This week Chris and Jordan take a closer look at the Canon RF 85mm F1.2L and – no surprises here – find it to be a technically excellent optic. They also compare it with the original EF-mount 85mm F1.2L, which is no slouch for its age, to see just how far the design has advanced in the past 15 years.
Thanks for that nice video! Woa, lot of comments for such a special lens. The RF 85mm 1.2 is really a great move by Canon, technically a master piece. But I think I'll stick for a while with my older EF version (Mk II). I love the old design in particular because it is not perfect and has a very special character - almost a personality.
The top level glass has always cost a lot. Same as it ever was in the world of photography.
Now that doesn't mean expensive glass is for everyone. Nor does it mean that one can't find some great lenses at more affordable price points.
But the best always costs. I will say that considering that one can keep a lens for 10 years or more, the cost of great glass is not as bad as one thinks.
Honestly unless you already owned the EF 85 f/1.2L, I would just get the Samyang 85 f/1.4 FE, it's got the IQ of the 85 GM, it's got the AF of the 85 GM, even a bit better, it's only ~ 568g and is a bargain IMO. I have the Sony 85 f/1.8 and I don't yearn for f/1.2 at all, even f/1.8 is very shallow DOF for portraits and AF is faster than the GM.
The 85 f/1.2L II is a better lens than the mk 1 for sure and if I owned that I'd keep it for either Sony or Canon R5. I know if I get the R5 won't be getting the RF 85 f/1.2. They urgently need a new 85 f/1.8
Except AF will be even worse with the third party adapter and the Sony colors will not be as nice. A lens like the 85 creates a certain atmosphere and the colors are a part of that, and Sony colors can't come close to Canon.
Eye AF woks fine with Canon glass on the Sony cameras, if you already own the EF 85L why waste money getting the 85 GM. It's not like you are going to be shooting sports or BIF with it. As for Sony colours vs Canon colours, I haven't noticed a difference for non-portrait use. I don't really give a stuff about portraits so not worried about Sony skin tones, but I've seen enough wonderful portraits to think it's a big non-issue that comes down to your processing skills.
@zxaar: talk about gaslighting...read what you wrote..you admit that this is a Canon article. I did not bring up Sony. Someone else did. They are the troll by definition. I am the anti-troll. :)
If people wouldn't bring up Sony on articles on non-Sony equipment then I wouldn't make my comments about Sony. It's just that myself and others notice that this happens frequently and only with Sony users...we generally don't see Nikon or Fuji users, for instance, come into an article on Canon and try to promote those products. That's why so many are annoyed at this Sony trolling. Oh yeah, the other annoying thing that some Sony users do is trash talk the other products. Look at the comment that started this min-thread: calls Canon bodies a "joke." No need for that. And certainly if one is going to do that, one should expect some reaction.
A man who claims to own an EOS R and Z7, both with standard zooms, yet describes EVFs as 'laggy' and like looking at a 'little TV' screen and who regularly praises DSLRs over milcs. If DSLRS are so good and milcs so poor, why did you spend $6000 on two milcs with similar MP counts and optics?
And you shoot a Nikon 45mp camera with IBIS but claim you can't really tell the difference between IBIS and no IBIS - on 45mp!
A man who praised the RF lens mock-ups as 'clearly the best lenses on the market' but they were plastic tubes with no glass in them. 🙃
You're like a pantomime robber who denies committing the crime even when he's caught with the stolen jewels in his hand... We CAN SEE YOU gaslighting all and sundry on here day and night!
And your knowledge of forthcoming Sony products (12-24/2.8GM) is very impressive - you know more about what's coming out than I do.
You can denigrate me all you want; I really don't care and your diatribes against me personally do not warrant a response.
But I will say this...if/when the Sony 12-24/2.8 is released, it will be an expensive lens, probably around $3000, and relatively large and heavy. That is to be expected for that type of glass. But I will not go on the articles on DPR that cover the announcement, or that preview/review the lens, and make all sorts of derogatory comments of the type that we see here, from you and others. I won't go there and say how it's too expensive and too large, to be practical to most users.
@zxaar: you write "You are trolling against Sony in a Canon article."
Don't you see the irony in that? You have people in this article on Canon trying to promote Sony, and I respond, and somehow I am the troll? Get real.
Why do some Sony users feel the need to comment on virtually every article about non-Sony gear? That's pretty strange. And it's funny how many times they all seem to repeat the same talking points.
@zxaar: another gaslighting comment...congratulations! You are trying to set some record.
Note: I wouldn't comment on Sony products in a discussion on a Canon lens if others wouldn't bring up Sony. I would gladly ignore Sony but people like you make that impossible on discussions like these. Many have noted that and are tired of it.
I also ask you again: why do you and some others find your way to all sorts of discussions on non-Sony equipment to promote Sony? Why is it up to you to "correct" people? You won't find me in a discussion of that new Sony lens for instance, trying to find where people may disparage Canon and trying to "correct" them. Again, that right there is a bit weird. Why do you take it upon yourself to monitor the discussions for Sony? And again, why is it the Sony trolls all have the same talking points?
I came from Canon. 400D, 40D, 50D, 5DII, 6D and 5DIV. From my Canon days just 35L II is in my mind. I can talk about Canon. Sony make Canon live again. But the R5 will be another fail. Why? A7SIII. Sony get the heart of digital cameras, the sensors PERIOD.
Pedro: of course you can say anything you want, and I can respond.
The R5 will be a huge success. The Sony A7SIII...well first of all it's just vaporware for now...a scant rumor. We've heard rumors before about it coming. But not solid info...nothing from Sony...no leaked images, etc. At this point if a launch were near, we would have had something solid leak out by now. So sure it may come...but...
And as we are going on rumors, the rumor has it that Sony moved the announcement date of the A7SIII back to position properly after the R5/R6 announcement. Now if Sony is reacting to what Canon is doing, that means that Canon is in the lead. The leader sets the tone, the other reacts.
So if Sony does come with an A7SIII, I expect it will be less than the R5, and maybe even not be up to what the R6 will offer.
Pedro: to finish up on an interesting point you made about the sensor being the heart of a digital camera.
I agree that the sensor is important.
But first, Canon sensors are great...pro's use them more than any other, people make all sorts of great images with Canon sensors. Sony also makes great sensors.
Second, the sensor is only part of the entire imaging pipeline. The sensor serves the same purpose that film did, and the just like the choice of film was important, so were other factors.
Other factors that are at least as important are the lenses, processors, ergonomics and handling, reliability, etc. Most pro's will agree with that.
And right now, image sensors seem to have hit a kind of plateau and all cameras seem to have great sensors. Granted many use Sony sensors but some do not.
Obviously you have your opinion and that's to be respected. But there are other points of view out there.
Tru if you understood what I said you would not be trolling around.
What you want is that no one shall correct you no matter how much mis information you spew about Sony. Because everytime someone corrects you you can say he is promoting Sony.
To give example I have multiple times told you that as Sony user I have never had any Sony product broken on me.
This is always in response to you saying that Sony products always break down. Last time when I wrote to you you were calling Sony cameras desposible.
It was not Sony promotion but rebuttal. Pretty much always the case when someone corrected you.
Now the question is why do you promote Canon in Sony articles.
@zxaar: you truly are the definition of gaslighting. As noted before I do not go into articles on new Sony gear and promote Canon. For instance, when Sony recently introduced their new lens and then that new vlogging camera, I did not go into those threads and post anything, much less promoting Canon.
And why is it up to you or others to somehow monitor threads on equipment other than Sony to inject your "corrections?" That's a bit weird? Do you do that on other sites? Do you go to Canonrumors or Nikonrumors to police for Sony? That's both weird and arrogant.
Finally, since you brought the subject of Sony reliability up, it's well known that Sony has had problems in that area. We just had an entire article on DPR from LensRentals where they took apart and tested multiple brands and found Sony to have a flaw in it body construction. You brought up the subject.
See how you have taken a discussion on a great Canon lens and turned it into one on defective Sony build quality.
It will be very interesting to see how this and the other RF lenses perform on the upcoming R5 model. When Canon designed these lenses, they of course knew their roadmap of future products and designed the lenses accordingly.
As the R series progresses, I think we will see the strengths of these RF lenses come out even more.
Event photographers do just this when the gear is responsive enough to allow it. It allows for cleaner images in bad/lower light. Not everything in this art allows you to setup and wait.
some of the shots are not pin-sharp, I haven't shot Canon for a while but I thought the facial recognition system would remedy that problem. I guess it did not.
That screen that can't fold out 180 degrees is annoying, It points off to the side and is distracting. I've read people have broken the arm of the LCD thinking it does articulate 180 degrees like Sony implies even though it does not. People need to be more careful with their cheap little cameras. :)
Sarman, take your copy of the ZV-1 back to the store, yours is obviously defective. I have two, and I’ve tried my best to detect the screen not being at a 180 degrees, but I can’t. The build quality is just as good as my D700, but of course it takes vastly superior images. The focusing is only matched by a7Riv. And truly amazing, it blows right past the a9ii with an astonishing 24fps, with exposure and metering measured 60 times a second. If I were you I would demand a replacement!
Canon with its RF glass is rapidly becoming known as the one with the best FF mirrorless lens collection. Not necessarily the most lenses yet, but the best. And if one includes the Canon EF lenses with Canon adapter, then the Canon R does have the largest lens collection of any mirrorless.
//Canon with its RF glass is rapidly becoming known as the one with the best FF mirrorless lens collection. Not necessarily the most lenses yet, but the best.//
I'm sure that is true at your breakfast table, but to most people who don't play top trumps, the quality of a 'best lens collection' is a meaningless concept, they want to know if they can get the lenses they want at prices they are happy to pay.
//And if one includes the Canon EF lenses with Canon adapter, then the Canon R does have the largest lens collection of any mirrorless.//
No. If you are including adapted lenses, the largest range is M43 followed by E-mount. RF is unlikely to ever have the most adapted lenses because EF lenses can also be adapted other mirrorless mounts.
You sound like a PR person. 'Canon glass is kicking butt and taking names'. No-one who buys lenses and takes photos thinks like this.
You don't even understand what is impressive about this lens - the complete absence of fringing and very high contrast at f1.2 - for you it's just a proxy to attack Sony, as is clear by your very deliberate added line about Nikon. I'm surprised you didn't add Panasonic as well, but perhaps that would have made it too obvious.
Well, no doubt the RF lens is a beast. But it is even too perfect for my taste, and I still prefer the rendering of the EF lens (which, according to my Lightroom data base, is my most used lens ever, alongside the 50L)...
Its good to get this lens reviewed now. There is an RF85 F/2 Macro coming in a couple weeks and that will make all the non-professionals quickly forget about this. An 85/2 could be a near perfect multiple purpose lens, especially if it is a 1:1 macro (it may not be). The next few months are going to be fun for anyone interested in Canon.
@dmanthree: It is wrong to think that every professional portrait photographer 'needs' a f1.2 lens. If you are e.g. into studio portraits, you would never shoot f1.2. Same goes for business headshot portrait photographers. I once built my little business around an 85mm f1.8 lens and clients never complained about to much DOF. The occassion where f1.2 comes in handy is very, very rare. Last but not least, even a lot of professionals just cannot afford the lens. Sad but true :)
It isn't just about need is it? A pro who buys this will use it.
I once saw a vid of a studio shooter who had high end L glass. He explained that it was about build quality and versatility. He mostly shot studio, but if you shoot thousands of images a year, and just 100 is at f1.2, it is still worth it. He explained that his lenses needed to be work horses, that should be able to last a life time, take some abuse, and especially be weather sealed. If it is a rainy day and you or I decide not to go out and shoot, then we just don't. But if for any reason he needs to, the lens needs to survive.
Other things to consider is the fact that pros often have one cost advantage that we do not. They can often and do write off their gear purchases. But like with most business they always weight in the cost to benefit analysis.
On the other end some pros just don't make enough to justify the cost. And don't need f1.2 to begin with. What do you know? Choices.
It’s true, “no one needs” is a strong phrase. But I stick by it. My day job is in pro audio, and it’s just as valid for me to say that no recording engineer or studio needs a vintage tube microphone (a la Neumann U47) with the attendant headaches of ownership and exorbitant cost in order to get the job done and produce “professional” results, however one defines that. Would such a piece be nice to have? Sure. But still not absolutely necessary to do the job. Not a total 1:1 comparison, I know, but it’s how I best understand it.
@lawny: Amen! And regarding "He explained that his lenses needed to be work horses, that should be able to last a life time, take some abuse, and especially be weather sealed." ... that's why I would welcome a L-lens RF85mm f1.8 workhorse, sealed, rugged but still kind of affordable for small business photographers like me :). On the other hand, I am not too kind to my old EF85mm 1.8 and it works just like on day 1. But maybe I am just lucky.
Yes, photographers can write the costs of. But the lens is just ONE of a lot of items/things to buy and write of. There is tons of other equipment and services a photographer has to pay for... bodies, sd cards, car, studio rent, insurances, etc. so still one has to calculate ;). Cheers, Peter
Photographers should be careful not to shoe horn wide apertures into only razor thin DOF. Do professionals use shallow apertures in studio? Yes. Using a 300 f/2.8 or 200 f/2 wide open (or stopped down to f/10 for that matter when shooting faces) yields the same kind of DOF with the subject's face being more "natural" looking to many photographers, etc..
Also a near f/1 aperture allows for base iso dusk/dawn shots with shutter speeds that are more applicable to the photographer and subject matter when the subject matter is down the street or across a courtyard.. It's not just about shallow depth.
@Teila: 300mm in a studio? Must be a very large studio then ;). And a headshot at 300mm does not really look natural any more. At least that is what I experience. Even 200mm leads to a face that looks 'broader' than reality, I wouldn't use it for overweight people ;). But that's just my personal view.
@Peter1976.... funny. I was visualising "wide" faces reading your post.
But I think he was generalising. When I first read his post and had 200mm and 300 mm in my mind then he brought up f1, I though... WAH, I would love to see a 300 f1 just out of curiosity, but I sure wouldn't want to carry it around, nor pay for it. 😜
On FF you're talking about being able to shoot in a space the size of many people's living room / dining room combo... no large space required, especially at 200mm.
I think most would agree that a 200 or 300mm headshot is far from displeasing. The focal lengths on location (i.e. at f/2 or f/2.8 respectively) offer a more pleasing subject-to-background visual than an 85mm lens much of the time when clients make their pick. The reason the 85 and 135 focal lengths are popular for portraiture, especially location portraits, is mostly predicated on cost.
@Teila, thanks for sharing your experiences. I do also like 200mm headshots and use it e.g. for my cinematic portraits (like the ones at first on my website). But still even for headshots at f2.8 you need a large space if you want the background to be separated (maybe our definition of "large" differs ;)). My subjects like the 200mm, too. But often they say they look "bigger" or "broader" than in real life, and it's true to me. 200mm makes the face features eyes, nose and mouth smaller in comparison to the whole head itself than e.g. 85mm. Thait said, I don't mean displeasing, it is just different.
I would say, at the end of the day, there is no right or wrong, it is just a question of personal taste. Regarding the costs being the no 1 factor for the popularity of 85 and 135mm, I would disagree. IMO it is popular because it looks the most natural or "real life like", at least for headshots. I use 85-100mm e.g. for business portraits.
Don't you think, with this size and weight, and at this price point, "Who is it for?" is obvious? I skipped to the end, but not one person watching this video is unaware that the lens is superb, heavy and expensive.
Standard RF vs USM DS. I prefer the DS because it moves, what are to my eyes sharp-edged busy bokeh balls, which seem to be in the same focal plane as the subject, to the background.
Yes the children in my gallery are now 38 years and 40 years and I do have their consent. Even if I had not, no one could ever look for them and identify them. One has to be extremely careful in this internet age. No law has been broken
No I do not have the permissions of all those children, just my own 2,but they are now all grown up and very likely have children of their own. I hope they do not post pictures of their young children, as in the lens video. Mypictures were taken in 1980 and 1983, a lot of time has passed.
Photo 157 in your gallery would be the type of photo I would shun from posting for your reasons. Wading pool photos of kids is taboo.
The kids photos in this article are tastefully done. I also assume the man in the photos of this article is the father and has given his parental consent to take/publish these photos for public consumption.
I think Mike has a point here. Just too many sick persons out there. I learned that there are plattforms where pedos rate internet photos of kids in a very, very sick way. A German actor, that asked followers not to post kid pictures read some of those comments on a facebook video and I almost had to throw up when I heard them... Including sick phantasies like "I want to f*** him, cut him into pieces and eat him". All up to you, but I would never ever post photos of my kids on the internet. I know that the amount of sick people is very low, but still. It is just not necessary to judge the bokeh and portrait abilities of a lens.
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.
So the consensus is: Canon, and most other shooters: Great lens, good AF improvement over EF, very clean and sharp at F1.2, perfect all the professionals like Irene Rudnyk (who Chris said uses her 85 1.2 a lot, and for awhile almost exclusively).
Sony shooters: Terrible lens, no one needs F1.2, no pros ever use lenses like this.
Its always good to check what everyone shoots so you can differentiate the comments,
Personally, it looks like another stellar RF lens, but new, out of my price range.
Actually, I don't. I am very careful to avoid commenting on articles about new Sony equipment, and have been for a long time.
So no, please do not create some false equivalence. Now if someone brings up Sony equipment in a thread about a product from another manufacturer, then of course I will comment.
But be very careful on what you assert, because in this case you are totally wrong. In general, I don't care about Sony equipment...for instance, that last lens they released, that last vlogging camera, etc...and don't comment on threads about those items.
Thoughts R Us, what about photographers that use several different systems and are required to know about different alternatives because of their jobs?
@PAntunes: I realize that many photographers these days, usually hobbyists, buy into more than one camera brand. Nothing wrong with that. In fact I have said on these forums that one oversight many make when reviewing or commenting on equipment is the assumption that any given user will only invest in one system.
There's nothing wrong with a healthy comparison of products in good faith. But what I have objected to is when some people just trash the equipment being talked about in the article, usually without using it, and then just hold up another brand, usually the "S" brand, as if it's perfect. That's not a good faith comparison.
Re pro's...the pro's I know and have met and just the ones I read and follow...they almost always are more into their art and not into gear as much, and generally tend to stick with one brand. They prefer to really get to know the equipment and once they master it, they see no need to try other stuff that may throw them off their game.
@Thoughts R Us, I don't know what photographers you know, but that's very strange. I'm a photographer and I assist other photographers and it's part of the game to know what's being produced. Specially if you rent stuff regularly or if you work with different photographers that use different systems.
Most pro photographers don't change their personal kit much because there isn't a big reason to do so, but it's important to know what's out there and understand if a change will benefit the workflow.
I'm sure we'll see many canon photographers change their kits from SLR to mirrorless with the R5. I'm sure many will be way more interested in the advantages of the AF than on staying with what they know and won't be worried about being thrown off their game.
I really don't get that "if you don't use a brand, you can't comment on it."
@PAntunes: Yes, I'm sure many Canon SLR pro's will move to the R5...but they are still within the Canon ecosystem and the Canon type control system. It's different if you are talking about switching out equipment to use another brand.
I still stick with my original point: pro's are generally the least gear oriented people out there. They focus more on their art and skill. They know it's a hopeless game to always worry about the latest gear and what else is out there. They spend their time improving their craft and taking photos. Many pro's I know do not use even the latest models of camera.
The pro's that are more gear oriented almost always stay with one brand for familiarity.
@PANtunes: your other point: I really don't get that "if you don't use a brand, you can't comment on it."
To me this is common sense. How can anyone intelligently comment on a product that they do not use and probably do not understand how to operate properly?
Can I comment on the latest Camaro if I have never driven one, and not just the newest model, but any Camaro? Can I comment on the latest scanning electron microscope if I have no clue about it, no expertise using one?
Anyone can comment on any product, but the only ones with any credibility are from those who use it and are familiar with that brand and its operation.
Many who comment on a new camera or lens have never used that brand, and may not even have experience with the type of photography that the product is most intended for.
People often say a camera is a tool..well, I want to hear from the people with experience using those tools.
Thoughts R Us many fashion and commercial photographers needed different kits for different jobs. If you're shooting a lot of action, you won't take a MF, but if the client wants a multi format campaign, you're not using a 30mp camera. It's fundamental to know what's out there, even if it's from different brands.
There's one video of Annie Leibovitz shooting the Lincoln Continental campaign where you can clearly see her shooting Hasselblad, Sony and Nikon.
Pros aren't gear oriented. They are image and business oriented. If a tool gives better images or saves money/time, it's a tool that can be interesting to know about. They won't buy a RF85 1.2 just to say they have it, because no client cares about the name and the numbers on a lens. But clients care about an easy shoot, and clients shoot with different photographers. If it takes you 30min to get a shot and takes 10 for someone else, you're out. You need to know what's around.
Thoughts R Us, are you saying that no one that hasn't used this lens for a long period of time should be comment on it? Because how can they know how good it is?
I'm a fashion and portrait photographer, I've shot canon for more than 10 years. I still regularly use canon. I've shot with the old 85 1.2II dozens of times and assisted on shoots where the main photographer was using one. Checking focus on the images as they were being shot and adjusting aperture to ensure we got the image... Are you telling me that just because I now shoot mainly with sony I stopped understanding what this lens is for? 90% of my work is shot on 85mm lenses...
I understand better what this lens is for than most people using canon and wanting this to shoot their kids or their cats... And let's not even go to the ones that will never, ever, consider buying this lens because they don't do portraits...
@PAntunes: I still stand by my assertion: Most pro's use one brand of gear. Sure there are exceptions. But most pro's specialize in their type of photography and the equipment they use. It's very simple. Annie Leibovitz is a bit of an outlier.
Any pro who believes that their career depends on using a certain brand of equipment is probably not going to be successful.
And I still say that the best people to evaluate any equipment are those with the type of experience using that equipment for its intended purposes.
And the fact that you use Sony reveals your own brand bias and we see that in your posts. You actually prove my point.
Thoughts R Us, but if you're reading a review of someone that uses that brand, aren't you getting brand bias as well?
I'm a lot more interested in opinions from someone that shoots what I shoot, or that shoot what the equipment is designed to do, independently of what brand they use.
You have lots of opinions here on a portrait lens. How amazing it is. You go see their work and they can't do a decent portrait. How is that opinion more relevant than someone who shoots portraits for a living? Just because they use a canon, they know better? That makes no sense.
@PAntunes: first off, there is no such thing as a totally unbiased review. It's a fool's search to try to find one. Everyone has inherent bias. But that's why one should sample more than one review and if possible, rent or find a way to try out expensive equipment before buying.
I personally think most in the US who buy expensive gear should have an account at LensRentals and try before buying; it would save themselves a lot of money in the long run and they could find what they really like and want and then buy.
My point about wanting a Canon user to evaluate a Canon lens does not preclude knowledge in the type of photography: I want both. I want an experienced Canon portrait shooter to evaluate a Canon portrait lens. Why? They will know the equipment, including the camera. A Sony user who picks up an EOS R with this lens will not be the best to evaluate.
And quite frankly, these last fews years we have seen many Sony users be the most biased against other brands.
Thoughts R Us, I totally agree with you when we're talking about cameras. "This menu sucks" from someone that had 2 days with a camera is pointless. Doesn't mean you can't have opinions on it... Just don't call it a review.
But on a lens? How much is there to know? Does it have a special mode to focus faster that we're not aware? Does it have a special mode where it gets smaller, lighter and cheaper? You have people saying how amazing this lens is, coming from an EF85 1.2II. Sure, it's amazing if you've never tried the sigma or the canon 85 1.4...
And quite frankly, in the last few years we've seen many canon photographers criticising canon... It's not bias when even canon photographers are complaining about the cameras...
@PAntunes: you need a camera to operate the lens. If you don't know the camera, you may not get the most out of the lens.
The fact that you have seen Canon photographers criticize Canon proves my point: they are still the best resource for Canon reviews and are not necessarily so biased that they gloss over flaws or problems. You have basically undermined your own argument that experienced users of equipment will be biased towards that brand. They will know the brand inside and out, including the flaws.
And once again, over the past few years, it has generally been Sony users who have a tendency to play up Sony strengths, gloss over weaknesses, and worst, just attack other brands.
PAntunes still doesn't realize, everyone knows what he is going to post before he posts it. Even though this lens is stellar wide open and and big improvement over Canon lenses coveted by professionals for a few decades, there was no way a Sony fan like himself was going to post anything complementary. He makes it his job to turn the talk negative. I do look forward to how he will bash the R5. Anyone want to bet?
Kyle Style the same can't be said about you. I was predicting you'd go check those lenses and see for yourself why the EF version needed an update. But instead you decided to ignore the facts... Wild and unpredictable!
//Actually, I don't. I am very careful to avoid commenting on articles about new Sony equipment, and have been for a long time.//
ROTFL. Here's just 3 examples of you bashing Sony from the last week alone - there is almost an endless supply. 75% of your comments on this forum are bashing posts against Sony, often of breath-taking ignorance and partisanship, such as the one below where you ludicrously claim 'no Sony camera is better built than a Rebel' - a plastic Canon body with a plastic mount.
//So the consensus is: Sony shooters: Terrible lens, no one needs F1.2, no pros ever use lenses like this.//
Nope. Like all of your comments about Sony and Sony users this is completely inaccurate and obvious trolling.
NO Sony user - or user of any brand - has described this lens as a 'terrible lens'. The lens is obviously optical excellent and at the forefront of current design - presumably and probably the best 85mm lens on the market.
Whether or not you think anyone needs an f1.2 lens is another issue. No OEM manufacturer had ever designed a new one (only ported over film-era designs) in the digital era until recently and there is a good reason for that. They involve compromises (in weight, handling, cost and sometimes flare-control and contrast) that are generally not worth the extra 1/3rd stop light gathering power, especially with a digital sensor.
That view has nothing to do with what brand you shoot.
@RubberDials: read what I wrote and what you copied and pasted: // I don't. I am very careful to avoid commenting on articles about new Sony equipment, and have been for a long time.//
The article you cite is about LensRentals tests and what they have found with various brands, including Sony. What I wrote was about me not commenting on articles about newly released Sony equipment, similar to the way you always feel a need to comment on articles about non-Sony equipment. That's a big difference. You know that but you want to push your narrative.
You claim that the issue you have with this lens is more to due with size/weight/cost due to the unique specs. When Sony releases their rumored 12-24 f2.8, which will be large/heavy/expensive, will you say the same? Will you note that other companies don't do this spec because it's not worth the additional cost and size? Sony is also rumored to eventually release an f1.2 lens? Will you say the same about that?
I knew even though this was buried deep in the comments about a Canon lens, RubberDials, one of the biggest Sony fanatics, would show up. Everything I said was grabbed from comments made by Sony fans.
And we all know how Rubber is going to reply, Just another Sony fan bashing other brands, making personal attacks, name calling, and wasting everyone's time.
btw, Sony will finally make and F1.2 lens by the end of 2020, and it will be funny to watch these fans quickly change their tune. We all know they won't bash it like they do this wonderful and popular lens.
At it again?? You started this whole thing about the 85 f1.2 not being needed on the original article about it, and we went on and on about it then. Why are you so hell bent on doing this?
Like your comment about people having multiple systems and that we need to take that into consideration. There is one major flaw with that comment from you and it is...
My guess is that multi system users have a tendency to NOT disparage the systems they use.
Why would I own a canon, and a sony and be hell bent on bringing down people on any one of those systems? Those that usually disparage other systems aggressively have a tendency of seeing that system either as a threat, or some strong sense of having to protect their brand of choice.
You can compare to people who love sports, and have certain preferred teams. Those who support multiple teams rarely if ever try to tear down those teams.
Again... you might not see the point of this lens. It doesn't mean that others do not.
Here is another thing to consider. A very very large portion of the people who buy photography gear don't NEED any of it. We have our day jobs and don't make a living from photography. We are hobbyists.
Now image that there were no hobbyists. Then you very lightly would either just not have all this wonderful gear to buy, or your gear would be far more expensive than it currently is. Maybe even more expensive than the high end FF cameras and high end RF lenses. WHY?? Because we hobbyists are the ones subsidising this industry. We are the ones splurging on our wants and spreading the cost of development and manufacturing.
You want to talk constructively? Point out pros and cons etc etc on gear?? Great that is what this site is for. But once you start down the path you seem to be on, you are just gonna annoy people. Someone is exited about the tech, their purchase, and here you come along telling them. "Man, your choice is crap, you don't need it, you crazy." Not helpful.
lawny13, spend your money on whatever you want. From my experience, I wouldn't recommend this lens. Doesn't matter what brand of camera you're using. It's just too expensive for what it offers. Get a canon 85 1.4L if you want to shoot canon. Same brand...
If an amateur asks me if they should buy the most expensive gear, I would answer the same. Doesn't matter what brand it is... For you it's a question of brands. For me it isn't.
//RubberDials: read what I wrote and what you copied and pasted//
I know what you wrote and I knew what you would say.
//What I wrote was about me not commenting on articles about newly released Sony equipment//
You DO bash Sony in articles about new Sony equipment as you bash Sony in all other articles, as you've done in this one in the posts under mine, egregiously projecting your behaviour on to me.
I can post links to literally hundreds of posts by you attacking Sony users and Sony gear in articles on all brands and subjects. You can't post one link to me bashing Canon because I don't bash Canon and you know I don't. If you could find any post by me bashing Canon you would be posting it over and over again, like the RCicala quote you have on speed dial.
//You claim that the issue you have with this lens is more to due with size/weight/cost due to the unique specs. When Sony releases their rumored 12-24 f2.8, which will be large/heavy/expensive, will you say the same?//
Firstly, I don't have an issue with this lens. If I was a Canon R shooter and could afford it I would probably buy it because it's clearly outstanding optically, but if Canon also offered an 85/1.4 RF I would buy that in preference. I'm not alone. Many - probably a majority of photographers would prefer a lighter, smaller lens if it had the same quality. 1/3rd of an F stop is simply not important enough.
The 12-24/2.8 is not 'ultra fast' for that range so not comparable. Sony will probably release a 50/1.2 GM. If you are still here you will see what I write about it. My view won't change because it is about f1.2 lenses in general, not who makes them. I'm not you.
Well there we go. Even Sony shooters agree. "If I...could afford it I would probably buy it because it's clearly outstanding optically" That is all we need to know.
@RD: You write "The 12-24/2.8 is not 'ultra fast' for that range so not comparable."
What ultra wide zooms are faster? Canon has their 11-24 f4 and RF 15-35 f2.8 and Nikon has their 14-24 f2.8...but I know of no ultra wide zooms that are faster, and certainly not with the widest focal length being 12 mm.
So again when/if Sony releases that lens comes out will you also note that it will be large/heavy/expensive and thus impractical to most users?
According to rumors we won't have to wait long for your comments.
“If an amateur asks me if they should buy the most expensive gear, I would answer the same. Doesn't matter what brand it is... For you it's a question of brands. For me it isn't.”
Now we are getting somewhere!
I am in agreement with you 100% there. But by amateur I take it you mean noob. Amateur as in enthusiast... I assume they have enough know how and experience to never have to ask that question.
But I don’t agree with you regarding brands. I can’t give a rat’s behind about what brand person A or B uses. Proof is in the pudding. Loads and loads of people out there producing way way better images than me. So disparaging their brands would be stupid of me.
Look. Maybe we are taking you the wrong way. But most members of DPR aren’t noobs. Some of us do need some help fighting GAS. But IMO most people on here don’t need to be told their choices are absolutely worthless. Often times they/we like to engage in talking about the gear.
The 85 F1.2, is an optics and technical marvel. Why can’t you at least give it that. 3 years down the road, or so it could be quite a bit cheaper than now.
Let me put it this way. What if you could get it for €1900 instead of €3k. What would you say about its value then?
Your attempted equivalence of the rumoured Sony 12-24/2.8 to the 85/1.2 is false. f2.8 is a full f-stop, f1.2 isn't. There is no reason to make any 85mm lens f1.2 - this is a marketing design decision alone and susceptible to criticism in those terms.
If Sony releases the 12-24 as an f2.2, with a 500g and 2cm diameter penalty I will decry it.
For years the 85 F1.2 has been an extremely popular lens with pros. In the video they discuss how the superb professional whose lens they borrowed for a while use an 85 F1.2 near exclusively because it is such a great lens. And yet we see some very bitter Sony fans crying "There is no reason to make any 85mm lens f1.2"!!!!! It reminds me how for years E mount owners cried there was no reason for IBIS. Or when the first E mount cameras were introduced, they cried there is no reason for an EVF. It simply proves that insecure Sony fans know little about actual photography, and waste their time crying about what they don't have. .
That is right. They love moving the goal post: No need for IBIS No need for fast glass You can adapt ANY 3rd party glass, and they insist it works wonderfully No need for dual cards (now any camera without is WORTHLESS The AF is good!! Sony cameras (even from A7 to A7II) are good for pro use. No need for a size increase The colors are awesome!! Overheating?? What is that, I don't experience it (coming from people in colder climates). Weather sealing Build quality Forced down focus (AF works great even with it... sony "improved" AF with it) Sony didn't abandon A-mount people without notice for e-mount Mount is tough Battery life
The list goes on and on. But it is funny how sony addresses a lot of those things per iteration.
Of particular note to me was stopped down focus. As soon as canon R came out with wide open focusing, sony introduced FW to at least partially open.
Same with colors... they paid attention to skin tone improvement.
Well... poking a bit at them risks us being like that ourselves though.
I was on the sony system. At least when it comes to stills, the A7III is a very capable piece of kit, particularly when it comes to stills. If anything sony put a fire under the butts of canikon.
As we all know competitions is good. So besides stating "short comings" of any system, I also try to view things through the lens of an engineer. There are technical reasons why some of these things can't be delivered. Heat being a big probable issue to the 100 Mbps that you mentioned. I mean the A7III is a $2000 camera, in a "small" form factor.
And personally for me, as a predominantly stills shooter... I am not too interested in the video speaks so complaining about it would be going out looking for a fight without a good reason to do so.
"For years the 85 F1.2 has been an extremely popular lens with pros."
Let's not forget that for years the only two options from canon was the 85 1.2 and the 85 1.8... It's not like there was much of a choice... And when Sigma did the art series, the 85 1.4 was one of the key lenses, as they clearly noticed the gap on canon's lineup... But sure, let's ignore that and just say that the 85 was the choice of the pros...
PAntunes and RubberDials are know as Sony excuse makers. They spend all their time patrolling the comments sections of competing brands and posting inaccurate stuff to make excuses for Sony. Let's look at this latest inaccurate quote, "Let's not forget that for years the only two options from canon was the 85 1.2 and the 85 1.8... It's not like there was much of a choice... And when Sigma did the art series, the 85 1.4 ..." The Sigma EX HSM 85 1.4 was released at the beginning of 2010. And Rokinon sold a manual version well before that, The Art lens he mentions didn't come along until the end of 2016.
Its amazing how dishonest these guys are. The Canon 85 F1.2 legacy dates back decades to their FD line of lenses. They been very popular and Canon knew settling on a lesser 1.4 aperture would have been a disappointment to the real professionals who cherrish them. (people who PAntunes says do not exist).
@lawny13, if the 85 1.2 was a 1.900€, it would be an option.
The 1.2 is about the same size and weight of a sigma 1.4. The sigma is a monster, but it's also optically excellent and for 1000€. Would I go for the 1.2 at that 1.900€? Honestly, no. But I can see why someone would.
The canon 85 1.4 optically is not as strong as the sigma wide open but is lighter and with IS. It's OEM so it's more expensive at around 1500€... Ok... We all know you'll pay more for OEM.. This would probably be my choice. More expensive and probably not as sharp as the sigma, but OEM, lighter and with IS. Between those two I can see why someone would choose one over the other.
And for 500€ more, I can see why someone would choose the 1.2. You loose IS, you get a monster, it's OEM. Visually you get a sharper image wide open compared to the canon 85 1.4...
But when the canon is €2500, sorry. Sigma gives you big and sharp, canon 1.4 gives you lighter and IS. The 1.2 just makes your wallet lighter.
Sarman 2525, you know that the EF 85 1.2 was released in 1990, right? We're talking about 20 years until sigma did the first 85 1.4, that wasn't very good either... and 25 years until the Sigma Art came along...
I don't thing you are dishonest. I just think you're too young to know what we're talking about...
PAtunes, You just can't be honest when making you Sony excuses, can you. Are you going to continue lying and saying that between 1990 an 2010 there were no 85mm F1.4 lenses available on EF mount? Go ahead keep lying.
And it isn't even an issue since the the F1.2 lens can stop down to F1.4
Funny thing. For years some Sony users cried that they had no 85mm F1.8 lenses while other Sony users said, no big deal because they have F1.4 lenses that are even better. Sony excuse makers just can't make up their minds.
This is all just a distract because Canon has the best lenses and once again we see great Canon EF and RF lenses that Sony users can only try to adapt. That's why they come to these forums to cry and make excuses and distract and deflect. And say really stupid things like Professionals don't want or use 85mm F1.2 lenses.
Sarman 2525, yes, I'll keep saying that canon didn't produced any 85 1.4 for EF. There were manual focus alternatives, but no AF from canon, and I'm not even sure there was anything AF from any other brand.
Now after talking about 3rd party EF lenses from Sigma, he suddenly lies and says he was only talking about Canon made lenses - even though he specifically said Sigma and was talking about all EF lenses,
All this is a Sony excuse maker's deflection from the fact that Canon makes a wonder 85mm F1.2 lens coveted by professionals, and the only option for Sony users is to adapt the older EF version (which many of them do because they too love these lenses).
//Well... poking a bit at them risks us being like that ourselves though.//
The person you are talking to has been trolling Sony on here for more than ten years and has been banned hundreds of times. He's actually an M43 user. Notice how he hates me, knows all about me and only joined a few months ago. I've never even had a conversation with him.
Your list of 'goal post moving' doesn't ring true to me. I've never heard a Sony user say IBIS isn't necessary. We've enjoyed it since 2006 and we'd like it in every camera.
Stoped-down focus was introduced to counteract focus shift focussing errors.
Bit rate is relative to source. The a7III downsamples 6K for it's 4K output, which is why the 100mb/s video is much more detailed than the EOS R which is pixel for pixel and at 440mb/s:
Well then. Good to know that at €1900 you would consider the 85 f1.2 indeed a consideration.
I guess it is good than that it is indeed possible to get that lens right now at that price. But with some added risk. Here in Europe there are some reputable suppliers, that provide gear at a far cheaper price (yes "grey imports") but with good in store warrantees. I had done my research and dabbled with one of them in particular after a colleague pointed them out to me years ago.
Basically if there is warranty repairs needed during the warranty period you let the manufacture do the service and you mail the shop the invoice and they reimburse you. As far as I am concerned the changes of a fix needed during the warranty period tends to be very low. And canon at least tends to fix things for a fee after that regardless (unlike nikon).
Like I implied to you in another thread. I like to look at things constructively. When I was a sony shooter I would complain about certain choices and implementations they had. Because some rubbed me the wrong way I decided not to commit to the system. In particular it was the forced down focusing implementation during a FW update. The FW was supposed to "improve" the AF system.
Since I shoot a lot in dim lighting during certain months (northern hemisphere), it is something I noticed right away, as I couldn't nail focus on candid shots compared to before the FW. Then you had the star eater thing. I don't like those based in "fixes".
But I do give credit where credit is due. ALL of these systems are good. Tech moves ahead, and in my honest opinion, we have now reached a certain level of performance quality that NONE of us should truly be complaining about. We are being a*al about it.
For canon R5/R6 (I know they aren't out yet, but do people really doubt they won't be at least in the same realm of good as the mk3 sonys??)
For nikon THe Z6/Z7 bodies, obviously.
And of course the FF Panasonics.
Not going into crop, but nikon, canon, sony, fuji etc etc all good stuff. More than most people need.
So though I can poke a bit of fun here and there, going full on tribal is well, kind of stupid right? If I had the cash...
Canon for portraits, with the 85 f1.2 and R5. Also for my trips/walk about, as I do loads of people shots with it. So a 50 f1.8 prime, and the 24-105.
Sony with the 200-600 for wild life and BIF. For sure, this would be great. Perhaps the 14-24 for landscapes. Sony sensors produce nice yellows, and blues. Not my favourite for people. And I gotta say. I miss those Zeiss lenses. Some loxias for MF fun.
Fuji... for the small package. For a change once in a while, and for my family to use too. Big gear puts them off.
BTW. Even at €1900, it is highly unlikely that I would get the 85 f1.2, considering the size and weight of it. If I was a portrait photograph professional, and could afford it buy that would be another matter.
It isn't only about IQ. OEM give more reliability in a working situation. The build quality etc etc. It would be about the whole package. Not to mention I could probably write it off from taxes.
As a pro I wouldn't buy a lens based on sony, nikon, etc etc offerings because I wouldn't care about that. It would be counter productive, as I would have to get one of those bodies to use it. So I would only look at what is available natively for canon.
I believe that is how many pros view it. You can go on about the GM, or the sigma or whatever. But if they are a canon user why would they care? When it comes to lens prices you win some and you lose some. The EF lenses you can adapt can more than offset the price of the 85. Right?
lawny13, but if you go to grey imports, all other lenses drop in price as well. The sigma is suddenly 800€ and the canon 1.4 is 1000€. So again, I'd take the 85 1.2 out as it's 900€ on top of the canon 85 1.4, that is also OEM.
And why would anyone look at other brands? Because if what you care for is the images and not the brand on the camera, you don't care who's the manufacturer of the equipment that fits your needs better.
I had a canon kit. Sony came up with a smaller and lighter FF camera that did what I needed and canon had nothing similar. I didn't close my eyes and said: "hey, it's not canon, I'm not gonna look and see what they do." I don't understand that mentality that you have to be in a club or a religion with the brand of your current main camera.
I have flipped flopped between brands. I would have saved money had I stuck with one. Seriously. If you are a pro and you have 10k invested in gear you don't willy nilly switch over dumping 10k. Some do. Back before canon had MILC, I can see why people would do it.
But canon does have MILC now, and that R5/R6 specs look like they will be competitive and competitively priced.
And I am sorry if you tell me now that you sole evaluation will be on the cost of the f1.2 primes I would tend point out that you are being down right illogical. The mount is new, the lens line up is not filled up. Looking at the like for like lens offerings (f1.8 and f2.8 primes and zooms) I absolute do not see a reason why you won't have appropriately priced f1.8 primes in the future.
So WHY would I switch back to sony? I am a hobbies as I have said multiple times. It isn't just about the images for me. I enjoy shooting canon more than sony. Fact
@lawny13 if you have 10k invested, you won't change because of one lens. That's why I haven't suggested any lenses that aren't available for canon. You're the only one talking about other brands.
But if the changes include a system that works better, selling 10K of gear and then using that to buy a different system that costs 8k, seems like a good idea.
And sure, you may enjoy shooting a camera more than you enjoy shooting another, but that's irrelevante. We're talking about the quality and price of a lens. I'm not telling you that you should change to a different brand. All I'm saying is that this amazing lens isn't as amazing if you're focused on creating images and not bragging about apertures.
Hahaha... whatever you say buddy, what ever you say.
Guess in a few years we will see you in the canon camp considering how they will be going with the system. Once the R5 and R6 are our and they fill in their lens line up the way I am guessing they will. We will see if you walk the talk 😝
@lawny13 Look at the specs of the R5 vs the A7RIV form a photographer point of view and not a videographer. Canon is still behind... So even with the R5, if canon had all the same lenses that Sony has, it would still be pointless to change.
Huh? If your only measure for better if MP count. Which mine is not.
7 stop IS (IBIS + ILIS), PDAF if it is like the R means better AF in low light than the Sonys by a mile. And since I intend to use it for BIF, the 12-20 fps (if it is with life view feed at those speeds) CRUSHES the Sony.
Not to mention ergonomics. Oh ya, a proper touch screen. Once you have used touch drag AF is is superior to the joystick whenever possible.
As for MP. I am good with 30MP regarding workflow. So you can try to sell me on 61 all you want.
Besides I said in the future if it ends up how I am guessing it will be. Canon will likely come out with a R5s high MP beast (which I won’t want).
As I said... if they do. Will you walk the talk? If they don’t, then no skin off anyone’s...
@lawny13, again... I shot canon for years. If a brand offers me something that makes it worth the change, I'll change, as I did in the past. It's indifferent changing from canon to sony or from sony to canon, to nikon or to panasonic. If there's a good reason to change, it's always an option.
Unless you're sponsored by a brand, why would you want to stay with something that doesn't work for you?
But there needs to be a real reason. Something like having a 85 1.2 instead of a 1.4 isn't one.
PS: I'm left eye dominant. Touch screen AF is the worst idea ever...
You're not referring to ergonomics, you're talking about the anatomically sculpted shape of the body, the ergonomics of most Canon cameras are inferior to most Sonys. (You know about opto-mechanics and I know about ergonomics and human centred design 😀)
Canon cameras contain fewer direct controls, fewer customisable controls and fewer input controls. Their cameras require two-handed operation more often and use more modal routines requiring more control presses. The reason you prefer them is because you're adapted to them and have a favourable opinion of them. Without prior learning, in a usability test Sony wins easily.
"Ergonomics is the process of designing or arranging workplaces, products and systems so that they fit the people who use them."
Fit is a very important part of ergonomics, and it shouldn't be brushed aside as part of the assessment. Could canon improve things when it comes to programable buttons? Yes. But last I checked the most programable thing in the system is the human brain.
I missed the customisability of the A7III compared to the R at first. But after 2 weeks that slipped out of though at my brain reprogrammed itself to what is needed to operate the whole thing with out issue.
But when it comes carrying the camera all day... the R over the A7III hands down. Two handed operation? So what, last I checked cameras are supposed to be operated one way, if you want to maintain proper form. Lens support with the left hand and camera operation with the right. Besides the on/off switch all controls are on the right side.
I shot sony for 5 years mind you. The R now only for 2.
The space that sony has crammed everything into is not erogonomically sound. At least not for my hands. I experienced crapping in my right hand after extended use. That is because very often my palm would have to leave the body to operate often used buttons, resulting in a more claw like grip (like with computer mice) than a firm press against the palm.
This also resulted in 2 handed operation, as it becomes a risk to drop the expensive camera.
And then you have the lenses to the grip clearance. Even with "small" lenses like he 28-75 Tammy I would develop an intend on my index finger due to this.
The R... it is a definitely STEP back from something like the 5DIV and DSLR bodies. But have you seen the layout of the R5? If canon expands the button customisability it will be perfect.
The joy stick frees up what 4 way controller (assuming that is in the dial) to have 4 one button push controls. The AF button is much better placed. And they need to incorporate a one button push camera sleep rather than just screen sleep. This would make the camera a 1 hand operation camera if people want to.
so this lens has medium format size, weight and price except the performance. Also plastic made. Medium format is looking like a viable option when looking at the price of that lens.
This will have to come some days that we see more diverse sensors formats, if not the camera market will continue to tank. Today, the market is oversaturated with 3:2 and full frame, way too many models and too many redundant lenses, and way too less choice outside of this 3:2 full frame. Who makes a system with 5:4 sensors? 1:1 sensors?... there is zero choice in that area. Making 1:1 crops out of 3:2 FF sensor is far far from being high quality.
Yes the future is the circular sensor that allows you to chose between all formats, aspect ratio and landscape/portrait without resolution loss. Also yes the 35mm full frame format was established by the dishonest crook Thomas Edison who deceived Nikola Tesla and many other inventors. That alone should be a reason to drop the 35mm sensor size for better and bigger medium format or more efficient smaller size sensors.
It all depends on what one is looking for. I am a big fan of the Fuji GFX system...it's broken new ground and will continue to do so and the resulting images can be spectacular. The lenses are all really strong.
But FF systems will offer more versatility. That Canon R5 and RF lenses will give you faster AF and a far greater frame rate, and offer some longer lenses, for instance if you want to capture wildlife or sports. Of course the video will also be superior than the GFX50. I will say that I have tried the video on the GFX100 and it is surprisingly good, but that is more expensive.
So it just depends on what one is looking to do. And of course if one can afford, one can buy into FF and MF and in fact some do.
It's like chicken & eggs: you price high because of expecting less sales, and sell less because the price is too high. Then, marketers congratulate themselves (self-flattery) to have achieved their forecasts.
@chris , I am not really sure but it seems your bokeh is a bit "cut". Are you using one of the default "silent" mode for your shots (mode 1 or 2)? Seems the case on the shots #6 for instance. Or image#11 (the yellow flower on the top, a little on the left).
You need to use totally silent mode or full mechanical mode to avoid that if it is the case. It happens only above 1/1600th.
I have always loved the 85mm focal lenght. I owned the 1.4 L IS version and sold it to buy this RF version (along with my 35mm 1.4). Bulky, heavy, pricy? Yes. But... I must admit it is my favorite lens of all time. And I got some before I must admit. You can do more than protraits with it ;)
@pentaust: Nobody can tell you what to do. First thing you must think of is: Am I willing to spend $3500 (that is the price for the RP and the 85mm f/1.2) just to have that one lens. And what if say Panasonic comes with a terrific 100mm F1.4 lens? Are you buying an S1R too? And then Sony comes with the best say 135mm f/1.2 lens will you end up with 3 cameras? Best thing you can do is sit and look at what complete camera system fits your type of use best and go for that system. Remember a system is more then the features of the camera, it is the lenses, the flash system, the other accessories etc.
Nobody can know for you pentaust. A R is absolutely capable to handle the RF and to have amazing shots. It is related to you photo style. If you dont shoot sport, a R is a good choice (30Mp is really good to crop a bit if needed). I would avoid the RP for some reasons. R6 will be 2800€ I guess. And 20mp. If you need "only" 20fps or IBIS go for this one. If you have money take a R5, solid camera it seems.
A RARE TIME: Chris and Jordan's Canon lens 1.2 REVIEW and GALLERY they created was as SHARP and IN FOCUS as one can expect. The way they related to Canon's past accomplishment to today's 1.2 achievement was rich with insight, experience and balance. This was good reporting, something rare to see or hear. It's a joy and thanks.
Thanks for that link to the photography of William Orsua. Really fantastic stuff.
It appears that there are those who may criticize the lens on forums like this, and then there are those like William O. who instead use to create wonderful photography and even earn money with it.
I have come across other talented photographers who are also using this lens and they also produce fantastic results with it.
I really like his shots! He's worked with a model who appears on q few of his shots, and, well, he seems to get the most out of that lens. It's a killer piece of kit that won't hold you back.
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.
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.
Yes it is a clear statement indeed: We are becoming the brand for the very rich people. We forget the people at the low end of the financial spectrum. I've seen rumors for f/11 lenses and other (very) small aperture lenses indeed. There is an other statement they made: When you have no money, move to counties with a lot of sun, otherwise you can't take pictures with our cheaper lenses. Oh and forget about bokeh!
What a laughable set of comments - the top lenses are too expensive and too....what - good? and the cheaper ones too what - cheap? The f11 lenses are 600mm and 800mm allegedly - so may not be that cheap and MAY be great alternatives to the f4, f5.6 versions. Canon is releasing some great lenses and when the bodies line up (maybe soon 😊) the palpable fear here will be justified......😁
Top quality costs...and you get what you pay for. Canon will release less expensive RF lenses...they do have their RF 35 and it is superb as well, but not that expensive...but obviously it takes time to build out an entirely new lens collection.
It's funny, because Nikon took the opposite route and released less expensive f1.8 Z lenses first, and got crucified by online reviewers and commenters for having boring lenses...although they are quite excellent.
So no matter what Canon would get criticism from the usual suspects, usually people who like a certain other brand of mirrorless beginning with an S.
But Canon knows the market well. They know lenses make the system, they understand the halo effect, and they know the online mentality.
"But Canon knows the market well. They know lenses make the system, they understand the halo effect, and they know the online mentality."
The R system was a fail according to canon. They said it on the financial report. Online posts saying they would buy X,Y and Z don't translate to real world sales.
The "online mentality" of fanboys doesn't help a brand at all. Instead of having a product that photographers want, we get a product that fanboys can brag about but no one wants to buy. (except rich fanboys)
For years we had pro photographers moving to mirrorless because the SLR kits were too big and too heavy and mirrorless were offering enough quality in a much better package. Many wedding photographers moving to APS because the benefits were worth it.
This is a medium format kit on a FF sensor. This is what photographers have been trying to get away from.
@PAntunes: When did Canon say the R system was a "fail?" Must have missed that. And of course they are just starting to build out the system. Wait until the R5 and R6 hit the market.
As to what "photographers want"...well, apparently some photographers do want a lens like this and use it very well. It's totally arrogant to assert that your preferences reflect those of everyone.
And you've made the mistake that many make: assuming that mirrorless is all about the size advantage. Yes, it can be. But the most ardent mirrorless advocates will tell you that this is not the only reason for mirrorless. And some mirrorless users prefer larger sized equipment anyway.
I think you just want to criticize Canon for whatever reasons you have.
And let's say you use this lens over the course of 10 years...and that's conservative...then it's $269 per year to use a world class lens. And if you want to sell after that 10 years you will get a decent price. Of course some will use these world class lenses even longer.
Try renting a nice lens and see what the costs are. LensRentals, the gold standard, will rent this lens to you for $113/week. And that's not counting if you want insurance on it.
So if you need or want what this lens does on a regular basis, it not a bad cost. However, there is value in renting if you only need it sporadically, or if you just want to experience using such a lens.
That is one hell of an expensive lens if you want extremely shallow DOF. If that is what you want (or think you need), more power to you. I mean, how many people want only 10-15% of their pictures in focus?
In 20 years people will laugh at how silly people were with their obsession with shallow DoF. I think its just a trend now to distinguish cameras from phones.
$2699 for a lens is a lot of money! It is expensive indeed. And yes it is a very good lens sharp from corner to corner! But why? Most of the times the corners in a portrait are not very sharp, due to the shallow DOF. And then the extreme shallow DOF with lenses like this are already been criticized by many (look at remarks with Tony Northrup videos. And now it is all bokeh what people are talking about, as ALL lenses are sharp enough to get great pictures. And lens faults are been handled in post, or are not ruining your picture at all. When you like this lens, go for it! It is a great lens, but it is expensive and when the bokeh graze is over and when people want to have nice portraits where the background is still a bit recognizable, but not to much an 85mm f/1.8 lens can do and it will be 1/4 of the price.
Agree with the first comment, shallow dof is laughably overrated, I remember in the 70's, you bought a fast lens to use in low light, not to blur the background away because you lack the ability to use the background
I think that the Adobe profile for this camera is not good. I think the legacy standard one is much better. Here I applied legacy standard profile and adjusted the white balance and luminance a little bit https://photos.app.goo.gl/jhVLtuieSe5nFwiTA
How cool would it be to do this test with the R5, but using the EF 85 1.4 IS and, for a similar price(???), size and weight, a fuji GFX50 with the 110 f2?
@Pentaust: You are following a myth! Large sensors are not superior for image quality at all! When you use a high quality lens on both systems and you take pictures with lenses with roughly the same equivalent characteristics the results will be roughly the same. 99.9% of the people (included professionals) will not be able to tell ith what camera a picture is taken when printed large, or when seen on a larger high resolution screen. Only when pixelpeep you might see some more details with a large sensor with more pixels.
GFX50 is nor true medium format camera . It's sensor is only 1.7 times larger than 35mm. True medium format camera is for example Phase One XF IQ4 150MP or Hasselblad H6D-400C which have sensor 1.5 time bigger than GFX50 and 2.5 time bigger than 35mm format. Hopefully in future Fuji will make true medium format digital cameras as it did in analog age and bring prices down of true medium format cameras because prices of Phase One XF IQ4 150MP and Hasselblad H6D-400C are prohibitevly expensive.
waldi72, there are no real medium format digital cameras. 645 in 120 film is the same as half frame on a 35mm film. Technically you'd need a 6x6 at least to have a square medium format, or go 6x7 6x8 6x9 to have a 35mm equivalent on 120...
But convention is that anything bigger than the 35mm is called medium format, so the GFX50 is a medium format, even if it's not 645.
Pantunes, what i know, definition of medium format was every format that can be shoot from 120/220 film horizontal or vertical. So by that definition 645 is medium format.
Bravo, Canon. Now where is the Z 85/1.2 to compare this RF 85/1.2 to, Nikon? Here we are almost two years post launch and the Z still only has a pedestrian 85/1.8.
I suspect Canon is finally bringing their A game to mirrorless with the R5 and R6. Together with the R lenses my gut tells me they will pull both Nikon and Sony shooters over to the Canon camp.
Not sure that the canon will bring that many users with this price tags, specially when you see how well the cheaper alternatives from tamron and sigma are selling on other mounts.
The RF 35 1.8 was a big part of why I left Sony FE
And given how tribal and aspirational a lot of people are with gear, I can see the R5 having a strong halo effect. A lot of camera buyers these days really want to feel like they are buying into a cutting edge top of the line brand, for whatever reason
Obviously Canon’s business strategy is working better for them than Nikon’s is for them but as a hobbyist Canon’s full frame mirrorless options are completely inaccessible to me. I would like to continue taking portraits but I can’t possibly justify spending $2,400 on any one lens, and sure I could buy an adapter and EF glass and enjoy the extra fuss of switching adapters between lenses in a mixed mount lens collection or I can go Nikon and get a not cheap but affordable modern 85mm Z or go Sony and get a cheap or affordable or high end 85mm. It’s cool that such an excellent lens exists but it’s a trophy when I want a tool.
It’s got pedestrian specs at a slow f/1.8. If the RF 85/1.2 is like a Lambo, the Z 85/1.8 is like a competent but boring Volkswagen. No one would ever buy a Z just to shoot with that thing, that’d be laughable. But many would buy an R5 To shoot the RF 85/1.2 me thinks.
fPrime there’s more to lens quality than maximum f stop. Center sharpness, corner sharpness, distortion, chromatic aberration, etc. There are f1.8 lenses that are far better than nifty fifties and f1.4 lenses that are worse than 1.8 or f2 lenses on the same system. I’m not saying the Nikkor Z f1.8 stands up to the RF 85mm, I certainly hope it wouldn’t considering the price difference, but “f1.8 = mediocre” is a bad mindset to have that can lead to you wasting money buying more expensive faster lenses that may or may not be better than <$1,000 f1.8 options.
@fPrime: You are right a Volkswagen is boring and a Lambo is exciting, but when we look in the streets we see more boring Volkswagens then exciting Lambo's, Why? The answer is simple: The Lambo is exciting but also very expensive and very unpractical. The same goes for the lenses. The 85mm f/1.2 is an exiting lens, but it is very expensive (it is over 3 times as expensive as the Nikon 85mm f/1.8) and over 4 times as expensive as the Sony 58mm f/1.8, and 1/5 times as expensive as the Sony 85mm f/1.4!), it is heavy (3x as heavy as the Sony f/1.8 and over 2 times as heavy as the Nikon) It is a large lens too both in diameter and in length. So many people will go to a boring lens for all these reasons. With this lens Canon makes a statement: We are becoming the brand for the very rich people!
The canon isn't a lambo. The canon is an audi R8. Got the price, specs, comfort, and repair costs of a supercar without the excitement. If you want a lambo, you pick up a GFX 110 f2 medium format. If the Canon R5 is around 4k, you can pick a GFX 50R +EVF for the same price, size and weight... Now that's something that can make someone want to change systens... Not an overpriced 85 1.2...
@Relaxed One could argue that the original EF 300mm f/2.8 that was the first lens to use USM did exactly that. When the EOS system was introduced in 1987 Nikon owned 75% of the pro 135 format market. The rest was split by Leica, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, etc.
Due in large part to the ability of USM to harness the advantages of the all-electronic communication/control between the body and lens, within only five short years Canon had replaced Nikon as King of the Hill among the pro ranks, but had also become the top selling brand to consumers as well. This at a time when product cycles were in decades instead of months. That was almost three decades ago and Canon has yet to relinquish the top spot.
It was more than single lens though. Nikon didn’t believe in AF at all until Canon showed them how it’s done right. USM was just one more technology differentiator. In the late 80s, Nikon was far behind- system wide.
By extension one could argue that the Canon RF is a brilliant system that could rule them all. One could be right on that one.
