Canon RF 28-70 at 50mm vs RF 50 f/1.2L at f/2?

Hi,

Based on real-world use, can the RF 28-70mm f/2L match the RF 50mm f/1.2L in terms of sharpness, contrast, etc, at f/2? A high-quality zoom that can replace primes seems attractive. The RF 24-70mm f/2.8L looks to be a good option, albeit that it's slower and possibly rougher in the corners.

I tend to shoot at f/2 or narrower with my R5, but the f/1.2 performance of my RF 50mm may be missed.

Thanks

The RF 28-70 f/2L is meant as a lens to replace prime lenses, f/1.8 prime lenses that is. Now, you may find its versatility outweighs f/1.2, however, f/1.2 is still unique, and I'm a sucker for f/1.2. My trouble? Candid shooting makes the versatility of the 28-70 f/2L and not having to swap a lens, a huge boon. That said the 28-70 f/2L cannot replace the special spark a 50mm f/1.2L or 85mm f/1.2L does, but it does event based photography "better" as you always have access to f/2 across the spectrum. It's a very different kind of lens than prior f/2.8 zooms in that it actually can challenge a prime in terms of sharpness, contrast, bokeh, color. It cannot by nature do f/1.2 though, but otherwise it's obliterated the other differences making the line blurry between a zoom and prime. It does come at a cost of price and weight though, and cannot do 24mm, but I haven't found it to be a problem.

At 50mm, even at f/2, it's sharpness, contrast, are strong. I can say I'm the weakest link in the chain with my amateur skills paired with a pro lens

The flare resistance is impressive as another lens in these conditions would be "dead". I like the dreamy look it's bokeh gives in not just quantity, but quality.

The RF 28-70 f/2L is the better event, candid, wedding shooter. However, the RF 50mm f/1.2L is unique, is the better staged portrait shooter, low light king, but f/1.2 is often too shallow. The 28-70 is more versatile. It’s a hard decision and I wish I could say sharpness was a flaw to make it easy, it’s not that easy…

M J Valentine wrote:

highdesertmesa wrote:

M J Valentine wrote:

Hi,

Based on real-world use, can the RF 28-70mm f/2L match the RF 50mm f/1.2L in terms of sharpness, contrast, etc, at f/2? A high-quality zoom that can replace primes seems attractive. The RF 24-70mm f/2.8L looks to be a good option, albeit that it's slower and possibly rougher in the corners.

I tend to shoot at f/2 or narrower with my R5, but the f/1.2 performance of my RF 50mm may be missed.

Thanks

Nothing performs as well as the RF 50 f/1.2 at f/2 except the RF 85 f/1.2. The RF 28-70 at 50mm and f/2 is probably 90% of the sharpness and 100% of the color from the RF 50 f/1.2.

Also don't underestimate the weight and size of the 28-70. For the most part, it can replace primes in 28/35/50/70, however, it will feel like you have all four of those lenses on your camera or in your bag at the same time, so the only gain is the convenience of not having to change lenses and/or reacting to conditions with the zoom. If you shoot events, the 28-70 is quite valuable, for landscape maybe not as much when the RF 24-105 at f/5.6 or f/8 will be the same or better.

Thanks for the reply. The weight is a factor as it's unlikely I'll want to carry it around all day on holiday. I have 35mm f/1.4II, RF 50mm f/1.2L, RF 24-70 f/2.8 and RF 70-200 f/2.8L so the plan would be to sell the 24-70 and 50mm to get the 28-70. I love the 35mm f/1.4L II which I'd only replace with an RF L version. I'll rent the 28-70 to see if the weight is tolerable.

I have thought about the f/2.0 L zoom, but the biggest problem for me isn't the price itself alone, but also the fact you need to pay extra for another zoom for walk around purposes.   Selling the 24-70 is a bad plan in my opinion, unless you'll get a 24-105mm L in return.

I've bought the 40mm Art recently next to my 50mm Art. I don't find myself needing large apertures at wider focal lengths than 40mm. With 40mm & f/1.4 I can do a lot, so I'm not interested in the f/2.0 L zoom anymore. 40mm is the widest for portraits. Wider becomes scapes territory.

