Marco Nero

The one downside of the EF 135mm F/2L USM lens was that is was extremely prone to Chromatic Aberration. And when an Extender was attached to it, the problem became far worse, often ruining images. So surely Canon wouldn't waste their time producing an RF successor without adding their BR Optics (Blue Spectrum Refractive Optics)? Guess what?! I gather the RF version doesn't accept an Extender now because there's no mention of this.
.
The EF version was notable for its magical bokeh and lens character. yet I'm seeing very mundane samples from the RF 135mmL lens so far. Quite a few showed up on Facebook and I noticed others commenting that they looked "out of focus". But the best feature of the EF 135mm f/2L USM lens is that it was usually Canon's cheapest L-series lens. That sure isn't the case any more.
.
I reviewed the R6 + EF 135mm f/2L lens when the R6 was released and it was a terrific match. But the RF 135mm f/1.8L is not the lens that people are asking for right now.

Considering that the Viltrox adapters often had poor electronic contact connection and were prone to "draining an EOS R5/6 battery when the camera was powered OFF" might just have something to do with it. I'm not remotely surprised, especially since the quality of many Viltrox products is less than desirable.

The PowerShot Pro1 camera was an amazing camera in its day. I took a vacation to Canada and Hawaii with it when it was released in 2004 and the images I caught were simply beautiful. Canon stripped the OIS off the camera prior to release because it added too much to the weight and bulk, something I believe was a mistake. And the only issue at the time was that any ISO over 200 was virtually unusable because the grain was simply horrid, especially approaching ISO 400. But this camera produced images that mirrored those of DSLRs at the time. Colors were very accurate and as a package, it was aimed at professionals not wanting to shoot with DSLR but who wanted high quality images that were ready to print.

Possibly.

I've been shooting with the R6 since the day of release. It's an impressive camera and I've sampled 8 of my favorite RF and EF lenses on it. There's no lack of features, it has a very effective IBIS system (offering new life to old lenses) and the image quality and rendered colors are beautiful. The construction is solid and Canon's new & improved Eye-Tracking AI is impressive. After taking several thousand photographs with the new R6 with no overheating and relatively impressive battery performance with the new (somewhat overpriced) LP-E6NH battery, I find the images are sharp & vibrant and the colors are accurately rendered. I'm retiring my DSLRs as a result.

The negative (and a few outright offensive) comments in the feed here show the level of immaturity I've come to expect from people with little or no comprehension of the subject at hand.

[QUOTE]: "EOS R6 suggestions:

* Don’t expect to be able to shoot for extended periods.
* Be aware of the need for extensive cooling periods between bursts of shooting."

Re: the above quote: The article headline mentions stills... but the article itself does not specify if the restrictive experience was related to stills or video. I expect far better from DPreview. I'm guessing the writer is referring to video. But members of the public will be confused by this and may assume that 'Stills shooting' (Bursts and extended periods of shooting) will be affected. This will definitely impact sales, regardless of the facts.

So which is it?

Ever taken a phone call while taking a picture with an iPhone? Google it.

@Video-vs-photo - Not in the slightest... and I come from a professional film background in Hollywood with 25 years experience with hundreds of millions of dollars in Feature Films, Commercials (TVC), Television series and Documentary Feature Films... plus I'm a former Canon dealer. You get what you pay for in each of those worlds - and Canon is still my favorite camera brand. The same applies to consumer products. Everything is a compromise. And Canon just pulled a rabbit out of their hat. The R5 is great value if you look at the price of the alternatives. The limitations and ability to overheat are due to the limitations of physics and technology. They even developed a new battery that tells the camera where to distribute energy to enable a more effective cool-down. If this is unacceptable, buy a professional video camera or buy more R5s so you can swap them around between your crew or assistants between shots. Check this out...

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64148956

You can spend $60,000+ on a dedicated Red Cam for 8K video recording. And then spend half as much again on accessories... and then half as much AGAIN on a computer capable of juggling the editing streams at 8K. Or you can spend just a few thousand on an EOS R5.

These mirrorless cameras (designed for photography, not videography) were never intended for Pro work and I have a high level of contempt for anyone who thinks they should be capable of delivering unfettered 8K at this price range. Any remotely serious production requiring 8K is going to want SEVERAL cameras of the much more expensive variety. Enjoy your 45MP camera and feel free to capture some uncropped 8K shots with it for your 4K audience. Don't whine about overheating if you don't have the coin for a dedicated 8K recording machine.

My copy of the older EF version of this lens was as good as it gets. I selected it from three other copies. I shot seascapes, surfers, bike riders in motion etc with this lens on day one... & caught some beautiful shots with it. It's not all about shallow DOF, but that's where its main strength & appeal lies. While the EF lens was almost exclusively a portrait lens, the RF lens is much more versatile. That's one of the reasons why Canon sell it for Astronomy as well as for scenic & portraiture. Paired with the EOS Ra for astronomy, it's a killer lens. And for studio work, nature, portraits and even street photography, the RF version actually works exceptionally well. It delivers the best results & I can feel confident knowing the AF nails the shot every time. With the older EF version, there was quite a lot of room for error, even with accurate MFA calibration. Perhaps the DPAF sensor helps the RF 85mmL a little more.

