Comparing Canon’s Trio of 85mm Prime Lenses

[Richard CR]

I was going to include this in the announcement article, but then I realized that there are a few 85mm lenses we should compare in all of this, making it a bit too big for the announcement article. The new Canon RF 85mm f/1.4L VCM sits between the consumer STM and the professional Canon RF […]

See full article...

 

[Maximilian]

Thanks, @Richard CR, for this nice comparison.
As I wrote in the other 85 VCM thread, I prefer RL comparisons.
And, TBH, at the MRSP the VCM is not on my list. That'll change, for sure, as soon as some discounts take place and maybe some cashback includes this lens...

 

[john1970]

Nice comparison. I already own the 85 mm f1.2 and can’t justify trading it in (at considerable loss) for the VCM 1.4 lens. If I did not own a 85 mm lens the VCM would be a strong contender.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Thx for the comparisons. I´d love to see a review that includes a side-by-side comparison of identical images of all three lenses at their maximum aperture and maybe some stopped down. I love the 0,5 magnification of the 85mm F2, therefore I'll keep it. Plus, the lens really punches above its price point.

 

[Del Paso]

Thx for the comparisons. I´d love to see a review that includes a side-by-side comparison of identical images of all three lenses at their maximum aperture and maybe some stopped down. I love the 0,5 magnification of the 85mm F2, therefore I'll keep it. Plus, the lens really punches above its price point.

I'd hate to miss the closeup abilities of the f/2. since I don't often shoot wide open, the f/2, thanks to the lowest weight, size and 1:2 is for me the best choice.
And it is, from f/2,8 to f/11, tack sharp. Sure, the f/1,2 and f/1,4 are the better lenses, optically. But carrying the f/1,2 all day long, the f/1,4 plus additional macro lens during hikes spoils it for me.

 

[Maximilian]

... I love the 0,5 magnification of the 85mm F2, therefore I'll keep it. Plus, the lens really punches above its price point.

Fully agree. If only the AF had a little more on its chest.

 

[Toamelicious]

I am very much looking forward to finding this lens on the used market. So I strongly encourage you guys to preorder and try it.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Fully agree. If only the AF had a little more on its chest.

Fully agree! Maybe the mkii will

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I'd hate to miss the closeup abilities of the f/2. since I don't often shoot wide open, the f/2, thanks to the lowest weight, size and 1:2 is for me the best choice.

Same reasons I choose to keep it and not head for the F1.4

And it is, from f/2,8 to f/11, tack sharp.

With the EOS R, I had the impression that images were really sharp even at f2. With the R5 the soft corners and sometimes some fringing does show, but the IQ is still great.

Sure, the f/1,2 and f/1,4 are the better lenses, optically. But carrying the f/1,2 all day long, the f/1,4 plus additional macro lens during hikes spoils it for me.

While hiking, I don't always carry my "best" lenses, I carry the lightest. The 16mm, 35mm, 85mm and 100-400mm are excellent for hiking and they produce really nice results. My other hiking combo is the RF 14-35mm and 70-200mm F4, or a combo of a light prime and a zoom. I only take e.g. my RF 100-500mm when I know I want to take a pic that'll print and hang in living room or something.

 

[EricN]

I'd hate to miss the closeup abilities of the f/2. since I don't often shoot wide open, the f/2, thanks to the lowest weight, size and 1:2 is for me the best choice.
And it is, from f/2,8 to f/11, tack sharp. Sure, the f/1,2 and f/1,4 are the better lenses, optically. But carrying the f/1,2 all day long, the f/1,4 plus additional macro lens during hikes spoils it for me.

I've been using it since August usually at f5.6 and sometimes adding a Nisha closeup filter to bring it to 1:1 Not bad for the mass and volume savings and my wife prefers a lens that's not so costly to be clumsy with...

 

[Del Paso]

Fully agree! Maybe the mkii will

I have some doubts, because it's mostly the "L" lenses which get a mk II or III.
The EF 50mm f/1,8 being a notable exception.

 

[Maximilian]

I have some doubts, because it's mostly the "L" lenses which get a mk II or III. ...

Same here. And even if... I see no 85 STM Mk II within the next 5 to 10 years...
That's why I'm looking closely at the VCM.

 

[Del Paso]

Same here. And even if... I see no 85 STM Mk II within the next 5 to 10 years...
That's why I'm looking closely at the VCM.

Different lens, different uses.
If I were a portrait photographer, I would have both lenses. One for people f/1,2, the other one f/2 for hikes.
It's so nice to have the choice!

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Same here. And even if... I see no 85 STM Mk II within the next 5 to 10 years...
That's why I'm looking closely at the VCM.

Me either. But a mkii in 10 years would be ok with me.

 

[rbwillnj]

I have the EF 85 1.4 IS USM, the only EF lens I still use and I see to reason to upgrade. I would consider upgrading if there was an RF 85 1.4 IS

 

[Del Paso]

Different lens, different uses.
If I were a portrait photographer, I would have both lenses. One for people f/1,2, the other one f/2 for hikes.
It's so nice to have the choice!

I forgot, I still own the EF 85mm f/1,4 L IS, and see absolutely no reason to replace it!

 

[snapshot]

I forgot, I still own the EF 85mm f/1,4 L IS, and see absolutely no reason to replace it!

+ i am still using EF 85 mm f/1.4 L IS -- and when i am outside i use the V-ND adapter to slow my R5 shutter to 1/200th so that I can fill/highlight flash. fantastic!

 

[EricN]

I have some doubts, because it's mostly the "L" lenses which get a mk II or III.
The EF 50mm f/1,8 being a notable exception.

I became interested so I checked. There's several zooms, but we're talking about a prime. There is the 400 DO, but I think most of us would say, "it's basically an L."
They aren't "mk ii" but the non L 24, 28, and 35 all have older designs and newer (at the time of release) IS designs. Now that I got someone feeling hopeful, the length of time between versions was always more than 15 years

 

[HMC11]

While hiking, I don't always carry my "best" lenses, I carry the lightest. The 16mm, 35mm, 85mm and 100-400mm are excellent for hiking and they produce really nice results. My other hiking combo is the RF 14-35mm and 70-200mm F4, or a combo of a light prime and a zoom. I only take e.g. my RF 100-500mm when I know I want to take a pic that'll print and hang in living room or something.

Same here. For travel, my usual two-lens combo is the 14-35 & 70-200 F4; and occassionally 24-105 F4 & 100-500 if aniticipating wildlife pictures. If there is is much to carry, then the 24-105 F4 is often the only lens. As I age, weight is a key consideration .

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Same here. For travel, my usual two-lens combo is the 14-35 & 70-200 F4; and occassionally 24-105 F4 & 100-500 if aniticipating wildlife pictures. If there is is much to carry, then the 24-105 F4 is often the only lens. As I age, weight is a key consideration .

The RF 24-105mm F4 is also a lens I sometimes take. I kind of have a love-hate relationship with the lens. l love the versatility, but somehow I prefer 14-35mm & 70-200mm for sharpness and the later one bokeh. I often pair the 24-105mm with either the 35mm F1.8 or 85mm F2 for nicer portraits.