Comparison of primes on M6II and R, and general comparison of M6II with R

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Let's face it:

The 85mm f/2.0 IS stm could be sharper (I should peep some pixels on this), yes it's stabilized which you will never get on M, and yes it has a half way macro thing, however,,,,,,

the overall look of the Sigma 56mm f/1.4 is simply better. The RF 85mm is not as bad as the RF 50mm, but it's backgrounds do draw attention more than they should.

Sometimes I think i should replace the RF 85mm f/2.0 with the EF f/1.4 IS USM L. Yes, that one is 950 grams in stead of 500, however, it's still 690 grams less than the 105mm Art. The L has some fringing, but if you shoot it at f/2.0 most of the time that fringing will likely be gone anyway. Or maybe save up for the RF 50mm f/1.2 L and just forget about that whole 85mm focal length. Or just sell the RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm and use the 50mm f/1.4 Art in stead.

The RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm is usable when you don't have demanding backgrounds. It's also usable for half way macro shots, and for landscapes. But it isn't a true macro lens, a a true macro lens should handle busy backgrounds better than this lens does.

Maybe it's all my fault for getting that 105mm first and waiting for a more compact option next to it after that, but when I see those 56mm handling this background way more pleasing I think the RF 85mm is a bit disappointing here.

I’m with you on this.

If I needed an 85 to put food on the table I’d just get the RF 85 f/1.2L, but now I’d rather put the big bucks elsewhere (like into the upcoming RF 100L Macro).

I can see myself spending the bucks on a 70-200mm f/2.8 one day or the 50mm L, but 3000 euro for a less often used 85mm...... that won't ever happen anyway.

And there’s no indoor sports going on around here yet, so I haven’t been able to test out my RF 85 f/2’s autofocus properly. The IQ is certainly good enough for that application (esp when matched up with FF). But if the RF 85 f/2’s AF can’t cut it, then like you, the EF 85 f/1.4L is waiting in the wings.

That’ll solve my FF needs. However for crop, the Sigma 56 f/1.4 is about perfect on my M6ii. Fast enough AF for sports, with very very good IQ, and nice bokeh (as has been demonstrated). I’m very happy with it when I need that focal length on crop.

R2

I'm reconsidering how useful 50mm really is as an all round focal length. Probably I should try to convert myself to the 35mm religion. As it comes to landscapes it turned out the 35mm f/2.0 IS USM might have done a better job than the Samyang XP, and the same could be true for the 24mm IS USM, or the standard zoom when it's too hard to choose or change.

If so, I might use the RF mount for 24mm, 35mm, 50mm low light, and the 105 (in cases I'm willing to carry that monster and need all the blur I can get), and keep M for the 11-22mm, 50mm equivalent for walk around purposes, the sigma 56mm f/1.4 for portable portrait prime needs, and the 50-100mm f/1.8 as the portrait zoom.

The only remaining question for now is the differences in sharpness between the sigma 56mm and the RF 85mm f/2.0. The overall look of the sigma is better, however, I'm not willing to trade a whole lot of detail for that.

R U Sure About This?

A few samples can deceive

My RF 85 F2IS is tack sharp on the eyes, gives pleasing blur, and has IS and partial macro and the control ring for EC

Not sure if the blur is worth it to me. It's better than my standard zoom at 70mm&f/2.8, however, it's not as good as my 50 art, 105mm art, and the 56mm f/1.4.

OTOH: if I decide it's not sharp enough there's nothing truly portable left. At that point I have to decide to get the EF L, or ditch the focal length al together.