The Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM: The developers answer 10 questions

GMCPhotographics

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Aug 22, 2010
1,668
370
50
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
So the upshot of this article is that lens engineers know how to B/S ans spin too..I love the line...this lens is unequalled in Bokeh...because it's got a slightly closer MFD than the EF version...really? Then the twaddle about negating cats eye Bokeh...only to show multiple images using this lens with exactly that issue on prominent display.
So for your rather exorbitant retail price...you get an 85mm f1.2 lens...with a Blue goo element, a function ring, a much bigger lens, a non fly by wire AF system and pretty much every thing else that the EF lens does exemplary. Optically...sure it'll be sharp...but so is the EF version. Oh...and that lens was a portrait lens...so it doesn't need a closer focus distance than it's already got.

The twaddle about the RF lens being longer than the EF version due to the lack of a mirror box just made me laugh...so are all RF lenses over 35mm going to be bigger and heavier than their EF counter parts? Kind of makes me worry about the rumored RF 500mm f4.
 

MayaTlab

EOS 90D
Oct 6, 2015
193
81
Then the twaddle about negating cats eye Bokeh...only to show multiple images using this lens with exactly that issue on prominent display.

Vignetting, related to "cat eyes bokeh" is all a question of degree. According to this interview Canon may have tried to limit vignetting, which, if excessive, can completely ruin the whole point of a fast aperture as vignetting increases DOF off centre - the RF 50mm is a good example of that, at most common shooting distances there's barely no difference whatsoever for 80% of the frame in terms of DOF and bokeh between f1.2 and f1.4 because of its excessive vignetting.

Personally I'm expecting this 85mm to be similar (but no better) in terms of vignetting to its EF counterpart, just like the 50mm RF is to the EF, that is to say quite a bit better than the 50mm. Added bonus according to that interview might be a better bokeh performance off axis than the 50mm RF.
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,006
1,039
Who argued that? Funny. You say Sony is better, yet switched to Canon (I know, not for video). Now you're complaining about something that isn't even an issue for you as a stills guy. :LOL::rolleyes: I wish I could get some of that high grade legal California weed here in Texas.

I did video when I had a 70D. Very amateur. But even I knew the best way to get clean audio was through external mics. Had over 1.5 million page views (In 1 year on Google Plus of all places LogicalPrepper) before I shut down my account and quit doing videos. The mics are dirt cheap. Especially for guys rocking an R and a 28-70.
It's always the same....
Canon introduces something new, no one has ever seen or tried.
And they start to complain, arguing they expected properties the new product doesn't have, or should I say, can't have.
A new luminous high-end lens, for instance, should be, at the same time, dead sharp, dirt cheap, lightweight, silent for videos they don't even make...
As you said, quoting W.S., much ado for nothing, or is it for the sake of whining?:unsure:. To sum it up: Canon will always be *******, welcome to Wonderful (silent!) Sony World!:ROFLMAO:
 

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,121
750
Remains to be seen. Let me explain.
I've seen a few samples taken at mid distances, and it looks to be extremely sharp and well-corrected.

It renders just like the RF 50/1.2, which is sharp at all distances and across the whole frame with negligible field curvature (having this sometimes can be good for faces).

So yes, it will be ruthless, but softness can be generated with the razor-thin depth of field where most of the face is still out of focus.

The RF 28-70/2 wide-open at the long end is weaker than these two, and yet it is still extremely sharp for this, if the subject it in the mid-field "sharpness zone" (which of course increases with stepping down)
 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM

dirtyvu

EOS M50
Jan 7, 2019
38
21
Sony's run muuuuuuch quieter (the decent to good lenses). I've got no experience with Nikons.

The only RF I don't have much experience with is the 24-105, I hear that one is significantly quieter than the rest, but it seems to me that Canon doesn't really give a shit about making quiet lenses for the RF yet.

