agree with where you are headed
do you think you'd ever go for the great 10-20?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
First impressions of RF 85 F1.4 VCM
- Thread starter Alastair Norcross
- Start date
do you think you'd ever go for the great 10-20?
That does not mean that the difference between an f/1.4 and an f/1.2 lens would be imperceptible.
But you did?
Last edited:
Luis Gabriel Photography
Senior Member
Difference in bokeh? Its clear. Tstop wise, not a concern for me if there is a big difference though
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
That's why I also said that there would have to be other differences too. The differences in size and weight are definitely perceptible, and count in favor of the F1.4 version of both the 50 and 85. As for perceptible desirable optical qualities, so far, I'm not seeing them in either the 50 F1.2 versus F1.4 or the 85 F1.2 versus F1.4.
No, I didn't. When I bought my 50 F1.2 the F1.4 version wasn't available, and there weren't even rumors saying it would be an L lens when it came (remember the EF 50 F1.4 was a fairly pedestrian lens). If the 50 VCM had been available when I bought my F1.2, I'm pretty sure I would have gone for the VCM instead.
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
The differences in bokeh that I've seen are, at best, marginal. That's both for my own shots with the 50 F1.2 and 50 F1.4, and for my shots with the 85 F1.4 compared with what I've seen online from the 85 F1.2. But I've only had the 85 F1.4 for a bit over a week, so I don't have so many comparison points (and neither does anyone else yet). But judgments of bokeh are inherently subjective, so others might see a bigger difference for their style of shooting or their own preferences. Some bokeh differences seem obvious, and others are so subtle that different people could easily go either way in a comparison. I've watched many online reviews where I've wondered whether the reviewer made a mistake in which images they were showing, because they are saying that there's a big bokeh difference, and I simply didn't see it.
Difference in vignetting.
Vignetting is not just loss of light in the extreme corners. You lose light starting from the center. This also affects the bokeh away from the center, making it "nervous."
Last edited:
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,656
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,952
O.k., that sounds to me like you should sell that f/1.2. Not a big deal to buy it again if things ever go different.
Oh boy, the 50mm VCM makes you sell the mighty f/1.2 L, and now that 85mm VCM acts like another FE equivalent making you spoil another unique RF lens offering. Nobody will ever bring both a macro and an 85mm portrait lens, and combining the two in just one 500g lens is such a weight saver. Just one lens for both girls and flowers, the two most beautiful things in life, and you're just selling it?
I'm keeping mine. The whole Sony forum is wants this lens, you know.
(sorry, just kidding)
I always find close focusing in a telephoto lens easier for creating compositions. That said I did like to play around with an ef-m Samyang 12mm f/2.0 with a somewhat substantial magnification factor.
There's an 45mm f/1.2 on the way as well, I just hope you will stick with the 50mm VCM. (sorry again, just kidding).
On a serious note: I'm getting the impression the 85mm VCM performs a bit better than the Sigma Art DN, as the VCM does the same thing in a smaller diameter with waaaaay less distortion (the Sigma could be better value for money though). At the same time the price is not a high as the price of the Sony GM mkII. Good stuff.
--
R5 & RV
EF & FE
Last edited:
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
I agree that it's unique, and can do almost everything a dedicated 85 portrait lens and a dedicated 100 macro can do. If I was being more careful with money, I'd just have the 85 F2 and be happy with it. But I have the luxury now of having the 85 F1.4 and the 100 macro, so I can't see the situations where I'd use the 85, instead of one of those. Travel, maybe? But the 85 F1.4 is almost as light and small, and for close focusing my Sigma 18-50 on my R7 is fine for flowers. If I ever travel with full frame gear (when I'm driving, rather than flying), the 24-105 F4 also focuses easily close enough for flower shots.
Well, they should be wanting it.
I like to use the 35 F1.8 for focus stacking in controlled environments. I also use the 100 macro for that occasionally.
Which is another reason why I decided to buy and stick with the 85 f2 instead of. With a little bit of PP in Lightroom I can make the bokeh look more like a 1.4, and who knows, maybe close to the 1.2.
