Another cheap(ish) RF prime review/demonstration

I hope my post about the RF 50 F1.8 was helpful to at least some people who may have been wondering whether it was worth buying. When I'm considering whether to buy a lens, I certainly appreciate seeing the kind of pictures that people ordinarily take with it, rather than shots of test charts, or even the kinds of pictures reviewers take when they are specifically trying out the lens (though some of these can be helpful too). With the recent(ish) price drops on both the RP and the R, a fair number of people may be buying into, or considering buying into, the R system, but not prepared to spend $2000 or more per lens, which is what most of the RF L lenses will set you back. Over many years of owning EF mount Canon cameras, I've owned a wide range of EF lenses, mostly Canon, including some really nice L lenses and some pretty cheap lenses. One of my favorites for many years was the EF 85 F1.8. It was nice and sharp, fairly small and light, and fast focusing. When I jumped at the chance to buy a refurbished R from Canon for only a bit over $1100, with the RF 24-105L thrown in for an additional $650, I thought long and hard about whether to sell my trusty old 85 to help finance the purchase of the new RF 85 F2 IS, which had recently been announced (July 2020--I bought my R in December 2020). In the end, a few factors persuaded me to make the move: the RF version is only 75gm heavier and about 3/4inch longer, both of which are more than offset by having to use the EF version on the adapter; the RF version has very effective IS; the RF version focuses a lot closer than the EF version (and than any other 85mm AF full frame lens). The only drawback that I could see was that the RF version's STM AF was reputed to be a bit slower than the USM AF on the EF version. Because I didn't anticipate using the RF 85 for sports very much (if at all), that didn't bother me. One other possible advantage of the RF version was that it was unlikely to suffer anything like as much from purple fringing wide open, which was the main optical fault of the EF version (at least in my experience). Although it's possible to correct (most of) the fringing of the EF version in post, it doesn't always disappear completely.

At $599, weighing 500gm, and 91mm long, the RF 85 F2 IS is the biggest, heaviest, and most expensive of the affordable non-L fast RF primes. It's still pretty small, light, and cheap, though, considering what you get. When I went back and checked my Lightroom catalog by lens, I discovered that, since December 2020 I've used the 85 about half as much as the 50, and about two thirds as much as the 35 and the 24-105 (I got the 16 F2.8 much more recently, so I'm not comparing that usage yet). For me at least, it's mostly a people (and pets) lens, though it's also very useful for closeups of flowers and other still life. This post, and the next two (so I don't put too many images in any one post), are just supposed to give you an idea of the kind of results you can get in ordinary usage. Almost all my people shots are taken at ordinary social gatherings, and almost never involve subjects posing specifically for the camera (although sometimes it might look like it), nor special lighting setups. Although I own three pretty competent flashes, I dislike flash photography, and rarely use them. I'll arrange these shots in ascending order of ISO used, so you can see first of all how the lens copes in really good light, and then see how the images from it hold up to the demands of processing high ISO shots. They were all processed with either Lightroom or DXO Photolab 5, except for the two OOC JPEGs that I shot at a track meet.

First, some shots at base ISO (or near enough as makes no difference):

I love the look of B&W shots from this lens

I think this was the first shot I ever took with this lens. And then I took another shot.

And now some shots in the ISO 200-2000 range:

This is a shot for which the close focusing and IS helped. I couldn't have taken this one with the EF 85

OOC JPEG, taken a a track meet

And now some shots from ISO 2500 up to 12,800:

