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

[esglord]

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.

ha, good point. I've got a solid ladder on standby just in case.

 

[Joel C]

If this is affordable, this will be a wonderful addition to the working kit on the road. I just wonder how quickly it will AF for my needs of underwater shots. The 35mm was personally a disappointment. I'd like to move away from the adapted 100mm....

 

[Graphic.Artifacts]

Could be a very nice travel tele/portrait/macro. Pair it with the rumoured 15-35 f4, a 45 MP sensor and a couple cards/betteries and I'd be good to go.

 

[Max TT]

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

It will be difficult to consider this Canon 85 f2 if its anywhere near the price of the Rokinon RF 1.4 which is at $699 full price.

And by difficult I mean impossible. But will wait for pricing.

 

[pj1974]

It will be difficult to consider this Canon 85 f2 if its anywhere near the price of the Rokinon RF 1.4 which is at $699 full price.

And by difficult I mean impossible. But will wait for pricing.

What do you mean 'difficult to consider' and then 'by difficult [you] mean impossible'? (Genuine question).

Each person has their individual photographic needs.

If the Canon RF 85mm f/2 STM price is near the Rokinon RF 85mm f/1.4, I would be getting the Canon in a heartbeat.
My reasons being that Canon AF and IS are more important (to me) than the extra light of f/1.4 (compared to f/2).

For others, the extra light gathering potential and subject isolation potential of f/1.4 would be more important.
As I indicated above: horses for courses.

PJ

 

[bbasiaga]

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.

With macro, the closer you get to 1:1, the closer you are to the lens's front element to get it to focus/ the closer you are to your minimum focal distance. I think you'll have a hard time getting that close. and the subject can't really be moving, because to get depth of field you need to shoot at like F22. Or otherwise do a bunch of focus stacking in software.

The rule of thumb i was taught when I bought my macro lens was that the 1:1, 1:2 ratio refers to the actual size of the object on the sensor compared to its size in real life. So 1:2 means the object is half the size on the sensor as it is in real life. Considering the sensor is roughly 1" square (order of magnitude, just for an estimate), a baby hand is going to be about that size so you won't have much context even at 1:2. I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind for photos, but hopefully this helps you decide if this is enough for you or not. I think most common baby shots don't rely on macro, but instead DOF/focal point manipulation in a wider field of view.

-Brian

 

[Graphic.Artifacts]

f2 + IS + IBIS should mean that the shutter speed will only be limited by subject motion. More or less. So the only consideration for me, as far as apperture goes, is bokeh and I think for my purposes f2 will be fine. It won't be as crazy sharp or weather sealed as the L but it won't be big, heavy and cospicuous either. Looks like a winner to me. I love my EF 35 f2. When my bag of primes was stolen in a smash and grab that was the first one I replaced. 1:2 is more than enough macro for my travel photgraphy

 

[secant]

Ladies and gents, I have the Canon 85/1.2 L should I sell it and get this or the Samyang 85/1.4?
The good old Canon 85/1.2 L is nice but its heavy and really hard to nail focus.

 

[mangobutter]

Ordering this so extremely hard day 1 pre-order. Currently have an EF 100 F2... guess i'll have to offload that. So my RF kit will consist of an RP/35 IS/85 IS.

I'll still get 50 F2 IS if it comes out. as long as it's $199 or less.

 

[Max TT]

What do you mean 'difficult to consider' and then 'by difficult [you] mean impossible'? (Genuine question).

Each person has their individual photographic needs.

If the Canon RF 85mm f/2 STM price is near the Rokinon RF 85mm f/1.4, I would be getting the Canon in a heartbeat.
My reasons being that Canon AF and IS are more important (to me) than the extra light of f/1.4 (compared to f/2).

For others, the extra light gathering potential and subject isolation potential of f/1.4 would be more important.
As I indicated above: horses for courses.

PJ

Your money, do you.

For me, I shot the Rokinon RF AF 14mm f2.8 and had no complaints with the AF.

So if the 85mm Rokinion is anything close to that performance of the 14mm version, I will much rather the 85mm f1.4 non-IS Rokinon over the f2 IS Canon especially considering the body has builtin IS.

Maybe if the body didn't have IS, my opinion may have been different.

If there isn't much price difference the Rokinon is my choice. But price is yet to be announced, so I await pricing.

 

[mb66energy]

Ordering this so extremely hard day 1 pre-order. Currently have an EF 100 F2... guess i'll have to offload that. So my RF kit will consist of an RP/35 IS/85 IS.

