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

Dexter Jackson wrote:

saltydogstudios wrote:

Dexter Jackson wrote:

saltydogstudios wrote:

enigmatico wrote:

Have you seen this article that someone else linked to on another thread?:

https://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2018/11/27/to-big-to-fail-the-canon-rf-50mm-f/12l

Yes I did see it, thank you.

I agree that for night time low light shallow depth of field shots - "sharpness is a bourgeois concept" - and I don't care too much about resolving power.

I would love to see tests related resistance to flaring and such. I'm glad lens reviewers have started including this - it seemed once upon a time nobody considered such issues.

My takeaway is that - the 50mm f/1.2 EF is definitely worth at least half the price of the RF counterpart. The slight increase in sharpness wide open isn't something I noticed scrolling through the photos unless I zoomed in.

All of the cameras produced the appropriate amount of bokehballs and only the most picky of lens enthusiasts would have something to complain about in any of those photos.

Another important question is where is your work viewed? Are you making prints larger than 24x36 where you are likely to see the benefits of the better quality L glass? Increasingly, more peoples work is being viewed on smartphones and tablets where those slight advantages become irrelevant.

Ive sat and stared at photos from my RP with a rented $2700 RF 85 f/1.2 and my $300 EF 85 f/1.8 I tested both in studio and outdoors in natural light. I can see a definite difference zoomed in 100% on my 27 inch 5k monitor but they become less apparent fit to screen and then even less apparent to not noticeable on my iPad and iPhone, where most people are viewing my work these days.

This series (not mine) was taken with the 85mm f/1.2 wide open.

http://gregwilliamsarchive.com/photos/fashion/subway/

None of the photos are in focus.

Nobody would notice unless they pixel pepped.

Yea, soft photos with missed focus and not crazy about the lighting.

I like the lighting. I'm not a fan of faux realistic lighting that's actually artificial looking.

Case in point - The Morning Show. I could see large soft boxes near the actors at all times, even when the actual lighting at the location wouldn't have had that kind of lighting (in this case it's likely a reflector).

Where is that light? When the camera reverses for the reaction shot of the other actor, there is no large soft light near Steve Carrel that could explain why he's lit that way.

In fact in the 2 shot he's not lit that way.

Is this competent lighting? Yes. Is it good? Not in my opinion.

I wouldn't feel comfortable giving those to one of my clients. Stopped down even to f/2 and those would have been in focus and looked considerably better IMO. Im looking forward to the upcoming RF 85 f/2 IS which should be a great performer at a fraction of the price of the RF 85 f/1.2

Let's agree to disagree here.

I wonder what you think of the work of Paolo Roversi if you hate these photos that much because of their lack of technical precision.

For me - photography is most enjoyable at the edges. Taking photos other photographers wouldn't have (or couldn't have) taken. Having an opinion about the form other than "sharper photos would have been better."

Taking sharp photos isn't hard - it's a technical skill. Having an eye for when not to - that's what I'm interested in.