OOC JPEG

Again, I couldn't have gotten this close with my EF 85

My thoughts on this lens are that it is an improvement in almost every way on the much loved (and rightly so) EF 85 F1.8. The two respects in which the older lens is slightly better are the maximum aperture and the focus speed. The older lens is 1/3 stop faster. That difference is especially trivial, given the noise handling abilities of modern sensors. I'm also happy to shoot the RF version wide open, but I usually stopped the EF version down to F2-F2.5. As for focus speed, which gets a lot of criticism (mostly from people who don't use the RF 85), I think the EF is slightly faster, but I've never noticed a difference in practical usage. I've never missed a shot with the RF 85 because of focus speed, and I've tested it on runners and cars approaching me at 30mph, and it has easily kept up. The older version was also slightly smaller and lighter, but only slightly, and the difference goes the other way, if you put the EF version on the adapter. But isn't the RF version more expensive? Yes, it's $100 more than you would pay for the EF version now (at B&H for example). When the EF version was released back in 1992, its price was $430. That's $793 in 2020 prices. So, in real terms, the RF version was released at $200 less than the EF version. The advantages of the RF version are apparent, as soon as you give it some usage. It's sharper than the EF version (which is no slouch itself), and sharp wide open. It has very effective IS, which is especially important for those of us who haven't yet (and may not for quite some time) forked out the big bucks for the latest models with IBIS. It focuses really close. Its MFD is under 14 inches, which is way less than half of every other 85 I've looked up, including the old EF version I had for all those years. And it doesn't have the same purple fringing problem as its predecessor. It's also well-built, without being oppressively heavy. It doesn't come with a lens hood, like every other non-L Canon lens, but I bought a perfectly fitting Chinese one for about $10.

All in all, I'm very pleased with this lens. Whenever I use it, and look at the results, I think I should use it more. But then again, I tend to think that for all my primes. I love its rendering for portraits, and for still life. If you're looking for a great all-around performer at this focal length, it's well worth the modest price of $599 (in the US).

Thanks very much for taking time  to share your thoughts, experience, and photos.

I am very interested in this RF 85/2 and have some concern about the focus issues, especially with video. Have you any experience to share regarding video autofocus with this lens?

I do have the EF 85/1.8 and will probably keep it for use on my 77D if/when I purchase the RF85. In the past few years I am increasingly fond of smaller/lighter gear, and prefer avoiding use of adapted lens largely due to the added weight and size. I guess I don't  love the look of the combo as much with the adapter either.

If anyone wonders, I do want to say that the RF-EF adapter works great (I use the inexpensive Meike model) and I have experienced no issues at all with adapting lenses.

I'll give a plug for the R6 and mention that I love the ibis and amazing autofocus capabilities.

JohnnyFair wrote:

Thanks very much for taking time to share your thoughts, experience, and photos.

I am very interested in this RF 85/2 and have some concern about the focus issues, especially with video. Have you any experience to share regarding video autofocus with this lens?

I do have the EF 85/1.8 and will probably keep it for use on my 77D if/when I purchase the RF85. In the past few years I am increasingly fond of smaller/lighter gear, and prefer avoiding use of adapted lens largely due to the added weight and size. I guess I don't love the look of the combo as much with the adapter either.

If anyone wonders, I do want to say that the RF-EF adapter works great (I use the inexpensive Meike model) and I have experienced no issues at all with adapting lenses.

I'll give a plug for the R6 and mention that I love the ibis and amazing autofocus capabilities.

Thanks. I'm afraid I rarely shoot video, and haven't shot any with this lens. What are your concerns about video AF? I suppose it's possible that you would hear the AF motor, if you're using the built-in mic, and it's otherwise very quiet. I have to say I have never noticed the focus sound, but I'm usually using the lens in circumstances where at least one person is talking. I'm sure I'd hear it, if I were in a totally quiet room.

Very useful shots, gives you a good idea of the depth of field and the quality of the bokeh achievable with the value lenses.

For me the bokeh is too sharp on these and while the shots are great i wouldnt use them personally.

Ive used the f/1.2 50 and 85 RF primes extensively and they really obliterate it at f/1.2 but that is too be expected.

It is by far my least used lens, mostly because it is a short telephoto and I have that focal length covered with my RF 70-200 f4.0L, which is fabulous in re: IQ.

Having said that, when I do use the RF 85 2.0 I am always happy with the pictures.  Below are two examples.