I'm a stills guy, luckily. If I were a video guy... I wouldn't touch any RF stuff yet.

no video guy would use the onboard mics. I'm sorry but you can't get anything resembling professional audio with any built-in mics on any DSLR/mirrorless camera.
 

dirtyvu

EOS M50
Jan 7, 2019
38
21
So the upshot of this article is that lens engineers know how to B/S ans spin too..I love the line...this lens is unequalled in Bokeh...because it's got a slightly closer MFD than the EF version...really? Then the twaddle about negating cats eye Bokeh...only to show multiple images using this lens with exactly that issue on prominent display.
So for your rather exorbitant retail price...you get an 85mm f1.2 lens...with a Blue goo element, a function ring, a much bigger lens, a non fly by wire AF system and pretty much every thing else that the EF lens does exemplary. Optically...sure it'll be sharp...but so is the EF version. Oh...and that lens was a portrait lens...so it doesn't need a closer focus distance than it's already got.

The twaddle about the RF lens being longer than the EF version due to the lack of a mirror box just made me laugh...so are all RF lenses over 35mm going to be bigger and heavier than their EF counter parts? Kind of makes me worry about the rumored RF 500mm f4.

I've played with the EF 85 mm 1.2 (my friend let's me borrow his) and I find it very difficult to have sharp images. The focusing is way too slow.

On the other hand, I love love love my EF 85 mm 1.4. That is a beast of a lens and much easier to get great results. Focusing is very fast. Setting the 1.2 lens to 1.4 still doesn't get the same sharpness.

How is his argument wrong? 85 mm is 85 mm. The length is from the sensor the center of the lens. If 85 mm = 85 mm, then the camera where the length from the mount to the sensor is shorter, to make it to 85 mm, the length to the lens has to be longer.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,271
3,528
Irving, Texas
It's always the same....
Canon introduces something new, no one has ever seen or tried.
And they start to complain, arguing they expected properties the new product doesn't have, or should I say, can't have.
A new luminous high-end lens, for instance, should be, at the same time, dead sharp, dirt cheap, lightweight, silent for videos they don't even make...
As you said, quoting W.S., much ado for nothing, or is it for the sake of whining?:unsure:. To sum it up: Canon will always be *******, welcome to Wonderful (silent!) Sony World!:ROFLMAO:
In fairness, every Sony lens beyond 400mm is completely silent. The most sensitive meters in the world can't detect a sound. I've heard they are lubed with unobtanium grease. The internal mic on Sony bodies are so good that external mics are useless in the Sony world. Come on Canon!!! ;)
 

Attachments

  • a7r-video.jpg
    a7r-video.jpg
    201.3 KB · Views: 89
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GMCPhotographics

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,006
1,039
In fairness, every Sony lens beyond 400mm is completely silent. The most sensitive meters in the world can't detect a sound. I've heard they are lubed with unobtanium grease. The internal mic on Sony bodies are so good that external mics are useless in the Sony world. Come on Canon!!! ;)
:LOL::LOL::LOL: And don't forget the Sony bodies are (rain) water -cooled...
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,376
1,246
I've seen a few samples taken at mid distances, and it looks to be extremely sharp and well-corrected.

It renders just like the RF 50/1.2, which is sharp at all distances and across the whole frame with negligible field curvature (having this sometimes can be good for faces).

So yes, it will be ruthless, but softness can be generated with the razor-thin depth of field where most of the face is still out of focus.

The RF 28-70/2 wide-open at the long end is weaker than these two, and yet it is still extremely sharp for this, if the subject it in the mid-field "sharpness zone" (which of course increases with stepping down)
Thank you. Extremely valuable piece of information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB

Jasonmc89

EOS 80D
Feb 7, 2019
290
303
UK
You've never touched an RF lens, have you.

All of them are noisy. The 50 1.2, and the 28-70 are basically unusable for video unless you plan to use an external mic away from the camera... they are that loud.

If you’re using equipment that high grade and expensive, wouldn’t you be using an external mic anyway?
 

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,675
1,351
So the upshot of this article is that lens engineers know how to B/S ans spin too..I love the line...this lens is unequalled in Bokeh...because it's got a slightly closer MFD than the EF version...really? Then the twaddle about negating cats eye Bokeh...only to show multiple images using this lens with exactly that issue on prominent display.
So for your rather exorbitant retail price...you get an 85mm f1.2 lens...with a Blue goo element, a function ring, a much bigger lens, a non fly by wire AF system and pretty much every thing else that the EF lens does exemplary. Optically...sure it'll be sharp...but so is the EF version. Oh...and that lens was a portrait lens...so it doesn't need a closer focus distance than it's already got.

