only be usable in a very controlled situation where your human subject is able to hold poses without moving for more than just a few fleeting moments.
LOL! Just use Servo-AF or "EyeTracking / Continuous" or whatever it is called on your camera for handheld wide-open portraits. Model and/or photog can wobble around, focus will still be on cornea ... or on eyelash ... at worst ... grrr ;-)

Even a "cheap" Canon RF 85mm lens should be f/1.8, not f/2.0. Following your observations, the T-value should be even better compared to the old EF 85/1.8 with T/2.1. :)

I'd find a Canon RF 85/2.0 only worthwhile if it was as compact and light as the Pentax smc 77/1.8 Limited - L 48 x D 64 mm, filter 49mm (!), 270 grams - despite full metal construction and including built-in sliding metal lens shade.
 
Last edited: