For a long time I've thought that the DS version would be best since you don't see any edges of the bokeh balls (excluding those edges caused by the edge of the front element causing a cats eye on one side).
We do know that the DS reduces the light by around 2x and therefore requires about 2x more exposure (which I don't mind that much). But that results in the center of the bokeh balls (which aren't darkened) being 2x brighter. And since the bright bokeh balls are almost always the brightest parts of the image inherently, they often turn "white-ish" due to overexposure and thus lose their color, as well as being 2x brighter in the center as well as having a smaller diameter. That bothers me enough to change my mind, and thus I would now prefer the original non-DS version.[..]
Yes, that is true, and is the reason that the bokeh balls are smaller when wide open. It's a benefit if you want to get both eyes in focus compared to the non-DS. To make the best decision, I'd have to try both at the same time for a while, and I don't think that's going to be possible. I do wish that they had made the DS version allow more light in at the edges so that it only softened the edges somewhat so that they weren't so noticeable while only removing only 20-ish% of the light instead of 50-ish%.The DS coating also acts like aperture, so the DoF is slightly larger compared to the non-DS at the same f-stop displayed on the screen.
If you prefer more DoF with the non-DS version, it’s a simple matter to reduce the aperture.Yes, that is true, and is the reason that the bokeh balls are smaller when wide open. It's a benefit if you want to get both eyes in focus compared to the non-DS. To make the best decision, I'd have to try both at the same time for a while, and I don't think that's going to be possible. I do wish that they had made the DS version allow more light in at the edges so that it only softened the edges somewhat so that they weren't so noticeable while only removing only 20-ish% of the light instead of 50-ish%.
Well, of course that's true, but that's like saying that if you wanted both eyes in focus, it's a simple matter to reduce the aperture and just buy the RF 85mm f2 instead.If you prefer more DoF with the non-DS version, it’s a simple matter to reduce the aperture.
Nice lighting and composition there. I would say you aren’t really pushing those shadows enough to notice a difference between cRAW and RAW. Looks like the cRAW responded very well to the adjustmentsWell, I bit the bullet and just got the RF 85mm f1.2L delivered!
I thought I'd post a single test photo I took today with my R5, and show how I adjusted it and what resolution the 85 1.2L can get out of the shadows.
This is the original 14.7MB (compressed) CRaw photo at f1.2, iso 100, 1/8000", mechanical 1st & 2nd shutter, with no post modifications and no de-noising, resized to 2.5K pixels tall::
I then adjusted and cropped it to taste in DXO Photolab4, with "deep prime" de-noising:
I then took a square 1:1 640x640 pixel crop of the untouched original around the eye, which is here:
I then took the same 1:1 640x640 crop of the eye from the version I adjusted in PL4, which is here:
If you look at the above 640x640, you can see a pretty clear reflection in the eye of my house on the right, my neighbors' house on the left, and between them is me, hunched over holding the camera in portrait mode just above the ground to take the photo. Since this was with a compressed raw file, I wonder if a regular raw file would get even more out of the shadows?
Thanks, Chris.Nice lighting and composition there. I would say you aren’t really pushing those shadows enough to notice a difference between cRAW and RAW. Looks like the cRAW responded very well to the adjustments