RLight wrote:

The RF 28-70 f/2L is meant as a lens to replace prime lenses, f/1.8 prime lenses that is. Now, you may find its versatility outweighs f/1.2, however, f/1.2 is still unique, and I'm a sucker for f/1.2. My trouble? Candid shooting makes the versatility of the 28-70 f/2L and not having to swap a lens, a huge boon. That said the 28-70 f/2L cannot replace the special spark a 50mm f/1.2L or 85mm f/1.2L does, but it does event based photography "better" as you always have access to f/2 across the spectrum. It's a very different kind of lens than prior f/2.8 zooms in that it actually can challenge a prime in terms of sharpness, contrast, bokeh, color. It cannot by nature do f/1.2 though, but otherwise it's obliterated the other differences making the line blurry between a zoom and prime. It does come at a cost of price and weight though, and cannot do 24mm, but I haven't found it to be a problem.

At 50mm, even at f/2, it's sharpness, contrast, are strong. I can say I'm the weakest link in the chain with my amateur skills paired with a pro lens

The flare resistance is impressive as another lens in these conditions would be "dead". I like the dreamy look it's bokeh gives in not just quantity, but quality.

The RF 28-70 f/2L is the better event, candid, wedding shooter. However, the RF 50mm f/1.2L is unique, is the better staged portrait shooter, low light king, but f/1.2 is often too shallow. The 28-70 is more versatile. It’s a hard decision and I wish I could say sharpness was a flaw to make it easy, it’s not that easy…

if you are doing lots of event shooting, you have a bit of an argument, though 24 mm is more important than you think in event photography.  In event photography you should be carrying multiple bodies.  The Rf 50 f1.2  on R5 is stunning and you would have the cropping power and IBIS.

In event photography you need OCF -- I use odin system

If I were you:

1) I'd sell the 28 -70

2) get the RF 24-105L

3) get the R5

4) get the 50 f1.2

5) get into OCF lighting

6) keep the R for the second camera in events

thunder storm wrote:

M J Valentine wrote:

highdesertmesa wrote:

M J Valentine wrote:

Hi,

Based on real-world use, can the RF 28-70mm f/2L match the RF 50mm f/1.2L in terms of sharpness, contrast, etc, at f/2? A high-quality zoom that can replace primes seems attractive. The RF 24-70mm f/2.8L looks to be a good option, albeit that it's slower and possibly rougher in the corners.

I tend to shoot at f/2 or narrower with my R5, but the f/1.2 performance of my RF 50mm may be missed.

Thanks

Nothing performs as well as the RF 50 f/1.2 at f/2 except the RF 85 f/1.2. The RF 28-70 at 50mm and f/2 is probably 90% of the sharpness and 100% of the color from the RF 50 f/1.2.

Also don't underestimate the weight and size of the 28-70. For the most part, it can replace primes in 28/35/50/70, however, it will feel like you have all four of those lenses on your camera or in your bag at the same time, so the only gain is the convenience of not having to change lenses and/or reacting to conditions with the zoom. If you shoot events, the 28-70 is quite valuable, for landscape maybe not as much when the RF 24-105 at f/5.6 or f/8 will be the same or better.

Thanks for the reply. The weight is a factor as it's unlikely I'll want to carry it around all day on holiday. I have 35mm f/1.4II, RF 50mm f/1.2L, RF 24-70 f/2.8 and RF 70-200 f/2.8L so the plan would be to sell the 24-70 and 50mm to get the 28-70. I love the 35mm f/1.4L II which I'd only replace with an RF L version. I'll rent the 28-70 to see if the weight is tolerable.

I have thought about the f/2.0 L zoom, but the biggest problem for me isn't the price itself alone, but also the fact you need to pay extra for another zoom for walk around purposes. Selling the 24-70 is a bad plan in my opinion, unless you'll get a 24-105mm L in return.

I've bought the 40mm Art recently next to my 50mm Art. I don't find myself needing large apertures at wider focal lengths than 40mm. With 40mm & f/1.4 I can do a lot, so I'm not interested in the f/2.0 L zoom anymore. 40mm is the widest for portraits. Wider becomes scapes territory.

some good thoughts

If I were you, I'd sell my Ef 24-70 F2.8 II and get the RF 24-105L

I'd invest in OCF lighting -- 430 RT to trigger + Canon EL-1 strobist off camera ight on stand

Mag mod globe and gels and grids

DXO Photolab 4 Elite for NR and processing

You have the primes for stunning shallow DOF photography

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

M J Valentine wrote:

highdesertmesa wrote:

M J Valentine wrote:

Hi,

Based on real-world use, can the RF 28-70mm f/2L match the RF 50mm f/1.2L in terms of sharpness, contrast, etc, at f/2? A high-quality zoom that can replace primes seems attractive. The RF 24-70mm f/2.8L looks to be a good option, albeit that it's slower and possibly rougher in the corners.