I have had f2, 1.8, 1.4 lenses and even the Fujifilm f1 lens. I guess I confess that in the past I was “obsessed” with sharpness, detail and bokeh, but not too long ago I met and worked with a wedding photographer who taught me NOT to shoot so many photos wide open and she told me that’s a big no no. She is a professional wedding photographer and I learned a lot from her. Her flash photography skills, techniques and her photos seriously blew me away and since then I stopped concentrating or obsessing over getting the widest aperture lenses and this and that.
At this point in time I rather save money and continue improving my own photography skills. Perhaps in a few years this new 1.4 L lens will be found for sale used and I might try it, but for now the f2 is more than good enough and is almost super light and it has macro capability as you previously mentioned. It would actually be more fun to continue seeing some of your comparisons with the f2 lens. Either way continue enjoying your new awesome 1.4 lens
bokeh is not shallow dof processed with software
In photography, bokeh (from the Japanese word for "blur") refers to the quality of the out-of-focus areas of an image, particularly the aesthetic appearance of light sources and highlights in the background. It is caused by a lens's optical characteristics, with wider apertures and shallow depth of field typically creating a softer, more pleasing bokeh effect. The specific design of the lens's diaphragm blades influences the shape of the bokeh, which can appear as smooth, soft circles or other shapes in the highlights.
I have had f2, 1.8, 1.4 lenses and even the Fujifilm f1 lens. I guess I confess that in the past I was “obsessed” with sharpness, detail and bokeh, but not too long ago I met and worked with a wedding photographer who taught me NOT to shoot so many photos wide open and she told me that’s a big no no. She is a professional wedding photographer and I learned a lot from her. Her flash photography skills, techniques and her photos seriously blew me away and since then I stopped concentrating or obsessing over getting the widest aperture lenses and this and that.
At this point in time I rather save money and continue improving my own photography skills. Perhaps in a few years this new 1.4 L lens will be found for sale used and I might try it, but for now the f2 is more than good enough and is almost super light and it has macro capability as you previously mentioned. It would actually be more fun to continue seeing some of your comparisons with the f2 lens. Either way continue enjoying your new awesome 1.4 lens
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
Exactly, which is why judgements of bokeh are very subjective. Aesthetic qualities and preferences are highly subjective.
Software can actually mimic a lot of these effects. It's not just simulating shallow depth of field anymore. I prefer not to use software to do that, but you seemed to be implying that Batdude was just talking about simulating shallow depth of field. Given that the various bokeh settings in both Lightroom and Photolab do a lot more than just simulate shallow depth of field, you might want to take that into account when scolding someone who says they use software to produce bokeh. Maybe you don't think the software does such a good job (I'm still undecided on that), but it's not just trying to soften what's already there.
I have had f2, 1.8, 1.4 lenses and even the Fujifilm f1 lens. I guess I confess that in the past I was “obsessed” with sharpness, detail and bokeh, but not too long ago I met and worked with a wedding photographer who taught me NOT to shoot so many photos wide open and she told me that’s a big no no. She is a professional wedding photographer and I learned a lot from her. Her flash photography skills, techniques and her photos seriously blew me away and since then I stopped concentrating or obsessing over getting the widest aperture lenses and this and that.
At this point in time I rather save money and continue improving my own photography skills. Perhaps in a few years this new 1.4 L lens will be found for sale used and I might try it, but for now the f2 is more than good enough and is almost super light and it has macro capability as you previously mentioned. It would actually be more fun to continue seeing some of your comparisons with the f2 lens. Either way continue enjoying your new awesome 1.4 lens
Yes totally
By the way and just to make it clear, I don’t “create” bokeh with software, I was just trying to say that I rather use the much less expensive f2 lens and use the software to compensate that dept of field difference from the 1.4 lens, and heck perhaps the 1.2 lens.
I just don’t worry too much about these things anymore as I used to in the past. Is all good.
