My next prime portrait lens should be ... ?

atolk wrote:

John Crowe wrote:

You completely forgot the EF 85/1.2 L version 1 or 2. I would buy used and be less than half the RF with very similar performance.

I did completely forget or never found out. I learned about the RF from a video by the very capable portrait photographer and YouTuber Irene Rudnyk. Ironically, the video wasn't about the RF 85 F1.2, but about the new 24-70 F2 ($3,099 and sold out). Irene was testing it out and wondering out loud whether this lens could replace her beloved RF 85 F1.2. She decided it was close, but it seems the 85mm F1.2 is her gold standard, and I think she takes a lot of photos and tries a lot of lenses.

A big part of me thinks that if an RF version is available, I should pay the premium, because... well, you know why: most lenses are improved compared to the EF version (there are exceptions), and there is no risk of leaving the adapter at home. But what you say makes a lot of sense. $1,091 on KEH if I don't want to find out how the "Surface sticky" feels at $908, and I don't. I already "saved" almost $1,500 compared to the brand new RF.

Still, if you put those two next to each other... the RF looks so... Newer? Sharper? Yummy?

The EF 85 f1.2 should be a great portrait option.  I thought the RF 85 f1.2 version's advantage over the EF 85 f1.2 was the corner sharpness.  Corner sharpness a problem for landscape photography or shots of walls.  I thought that the EF was sharp where it was focused but the rest of the frame would not be as sharp.  Sounded like an ideal characteristic for portrait.

I bought the RF 85 f1.2 because of it's low CA.  Once I saw CA in the EF 85 f1.8 (otherwise I liked the lens), it bothered me enough to drive me to get the big RF.  And the RF 85 f1.2 was on sale at the time.  Worth renting regardless if you get another lens.