So, while I am quite happy with its performance, I can duplicate the IQ (or surpass it) with the zoom, and the zoom can cover 70-200 for quick framing adjustments on the fly.

I will probably end up selling the 85mm, but it is still a great lens.

Ice skating ring, terrible light

One our dogs on the front porch

For me, I enjoy the the 1/2 macro and focus bracketing.

And for portraits too.

I’ve also used it for my kids indoor court sports.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

I hope my post about the RF 50 F1.8 was helpful to at least some people who may have been wondering whether it was worth buying. When I'm considering whether to buy a lens, I certainly appreciate seeing the kind of pictures that people ordinarily take with it, rather than shots of test charts, or even the kinds of pictures reviewers take when they are specifically trying out the lens (though some of these can be helpful too). With the recent(ish) price drops on both the RP and the R, a fair number of people may be buying into, or considering buying into, the R system, but not prepared to spend $2000 or more per lens, which is what most of the RF L lenses will set you back. Over many years of owning EF mount Canon cameras, I've owned a wide range of EF lenses, mostly Canon, including some really nice L lenses and some pretty cheap lenses. One of my favorites for many years was the EF 85 F1.8. It was nice and sharp, fairly small and light, and fast focusing. When I jumped at the chance to buy a refurbished R from Canon for only a bit over $1100, with the RF 24-105L thrown in for an additional $650, I thought long and hard about whether to sell my trusty old 85 to help finance the purchase of the new RF 85 F2 IS, which had recently been announced (July 2020--I bought my R in December 2020). In the end, a few factors persuaded me to make the move: the RF version is only 75gm heavier and about 3/4inch longer, both of which are more than offset by having to use the EF version on the adapter; the RF version has very effective IS; the RF version focuses a lot closer than the EF version (and than any other 85mm AF full frame lens). The only drawback that I could see was that the RF version's STM AF was reputed to be a bit slower than the USM AF on the EF version. Because I didn't anticipate using the RF 85 for sports very much (if at all), that didn't bother me. One other possible advantage of the RF version was that it was unlikely to suffer anything like as much from purple fringing wide open, which was the main optical fault of the EF version (at least in my experience). Although it's possible to correct (most of) the fringing of the EF version in post, it doesn't always disappear completely.

At $599, weighing 500gm, and 91mm long, the RF 85 F2 IS is the biggest, heaviest, and most expensive of the affordable non-L fast RF primes. It's still pretty small, light, and cheap, though, considering what you get. When I went back and checked my Lightroom catalog by lens, I discovered that, since December 2020 I've used the 85 about half as much as the 50, and about two thirds as much as the 35 and the 24-105 (I got the 16 F2.8 much more recently, so I'm not comparing that usage yet). For me at least, it's mostly a people (and pets) lens, though it's also very useful for closeups of flowers and other still life. This post, and the next two (so I don't put too many images in any one post), are just supposed to give you an idea of the kind of results you can get in ordinary usage. Almost all my people shots are taken at ordinary social gatherings, and almost never involve subjects posing specifically for the camera (although sometimes it might look like it), nor special lighting setups. Although I own three pretty competent flashes, I dislike flash photography, and rarely use them. I'll arrange these shots in ascending order of ISO used, so you can see first of all how the lens copes in really good light, and then see how the images from it hold up to the demands of processing high ISO shots. They were all processed with either Lightroom or DXO Photolab 5, except for the two OOC JPEGs that I shot at a track meet.

First, some shots at base ISO (or near enough as makes no difference):

I love the look of B&W shots from this lens

I think this was the first shot I ever took with this lens. And then I took another shot.

I like the colors and bokeh drawing on these...

Not trying to knock the Siggy 56, but these are superior. There's something to be said about FF and image quality.

Glad to see a "cheap" lens, can. Honestly so can the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, but, having IS and a newer optical formula that solves the shortcomings of the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, double boon.

Looks like Lightroom finally has a good color match too. I noted they fixed it for my former G5X II and recently went back and reprocessed a couple RAWs with excellent results. These look good as well. Congrats to yourself, the lens, and Adobe, in that order. You nailed the purpose of the lens from the samples.