--I have had f2, 1.8, 1.4 lenses and even the Fujifilm f1 lens. I guess I confess that in the past I was “obsessed” with sharpness, detail and bokeh, but not too long ago I met and worked with a wedding photographer who taught me NOT to shoot so many photos wide open and she told me that’s a big no no. She is a professional wedding photographer and I learned a lot from her. Her flash photography skills, techniques and her photos seriously blew me away and since then I stopped concentrating or obsessing over getting the widest aperture lenses and this and that.
At this point in time I rather save money and continue improving my own photography skills. Perhaps in a few years this new 1.4 L lens will be found for sale used and I might try it, but for now the f2 is more than good enough and is almost super light and it has macro capability as you previously mentioned. It would actually be more fun to continue seeing some of your comparisons with the f2 lens. Either way continue enjoying your new awesome 1.4 lens
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile
I think Optical Limits does a good job of assessing bokeh on lenses, I'm waiting for their bokeh verdict of the RF 85 f1.4 VCM
Batdude responded to you, they said they were not creating bokeh, just creating various levels of shallow dof
which all I was doing was stating a definition - shallow dof is not bokeh
I wasn't scolding - that assumption you made was inaccurate before having all the info - you made inaccurate assumptions on what Batdude was doing also
watching videos - it appears LR has more options than DXO PL (which I use) in the bokeh tool
but who knows what is actually going on besides softening
...undecided on fake bokeh, not to mention explaining how it actually works
well, as I said, I use DXO PL -- and it appears to have less options and uses softening
I have had f2, 1.8, 1.4 lenses and even the Fujifilm f1 lens. I guess I confess that in the past I was “obsessed” with sharpness, detail and bokeh, but not too long ago I met and worked with a wedding photographer who taught me NOT to shoot so many photos wide open and she told me that’s a big no no. She is a professional wedding photographer and I learned a lot from her. Her flash photography skills, techniques and her photos seriously blew me away and since then I stopped concentrating or obsessing over getting the widest aperture lenses and this and that.
At this point in time I rather save money and continue improving my own photography skills. Perhaps in a few years this new 1.4 L lens will be found for sale used and I might try it, but for now the f2 is more than good enough and is almost super light and it has macro capability as you previously mentioned. It would actually be more fun to continue seeing some of your comparisons with the f2 lens. Either way continue enjoying your new awesome 1.4 lens
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
No, you were scolding. Otherwise why all the bolded text? You might not have meant to be scolding, but you were.
As did you.
Yes, undecided. Is that a bad thing? Am I supposed to have made up my mind on the basis of a few quick trials? I know that's common for internet posters, who are happy to praise or condemn on the flimsiest of evidence, but I try not to do that. And I'm certainly not going to try to explain how something works when I don't know. Again, I know that it's common to claim great knowledge on the flimsiest of bases, but I try not to do that either.
well, as I said, I use DXO PL -- and it appears to have less options and uses softening
I have had f2, 1.8, 1.4 lenses and even the Fujifilm f1 lens. I guess I confess that in the past I was “obsessed” with sharpness, detail and bokeh, but not too long ago I met and worked with a wedding photographer who taught me NOT to shoot so many photos wide open and she told me that’s a big no no. She is a professional wedding photographer and I learned a lot from her. Her flash photography skills, techniques and her photos seriously blew me away and since then I stopped concentrating or obsessing over getting the widest aperture lenses and this and that.
At this point in time I rather save money and continue improving my own photography skills. Perhaps in a few years this new 1.4 L lens will be found for sale used and I might try it, but for now the f2 is more than good enough and is almost super light and it has macro capability as you previously mentioned. It would actually be more fun to continue seeing some of your comparisons with the f2 lens. Either way continue enjoying your new awesome 1.4 lens
well, I apologize to Batdude if it came across as scolding
the topic of interchangeably using shallow dof and bokeh as the same meaning has long been an opportunity to educate folks on the difference - just look at Optical Limits review of the RF 85 f1.2 bokeh - and they even make the point of the difference that so many confuse.
yeah, two wrongs don't make it right, we can do better
no, did I say it was a bad thing? no.
no, did I say you should have made up your mind? no.
no hurry to make up your mind
I've made my mind up on dxo PL - it is bluring imo,
imo it is not creating bokeh
you said to me: "Software can actually mimic a lot of these effects. It's not just simulating shallow depth of field anymore."
