The macro is the best feature on the 85mm F2. It just needs a better AF motor and some weather sealing/ internal construction (but i don't see that happening).
Upvote
0
Canon to come out with a RF 100mm f/1.4 VCM?
- Thread starter Richard-CN
- Start date
The macro is the best feature on the 85mm F2. It just needs a better AF motor and some weather sealing/ internal construction (but i don't see that happening).
I'd easily trade its macro ability for internal focusing, like I just did with the 35, which is gone and not to be missed, around here
Upvote
0
roby17269
R5, X2D II 100c, DJI Mavic 4 Pro & Mini 5 Pro
On the fact that it is highly subjective, we agree to agree
I am so in love with my RF 85 1.2, and the fact that the 45mp of my R5 allow for decent croppability, that I would not be swayed by a 100 1.4
Now, if it was a 100 1.2, THAT would be different
... for reasons.But I guess I've spent so much on Hasselblad recently that it's good if my cards get some much needed respite
Last edited:
Upvote
0
roby17269
R5, X2D II 100c, DJI Mavic 4 Pro & Mini 5 Pro
True that - but I am a bit of a lens geek (like almost everyone here
) so I do tend to get close and personal with lenses...I haven't seen many in the wild at all, but some of the few I have seen I did approach (friendly photographers) and they were 85's. I do think that 85mm is a more "classic" focal length and I'd be surprised if sales figures were comparable between the 2 lenses. But I may also be totally wrong.
Just had a look and on eBay the number of 85 1.8 on sale is roughly double of the number of 100 2 on sale, so take that FWIW.
I guess the assumption is indeed that if the 100 1.4 will materialize, it will be an L lens, which makes it a difficult proposition in my mind, slotted between the 85 1.4 VCM and the 135 1.8
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
Use case scenario is always king. No two photographers share the same need or photographic burden. As a wedding photographer, I always preferred a 16mm / 35mm / 85mm. But that was just what I liked, others differ. One of my 2nd photographers like the 24mm / 50mm / 100mm option. The biggest issue was the troublesome EF 50mm f1.2 L....but in the new RF world....that's a forgotten headache. Canon finally made a world class 50mm f1.2 and then added the amazing 50mm f1.4 VCM to the options list. Then the rather unusual RF 45mm f1.2. We are truely spoilt for choice these days. In the world of zooms, there's lots of ways to split your three lens choices. 10-20mm, 24-105mm, 100-500mm. Or keep it all f2.8 with a 15-35mm, 24-105mm and 100-300mm. All superlative options.
Upvote
0
It's a beauty. I rented it first and then had to have one. Using it on a Sony body but just about everything else I own is Canon. For the price that Canon would charge for a 135mm 1.4 you could definitely buy the Sigma lens AND a Sony body (like an a7IV) or L mount body like a Lumix. I'm even considering selling my EF 200mm 2.0 (if anyone is interested) and getting Sigma's. They are making great glass now and I don't have to buy more R3's, just repurposing my Sony's that I used to use for architectural work. It's great to have a body permanently mounted on each lens instead of having to swap lenses around. Faster work flow and no chance of dust getting on my sensors. ... That's how I justify it anyway. : )
Upvote
0
That world of a large multitude of choices produces a lot of head aches in my brain, but in the end: Yes, there is a full scale of tools offered to us - and it is us to choose from.
Upvote
0
They do have a patent for an RF 150 f/1.4L IS.
Although the <$4K USD part is in question.
Upvote
0
I see it as between the RF 85 f/1.2 and RF 135 f/1.8.
Although it would really just be part of a set of f/1.4 VCM lenses.
There is no 135 f/1.4 VCM.
Upvote
0
What would be the use cases for 100/1.4 @f1.4 vs say a f2.8 like the current RF100 macro?
For portraiture, wouldn't keeping both eyes in focus be a problem @f1.4?
Planetary images perhaps?
For telephoto/wildlife, wouldn't you be too close?