I tend to shoot at f/2 or narrower with my R5, but the f/1.2 performance of my RF 50mm may be missed.

Thanks

Nothing performs as well as the RF 50 f/1.2 at f/2 except the RF 85 f/1.2. The RF 28-70 at 50mm and f/2 is probably 90% of the sharpness and 100% of the color from the RF 50 f/1.2.

Also don't underestimate the weight and size of the 28-70. For the most part, it can replace primes in 28/35/50/70, however, it will feel like you have all four of those lenses on your camera or in your bag at the same time, so the only gain is the convenience of not having to change lenses and/or reacting to conditions with the zoom. If you shoot events, the 28-70 is quite valuable, for landscape maybe not as much when the RF 24-105 at f/5.6 or f/8 will be the same or better.

Thanks for the reply. The weight is a factor as it's unlikely I'll want to carry it around all day on holiday. I have 35mm f/1.4II, RF 50mm f/1.2L, RF 24-70 f/2.8 and RF 70-200 f/2.8L so the plan would be to sell the 24-70 and 50mm to get the 28-70. I love the 35mm f/1.4L II which I'd only replace with an RF L version. I'll rent the 28-70 to see if the weight is tolerable.

I have thought about the f/2.0 L zoom, but the biggest problem for me isn't the price itself alone, but also the fact you need to pay extra for another zoom for walk around purposes. Selling the 24-70 is a bad plan in my opinion, unless you'll get a 24-105mm L in return.

I've bought the 40mm Art recently next to my 50mm Art. I don't find myself needing large apertures at wider focal lengths than 40mm. With 40mm & f/1.4 I can do a lot, so I'm not interested in the f/2.0 L zoom anymore. 40mm is the widest for portraits. Wider becomes scapes territory.

some good thoughts

If I were you, I'd sell my Ef 24-70 F2.8 II and get the RF 24-105L

Not possible at the moment, no good deals due to supply problems.

I'd invest in OCF lighting -- 430 RT to trigger + Canon EL-1 strobist off camera ight on stand

I will stick to bouncing with gary fong.

Mag mod globe and gels and grids

DXO Photolab 4 Elite for NR and processing

You have the primes for stunning shallow DOF photography

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

M J Valentine wrote:

highdesertmesa wrote:

M J Valentine wrote:

Hi,

Based on real-world use, can the RF 28-70mm f/2L match the RF 50mm f/1.2L in terms of sharpness, contrast, etc, at f/2? A high-quality zoom that can replace primes seems attractive. The RF 24-70mm f/2.8L looks to be a good option, albeit that it's slower and possibly rougher in the corners.

I tend to shoot at f/2 or narrower with my R5, but the f/1.2 performance of my RF 50mm may be missed.

Thanks

Nothing performs as well as the RF 50 f/1.2 at f/2 except the RF 85 f/1.2. The RF 28-70 at 50mm and f/2 is probably 90% of the sharpness and 100% of the color from the RF 50 f/1.2.

Also don't underestimate the weight and size of the 28-70. For the most part, it can replace primes in 28/35/50/70, however, it will feel like you have all four of those lenses on your camera or in your bag at the same time, so the only gain is the convenience of not having to change lenses and/or reacting to conditions with the zoom. If you shoot events, the 28-70 is quite valuable, for landscape maybe not as much when the RF 24-105 at f/5.6 or f/8 will be the same or better.

Thanks for the reply. The weight is a factor as it's unlikely I'll want to carry it around all day on holiday. I have 35mm f/1.4II, RF 50mm f/1.2L, RF 24-70 f/2.8 and RF 70-200 f/2.8L so the plan would be to sell the 24-70 and 50mm to get the 28-70. I love the 35mm f/1.4L II which I'd only replace with an RF L version. I'll rent the 28-70 to see if the weight is tolerable.

I have thought about the f/2.0 L zoom, but the biggest problem for me isn't the price itself alone, but also the fact you need to pay extra for another zoom for walk around purposes. Selling the 24-70 is a bad plan in my opinion, unless you'll get a 24-105mm L in return.

I've bought the 40mm Art recently next to my 50mm Art. I don't find myself needing large apertures at wider focal lengths than 40mm. With 40mm & f/1.4 I can do a lot, so I'm not interested in the f/2.0 L zoom anymore. 40mm is the widest for portraits. Wider becomes scapes territory.

some good thoughts

If I were you, I'd sell my Ef 24-70 F2.8 II and get the RF 24-105L

Not possible at the moment, no good deals due to supply problems.

understood

I'd invest in OCF lighting -- 430 RT to trigger + Canon EL-1 strobist off camera ight on stand

I will stick to bouncing with gary fong.

waste of energy and causes longer recycle times

mag mod system much better

Mag mod globe and gels and grids

DXO Photolab 4 Elite for NR and processing

You have the primes for stunning shallow DOF photography

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

M J Valentine wrote:

highdesertmesa wrote:

M J Valentine wrote:

Hi,

Based on real-world use, can the RF 28-70mm f/2L match the RF 50mm f/1.2L in terms of sharpness, contrast, etc, at f/2? A high-quality zoom that can replace primes seems attractive. The RF 24-70mm f/2.8L looks to be a good option, albeit that it's slower and possibly rougher in the corners.

I tend to shoot at f/2 or narrower with my R5, but the f/1.2 performance of my RF 50mm may be missed.

Thanks

Nothing performs as well as the RF 50 f/1.2 at f/2 except the RF 85 f/1.2. The RF 28-70 at 50mm and f/2 is probably 90% of the sharpness and 100% of the color from the RF 50 f/1.2.

Also don't underestimate the weight and size of the 28-70. For the most part, it can replace primes in 28/35/50/70, however, it will feel like you have all four of those lenses on your camera or in your bag at the same time, so the only gain is the convenience of not having to change lenses and/or reacting to conditions with the zoom. If you shoot events, the 28-70 is quite valuable, for landscape maybe not as much when the RF 24-105 at f/5.6 or f/8 will be the same or better.

Thanks for the reply. The weight is a factor as it's unlikely I'll want to carry it around all day on holiday. I have 35mm f/1.4II, RF 50mm f/1.2L, RF 24-70 f/2.8 and RF 70-200 f/2.8L so the plan would be to sell the 24-70 and 50mm to get the 28-70. I love the 35mm f/1.4L II which I'd only replace with an RF L version. I'll rent the 28-70 to see if the weight is tolerable.

I have thought about the f/2.0 L zoom, but the biggest problem for me isn't the price itself alone, but also the fact you need to pay extra for another zoom for walk around purposes. Selling the 24-70 is a bad plan in my opinion, unless you'll get a 24-105mm L in return.

I've bought the 40mm Art recently next to my 50mm Art. I don't find myself needing large apertures at wider focal lengths than 40mm. With 40mm & f/1.4 I can do a lot, so I'm not interested in the f/2.0 L zoom anymore. 40mm is the widest for portraits. Wider becomes scapes territory.

some good thoughts

If I were you, I'd sell my Ef 24-70 F2.8 II and get the RF 24-105L

Not possible at the moment, no good deals due to supply problems.

understood

And there's the 70mm@f/2.8 benefit. That might be getting even more important when giving up on the 85mm focal length.

I'd invest in OCF lighting -- 430 RT to trigger + Canon EL-1 strobist off camera ight on stand

I will stick to bouncing with gary fong.

waste of energy and causes longer recycle times

Lots of 2600 mAh batteries here. Shorter recycle times are nice, but even when bouncing the amounts of power needed aren't so often so huge causing too long recycle times.

Maybe a Covid free Christmas with some family in the house would need a larger DOF during the darker days, but the last 18 months I didn't find myself needing a larger DOF and shorter recycle times......  A large aperture + high ISO performance are good enough to keep recycle times workable.

mag mod system much better

Probably, but not important enough right now. My money tree needs some rest.

Mag mod globe and gels and grids

DXO Photolab 4 Elite for NR and processing

You have the primes for stunning shallow DOF photography

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

M J Valentine wrote:

highdesertmesa wrote:

M J Valentine wrote:

Hi,

Based on real-world use, can the RF 28-70mm f/2L match the RF 50mm f/1.2L in terms of sharpness, contrast, etc, at f/2? A high-quality zoom that can replace primes seems attractive. The RF 24-70mm f/2.8L looks to be a good option, albeit that it's slower and possibly rougher in the corners.