The twaddle about the RF lens being longer than the EF version due to the lack of a mirror box just made me laugh...so are all RF lenses over 35mm going to be bigger and heavier than their EF counter parts? Kind of makes me worry about the rumored RF 500mm f4.
There are so many assumptions and wrong things in this post that I can’t even begin....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

6degrees

RF 85mm F1.2
Sep 6, 2018
122
83
I owned one for a while. Still way quieter than my RF lenses.

I’m not trying to make this a Sony vs. Canon thing, I pretty much left Sony for the RF system, but you’re delusional if you think the offerings currently available offer the same sort of video abilities that Sony is offering.

The high end lenses are HORRIBLE for hybrid shooters right now; kick ass for stills though.

Watching others’ video on the noise level between Sony 85mm F1.4 vs Canon RF 50mm F1.2, the former is just too noisy, unacceptable. Canon RF 50mm F1.2 L is not quiet neither. Both are bad in my opinion. If Canon RF 85mm F1.2L is worse, giving the price tag of $2699, not good at all.
 
Mar 31, 2014
1,005
96
70
Center of my universe
Remains to be seen. Let me explain.
A lens may be razor sharp at an infinity. And that’s how sites like LensRentals tend to evaluate lenses.
However, portraiture work is done at a much closer distance to your subject. A few meters for a head and shoulders with a 85mm lens.
Now here is something to be aware off.
e.g. Sigma 105/1.4 Art was confirmed to be a very sharp lens at an infinity by LensRentals.
Well, yup.. it sure is at around 2100 points
But, the same lens evaluated at MFD (1meter) to subject truly sucks in sharpness department with nearly scratching 1600 points mark. A massive difference.
Same is true for Sigma 85/1.4 Art and 135/1.8 Art.

The takeaway from this exercise is: the lens in question is unlikely to be a ruthlessly Sharp for portraits. Unless shot at a around 4 meters and longer distance to subject.

Where can one find resolution evaluations at various distances?

John
 

GMCPhotographics

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Aug 22, 2010
1,668
370
50
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
I've played with the EF 85 mm 1.2 (my friend let's me borrow his) and I find it very difficult to have sharp images. The focusing is way too slow.

On the other hand, I love love love my EF 85 mm 1.4. That is a beast of a lens and much easier to get great results. Focusing is very fast. Setting the 1.2 lens to 1.4 still doesn't get the same sharpness.

How is his argument wrong? 85 mm is 85 mm. The length is from the sensor the center of the lens. If 85 mm = 85 mm, then the camera where the length from the mount to the sensor is shorter, to make it to 85 mm, the length to the lens has to be longer.

I've owned my EF 85mm f1.2 II L since early 2007 and I use it professionally. It's a hard lens to master...I used to use it with a pair of 5DmkII's and that's hard with that AF system. Way harder than the current 61 point AF system and Rf AF system.

My beef with the size argument is they way the engineers are trying to spin a basic neutral fact in to a positive to discredit the older EF model. When a RF lens is launched that is noticeably shorter than the EF variant....they make a big fuss about it. When they they release an RF lens that is a lot larger than the current EF version...they state that it's not an equal comparison.

I'm sure this lens is going to be sharp, I'm sure it'll have a fast and reliable AF system. But it doesn't stop the existing EF version from being also very capable in the right hands.
I'm sure the cat's eye distortion will be a bit better....I'm sure the vignetting will be a bit better too. But the way the article reads...it's like they have cured it....and from the images shown...they certainly haven't.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB

rjbray01

Canon Forever
Jan 19, 2017
133
75

Well, the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art lens can currently be bought new in the UK on the grey market for around £770. That's $975 at today's exchange rate.

So, if Canon would like to offer me their new 85mm RF lens for, let's say, $1000 then I would be very happy to give it a look.

Otherwise, err, the Sigma is pretty awesome on my 5Div to be honest ...
 
<-- start Taboola -->