Others?
For portraiture, wouldn't keeping both eyes in focus be a problem @f1.4?
Planetary images perhaps?
For telephoto/wildlife, wouldn't you be too close?
Others?
Upvote
0
Lowlight, astro, indoor sports, and blurring out backgrounds.
Sigma has had a 100 f/1.4 for a long time, and recently introduced a 135 f/1.4.
Upvote
0
My only experience with 100mm is a 105mm Takumar... which = no experience with 100 mm. However, I think I prefer 105mm over 85mm for portraits.
As much as I think I'd like the whole series of VCM primes, I'll try to assemble a zoom trio instead. RF 10-20, 28-70, and non-existent 70-135.
While that may all just be a dream, the 28-70 is for sure.
As much as I think I'd like the whole series of VCM primes, I'll try to assemble a zoom trio instead. RF 10-20, 28-70, and non-existent 70-135.
While that may all just be a dream, the 28-70 is for sure.
Upvote
0
roby17269
R5, X2D II 100c, DJI Mavic 4 Pro & Mini 5 Pro
I guess 85 1.2 v 85 1.4 being the reference will depend on price, if this 100 1.4 will indeed be announced. With the 135 there's only one so what else I can compare it to?
In any case I do not care much about classifications in this case. My point was that for me, functionally, I do not see the appeal of such lens given the already existing ones
Upvote
0
Do you mean solar system objects? Wide aperture is not required, and 100 is way too short.
Upvote
0
People don’t just photograph headshots for driver’s licenses where everything is close and everything needs to be in focus.
Even when shooting models or fashion, you can photograph the entire person from a bit further away, keep the whole head in focus, and get a different perspective due to compression, as opposed to shooting it with a 35mm or 50mm lens.
If you’re interested, I’ve personally shot a lot of stuff with a 135mm at f/1.8. Just a couple of examples: focusing on an isolated head in a crowd at a concert; a shot of a frontman on stage; a model in the sea at dusk (again a whole-body shot); a model swimming at dusk with city lights in the background; a silhouette of an ibex after sunset; a fashion model—whole body shot (with plenty of space to spare in the frame)—surrounded some architectural elements.
An athlete on a bike surrounded by spectators; an athlete (climber) hanging on a ledge at dusk; a side silhouette of an athlete jumping with a bike after sunset.
Then there are shots where I was focusing on different parts of instruments or tools for commercial work. Shooting people in laboratories—focusing on one person working with a machine and blurring the surroundings. I've done full body shots ( sometimes with loads of space left and right of the subject for some environment) of ballerinas and dancers, when it was convinient to blur out some of the ambient (you still get a pretty good idea where the person is) and keeping the focus on the model ...
Just last week I photographed a model that was standing on the inside of a hotel bar next to an open window. We were shooting at dusk, the lights were on inside, I had some light setup outside. I was shooting outside from the terrace, keeping the whole window frame and curtains in the picture, bluring it a bit and bluring the lights and stuff in the back of the room even more. And since the distance from the camera to the the model was cca 6-8 meters and the model was facing me, I can assure you that both eyes came out sharp in final images ;-)
There are so many examples where you either want things out of focus, or you simply don’t need everything to be in focus, but still need to open up the aperture to gather more light. I mean… I’m honestly surprised that you don’t realize— or perhaps just lack the imagination to see— that there are all sorts of images that can be taken with focal lengths over 50mm and at lower f-stops.
Upvote
0
I asked the forum for some examples since I don't shoot those genres... thanks for providing some but perhaps the commentary wasn't necessary. My only lens faster than f2.8 is for astro.
I am happy to seek information if I don't know it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
"For portraiture, wouldn't keeping both eyes in focus be a problem @f1.4?"
No. Not at f/1.2, either. One eye out of focus is a photographer problem, not an aperture problem. Portraits ain't just close up head shots. Below = f/1.2 @85mm.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Similar threads