I tend to shoot at f/2 or narrower with my R5, but the f/1.2 performance of my RF 50mm may be missed.

Thanks

Nothing performs as well as the RF 50 f/1.2 at f/2 except the RF 85 f/1.2. The RF 28-70 at 50mm and f/2 is probably 90% of the sharpness and 100% of the color from the RF 50 f/1.2.

Also don't underestimate the weight and size of the 28-70. For the most part, it can replace primes in 28/35/50/70, however, it will feel like you have all four of those lenses on your camera or in your bag at the same time, so the only gain is the convenience of not having to change lenses and/or reacting to conditions with the zoom. If you shoot events, the 28-70 is quite valuable, for landscape maybe not as much when the RF 24-105 at f/5.6 or f/8 will be the same or better.

Thanks for the reply. The weight is a factor as it's unlikely I'll want to carry it around all day on holiday. I have 35mm f/1.4II, RF 50mm f/1.2L, RF 24-70 f/2.8 and RF 70-200 f/2.8L so the plan would be to sell the 24-70 and 50mm to get the 28-70. I love the 35mm f/1.4L II which I'd only replace with an RF L version. I'll rent the 28-70 to see if the weight is tolerable.

I have thought about the f/2.0 L zoom, but the biggest problem for me isn't the price itself alone, but also the fact you need to pay extra for another zoom for walk around purposes. Selling the 24-70 is a bad plan in my opinion, unless you'll get a 24-105mm L in return.

I've bought the 40mm Art recently next to my 50mm Art. I don't find myself needing large apertures at wider focal lengths than 40mm. With 40mm & f/1.4 I can do a lot, so I'm not interested in the f/2.0 L zoom anymore. 40mm is the widest for portraits. Wider becomes scapes territory.

some good thoughts

If I were you, I'd sell my Ef 24-70 F2.8 II and get the RF 24-105L

Not possible at the moment, no good deals due to supply problems.

understood

And there's the 70mm@f/2.8 benefit. That might be getting even more important when giving up on the 85mm focal length.

you have enough cropping power on the R5 that the RF 50 F1.2 would be a great 50 and a great 85.  I think R2 said he might sell his 85 -- I'm wondering if this is where he is going also

I'd invest in OCF lighting -- 430 RT to trigger + Canon EL-1 strobist off camera ight on stand

I will stick to bouncing with gary fong.

waste of energy and causes longer recycle times

Lots of 2600 mAh batteries here. Shorter recycle times are nice, but even when bouncing the amounts of power needed aren't so often so huge causing too long recycle times.

if you are happy, great!  Omni-directional bouncing is not my thing -- directional bouncing to the side wall or back wall is my thing -- you don't need a diffuser for that.

Maybe a Covid free Christmas with some family in the house would need a larger DOF during the darker days, but the last 18 months I didn't find myself needing a larger DOF and shorter recycle times...... A large aperture + high ISO performance are good enough to keep recycle times workable.

true -- and the RF 50 F1.2 L has that large wide open Sharp setting!

mag mod system much better

Probably, but not important enough right now. My money tree needs some rest.

I think the RF 50 L is in your future

Mag mod globe and gels and grids

DXO Photolab 4 Elite for NR and processing

You have the primes for stunning shallow DOF photography

MAC wrote:

I think the RF 50 L is in your future

It might depend on what compatibility we will - and what compatibility we won't - see with a next generation of R6 and R5 bodies as it comes to EF lenses in general and Sigma lenses in particular.

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

I think the RF 50 L is in your future

It might depend on what compatibility we will - and what compatibility we won't - see with a next generation of R6 and R5 bodies as it comes to EF lenses in general and Sigma lenses in particular.

Your R5 is an epic camera that will be there for many years Storm

The issue for me is weight/IQ balance and I like my prime lenses to be sharp wide open.  My 32 on my M6II is my sharp wide open 50 f2.2, and my one lens carry ,and met that need, particularly when I can shoot up to ss 1/16000  in bright sun wide open.

I really like my RP + RF 24-105 L + RF 85 F2 IS + M6II + M32 and my lighting system to meet 90% of my requirements : to keep it easy to carry and light weight.