I'll still get 50 F2 IS if it comes out. as long as it's $199 or less.

I have the f/2 100mm too - I love it for small size and really good IQ, but I hate the lousy MFD of 90cm / max. reprod. ratio of 1:8. So I use my EF 100 macro instead.
The f/2 85 macro might be a very good walk around lens like the RF 2 35 and the EF-M 1.4 32 which has a similar field of view (90 x 60 mm instead of 72 x 48mm). Only drawback is that it doesn't work on EOS M and EOS EF cameras which I use currently for time lapses with Magic Lantern ...

 

[esglord]

With macro, the closer you get to 1:1, the closer you are to the lens's front element to get it to focus/ the closer you are to your minimum focal distance. I think you'll have a hard time getting that close. and the subject can't really be moving, because to get depth of field you need to shoot at like F22. Or otherwise do a bunch of focus stacking in software.

The rule of thumb i was taught when I bought my macro lens was that the 1:1, 1:2 ratio refers to the actual size of the object on the sensor compared to its size in real life. So 1:2 means the object is half the size on the sensor as it is in real life. Considering the sensor is roughly 1" square (order of magnitude, just for an estimate), a baby hand is going to be about that size so you won't have much context even at 1:2. I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind for photos, but hopefully this helps you decide if this is enough for you or not. I think most common baby shots don't rely on macro, but instead DOF/focal point manipulation in a wider field of view.

-Brian

Thanks Brian, this is helpful

 

[Steve Dmark2]

Mhh was very interested. Now that I see bigger size and more weight than my current EF 85mm 1.8...
I think I will pass on the instant buy and wait for some reviews. If the IQ isn't greatly improved this will be a pass for me.
Cause the 1992!!! lens has 1.8

 

[Maximilian]

Mhh was very interested. Now that I see bigger size and more weight than my current EF 85mm 1.8...
I think I will pass on the instant buy and wait for some reviews. If the IQ isn't greatly improved this will be a pass for me.
Cause the 1992!!! lens has 1.8

The 1992 lens also has the 1992 optical formula (edit: maybe even older). And as I too have it, I can tell you it is no pleasure to use it at f/1.8 - let alone the CA.
Some say the T value of the aperture is far from calling it an f/1.8 lens but I have no data in it.

Wait for samples, and if your not convinced wait for some RL reviews, maybe from Brian.
Look if sharpness and bokeh at f/2.0 fullfill your needs.
But don't judge just on spec numbers.

 

[koenkooi]

The 1992 lens also has the 1992 optical formula. And as I too have it, I can tell you it is no pleasure to use it at f/1.8 - let alone the CA.[..]

The most used aperture on mine is f/2.2, most defects have cleared up by then and DoF is still small enough. So being able
to use f/2.0 on this new lens would be a win for me.

 

[Del Paso]

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.

If you plan to photograph your newborn's "details", a 1:2 will be more than you actually need: in other words, just perfect!
So, don't hesitate, just wait for some serious reviews about this lens.
Yet, I expect it to offer great value and optical quality for the money.
And, above all, enjoy your baby!
Cheers!

 

[mangobutter]

So this RF 85 will be roughly the same width as an EF 100 F2 but a little bit longer. About 15 or so mm longer. I wonder if it will internal focus or external? The length might suggest internal.... seems a bit on the long side. but in keeping with the RF 35, i'm guessing it likely will be external.

 

[CaMeRa QuEsT]

The Tamron 35mm and 85mm f/1.8 VC are the only lenses in the market that are comparable to Canon's, and yet Canon can sell the 35mm for $100 less than Tamron: $499 vs. $599. The Tamron 85mm is currently $749, maybe Canon is going to sell theirs for $599?

 

[Joel C]

The Tamron 35mm and 85mm f/1.8 VC are the only lenses in the market that are comparable to Canon's, and yet Canon can sell the 35mm for $100 less than Tamron: $499 vs. $599. The Tamron 85mm is currently $749, maybe Canon is going to sell theirs for $599?

If this lens is 599$ I will buy it on spec alone lol. Seriously, I will likely buy it at 699$ even...

 

[Rpaulsen]

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).

I have this exact plan in mind. I already have 2 R’s and the 35. Will definitely be getting this lens and probably the R6 after selling an R to a friend. I plan on using those two lenses as light weight supplements for dance floor (and the 85 probably for ring shots), not as my primary, pairing them with the 15-35 L, 50L, and down the line the 70-135L.