I shot surfers, bike riders etc with this lens on day one... and caught some beautiful shots with it. It's not all about shallow DOF, but that's where its main strength and appeal lies. But the EF lens was a portrait lens. The RF lens is much more versatile.

"Not up there with the 50 F/1.2 samples, which were stonking. . ."

I'm going to assume that you are referring to the RF 50mmL lens? But while we're on the subject, I compared the EF 50mmL lens to the RF 85mmL lens the other night with a JPEG from each lens taken with the Canon EOS Ra.

Note all the false color blooming from Chromatic Aberration and PF coming from the 50mm lens. Now compare it to the color-accurate sample from the RF 85mm lens with the BR optics and ASC coatings etc. The difference is incredible. The shot on the right was taken with a 6 second exposure without any stacking or tracking. At f/1.2. I can't ask for much more than this.

https://g3.img-dpreview.com/FED23F0F29904F2C952D673B11CC73D4.jpg

I've shot with the EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM lens for years and it was indeed slow but was one of the finest lenses I've worked with. I've now been shooting with the RF 85mm f/1.2L USM lens for the last few weeks now and it's utterly astonishing. Aberrations and coma are all but extinguished and AF speed is greatly improved. The ability to hit the precise areas of the subject that was targeted (and do so repeatedly) is something the EF could never quite muster, even on the best of copies.

I bought the RF variant for Astrophotography & Portraiture work. The color accuracy and resolved detail, even open wide at f/1.2, is amazing. I purchased the original EF version for bokeh. I replaced it with the RF version for sharpness & accuracy. The BR 'Blue Spectrum Refractive Optics' (for CA) & ASC 'Air Sphere Coatings' (for reducing ghosting + flare resistance) plus Fluorine coating, UD glass & weather seals make this the best lens Canon have produced in this class.

We have to pay for these new increments of technology. I'd like Sony to spend time and effort on color accuracy, design ergonomics, menu ergonomics and resolving any issues with existing models (eg: excessive noise, aggressive NR, overheating, power consumption etc) instead of simply releasing a new replacement model 6 months later... instead, we get a new AI Chip determining if I really need to wait to upload an image to the cloud at that time of the day. Will the AI Chip be used to enforce censorship laws? Because it sure can. Will the AI Chip second guess the photographer's intention? Because it sure can. Will the AI Chip add to the cost of manufacture? It sure will. I feel perfectly confident in saying nobody wrote to Sony and asked them to stick an AI Chip to their camera sensor. I suspect they're telling you what you need, even if you never need it and even if you don't want it. If this isn't an example of the "tail wagging the dog" then I don't know what is.

Do not need.

Everyone keeps comparing the RF 85mm f/1.2L USM lens to the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM lens. Why not compare it to the EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM lens? They share the same aperture and focal length.

I purchased a Mac Mini and a pro Apple Cinema screen for Photo Editing.
Cinema Screen dies 1 day past warranty. I take it to Apple & they replace it.
Mac Mini dies. Take it to Apple & they recommend a new one.

Take new Mac Mini home... it doesn't plug into my Apple Cinema Screen because the new screen has Thunderbolt cables. Try to buy older model. Apple no longer makes these monitors. Have to get a refurbished one.

Then Apple Mac Mini HD fails during Yosemite Firmware/Security update. Take it to Apple. HD Disk is corrupted. Apple erased HD & re-installs latest update. Now Mac Mini does not work with my monitor: glorious sound is gone. Turns out it's a known defect. ALSO: All my expensive editing software is now incompatible with new Mojave Operating System.

Apple announce new 2019 Mac Mini. Does not plug into 'older' Apple Cinema Screen. Apple no longer makes one. "Buy Aperture", they said. "It will be fun", they said. Time to show Apple the loyalty they've shown me.

Even Canon's more expensive f/1.2L lenses (including both the 85mmL and the 50mmL) can, and do, exhibit 'cat's eye' bokeh. It is literally a physical property of light entering from the edge of the lens aperture at an oblique angle. It should never be considered a 'defect' etc but a property of the light transmission through the elements aseembly.

Many of the world's finest lenses have no I.S. and some of them are incredibly expensive. This one has a wide aperture which means that stabilization is not essential for good, handheld performance, even in lowlight conditions. It's also incredibly affordable. I'd imagine that any photographer with even a meager amount of experience with faster lenses would know this.

Though a "positive" review of the lens, I disagree with much of the content, especially the overall rating of just 85%. This is the SHARPEST lens I've seen from Canon & compared to Canon's incredible EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM lens, this one is sharper... and, like that lens, does not require I.S. for superb lowlight performance. This was a "textbook review" if ever I saw one and it's was clearly a clinical performance by someone disinterested in the subject on hand. What a shame. This is an important lens for Canon & it's interesting to see them release such a lens for the EF-M mount. I've taken tens of thousands of shots with this lens since from just prior to its local release - and it allows me to work with a smaller camera system (EOS M) in exceptionally low light. I'm editing some shots now taken over the past few weeks & it still surprises me with it's clarity when used handheld in extremely challenging lighting conditions. This lens should have scored 90-95% without question.