Here are the specifications for the Canon RF 85mm f/2 IS STM Macro

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Canon will announce the RF 85mm f/2 IS STM Macro on Thursday alongside the EOS R5, EOS R6 and other lenses.
Canon RF 85mm f/2 IS STM Macro Specifications:

12 elements in 11 groups
1 UD element
Minimum focus distance of 0.35m
Maximum magnification 0.5x
5 stops of IS
67mm filter thread
Size 78mm x 90.5mm
Weight 500g

Continue reading...

 

[zonoskar]

Could also be a nice budget portrait lens at f2. Hopefully the price will not be too high.

 

[ahsanford]

1:2 macro again! Canon is 2-for-2 with this on the standard RF non-L primes. They won't do this on the superteles of course, but imagine a set of inexpensive primes from 24 - 85 that all have 1:2 macro -- t'would be nice.

- A

 

[gzroxas]

Very interesting. One thing I often thought is that the beautiful rendition of 85mm would be even cooler if they could just focus a little closer. I will be considering either this or the Samyang 1.4... the former for versatility, the second for pure portraiture

 

[Rpaulsen]

This is going to be a day 1 purchase for me. Hopefully it is less than $600. I am also very interested to find out if I can comfortably move away from my EF 100 f/2.8 Macro and just rely on this lens for ring/detail shots for my wedding photography.

 

[Maximilian]

Beautiful! And magnification 0.5x as I expected!
If I was to go into R system this would be one of my first lenses

 

[pj1974]

I really like the 80-90mm range for candid portraits. I also use it a lot for isolation of non-portrait subjects too.

This is a lens that I foresee owning and using. The close minimum focusing distance (MFD) [and the corresponding maximum magnification (is a very welcome feature of this lens).

The STM (hopefully a fast-ish STM AF) is 'fine' for this lens, imho. While I might prefer (nano/USM) - I do understand that for cost (and video) purposes, STM is quite reasonable too.

In a sense, I believe the RF 85mm f/2 STM on my planned R5 to be somewhat similar to how I use my 50mm f/1.8 STM on my 80D now. I really like this combination.

Thanks, Canon (and cheers Nokishita for the 'preview' details)

PJ

 

[stevensteven]

Canon EOS R5 + RF 35MM STM + RF 85 STM. I can't breathe right now.

 

[FrenchFry]

Looks to be relatively compact and lightweight, which is nice. I was hoping we would get 1:1... Hopefully an L quality true macro will come next year. I see macro as one of the (several) areas in which using a mirrorless is more fun than a DSLR (there are situations where the reverse is true too). In the meantime this will be fun to play with.

 

[RMac]

R6 + RF 35mm + RF 85mm has a lot of potential as a fairly budget-friend wedding kit. (or RP if you're super budget conscious and are willing to shoot a wedding on single card slot).

 

[ddixon]

I love 85mm, but I've never loved my EF 85 1.8. My copy is not super sharp, even stopped down, and the lack of IS means I have to keep the shutter higher, negating some of the speed. I'm not even knocked out with the color rendition. So, newer optics, close-focusing, IS, no adapter? This is my next lens purchase. Unusual for me, I may not even wait a few months to get a refurb.

 

[esglord]

I am interested in picking up this lens or a used EF 100mm macro, because I have a baby on the way in the fall and would like to be able to take some newborn detail shots (fingers, toes, ears, etc). I'm assuming 1:2 will be enough for that purpose, but I have no experience with macro photography. Can anyone enlighten me if a 1:2 lens would be limiting for this purpose? Hopefully, I'll also be able to hire a newborn photographer, but with COVID, not sure that will be a viable option right away, so I'm looking to get prepared.

 

[scyrene]

I am interested in picking up this lens or a used EF 100mm macro, because I have a baby on the way in the fall and would like to be able to take some newborn detail shots (fingers, toes, ears, etc). I'm assuming 1:2 will be enough for that purpose, but I have no experience with macro photography. Can anyone enlighten me if a 1:2 lens would be limiting for this purpose? Hopefully, I'll also be able to hire a newborn photographer, but with COVID, not sure that will be a viable option right away, so I'm looking to get prepared.