Chasing IQ can get very expensive and very heavy

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

I think the RF 50 L is in your future

It might depend on what compatibility we will - and what compatibility we won't - see with a next generation of R6 and R5 bodies as it comes to EF lenses in general and Sigma lenses in particular.

Your R5 is an epic camera that will be there for many years Storm

If I skip a next generation anyway I'm set for the next 8 years or so. About 50 euro a month.

The issue for me is weight/IQ balance and I like my prime lenses to be sharp wide open. My 32 on my M6II is my sharp wide open 50 f2.2, and my one lens carry ,and met that need, particularly when I can shoot up to ss 1/16000 in bright sun wide open.

I really like my RP + RF 24-105 L + RF 85 F2 IS + M6II + M32 and my lighting system to meet 90% of my requirements : to keep it easy to carry and light weight.

Chasing IQ can get very expensive and very heavy

The law of diminishing returns hits you pretty hard once you're buying into the very best options. I'm not saying I would never buy it, but I'm not in a hurry.

At it's introduction no one would have believed you when someone told you the 50mm Art could act as a light weight option. At the same time that's exactly where I am now. The RF f/1.2 is heavier. It has also less round bokeh shapes. I'm also not sure if RF 50mm & f/1.2 is a true replacement of the 85mm perspective.

Actually I'm satisfied with my 50mm Art. The real problem is the 85mm misery. It's just a first world problem though. 

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

The RF 28-70 f/2L is meant as a lens to replace prime lenses, f/1.8 prime lenses that is. Now, you may find its versatility outweighs f/1.2, however, f/1.2 is still unique, and I'm a sucker for f/1.2. My trouble? Candid shooting makes the versatility of the 28-70 f/2L and not having to swap a lens, a huge boon. That said the 28-70 f/2L cannot replace the special spark a 50mm f/1.2L or 85mm f/1.2L does, but it does event based photography "better" as you always have access to f/2 across the spectrum. It's a very different kind of lens than prior f/2.8 zooms in that it actually can challenge a prime in terms of sharpness, contrast, bokeh, color. It cannot by nature do f/1.2 though, but otherwise it's obliterated the other differences making the line blurry between a zoom and prime. It does come at a cost of price and weight though, and cannot do 24mm, but I haven't found it to be a problem.

At 50mm, even at f/2, it's sharpness, contrast, are strong. I can say I'm the weakest link in the chain with my amateur skills paired with a pro lens

The flare resistance is impressive as another lens in these conditions would be "dead". I like the dreamy look it's bokeh gives in not just quantity, but quality.

The RF 28-70 f/2L is the better event, candid, wedding shooter. However, the RF 50mm f/1.2L is unique, is the better staged portrait shooter, low light king, but f/1.2 is often too shallow. The 28-70 is more versatile. It’s a hard decision and I wish I could say sharpness was a flaw to make it easy, it’s not that easy…

if you are doing lots of event shooting, you have a bit of an argument, though 24 mm is more important than you think in event photography. In event photography you should be carrying multiple bodies. The Rf 50 f1.2 on R5 is stunning and you would have the cropping power and IBIS.

In event photography you need OCF -- I use odin system

If I were you:

1) I'd sell the 28 -70

2) get the RF 24-105L

3) get the R5

4) get the 50 f1.2

5) get into OCF lighting

6) keep the R for the second camera in events

For events I’m a big fan of having the RF f/2.8L IS in my bag at 15-35, 24-70, and 70-200. I’m using them on my R5 these days.

For walking around the RF 24-105/4L IS is flexible and lighter.

For primes on the RF I’m currently adapting a EF 35/1.4L II and EF 85/1.4L IS but will eventually move to an RF. Admit Canon RF L primes are bigger and heavier than I would like when I compare them to my Sony FE GM primes and while f/1.2 is great not sure I need it on 35, 50, and 85.  Did used to own both the EF 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L II but sold them awhile back.

I was going to get the RF 50/1.2L until Sony announced and showed off their 50/1.2 GM with quad linear motors and very fast focusing speed. THe 35/1.4 GM and 135/1.8 GM make it a great set. Only the 85/1.4 GM is the weakest of the GM primes from 14 — 135mm.

Currently have my feet stuck in both camps but I have done that since I bought my first Sony when Canon did not offer anything with more that 30 Mpixels and the Nikon D800 came out.