EF Lenses on R Mount (f/1.2 portrait primes)

Dexter Jackson wrote:

saltydogstudios wrote:

I've been interested in getting into the R Mount for a while now with the 50mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 lenses for portrait work - both natural light and studio.

Adding all of the above to my cart ends up being around $8000 USD for the body and both lenses.

But the latest DP Review video has me thinking - why not get the EF mount equivalents?

Sure the lenses are older and the autofocus and optical performance may not be as good - but with some used EF lenses, my cart is now half the price (body, two lenses and adapter).

Does anyone who has experience with both the EF and R versions of these lenses have an opinion on this?

With the lenses at less than half the price of the R mount versions, it seems like a no brainer - I can get started and then trade up to the R versions if/when it makes sense.

Is there any major reason I would regret getting the EF lenses?

I shoot portraits professionally. As you know, in studio, an f/1.2 lens doesn't do much as we are shooting more sopped down with studio lighting.

Yes, but every once in a while you want that super shallow depth of field look. Or a super compressed look that a longer lens will give you. It's mostly just to show off.

How often are you shooting at f/1.2 and really need to shoot wide open?

I shoot wide open a lot. It's half the fun of owning massive primes. I even like the flaws the exhibit wide open (do a degree). In fact, going wider often doesn't decrease depth of field more, it just introduces more flaws such as loss of contrast, ghosting, flaring, spherical aberration etc.

I already own the FD version of the 85mm f/1.2 (adapted to Sony) and it's a lot of fun to shoot wide open, even if difficult to manual focus. I'm sure the coatings and perhaps optical formula got better since it was produced (circa 1981).

You can save a lot of money by going for f/1.4 and even f/1.8 lenses.

Will I? Or will I own them and then still have an itch to go to the f/1.2 versions?

I do own a - very reasonably priced 85mm f/1.8 lens that's very capable and can autofocus, so I can always hold off on the f/1.2 purchase.

The Canon 135mm is arguably their best portrait lens ever and that's an f2.

135mm is nice but I prefer shorter focal lengths - my studio is only so big / I only want to back up so much to get the shot. I'd probably go for a 70-200 to get that look - if i'm backing that far up, having a faster aperture won't do that much and having the versatility to zoom with the lens rather than my feet would be more useful.

And depending on framing - well either one is capable of obliterating the background.

I own the Nikon 135mm f/2 - again also 70's era vintage and adapted to Sony - and it's a great lens for when I want that really compressed look.

I dont own anything faster than an f/1.8 and the only difference Ive seen when testing is the L lenses are slightly sharper and have a bit more punch and saturation.

Interesting, I'd think the f/1.2 glass might have less sharpness and saturation, even at f/2 vs a well designed f/1.8 lens. What you're saying then is that other than size, weight and price, they're "no compromise" lenses - the best of both worlds? Both sharp and contrasty at moderate apertures, and can go as wide as you want?

And the SLR L glass is, I think, at an all time low on the used market thanks to the introduction of the newer mirrorless lenses.

That can be added in post if desired since very few of us ever publish shots straight out of the camera. Just my 2 cents.

Sharpness and contrast are the two things I'd hope to maximize in camera. Back before I know what I was doing I got a cheap IR/UV filter to protect the front element at the beach and suffered a huge loss of contrast when shooting at the water.

Shooting by water requires superb coatings because of all the tiny little specular highlights as light bounces off of the waves. Ever since I learned that and only went after top of the line glass for shooting at the beach, my photos have come out way better.

Loss of contrast is great when it's intentional - I abhor it when it's not.