Many thanks, Alastair, for taking the trouble to select and post these photos.

I have never had an 85mm lens and have been considering whether I need to add the RF85 f/2 to my collection. As you have ably shown, the lens is highly competent technically, and the price is acceptable. The question for me is whether I like the type of photos an 85mm takes. I do not take a lot of portraits, which may be why I am not so enthusiastic about this focal length; but when I do, I use my RF50 or RF35. For groups indoors I often use the RF16 -- though I have to be careful not to make those on the periphery look too fat than they are!

What I do not like about portraits taken with an 85mm lens:

davidwien wrote:

Many thanks, Alastair, for taking the trouble to select and post these photos.

I have never had an 85mm lens and have been considering whether I need to add the RF85 f/2 to my collection. As you have ably shown, the lens is highly competent technically, and the price is acceptable. The question for me is whether I like the type of photos an 85mm takes. I do not take a lot of portraits, which may be why I am not so enthusiastic about this focal length; but when I do, I use my RF50 or RF35. For groups indoors I often use the RF16 -- though I have to be careful not to make those on the periphery look too fat than they are!

What I do not like about portraits taken with an 85mm lens:

The purpose of a 85mm is largely head and shoulders portraits... Not everyone is a portrait popper inasmuch as not everyone is a landscape shooter. I wouldn't recommend a landscape shooter get a 85mm, no matter how strong it is, well priced, etc, if it's not their thing. Conversely, a portrait shooter may not need a wide angle. Arguably everyone should have a lens for in case they want to do something, but, some people do not want to (shoot certain things) and lenses cost money, and sit in bags adding weight. Money aside, I can tell you, less is more. If you don't need it, it is better left home. It is however beneficial to have a plan, and have a backup, even for amateur shooting. I leave a PowerShot or EOS M in the car for example most of the time, that's a form of backup if you will. If I think I might go indoors/be out after dark, when I had the 24-240 (don't anymore), I'd take the RF 35 f/1.8 IS STM along, that's planning. But, I'd leave it in the car till needed as the day might look like going to the zoo, and then restaurant after, you get to pickup that RF 35mm in the car at that time, meaning no bag, no lens swap on the go.

As someone who does like 85mm (me), I don't have one. Why? I'm an event shooter largely, I live off zooms like a 24-240, or in my case, a 28-70 f/2L. When I want head and shoulders, I compromise, and use 70mm @ f/2 instead of a true 85mm. But, I don't swap lenses either during events, or usually anyways.

I'll say I have never touched the RF85mm, but it resolves the complaints of the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, which that was a stellar lens in terms of price/performance. If you want an 85, I can say Alastair has demonstrated it correctly that the RF 85mm f/2 IS, is the one to beat. For the price, those kind of results are otherwise not achievable without some kind of compromise. Example, lack of IS, which is VERY useful for 85mm indoors where you want to keep your shutter and ISO down, even on FF, but keep your sharpness up. The R/P don't have IBIS yet, and even for R5/6/3 shooters? You want the newer optical formula that alleviates purple fringing concerns of the EF version...

Reservoir_Dog wrote:

Why always using it just for portraits?

Watch this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiMwtRK6D0s

Yes, it has occurred to me that I can use the 85 for more than just portraits, and I do. I didn't really need a 10 minute video, by a guy whose main qualification for making videos seems to be excessive enthusiasm, and aimed at introductory photographers and at selling lenses, to tell me what I already knew. But, I suppose it's my own fault for clicking on that link.

Nice photos!

At the prices you paid for this gear, it is certainly value for the $ -- hard to beat actually!

RLight wrote:

davidwien wrote:

Many thanks, Alastair, for taking the trouble to select and post these photos.

