Comparing Canon’s Trio of 85mm Prime Lenses

[HMC11]

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.

I think I know what you mean. The 24-105 F4 produces nice enough photos but generally not quite 'wow'. That's probably due to the photographer, I guess . Yes, I do take along a 35 F1.8 or 50 F1.8 occassionally, primarily for low light situations more than for portraits. I do like the 35 F1.4 though as its rendering is somehow more pleasing. On the other hand, the 35 F1.8's macro ability is appreciated for close up shots of fairly still subjects.

 

[Del Paso]

Fully agree! Maybe the mkii will

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

And if only manual focusing were faster...

 

[Del Paso]

According to TDP's image quality results for the 85mm f/1,4 VCM: One more optically great lens!

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I think I know what you mean. The 24-105 F4 produces nice enough photos but generally not quite 'wow'.

That's puts it quite right. It isn't the sharpest lens, it doesn't create nice sun stars, the minimum focus distance is at an average level and the background blur isn´t anything special. Bokeh is ok @105mm, but other than that there are better options out there (I know it is F4, so I don´t expect great bokeh). The 14-35mm has great magnification @35mm and therefore a nice bokeh even though it is also an f4 lens. The 70-200mm F4 has nice bokeh throughout the range and great blur @200mm. So, given the way lens is built, there won't be too many "wow" pics. But the zoom range is sooo damn convenient and you save switching lenses all the time

That's probably due to the photographer, I guess .

You got that right

Yes, I do take along a 35 F1.8 or 50 F1.8 occassionally, primarily for low light situations more than for portraits. I do like the 35 F1.4 though as its rendering is somehow more pleasing. On the other hand, the 35 F1.8's macro ability is appreciated for close up shots of fairly still subjects.

The rendering of L glass is just on a different level. I don´t know what it exactly is in terms of technical specs, but RF 50mm F1.2 and 28-70mm F2 just render extremely nice and have their special look. And yes, with those lenses you basically have a "wow" pic most of the time It also has to do with the photographer

I´ll keep my 35mm F1.8 and 85mm F2 and pair it mostly with the R8. Since there are alternatives for these focal lengths, I don´t "need" the expensive VCM lens. For 50mm, the f1.2 is too heavy in the long run, the nifty fifty just misses some features. The 50mm VCM fits perfectly for me.

If I do get a second VCM prime lens one day, it'll probably be the 20mm F1.4 because I really love the focal length for night sky, cityscapes (especially at night) and maybe some astro. It is extremely expansive, so I´d be waiting for quite a while until there are used copies at a "reasonable" price point. It is the one focal length where there is no alternative in the RF ecosystem, unless you're using an adapter. Plus, the weight savings between the RF 20mm F1.4 and Sigma EF 20mm F1.4 (plus adapter) are incredible! If I opt for 24mm, I´d give the STM a shot and save some money.

 

[Del Paso]

I think I know what you mean. The 24-105 F4 produces nice enough photos but generally not quite 'wow'. That's probably due to the photographer, I guess . Yes, I do take along a 35 F1.8 or 50 F1.8 occassionally, primarily for low light situations more than for portraits. I do like the 35 F1.4 though as its rendering is somehow more pleasing. On the other hand, the 35 F1.8's macro ability is appreciated for close up shots of fairly still subjects.

RF 24-105 f/4, useful, but boring...
I sold mine, and got a 24-105 f/2,8 which was a victim of sample variations. I had high expectations, so, I was highly disappointed with this praised lens. The sides and corners never got really sharp.
A case of bad luck, fortunately, I could send it back.
Don't misunderstand my post, the f/2,8 is certainly an excellent lens, only mine wasn't...
Instead of buying number 2, I've decided to wait for the launch of the RF 24-70 II. Till then, I will keep using the very good RF 24-70 f/2,8.