Lightroom appears to have a circular bokeh, cats eye bokeh, yuk -penta vintage bokeh (ugly) option- but who knows how this is deployed against actual spectral highlights in a photo.
If I can't explain it, I don't know it, and therefore I can't claim it mimics actual lens behaviors. Whereas, imo DXO PL just uses softening.
then reframe from claiming it mimics actual lens behaviors, instead qualify the statement: the software company suggests it may do more than blur backdrops, but who knows until we better understand what it is doing.
well, as I said, I use DXO PL -- and it appears to have less options and uses softening
I have had f2, 1.8, 1.4 lenses and even the Fujifilm f1 lens. I guess I confess that in the past I was “obsessed” with sharpness, detail and bokeh, but not too long ago I met and worked with a wedding photographer who taught me NOT to shoot so many photos wide open and she told me that’s a big no no. She is a professional wedding photographer and I learned a lot from her. Her flash photography skills, techniques and her photos seriously blew me away and since then I stopped concentrating or obsessing over getting the widest aperture lenses and this and that.
At this point in time I rather save money and continue improving my own photography skills. Perhaps in a few years this new 1.4 L lens will be found for sale used and I might try it, but for now the f2 is more than good enough and is almost super light and it has macro capability as you previously mentioned. It would actually be more fun to continue seeing some of your comparisons with the f2 lens. Either way continue enjoying your new awesome 1.4 lens
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,656
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,952
4 years ago, when I needed a fast focusing f/1.4 lens, I tried to make may way with it. Sometimes it worked. The last shot is f/2.2, and at that aperture I still couldn't have both the June Bug (melolontha melolontha) and the eye of the girl in focus. That's the reason I didn't dare to shoot the first three shots at a large aperture.
The June Bug soon flew away after the last pic, otherwise the 0.5 times magnification feature would have came at handy.
I also made great pics with the Tamron EF 85mm f/1.8 SP VC, the forbidden Samyang RF 85mm f/1.4 lens, but actually the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 Art was the only Canon compatible telephoto prime that could satisfy my needs during the absence of this RF 85mm f/1.4 VCM lens.
The days of these kind of spontaneous expressions of younger kids happening all the time are almost gone. And if I want to catch any in the future I'd probably better get a zoom in stead of spilling opportunities by messing around with primes. Ergo: The 50-150mm f/2.0 is on my radar again. Another 85mm doesn't add much to the Sigma DN, the 135mm f/1.4 doesn't add much to the 105mm f/1.4, I have these lenses, I will use these so now and then, but I can't bring myself to spend a huge amount of money to marginal improvements, or improvements I needed some years a go bot not anymore.
I will take my time thinking a bit longer about this, but I think I'll prioritize the 50-150mm f/2.0 over anything else, a second Sony body included. The Canon R5 can stay as a second body, I'll accept some glass redundancy due to mount incompatibility. When needing two bodies for shooting primes it's never gonna be light weight anyway.
--
R5 & RV
EF & FE
sobrien
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,763
- Reaction score
- 1,391
Brother, I am literally tearing up here in my office reading this.
It truly is the case with kids that "the days are long but the years are short".
Beautiful pictures of a precious memory btw.
For me, these days, that's all photography's about. Capturing some moments with my family who are at either ends of the journey of life.
I used to obsess over gear but looking back it almost seems funny. That said, I have bought the 50mm and more recently the 35mm VCM lenses. The size/weight is spot on, the photos look nice and the AF is quick. But I'm lucky to be able to afford such luxuries. May also trade in my 85mm F/2 for the new VCM to get similarly snappy AF but it is not a priority.
All the best.