1:2 means you can fill the frame with a subject something like 72mm across at mfd. So yes, it would be more than adequate for body parts of even the tiniest baby.

 

[PeterParker]

Canon EOS R5 + RF 35MM STM + RF 85 STM. I can't breathe right now.

Already have the 35, just waiting on the other two to become available for preorder! Never been so excited for new kit.

 

[kten]

I am interested in picking up this lens or a used EF 100mm macro, because I have a baby on the way in the fall and would like to be able to take some newborn detail shots (fingers, toes, ears, etc). I'm assuming 1:2 will be enough for that purpose, but I have no experience with macro photography. Can anyone enlighten me if a 1:2 lens would be limiting for this purpose? Hopefully, I'll also be able to hire a newborn photographer, but with COVID, not sure that will be a viable option right away, so I'm looking to get prepared.

should be zero problem for that purpose, short of maybe extreme closeup of hands but even then it'd probably be fine. Basically half size, as scyrene mentioned a 72mm real size object will be projected 36mm sized at min focus. I mention that as may sound like it doubles rather than halves being 1:2 not 2:1 which someone unfamiliar could read that as. So anything smaller than that won't fill your frame although plenty enough detail in fingernails etc, more things like ants or tiny bugs for pure macro work that this is not so suited for but folks likely using mpe 5x for tiny things and 1:1 lenses for the usual fare like 150mm and 180mm (due to working distance at 1:1 vs the shorter focal length true 1:1 macro lenses which many find awkward working distance at max mag) so you should be more than good enough for your use.

 

[carina_r31]

So it's going to be R6 + 35 mm + 85 mm f2 for me. Combined with my EF 50 mm 1.4, this will cover most of my purposes. Maybe I'll catch up the RF 50 mm 1.8 when it's out. Oh boy, really can't wait for Thursday!

 

[esglord]

1:2 means you can fill the frame with a subject something like 72mm across at mfd. So yes, it would be more than adequate for body parts of even the tiniest baby.

Thank you, much appreciated

 

[Act444]

Interesting. I’m admittedly more interested in 50mm at this point, so that may be my next RF lens purchase instead - and I’ll wait for reviews/experiences on this one. I will say there is somewhat of an appeal for an 85mm lens that can actually focus close for once - but usually 85 is quite niche for my uses while 50 is more versatile.

 

[koenkooi]

I am interested in picking up this lens or a used EF 100mm macro, because I have a baby on the way in the fall and would like to be able to take some newborn detail shots (fingers, toes, ears, etc). I'm assuming 1:2 will be enough for that purpose, but I have no experience with macro photography. Can anyone enlighten me if a 1:2 lens would be limiting for this purpose? Hopefully, I'll also be able to hire a newborn photographer, but with COVID, not sure that will be a viable option right away, so I'm looking to get prepared.

For pictures of your newborn, keep an eye on the working distance and field of view as well. Being crammed into the far corner on a step ladder due to poor lens choices isn't a good way to spend the time for "Baby's first bath"

That being said, 85mm on full frame is great for portraits and the 100mm macro is my possibly my favourite lens.

 

[esglord]

should be zero problem for that purpose, short of maybe extreme closeup of hands but even then it'd probably be fine. Basically half size, as scyrene mentioned a 72mm real size object will be projected 36mm sized at min focus. I mention that as may sound like it doubles rather than halves being 1:2 not 2:1 which someone unfamiliar could read that as. So anything smaller than that won't fill your frame although plenty enough detail in fingernails etc, more things like ants or tiny bugs for pure macro work that this is not so suited for but folks likely using mpe 5x for tiny things and 1:1 lenses for the usual fare like 150mm and 180mm (due to working distance at 1:1 vs the shorter focal length true 1:1 macro lenses which many find awkward working distance at max mag) so you should be more than good enough for your use.

Thank you for confirming. I expect I'll probably end up going for the adapted true macro lens anyway, but I'll wait to see what the price and performance are like for this lens first.