First impressions of RF 85 F1.4 VCM

MAC said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

being retired, my RF 85 f2 IS will have to do

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Beautiful shots and memories of your daughter Storm!

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

Click to expand...

MAC said:

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.

Click to expand...

MAC said:

On zooms, as you know, I love zooms!

Best wishes!

Click to expand...

Alastair Norcross said:

R2D2 said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

being retired, my RF 85 f2 IS will have to do

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Alastair Norcross said:

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.

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).

Click to expand...

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

Happy shooting, and thanks sharing such a nice moment with us.

R2

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

being retired, my RF 85 f2 IS will have to do

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Beautiful shots and memories of your daughter Storm!

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

Click to expand...

It's 2000 euro grey market now.....

Click to expand...

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

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.

Click to expand...

O.k., interesting.

thunder storm said:

On zooms, as you know, I love zooms!

Best wishes!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

MAC said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

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

Click to expand...

It's 2000 euro grey market now.....

Click to expand...

Richard Butler says it is closer to 90 mm

Click to expand...

MAC said:

so in crop mode on your 45 mp sensor, you'd have 144 mm F1.9 , 17 mp

Click to expand...

MAC said:

and on your 61 mp sensor with your 50 f1.2, in crop mode you have 75 mm f1.8, 27 mp

so there you go, approx. 50 -150 with 2 primes on two bodies with high mp

though you might not need your 105 f1.4

Click to expand...

thunder storm said:

Alastair Norcross said:

R2D2 said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

being retired, my RF 85 f2 IS will have to do

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you got some good shots with that old fashioned gear. My first camera was a Canon range finder, and that MF process was enjoyable. Focus assist gives that same feeling.

Click to expand...

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

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.

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).

Click to expand...

There are worse things in life than a too late released 85mm lens, unfortunately, yes, you're very right there.

Click to expand...

R2D2 said:

thunder storm said:

Alastair Norcross said:

R2D2 said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

being retired, my RF 85 f2 IS will have to do

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

My first exposure to digital IIRC was a 640x480 (monstrous) Sony with a built-in floppy drive!!! :-O

Click to expand...

R2D2 said:

R2D2 said:

R2D2 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you got some good shots with that old fashioned gear. My first camera was a Canon range finder, and that MF process was enjoyable. Focus assist gives that same feeling.

Click to expand...

My first real 35mm camera was a Canon rangerfinder as well (1960's vintage). Had tons of fun with it!

Click to expand...

R2D2 said:

R2D2 said:

R2D2 said:

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.

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).

Click to expand...

There are worse things in life than a too late released 85mm lens, unfortunately, yes, you're very right there.

Click to expand...

+1 Even the "Techies" back in the cave-man days were bemoaning late technology! :-D

Click to expand...

R2D2 said:

R2

Click to expand...

MAC said:

R2D2 said:

thunder storm said:

Alastair Norcross said:

R2D2 said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

being retired, my RF 85 f2 IS will have to do

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

My first exposure to digital IIRC was a 640x480 (monstrous) Sony with a built-in floppy drive!!! :-O

Click to expand...

mine was the Sony F505v - inspired me

and forum members were questioning me how I could afford a $2K D30 and siggy 70-200 F2.8

as soon as I upgraded to the 10d, the siggy was hosed with respect to the AF

MAC said:

MAC said:

MAC said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you got some good shots with that old fashioned gear. My first camera was a Canon range finder, and that MF process was enjoyable. Focus assist gives that same feeling.

Click to expand...

My first real 35mm camera was a Canon rangerfinder as well (1960's vintage). Had tons of fun with it!

Click to expand...

brownies - but no inspiration until digital

MAC said:

MAC said:

MAC said:

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.

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).

Click to expand...

There are worse things in life than a too late released 85mm lens, unfortunately, yes, you're very right there.

Click to expand...

+1 Even the "Techies" back in the cave-man days were bemoaning late technology! :-D

Click to expand...

Canon was late on many things including sensor tech and mirrorless - they finally got there

IMO they are again late on ibis in lower cost bodies

and late on that R-m6III 32.5 mp body with tilt screen

MAC said:

R2

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

R2D2 said:

My first real 35mm camera was a Canon rangerfinder as well (1960's vintage). Had tons of fun with it!

Click to expand...

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga wrote: What they are late with is a small, fast 100mm lens, but that's not fashionable these days.

Click to expand...

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

Sittatunga wrote: What they are late with is a small, fast 100mm lens, but that's not fashionable these days.

Click to expand...

At 80Mp and/or with TC compatibility that might be all you need for telephoto.

Click to expand...

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

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

Click to expand...

It's 2000 euro grey market now.....

Click to expand...

Richard Butler says it is closer to 90 mm

Click to expand...

yes, and he's not the only reviewer mentioning this

Click to expand...

PicPocket said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

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

Click to expand...

It's 2000 euro grey market now.....

Click to expand...

Richard Butler says it is closer to 90 mm

Click to expand...

yes, and he's not the only reviewer mentioning this

Click to expand...

What they really should be mentioning is that it has significant focus breathing and is longer at the distance they are testing. Some are saying that, but mostly it's been simplified to "it's 90mm"

Click to expand...

PicPocket said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

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

Click to expand...

It's 2000 euro grey market now.....

Click to expand...

Richard Butler says it is closer to 90 mm

Click to expand...

yes, and he's not the only reviewer mentioning this

Click to expand...

What they really should be mentioning is that it has significant focus breathing and is longer at the distance they are testing. Some are saying that, but mostly it's been simplified to "it's 90mm"

Click to expand...

Sittatunga said:

PicPocket said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

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

Click to expand...

It's 2000 euro grey market now.....

Click to expand...

Richard Butler says it is closer to 90 mm

Click to expand...

yes, and he's not the only reviewer mentioning this

Click to expand...

What they really should be mentioning is that it has significant focus breathing and is longer at the distance they are testing. Some are saying that, but mostly it's been simplified to "it's 90mm"

Click to expand...

Focus breathing is relatively simple to calculate for simple unit-focussing lenses. At a ⅒ image scale the lens will be 10% further away from the sensor than it is at infinity. You might get the impression that it's zoomed to a 10% longer focal length even if none of the elements have moved relative to each other.

Click to expand...

PicPocket said:

Sittatunga said:

PicPocket said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

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

Click to expand...

It's 2000 euro grey market now.....

Click to expand...

Richard Butler says it is closer to 90 mm

Click to expand...

yes, and he's not the only reviewer mentioning this

Click to expand...

What they really should be mentioning is that it has significant focus breathing and is longer at the distance they are testing. Some are saying that, but mostly it's been simplified to "it's 90mm"

Click to expand...

Focus breathing is relatively simple to calculate for simple unit-focussing lenses. At a ⅒ image scale the lens will be 10% further away from the sensor than it is at infinity. You might get the impression that it's zoomed to a 10% longer focal length even if none of the elements have moved relative to each other.

Click to expand...

That is all good, but doesn't apply to lenses which don't strictly follow the above criteria. The real world breathing characteristics are different for different lenses and the case at hand is a good example of different outcomes being observed in real world. The VCM line is designed for minimal breathing given its video use case. Other designs may take more liberty

Click to expand...

Sittatunga said:

PicPocket said:

Sittatunga said:

PicPocket said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

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

Click to expand...

It's 2000 euro grey market now.....

Click to expand...

Richard Butler says it is closer to 90 mm

Click to expand...

yes, and he's not the only reviewer mentioning this

Click to expand...

What they really should be mentioning is that it has significant focus breathing and is longer at the distance they are testing. Some are saying that, but mostly it's been simplified to "it's 90mm"

Click to expand...

Focus breathing is relatively simple to calculate for simple unit-focussing lenses. At a ⅒ image scale the lens will be 10% further away from the sensor than it is at infinity. You might get the impression that it's zoomed to a 10% longer focal length even if none of the elements have moved relative to each other.

Click to expand...

That is all good, but doesn't apply to lenses which don't strictly follow the above criteria. The real world breathing characteristics are different for different lenses and the case at hand is a good example of different outcomes being observed in real world. The VCM line is designed for minimal breathing given its video use case. Other designs may take more liberty

Click to expand...

You can't really relate a real, complex lens' angle of view on a specified sensor size to its focal length once you get away from it being focussed at infinity, even if you take into account its distortions from its nominal projection. All lenses that focus by moving a few of their internal elements will, by definition, change their focal length as they focus.

Click to expand...

PicPocket said:

Sittatunga said:

PicPocket said:

Sittatunga said:

PicPocket said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

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

Click to expand...

It's 2000 euro grey market now.....

Click to expand...

Richard Butler says it is closer to 90 mm

Click to expand...

yes, and he's not the only reviewer mentioning this

Click to expand...

What they really should be mentioning is that it has significant focus breathing and is longer at the distance they are testing. Some are saying that, but mostly it's been simplified to "it's 90mm"

Click to expand...

Focus breathing is relatively simple to calculate for simple unit-focussing lenses. At a ⅒ image scale the lens will be 10% further away from the sensor than it is at infinity. You might get the impression that it's zoomed to a 10% longer focal length even if none of the elements have moved relative to each other.

Click to expand...

That is all good, but doesn't apply to lenses which don't strictly follow the above criteria. The real world breathing characteristics are different for different lenses and the case at hand is a good example of different outcomes being observed in real world. The VCM line is designed for minimal breathing given its video use case. Other designs may take more liberty

Click to expand...

You can't really relate a real, complex lens' angle of view on a specified sensor size to its focal length once you get away from it being focussed at infinity, even if you take into account its distortions from its nominal projection. All lenses that focus by moving a few of their internal elements will, by definition, change their focal length as they focus.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's basically all the lenses that don't follow the criteria. And, they all breathe differently by design

Click to expand...

Luis Gabriel Photography said:

Is nice to have the 1.4 option now but the 1.2 bokeh is perfection for me, and I don't mind the size at all. Plus the 1.4 seems in reality shorter than other 85mm from comparisons I have seen so that is another plus for my preferences for the 1.2

Now we got all bases covered when it comes to 85mm pretty much.

Click to expand...

Sittatunga said:

PicPocket said:

Sittatunga said:

PicPocket said:

Sittatunga said:

PicPocket said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

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

Click to expand...

It's 2000 euro grey market now.....

Click to expand...

Richard Butler says it is closer to 90 mm

Click to expand...

yes, and he's not the only reviewer mentioning this

Click to expand...

What they really should be mentioning is that it has significant focus breathing and is longer at the distance they are testing. Some are saying that, but mostly it's been simplified to "it's 90mm"

Click to expand...

Focus breathing is relatively simple to calculate for simple unit-focussing lenses. At a ⅒ image scale the lens will be 10% further away from the sensor than it is at infinity. You might get the impression that it's zoomed to a 10% longer focal length even if none of the elements have moved relative to each other.

Click to expand...

That is all good, but doesn't apply to lenses which don't strictly follow the above criteria. The real world breathing characteristics are different for different lenses and the case at hand is a good example of different outcomes being observed in real world. The VCM line is designed for minimal breathing given its video use case. Other designs may take more liberty

Click to expand...

You can't really relate a real, complex lens' angle of view on a specified sensor size to its focal length once you get away from it being focussed at infinity, even if you take into account its distortions from its nominal projection. All lenses that focus by moving a few of their internal elements will, by definition, change their focal length as they focus.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's basically all the lenses that don't follow the criteria. And, they all breathe differently by design

Click to expand...

And there's nothing you can calculate unless you have the detailed design and some software, which makes measuring or stating the focal length with the lens focussed at anything other than infinity very approximate at best and generally an irrelevant nonsense.

EDIT. Here's an example from another thread https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68483477

Click to expand...