I have never had an 85mm lens and have been considering whether I need to add the RF85 f/2 to my collection. As you have ably shown, the lens is highly competent technically, and the price is acceptable. The question for me is whether I like the type of photos an 85mm takes. I do not take a lot of portraits, which may be why I am not so enthusiastic about this focal length; but when I do, I use my RF50 or RF35. For groups indoors I often use the RF16 -- though I have to be careful not to make those on the periphery look too fat than they are!

What I do not like about portraits taken with an 85mm lens:

The purpose of a 85mm is largely head and shoulders portraits... Not everyone is a portrait popper inasmuch as not everyone is a landscape shooter. I wouldn't recommend a landscape shooter get a 85mm, no matter how strong it is, well priced, etc, if it's not their thing. Conversely, a portrait shooter may not need a wide angle. Arguably everyone should have a lens for in case they want to do something, but, some people do not want to (shoot certain things) and lenses cost money, and sit in bags adding weight. Money aside, I can tell you, less is more. If you don't need it, it is better left home. It is however beneficial to have a plan, and have a backup, even for amateur shooting. I leave a PowerShot or EOS M in the car for example most of the time, that's a form of backup if you will. If I think I might go indoors/be out after dark, when I had the 24-240 (don't anymore), I'd take the RF 35 f/1.8 IS STM along, that's planning. But, I'd leave it in the car till needed as the day might look like going to the zoo, and then restaurant after, you get to pickup that RF 35mm in the car at that time, meaning no bag, no lens swap on the go.

As someone who does like 85mm (me), I don't have one. Why? I'm an event shooter largely, I live off zooms like a 24-240, or in my case, a 28-70 f/2L. When I want head and shoulders, I compromise, and use 70mm @ f/2 instead of a true 85mm. But, I don't swap lenses either during events, or usually anyways.

a pj event shooter can have a big advantage shooting the RF 28-70 f2 L + RF 70 -200 F2.8 L on two RF event bodies -- because they don't have to occupy two bodies with the 35 and 85 primes. They get to run two event bodies with two zooms covering 28 -200 that will keep up with the pj action.

that said, 35 + 85 is what I run for value proposition

I'll say I have never touched the RF85mm, but it resolves the complaints of the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, which that was a stellar lens in terms of price/performance. If you want an 85, I can say Alastair has demonstrated it correctly that the RF 85mm f/2 IS, is the one to beat. For the price, those kind of results are otherwise not achievable without some kind of compromise. Example, lack of IS, which is VERY useful for 85mm indoors where you want to keep your shutter and ISO down, even on FF, but keep your sharpness up. The R/P don't have IBIS yet, and even for R5/6/3 shooters? You want the newer optical formula that alleviates purple fringing concerns of the EF version...

Reservoir_Dog wrote:

Why always using it just for portraits?

I have this 85mm and I only use it for portraits in heavily back lit situations. For other situations I prefer other options, 50, 85,105mm Art or 70-200mm Contemporary.

The main job of this lens for me is anything but portraits.  Cityscapes & landscapes is the main job, and it's nice to know there's something with a good magnification figure in the bag, although I'm hardly ever use it.  The strengths of this lens to me are the sharpness & contrast and the stabilization especially combined with IBIS.

I will update my R5 to the latest firmware and give the AF another try. The AF is still a huge disappointment for me, the adapted and third party Sigma 105&40mm Art are providing waaaaay better AF on the RF compared to this lens, despite the extra communication pins, RF AF protocols, blah blah blah.  Weak AF is also limiting the operations while using the close focusing ability unfortunately. Too bad, as the size weight optics and stabilization are great.

My daughter and I went to her high school to see their production of Mary Poppins on Friday.  I shot lots of photos, using the RPs "silent mode" to avoid distracting other audience members.  I was pleased with the results.  Here's a couple of examples.

Mary Poppins and Burt

Mary and the children

Really nice. Question. Does exposure compensation and minimum shutter speed work in silent mode?

If they did, it seems you could almost back into a quasi manual mode with auto iso.

Nice shots. It looks like the mics are taped to their foreheads. That's a bit unusual, at least in my experience. Do you know what the reason is for that placement?