 

[Eloniel]

RF 24-105 f/4, useful, but boring...
I sold mine, and got a 24-105 f/2,8 which was a victim of sample variations. I had high expectations, so, I was highly disappointed with this praised lens. The sides and corners never got really sharp.
A case of bad luck, fortunately, I could send it back.
Don't misunderstand my post, the f/2,8 is certainly an excellent lens, only mine wasn't...
Instead of buying number 2, I've decided to wait for the launch of the RF 24-70 II. Till then, I will keep using the very good RF 24-70 f/2,8.

I'm a long time user of the EF 24-105 f4.0 and I really like the 70-105mm range, so on paper I should love the RF 24-105mm f2.8. But when I tried it something fell off, the range and aperture is awesome, the weight is not really an issue but the lense is really long for a lense starting at 24mm. It's hard to explain but it's disturbing. It's the same size as the 70-200 z but it's not the same feeling. Maybe this sensation would have disappeared over time ?

Regarding dimensions I think I would prefer a larger diameter lense but a shorter one. So I'm also waiting for a RF f2.0 zoom.

 

[Del Paso]

I'm a long time user of the EF 24-105 f4.0 and I really like the 70-105mm range, so on paper I should love the RF 24-105mm f2.8. But when I tried it something fell off, the range and aperture is awesome, the weight is not really an issue but the lense is really long for a lense starting at 24mm. It's hard to explain but it's disturbing. It's the same size as the 70-200 z but it's not the same feeling. Maybe this sensation would have disappeared over time ?

Regarding dimensions I think I would prefer a larger diameter lense but a shorter one. So I'm also waiting for a RF f2.0 zoom.

Do not forget: the RF 24-70 f/2 is still only a rumor! It could turn out as an f/2,8 II.

 

[EricN]

Do not forget: the RF 24-70 f/2 is still only a rumor! It could turn out as an f/2,8 II.

Unlikely but 20-70 f1.8. Dare to dream!

 

[PCup]

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

The 85 F2 is such an underrated lens. As long as you put the focus limiter switch in the center, the focus is plenty fast. It's a great video lens as well.

 

[koenkooi]

I’ve been using the 85STM a bit more this week, the 1:2 magnification comes in handy more often than I realized:

 

[jeffa4444]

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.

Go on YouTube and watch James Reader review which include all three plus the Sigma 1.4 85mm and the Canon EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM

 

[koenkooi]

Go on YouTube and watch James Reader review which include all three plus the Sigma 1.4 85mm and the Canon EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM

It's very portrait focussed, but like you say, it does cover a lot of different 85mm lenses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0Q-ZklDlok

 

[Del Paso]

I’ve been using the 85STM a bit more this week, the 1:2 magnification comes in handy more often than I realized:
View attachment 226078

And I'm slowly but surely replacing with the ultra compact 70-200 f/4. But I'll keep the 85 f/2, a lens I really like!
PS: I like your frog picture!

 

[koenkooi]

And I'm slowly but surely replacing with the ultra compact 70-200 f/4. But I'll keep the 85 f/2, a lens I really like!
PS: I like your frog picture!

That's something I have been considering as well, I should try my EF70-400 non-IS more since I'm encountering more an more situations where the 24-105 isn't long enough and the 100-500 is too dark. Having said that, none of the RF 70-200 options are realistically in the budget, even used ones

And it's a toad We have a collection of juveniles and adults visiting each day, but usually in hard to photograph spots, this one ventured out into a spot where it could be easily walked around!

 

[Del Paso]

That's something I have been considering as well, I should try my EF70-400 non-IS more since I'm encountering more an more situations where the 24-105 isn't long enough and the 100-500 is too dark. Having said that, none of the RF 70-200 options are realistically in the budget, even used ones

And it's a toad We have a collection of juveniles and adults visiting each day, but usually in hard to photograph spots, this one ventured out into a spot where it could be easily walked around!

My new equipment when travelling/hiking: R5 II + 15-35 ,second R5 II + RF 70-200f/4. Each camera on a Capture Peak clip mounted on the left and right backpack straps.This covers more than 95% of all situations.
In the bag, easily accessible: 100-500, 60 Leica R macro (sometimes) and, for cities, 24 TSE.