R2D2
Forum Pro
Very nicely done 'Storm, and I agree with you guys about the importance of capturing The Moment. In fact it seems my entire working (photo) career has been toward that goal!
I've truly welcomed the advances made in zoom lenses over the years, as they are especially suited to my style of shooting. But like you, I too wish this 85 had been available much sooner!
Happy shooting, and thanks sharing such a nice moment with us.
R2
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
I wish all the modern equipment had been available much sooner. When my son was little, I was using a Canon EOS 650 film SLR, with a single AF point and a couple of slow zooms, and an Olympus compact 35mm camera. Then my first digital camera, bought when he was eight, was the original Digital Elph, 2MP S100! No snappy AF there. I didn't get a DSLR until he was 12. And then, of course, there are all the poor souls (myself included), who used manual focus (yes, manual focus!) lenses for many years before the magic of AF was even invented. These VCM lenses are certainly a marvel, but I'm pretty sure they couldn't have been produced earlier. The development must have taken years.Very nicely done 'Storm, and I agree with you guys about the importance of capturing The Moment. In fact it seems my entire working (photo) career has been toward that goal!
I've truly welcomed the advances made in zoom lenses over the years, as they are especially suited to my style of shooting. But like you, I too wish this 85 had been available much sooner!
And it was a real shame for FDR (and countless others) that Jonas Salk was born much later, and didn't have a chance to develop the polio vaccine when it would have done him some good (of course, we currently have someone in charge of the healthcare of over 300 million of us who seems to want to take us back to those days).
Beautiful shots and memories of your daughter Storm!4 years ago, when I needed a fast focusing f/1.4 lens, I tried to make may way with it. Sometimes it worked. The last shot is f/2.2, and at that aperture I still couldn't have both the June Bug (melolontha melolontha) and the eye of the girl in focus. That's the reason I didn't dare to shoot the first three shots at a large aperture.
The June Bug soon flew away after the last pic, otherwise the 0.5 times magnification feature would have came at handy.
I also made great pics with the Tamron EF 85mm f/1.8 SP VC, the forbidden Samyang RF 85mm f/1.4 lens, but actually the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 Art was the only Canon compatible telephoto prime that could satisfy my needs during the absence of this RF 85mm f/1.4 VCM lens.
The days of these kind of spontaneous expressions of younger kids happening all the time are almost gone. And if I want to catch any in the future I'd probably better get a zoom in stead of spilling opportunities by messing around with primes. Ergo: The 50-150mm f/2.0 is on my radar again. Another 85mm doesn't add much to the Sigma DN, the 135mm f/1.4 doesn't add much to the 105mm f/1.4, I have these lenses, I will use these so now and then, but I can't bring myself to spend a huge amount of money to marginal improvements, or improvements I needed some years a go bot not anymore.
I will take my time thinking a bit longer about this, but I think I'll prioritize the 50-150mm f/2.0 over anything else, a second Sony body included. The Canon R5 can stay as a second body, I'll accept some glass redundancy due to mount incompatibility. When needing two bodies for shooting primes it's never gonna be light weight anyway.
The RF 85 F2 IS with 1/2 macro can do the shots for me at a value proposition price - which I use for still life and posed shots.
I never bought the EF 85 F1.8 because I saw it as the purple people eater
I didn't buy the EF 85 F1.4 IS because of higher price, higher weight, and Canon wasn't there yet on the lingering fringing which still for me gave it a clinical digital look, though the blur was nice to have.
The RF 85 F1.2 is way out of my range but I can see the blur and the bokeh is worth it for some pro shooters who make good money
The new RF 85 1.4 VCM is late to the party as you and R2 said. I have the R8 so the lack of IS and $1600 price tag is a non-starter for me. The blur is nice wide open, but for me, the bokeh still has the jury out until more is assessed - I wait for Optical Limits review. I've asked Richard Butler his impressions in his recent thread in this forum. Chris Nichols wasn't impressed with onion bokeh that can impact certain backdrops. But, to each their own.
On zooms, as you know, I love zooms!
Best wishes!
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum