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

Most of my shooting on my M6II is with primes. I use the 22 F2, 32 F1.4, and Sigma 56 F1.4 about equally, and the Sigma 16 F1.4 a lot less. I recently gave in to the temptation offered by very low prices on refurbished gear to get the R and RF 24-105L refurbished. I also picked up the lower priced RF primes, the 35 F1.8 IS and 85 F2 IS, and have the 50 F1.8 on backorder. The 35 F1.8 and 85 F2 are pretty close in FOV to the 22 and 56 on my M6II, so I thought I'd do a comparison between the different combinations (I'll do the comparison between the EF-M 32 and RF 50, when I get that lens). I know quite a few people on this forum also have R bodies, and others may be contemplating picking them up, now that the RP and R have come down so much in price, both new and refurbished. First, the bodies. Obviously, the R is quite a bit bigger and heavier than the M6II (660gm vs 408gm, 136 X 98 X 84mm vs 120 X 70 X 49mm), but some of the size differences aren't for the whole body. For example, the height is calculated with the highest point, which is the EVF hump, which is only in the middle, and the depth is calculated with the grip, which for both cameras is just at the right end of the body, and the back of the EVF eyecup. For most of the width of the bodies, the heights and depths of the two cameras are much closer (the R is approx. 1/2 inch taller, except for the hump, and less than 1/8 deeper, except for the grip and EVF). I was actually surprised at how much smaller and lighter the R is than my 7DII, which I sold before I got my R, and my 20D, which I still have. It's very similar in size to my first DSLR, the original Digital Rebel (300D).

Now, the two prime comparisons. First the 22 F2 on the M6II and the 35 F1.8 on the R. Here's what they look like from above:

And from behind:

In equivalence terms, the RF 35 F1.8 IS is approximately equivalent to 22 F1.2 on an M. You can see the better background blur in these comparison shots, taken from the same place, wide open on both lenses, both off-center (not extreme corners, which I don't use for subjects) and center:

22 at F2, this is about as far off-center as I'm likely to put a subject with this lens (the AF doesn't extend all the way either in height or width).

22 F2 at F2 in center

35 F1.8 at F1.8, edge

35 F1.8 at F1.8, center

The R combo has a fairly clear IQ advantage here, though the M combo is a lot lighter and cheaper. The 22 is $199, 105gm, and 24mm long. The 35 is $499, 305gm, and 63mm long. The 35 does have IS, which is useful for things that don't move. In terms of sharpness, I'm very happy with both lenses. I also did test shots at F2.8 on the 22, and F2 and F2.8 on the 35. I don't want to clutter up this post with them, but if anyone wants to see them, I'll be happy to put them in another post.

Now, the 56 F1.4 and 85 F2. Here's the view from above:

The RF 85 is approximately equivalent to a 53 F1.3, so that's a lot closer to the Sigma than the other comparison. Here are the wide open shots:

56 F1.4, at F1.4, edge. The AF on the M6II actually allows you to get closer to the edges with the 56 than with the 22

56 F1.4 at F1.4, center

85 F2, at F2, edge. On the R, you can get even closer to the edges with AF

85 F2, at F2, center.

Surprisingly, to my eye, the 56 seems to have a bit more background blur wide open. Or maybe it's just that I prefer the character of the blur. One weird thing I notice is that on my iMac, when I select the 56 F1.4 images, the info screen gives the "aperture value" as 0.9709, and the F number as 1.4. For the F2 and F2.8 shots that I did, the "aperture value" was pretty close to the F number (exactly the same for F2, and 2.9709 for F2.8). I wonder whether this is just a mistake on the part of my iMac, or whether the Sigma is actually wider than F1.4? In any case, I don't think the RF combo has a clear advantage here at all, at least not for portraits. Again, I have shots at F2 and F2.8 on the 56, and F2.8 and F4 on the 85, if anyone is interested in seeing them. Both combos are plenty sharp enough for me, even wide open. This just reinforces my view that the Sigma 56 is quite a remarkable lens, and for portraits, the M6II with the Sigma is competitive with much bigger and more expensive combinations (though, of course, the massive and exorbitantly-priced RF 85 F1.2 lenses are in another class again). The difference in cost and size between the EF-M lens and RF lens here is smaller than the previous comparison, though. The 85 F2 is $599, 500gm, and 91mm long. The 56 F1.4 is $429, 281gm, and 60mm long. Both RF lenses claim a maximum magnification of 0.5X, compared with 0.21X for the 22, and 0.14X for the 56. But, because of the different sensor sizes, that doesn't translate into similarly different minimum focusing distances. In fact, the 22 can focus ever so slightly closer than the 35 (5.91" versus 6.69"), but the 85 can focus significantly closer than the 56 (13.78" versus 19.69"). Again, the 85 F2 has the advantage of IS, making it more useful for non-moving subjects. For portraits, that's not as big of an advantage. I try to keep my 56 at no slower than 1/160, whereas I'd probably be OK shooting people at 1/125 with the 85 (but some recent shots I did at that speed did show subject movement in someone who was seated). The 85 F2 is clearly more of an all-rounder, whereas I think of my 56 as pretty much exclusively a people lens. But a lot, probably most, of my shots are of people.

The last comparison I'll do will be between the RF 50 F1.8 on the R and the EF-M 32 F1.4 on the M6II. This is the only one where the EF-M lens is actually bigger, heavier, and more expensive (more than twice the price) than the RF lens. I wouldn't be surprised if the M combo here produces better results than the R combo (though the RF 50 should have a bit more background blur wide open). I've seen conflicting reports from others who have both lenses, so I'll be very interested to see how they compare for me, when Adorama finally sends me the lens.

I'm enjoying getting to know my R. It's a lot better camera than I expected. It's not going to displace my M6II for action, or for travel, but it's still a lot of fun to use. The 24-105 F4L is certainly a lens for which there's no equivalent in the M system (as several people complain several times each day on this forum). It's terrifically sharp and versatile, with amazing IS. I was able to get a sharp shot handheld at 1 second at 105mm (I couldn't count on that performance every time, but 1/4 at 105mm is pretty consistently sharp). That lens is equivalent to a 15-66 F2.5 on M. It's also much bigger and heavier than any EF-M lens (and more expensive). I'm happy with the M system being geared towards small, light, excellent primes, and small, slow zooms. The 11-22 is great. As a landscape lens, I'd much rather have it as slow as it is, but small and light, than be much bigger and heavier (and more expensive) and F2.8. But that's me. For my use of that lens, I'm shooting it stopped down anyway, and making use of the IS to use slow shutter speeds.

That 56 is still looking delish. 

The RF 85 is sharp sharp sharp, but you do pay for that with the (nervous) bokeh.

R2

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Most of my shooting on my M6II is with primes. I use the 22 F2, 32 F1.4, and Sigma 56 F1.4 about equally, and the Sigma 16 F1.4 a lot less. I recently gave in to the temptation offered by very low prices on refurbished gear to get the R and RF 24-105L refurbished. I also picked up the lower priced RF primes, the 35 F1.8 IS and 85 F2 IS, and have the 50 F1.8 on backorder. The 35 F1.8 and 85 F2 are pretty close in FOV to the 22 and 56 on my M6II, so I thought I'd do a comparison between the different combinations (I'll do the comparison between the EF-M 32 and RF 50, when I get that lens). I know quite a few people on this forum also have R bodies, and others may be contemplating picking them up, now that the RP and R have come down so much in price, both new and refurbished. First, the bodies. Obviously, the R is quite a bit bigger and heavier than the M6II (660gm vs 408gm, 136 X 98 X 84mm vs 120 X 70 X 49mm), but some of the size differences aren't for the whole body. For example, the height is calculated with the highest point, which is the EVF hump, which is only in the middle, and the depth is calculated with the grip, which for both cameras is just at the right end of the body, and the back of the EVF eyecup. For most of the width of the bodies, the heights and depths of the two cameras are much closer (the R is approx. 1/2 inch taller, except for the hump, and less than 1/8 deeper, except for the grip and EVF). I was actually surprised at how much smaller and lighter the R is than my 7DII, which I sold before I got my R, and my 20D, which I still have. It's very similar in size to my first DSLR, the original Digital Rebel (300D).

Now, the two prime comparisons. First the 22 F2 on the M6II and the 35 F1.8 on the R. Here's what they look like from above:

And from behind:

In equivalence terms, the RF 35 F1.8 IS is approximately equivalent to 22 F1.2 on an M. You can see the better background blur in these comparison shots, taken from the same place, wide open on both lenses, both off-center (not extreme corners, which I don't use for subjects) and center:

22 at F2, this is about as far off-center as I'm likely to put a subject with this lens (the AF doesn't extend all the way either in height or width).

22 F2 at F2 in center

35 F1.8 at F1.8, edge

35 F1.8 at F1.8, center

The R combo has a fairly clear IQ advantage here, though the M combo is a lot lighter and cheaper. The 22 is $199, 105gm, and 24mm long. The 35 is $499, 305gm, and 63mm long. The 35 does have IS, which is useful for things that don't move. In terms of sharpness, I'm very happy with both lenses. I also did test shots at F2.8 on the 22, and F2 and F2.8 on the 35. I don't want to clutter up this post with them, but if anyone wants to see them, I'll be happy to put them in another post.

Now, the 56 F1.4 and 85 F2. Here's the view from above:

The RF 85 is approximately equivalent to a 53 F1.3, so that's a lot closer to the Sigma than the other comparison. Here are the wide open shots:

56 F1.4, at F1.4, edge. The AF on the M6II actually allows you to get closer to the edges with the 56 than with the 22

56 F1.4 at F1.4, center

85 F2, at F2, edge. On the R, you can get even closer to the edges with AF

85 F2, at F2, center.

Surprisingly, to my eye, the 56 seems to have a bit more background blur wide open. Or maybe it's just that I prefer the character of the blur.

The character is different. The RF 85mm has too much contrast to give those backgrounds a smooth look. When you look closer there's nothing wrong with the shapes of the bokeh balls. There's no outlining, rings, or whatsoever, it's just those colors being too vivid.

It's the downside of this lens. I find myself using the Sigma 50mm Art for portraits with busy backgrounds over the RF 85mm f/2.0 for this reason, and it keeps me motivated to carry the weight of the 105mm when I want more reach / compression.

One weird thing I notice is that on my iMac, when I select the 56 F1.4 images, the info screen gives the "aperture value" as 0.9709, and the F number as 1.4. For the F2 and F2.8 shots that I did, the "aperture value" was pretty close to the F number (exactly the same for F2, and 2.9709 for F2.8). I wonder whether this is just a mistake on the part of my iMac, or whether the Sigma is actually wider than F1.4? In any case, I don't think the RF combo has a clear advantage here at all, at least not for portraits. Again, I have shots at F2 and F2.8 on the 56, and F2.8 and F4 on the 85, if anyone is interested in seeing them. Both combos are plenty sharp enough for me, even wide open. This just reinforces my view that the Sigma 56 is quite a remarkable lens, and for portraits, the M6II with the Sigma is competitive with much bigger and more expensive combinations

My mother has the 56mm and I still want to do some pixel peeping with it. The only problem: i don't have a 32Mp sensor at hand......  The overall look of that lens is really nice.

(though, of course, the massive and exorbitantly-priced RF 85 F1.2 lenses are in another class again). The difference in cost and size between the EF-M lens and RF lens here is smaller than the previous comparison, though. The 85 F2 is $599, 500gm, and 91mm long. The 56 F1.4 is $429, 281gm, and 60mm long. Both RF lenses claim a maximum magnification of 0.5X, compared with 0.21X for the 22, and 0.14X for the 56. But, because of the different sensor sizes, that doesn't translate into similarly different minimum focusing distances. In fact, the 22 can focus ever so slightly closer than the 35 (5.91" versus 6.69"), but the 85 can focus significantly closer than the 56 (13.78" versus 19.69"). Again, the 85 F2 has the advantage of IS, making it more useful for non-moving subjects. For portraits, that's not as big of an advantage. I try to keep my 56 at no slower than 1/160, whereas I'd probably be OK shooting people at 1/125 with the 85 (but some recent shots I did at that speed did show subject movement in someone who was seated). The 85 F2 is clearly more of an all-rounder, whereas I think of my 56 as pretty much exclusively a people lens. But a lot, probably most, of my shots are of people.

The last comparison I'll do will be between the RF 50 F1.8 on the R and the EF-M 32 F1.4 on the M6II. This is the only one where the EF-M lens is actually bigger, heavier, and more expensive (more than twice the price) than the RF lens. I wouldn't be surprised if the M combo here produces better results than the R combo (though the RF 50 should have a bit more background blur wide open). I've seen conflicting reports from others who have both lenses, so I'll be very interested to see how they compare for me, when Adorama finally sends me the lens.

I'm enjoying getting to know my R. It's a lot better camera than I expected. It's not going to displace my M6II for action, or for travel, but it's still a lot of fun to use. The 24-105 F4L is certainly a lens for which there's no equivalent in the M system (as several people complain several times each day on this forum). It's terrifically sharp and versatile, with amazing IS. I was able to get a sharp shot handheld at 1 second at 105mm (I couldn't count on that performance every time, but 1/4 at 105mm is pretty consistently sharp). That lens is equivalent to a 15-66 F2.5 on M. It's also much bigger and heavier than any EF-M lens (and more expensive). I'm happy with the M system being geared towards small, light, excellent primes, and small, slow zooms. The 11-22 is great. As a landscape lens, I'd much rather have it as slow as it is, but small and light, than be much bigger and heavier (and more expensive) and F2.8. But that's me. For my use of that lens, I'm shooting it stopped down anyway, and making use of the IS to use slow shutter speeds.

Nice write up. I've enjoyed it, thanks.

thunder storm wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Most of my shooting on my M6II is with primes. I use the 22 F2, 32 F1.4, and Sigma 56 F1.4 about equally, and the Sigma 16 F1.4 a lot less. I recently gave in to the temptation offered by very low prices on refurbished gear to get the R and RF 24-105L refurbished. I also picked up the lower priced RF primes, the 35 F1.8 IS and 85 F2 IS, and have the 50 F1.8 on backorder. The 35 F1.8 and 85 F2 are pretty close in FOV to the 22 and 56 on my M6II, so I thought I'd do a comparison between the different combinations (I'll do the comparison between the EF-M 32 and RF 50, when I get that lens). I know quite a few people on this forum also have R bodies, and others may be contemplating picking them up, now that the RP and R have come down so much in price, both new and refurbished. First, the bodies. Obviously, the R is quite a bit bigger and heavier than the M6II (660gm vs 408gm, 136 X 98 X 84mm vs 120 X 70 X 49mm), but some of the size differences aren't for the whole body. For example, the height is calculated with the highest point, which is the EVF hump, which is only in the middle, and the depth is calculated with the grip, which for both cameras is just at the right end of the body, and the back of the EVF eyecup. For most of the width of the bodies, the heights and depths of the two cameras are much closer (the R is approx. 1/2 inch taller, except for the hump, and less than 1/8 deeper, except for the grip and EVF). I was actually surprised at how much smaller and lighter the R is than my 7DII, which I sold before I got my R, and my 20D, which I still have. It's very similar in size to my first DSLR, the original Digital Rebel (300D).

Now, the two prime comparisons. First the 22 F2 on the M6II and the 35 F1.8 on the R. Here's what they look like from above:

And from behind:

In equivalence terms, the RF 35 F1.8 IS is approximately equivalent to 22 F1.2 on an M. You can see the better background blur in these comparison shots, taken from the same place, wide open on both lenses, both off-center (not extreme corners, which I don't use for subjects) and center:

22 at F2, this is about as far off-center as I'm likely to put a subject with this lens (the AF doesn't extend all the way either in height or width).

22 F2 at F2 in center

35 F1.8 at F1.8, edge

35 F1.8 at F1.8, center

The R combo has a fairly clear IQ advantage here, though the M combo is a lot lighter and cheaper. The 22 is $199, 105gm, and 24mm long. The 35 is $499, 305gm, and 63mm long. The 35 does have IS, which is useful for things that don't move. In terms of sharpness, I'm very happy with both lenses. I also did test shots at F2.8 on the 22, and F2 and F2.8 on the 35. I don't want to clutter up this post with them, but if anyone wants to see them, I'll be happy to put them in another post.

Now, the 56 F1.4 and 85 F2. Here's the view from above:

The RF 85 is approximately equivalent to a 53 F1.3, so that's a lot closer to the Sigma than the other comparison. Here are the wide open shots:

56 F1.4, at F1.4, edge. The AF on the M6II actually allows you to get closer to the edges with the 56 than with the 22

56 F1.4 at F1.4, center

85 F2, at F2, edge. On the R, you can get even closer to the edges with AF

85 F2, at F2, center.

Surprisingly, to my eye, the 56 seems to have a bit more background blur wide open. Or maybe it's just that I prefer the character of the blur.

The character is different. The RF 85mm has too much contrast to give those backgrounds a smooth look. When you look closer there's nothing wrong with the shapes of the bokeh balls. There's no outlining, rings, or whatsoever, it's just those colors being too vivid.

Yes, maybe that's it. But shouldn't that be an easy fix in post, then? Contrast is one of the easiest parameters to adjust.

It's the downside of this lens. I find myself using the Sigma 50mm Art for portraits with busy backgrounds over the RF 85mm f/2.0 for this reason, and it keeps me motivated to carry the weight of the 105mm when I want more reach / compression.

One weird thing I notice is that on my iMac, when I select the 56 F1.4 images, the info screen gives the "aperture value" as 0.9709, and the F number as 1.4. For the F2 and F2.8 shots that I did, the "aperture value" was pretty close to the F number (exactly the same for F2, and 2.9709 for F2.8). I wonder whether this is just a mistake on the part of my iMac, or whether the Sigma is actually wider than F1.4? In any case, I don't think the RF combo has a clear advantage here at all, at least not for portraits. Again, I have shots at F2 and F2.8 on the 56, and F2.8 and F4 on the 85, if anyone is interested in seeing them. Both combos are plenty sharp enough for me, even wide open. This just reinforces my view that the Sigma 56 is quite a remarkable lens, and for portraits, the M6II with the Sigma is competitive with much bigger and more expensive combinations

My mother has the 56mm and I still want to do some pixel peeping with it. The only problem: i don't have a 32Mp sensor at hand...... The overall look of that lens is really nice.

(though, of course, the massive and exorbitantly-priced RF 85 F1.2 lenses are in another class again). The difference in cost and size between the EF-M lens and RF lens here is smaller than the previous comparison, though. The 85 F2 is $599, 500gm, and 91mm long. The 56 F1.4 is $429, 281gm, and 60mm long. Both RF lenses claim a maximum magnification of 0.5X, compared with 0.21X for the 22, and 0.14X for the 56. But, because of the different sensor sizes, that doesn't translate into similarly different minimum focusing distances. In fact, the 22 can focus ever so slightly closer than the 35 (5.91" versus 6.69"), but the 85 can focus significantly closer than the 56 (13.78" versus 19.69"). Again, the 85 F2 has the advantage of IS, making it more useful for non-moving subjects. For portraits, that's not as big of an advantage. I try to keep my 56 at no slower than 1/160, whereas I'd probably be OK shooting people at 1/125 with the 85 (but some recent shots I did at that speed did show subject movement in someone who was seated). The 85 F2 is clearly more of an all-rounder, whereas I think of my 56 as pretty much exclusively a people lens. But a lot, probably most, of my shots are of people.

The last comparison I'll do will be between the RF 50 F1.8 on the R and the EF-M 32 F1.4 on the M6II. This is the only one where the EF-M lens is actually bigger, heavier, and more expensive (more than twice the price) than the RF lens. I wouldn't be surprised if the M combo here produces better results than the R combo (though the RF 50 should have a bit more background blur wide open). I've seen conflicting reports from others who have both lenses, so I'll be very interested to see how they compare for me, when Adorama finally sends me the lens.

I'm enjoying getting to know my R. It's a lot better camera than I expected. It's not going to displace my M6II for action, or for travel, but it's still a lot of fun to use. The 24-105 F4L is certainly a lens for which there's no equivalent in the M system (as several people complain several times each day on this forum). It's terrifically sharp and versatile, with amazing IS. I was able to get a sharp shot handheld at 1 second at 105mm (I couldn't count on that performance every time, but 1/4 at 105mm is pretty consistently sharp). That lens is equivalent to a 15-66 F2.5 on M. It's also much bigger and heavier than any EF-M lens (and more expensive). I'm happy with the M system being geared towards small, light, excellent primes, and small, slow zooms. The 11-22 is great. As a landscape lens, I'd much rather have it as slow as it is, but small and light, than be much bigger and heavier (and more expensive) and F2.8. But that's me. For my use of that lens, I'm shooting it stopped down anyway, and making use of the IS to use slow shutter speeds.

Nice write up. I've enjoyed it, thanks.

Kudos for the write-up Alastair.  Good work!  What could have been with a m5II with IBIS...

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.

2 cents, what their worth...

50mm is more useful than 85

And the RF 50 1.2L is one of the best primes ever made, much like the 28-70 f/2 is one of the best zooms ever made.

I’m beginning to think Canons initial RF lens lineup was very intentional. Think about the most commonly used RF glass, or talked about... RF 24-105, RF 50 1.2, RF 28-70 f/2, RF 35 f/1.8. Canon both filled a void, made a statement/splash and made the market segmentation, in one shot. No pun intended, get it, Canon, shot? Ta-du, dis.

I still think the M and R play with each other, not against. But options like the fast zooms (f/4 or faster) and super fast primes (1.2 on FF) is all FF turf, IMO.

But fast primes (2.0/1.4 on crop)? M can, if you ask me...

RLight wrote:

But fast primes (2.0/1.4 on crop)? M can, if you ask me...

I'd agree FF owns F4L zooms and f1.2 primes

Canon only made one f1.4 that handles the 32 mpxl sensor - the 32 f1.4

Sigma made three f1.4's, the 16, 30, 56

if it was intended to be a strength of m, canon didn't embrace f1.4's, except they threw m owners a single bone in the 32

also with lack of IBIS, they haven't shown they are serious with the future of m for advanced users

RLight wrote:

2 cents, what their worth...

50mm is more useful than 85

More useful, yes, I agree. but I still prefer the output of the 85, when it's used for what it is useful for.

And the RF 50 1.2L is one of the best primes ever made, much like the 28-70 f/2 is one of the best zooms ever made.

I’m beginning to think Canons initial RF lens lineup was very intentional. Think about the most commonly used RF glass, or talked about... RF 24-105, RF 50 1.2, RF 28-70 f/2, RF 35 f/1.8. Canon both filled a void, made a statement/splash and made the market segmentation, in one shot. No pun intended, get it, Canon, shot? Ta-du, dis.

I still think the M and R play with each other, not against. But options like the fast zooms (f/4 or faster) and super fast primes (1.2 on FF) is all FF turf, IMO.

But fast primes (2.0/1.4 on crop)? M can, if you ask me...

RLight wrote:

I still think the M and R play with each other, not against. But options like the fast zooms (f/4 or faster) and super fast primes (1.2 on FF) is all FF turf, IMO.

But fast primes (2.0/1.4 on crop)? M can, if you ask me...

+1

R2

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). 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

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. 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.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

RLight wrote:

2 cents, what their worth...

50mm is more useful than 85

More useful, yes, I agree. but I still prefer the output of the 85, when it's used for what it is useful for.

Agree on use case for the 85; it's unique, and 90mm isn't quite 85mm

I gave the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM adapted a go on the R for a while and gave it back: limited usefulness. Exactly what you want for a portrait, or various object photography with some limited landscape use, but otherwise it's a one trick pony, a very good one trick pony though (85mm that is).

But again, that's where a Sigma, on an M, makes a little more sense: smaller, lighter, cheaper. I just wish it was a true 85mm. Never going to happen, Sigma is as good as it gets as I sincerely doubt Canon is touching the M for probably a good year or so and likely for a body refresh of some kind as that's what they do for the Rebels these days.

Back to the one trick pony for a minute, that's where I'm a sucker for the EF 85mm f/1.2L II, I just love it's colors, bokeh drawing and bokeh quantity... Other offerings, even Canon's own EF 85mm f/1.4L, aren't the same in my viewing...

What I found is more useful, and I'm not trying to sell anyone on "Goliath", is the RF 28-70 f/2L, it really is a bag of primes...

Stumbled upon this when filtering on 56mm to find my Sigma shots in archive

I never have to swap a lens, wonderful bokeh drawing, colors, and 70mm isn't 85mm, but it's close enough without duplication lens efforts. When you start to consider how much buying all these primes costs, and how often f/1.2 is really needed, this starts to make alot of sense (RF 28-70 f/2L) even from an monetary perspective where do you buy a RF 50 and RF 85, RF 35, EF 28 (f/1.8)? And if buying the non L flavors of these, you loose coatings, weather sealing and USM motors, etc... But you get F/2, L-flavored F/2 at that.

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

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.

RLight wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

RLight wrote:

2 cents, what their worth...

50mm is more useful than 85

More useful, yes, I agree. but I still prefer the output of the 85, when it's used for what it is useful for.

Agree on use case for the 85; it's unique, and 90mm isn't quite 85mm

I gave the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM adapted a go on the R for a while and gave it back: limited usefulness. Exactly what you want for a portrait, or various object photography with some limited landscape use, but otherwise it's a one trick pony, a very good one trick pony though (85mm that is).

But again, that's where a Sigma, on an M, makes a little more sense: smaller, lighter, cheaper. I just wish it was a true 85mm. Never going to happen, Sigma is as good as it gets as I sincerely doubt Canon is touching the M for probably a good year or so and likely for a body refresh of some kind as that's what they do for the Rebels these days.

Back to the one trick pony for a minute, that's where I'm a sucker for the EF 85mm f/1.2L II, I just love it's colors, bokeh drawing and bokeh quantity... Other offerings, even Canon's own EF 85mm f/1.4L, aren't the same in my viewing...

What I found is more useful, and I'm not trying to sell anyone on "Goliath", is the RF 28-70 f/2L, it really is a bag of primes...

Stumbled upon this when filtering on 56mm to find my Sigma shots in archive

I never have to swap a lens, wonderful bokeh drawing, colors, and 70mm isn't 85mm, but it's close enough without duplication lens efforts. When you start to consider how much buying all these primes costs, and how often f/1.2 is really needed, this starts to make alot of sense (RF 28-70 f/2L) even from an monetary perspective where do you buy a RF 50 and RF 85, RF 35, EF 28 (f/1.8)? And if buying the non L flavors of these, you loose coatings, weather sealing and USM motors, etc... But you get F/2, L-flavored F/2 at that.

Sorry, On the RF 28 - 70 F2 L being like having a bag of primes, I'm not sure I agree it is the right primes

it doesn't have 24 mm, and that is a must for me

28 mm is awkward and most don't have a 28

I'd rather have a ef 35 f1.4 II than 35 f2

I'd rather have a RF 50 f1.2 than 50 f2

I'd rather have RF 24-70 F2.8 IS than RF 28-70 F2 with no IS

70 F2 without IS is not RF 85 F2 with IS

That said, if you are in a paid situation where you need dual slots and IS, and it is a fast paced event like a wedding, and the lights are not so low where you need f1.2, then the heavy RF 28-70 F2 fits that niche with the R6 - but still you'd need to be carrying a second body with the R 16-35 F2.8, because 28 mm ain't wide enough.

Remember when Canon had the EF 28-70 F2.8 that they discontinued?   It wasn't wide enough for indoor shooting.

In fact my RF 24-105 F4 L for all around shooting, including bounce flash, and access to 24 mm and 105 mm, makes more sense as a one lens setup for me.   Then switch to the primes I need.  85 mm is considered more in the portrait sweet spot than 70 mm.

In my opinion pros more likely to carry a pair of R6's or 1 R6 and 1 R5 and the following 1) RF 24-70 F2.8 IS 2) RF 70-200 F2.8 IS; 3) RF 16 -35 F2.8 IS 4) RF 85 F1.2 5) EF 35 F1.4 II

and they'd buy those lenses in that order because they need 24 mm right away, and they need 200 mm next and they need 16 mm next, all for fast action pj shooting, and then many can do an entire slow paced portrait shoot with just the 35/85 combo

just my 2 cents

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.

There’s many ways to skin the cat. I’m a fan of the 15-35 so that’s a more natural pairing in a dual body scenario unless you want reach which becomes the 70-200. The difference is that 4mm but a whole stop. If indoors the former pairing makes sense. Outdoors? 24-70 and 70-200.

We’re getting way off M vs R though and wading into R vs R discussion. Those fast zooms be it 24-70 2.8 or 28-70 2.0, are both options not with M counterparts.

.

I still think, even though those f/4 zooms make sense for FF, some premium zoom would be nice for the M. Oh well.

RLight wrote:

There’s many ways to skin the cat.

true, but see below

I’m a fan of the 15-35 so that’s a more natural pairing in a dual body scenario unless you want reach which becomes the 70-200. The difference is that 4mm but a whole stop. If indoors the former pairing makes sense. Outdoors? 24-70 and 70-200.

I've done 20 weddings as the primary

When the Church personnel relegate you to the back of the church during the ceremony, and you didn't have the 70-200 -- you are toast. You can live without a 16 -35. But the 70 -200 is the money lens

We’re getting way off M vs R though and wading into R vs R discussion. Those fast zooms be it 24-70 2.8 or 28-70 2.0, are both options not with M counterparts.

true, but if one could ever get them to develop m5II with IBIS -- one could buy three of them and work a paid event with the 16, 32, 56 and only have to change lenses to the 70-200

.

I still think, even though those f/4 zooms make sense for FF, some premium zoom would be nice for the M. Oh well.