I have the manual focus canon FD 85mm 1.2L. Optically very similar to the EF auto focus version. I bought it for quite a lot of money (£499) second hand (obviously!) to put on my nex7 aps-c camera. On my full frame A7r it really shined. But to tell you the truth, I have not used it enough. Manual focus on the only portraits I have (dog, cats, horses) and the wife is difficult due to the continuous moving of the subjects. Also, I hardly see any difference between 1.2 and 1.4. May as well buy a cheaper 1.4 with good AF. In addition, I like the look of 180mm f2.8 more. (Tele compression). But obviously I am not a portrait photographer!.
A little over my price. Canon is targeting professionals as well as the most popular lenses with their RF line. They already have F2.8 zooms and even an F2 zoom, and compelling F1.2 primes.
I am looking forward to the R5 and R6 next month along with the 6 new RF lenses.
Im glad to see nice lenses out today but I also think canon and nikon had/have pressure from sigma and tamron and zeiss otus to an extend that forced them to up their game. It may have eventually come but ever since that sigma 35mm art came out canon and nikon seem to put in more effort. Competition is great for everyone. Im happy there are more options that are high level besides oem. Though I do like the way those canons look. They look nice and beefy like the art and otus lenses.
@ChrisNiccolls and @thatjordandrake, Thanks for another helpful and enjoyable review... You probably don't just happen to have this lens because you are doing a review of the EOS R5. :-) However, when you do get the R5 for review, it would be great if you would put the RF 85 on it and point it at the Galactic Center of the Milky Way on a clear night. It seems that the Blue Refractive optics give this lens a little something special for astro and nightscape photography and it would be really nice to have a sample to see how the R5 takes advantage of it... Also, really looking forward to Jordan's take on the video.
It seems this lens has exceptional image quality that perhaps a lot of photographers don’t really value, or pretend they don’t value out of jealousy. The lens is beyond the means of most people, it is like a Ferrari or a Ford GT, it may not matter to the average person looking to drive a Prius as a daily driver, but in its element this lens will shine.
Actually, photography can be expensive, but not nearly as expensive as many other hobbies, like motorcycles, golfing, etc.
This lens is expensive but not out of the range of a large purchase for most people of middle or upper income levels, who would be the type to own a FF camera.
The question is whether 1.2 is really worth the heavy premium over 1.4 glass. For 95% of shooters they would be much better served with $1000 in their pocket and an 85/1.4 instead of this.
The EF 200/2.0 is another one. Amazing lens but most would be better served with a 70-200/2.8 for less than half the money. But man that 200/2.0 is special.
TRU has a point. I live in Jakarta and play golf. It costs me more over the course of a year in green fees and caddie tips to play twice a month than this lens costs. Mike also has a point, this is an expensive and heavy lens that is not for most people, for instance that extra $1,000 would pay for a few more rounds of golf :), but it is an amazing lens.
Kz7 check the price per good photo from this lens and see if it makes sense.
In a year a good photographer hardly make 10 to 100 good photos.
As far as Tru point of reselling well why would someone buy it second hand when he can buy new lens with latest technology. Everyone has lots of money no so everyone can afford this lens. Why this would change in say 10.years.
@zzaar I was replying to TRU's comment that photography isn't the only expensive hobby out there. I didn't see any comments on buying / selling second hand. This particular lens is a long term purchase, like most expensive lenses, if fact like expensive cameras used to be before everyone got sucked into upgrading and swapping systems for marginal gains. Taken in that context, the cost of this lens over its lifetime is not that high in comparison to some other hobbies. Try golf, skiing, scuba diving, sailing, motor racing, etc. You can drop some serious money in those for things that wont last nearly as long as a quality lens. "A boat is a hole in the water you pour money into". Been there done that and loved every minute of it; but photography is way cheaper.
@zxaar This lens will find its way into the tool box of proffesionals as well. There is no denying that it is an exceptional lens. That said, not everyone will want it or need it or be able to justify the cost v other alternatives. I've used this analogy before but I have always bought the best quality tools that I can afford for my work, even when it is arguable that cheaper ones would have sufficed. To me they were worth the price. This lens is no different to some photographers.
zxarr - Just because you don't want/need a lens or any other tool doesn't mean that others should not want or need it. Just because you can accomplish a task with a cheaper tool, doesn't mean that you shouldn't buy a more expensive tool that brings you pleasure. I can get to the grocery store on a moped, but I prefer an Audi for comfort and safety. Others may prefer a pickup truck or a chauffeur driven limousine. Just because I prefer the Audi doesn't make me right or wrong.
That said, the 1.2 aperture gives you more options. The Blue Refractive optics make certain shots possible that are not possible with a lens that doesn't have it. These are just 2 characteristics out of many that make this lens better for some tasks than any other. If you don't have a want/need for those characteristics, don't buy the lens. Personally, I don't have it, but will probably pick it up if it works as well with the R5 as I expect it too.
Hoka. I think it’s a valid point of view. The fundamental problem here is that for such a key focal length, canon released an Audi (f1.2) before releasing a Toyota or moped. If you want what many consider to be an optimal focal length for general portraits you either have to adapt or you have to spend $2600 and buy the Audi.
They haven’t even released an 85/1.8 yet.
(Really until that R5 comes out the body strategy and the lens strategy are misaligned. Maybe the bodies were always just a stopgap until the R5 was ready. But that’s a different topic.)
@Mike Canon has chosen to release high end lenses first, the opposite of Nikon who went with F1.8 lenses. The pros and cons of that stategy could be argued about forever. As far as cameras go, I think that until recently Canon did not have the hardware, in particular the processor, to enable it to release a high end camera like the R5. I don't think they were crippling their cameras in relation to 4K uncropped video, I think the old processor couldn't handle it without major limitations. The new processor seems to have overcome that in the 1DXiii. How far have they come? That's what we'll find out when the R5 is released.
I understand that. I’m just saying they’re choosing to release high end lenses without high end cameras and low end cameras with minimal low cost lens options for those buyers. Any logical marketing analysis would consider this a flawed strategy.
Now if their plan was to release the high end cameras at the same time but they couldn’t work out the technology so they had to delay the R5, then at least it makes sense. But I still think Canon should have prioritized an 85/1.8 at $600 over an 85/1.2 at $2600 to go along with those R and RP bodies.
It’s my opinion. Again canon is entitled to whatever strategy the want. It’s just puzzling to me.
There was no reason to delay the the RF 85 1.2, the likes of which have never been available before; Otus quality with AF and Blue Refractive optics.
There are already three nice Canon 85mm EF lenses and a nice Sigma lens available for the RF mount. Just use the adapter. It's small, light, easy to use, inexpensive and EF lenses are faster and more accurate on the R than on the 5D4. So, the Toyotas and mopeds are available. Also, since Canon shooters who rely on this focal already have an EF 85, Canon has made it possible for them to move to mirrorless without having to buy new lenses. However, if they want to have the best 85mm available, they now have that option as well in two different flavors.
Adapted lenses. Yes I know. Some people will just not want to adapt lenses. Oh and there is already an 85/1.2 in EF also. And CERTAINLY it’s sharp enough for the R. Or are you saying that lens isn’t that good?
I guarantee there would have been much more revenue for Canon had they made an 85/1.8 first.
They went for the flashy stuff most people won’t be able to afford or won’t be able to justify to themselves.
That’s fine. But let’s not deny an 85/1.8 would have sold a ton more copies and would have lined up with the released bodies a little better.
I have been adapting my old 50 1.8 on the RP because the RF 50 1.2 does not make sense for me. When the RF 50 1.8 comes out I will eventually change to it, but probably not right away as the old one works fine with the adaptor. For those that want a 50 1.2 though, the RF is a very tempting choice. You will get great pictures with it using the R and it will continue to perform well on the R5 or other future models. My first DSLR was the 500D. I bought the EFS 17-55 f2.8 to go with it and that lens followed me through the 7D and 80D. Thats the difference between lenses and cameras, the lens is a long term investment that will move with us as we upgrade bodies. My oldest lens that I still use is 20+ years old. I haven't used the body that I bought it for in more than 15 years.
MikeRan - You are basically saying that you have a better understanding of the camera business than the largest camera manufacturer in the world. I certainly have no illusion that I understand the business. I can only guess. My guess is that Canon is marketing itself as the company that sells the best lenses and the cameras that shoot them and putting those lenses in the hands of top professionals for camera buyers around the world to see. I think that market placement is the term, but don’t quote me. Time will tell whether they know what they are doing, but I wouldn’t bet against them as they seem to understand the long game.
Regarding the EF 85 1.2, the video clearly shows that the RF version is far more versatile and is optically superior. The EF version is still a great lens and has special qualities that many will enjoy using for years to come.
If you had read my earlier posts, you would know the answer to your question. To save you the trouble, I'm waiting to see if it works as well as I expect it to with the R5 before being it.
Regarding your suggestion that I was defending Canon, they are a big company and don't need me to defend them. I was just pointing out to those that might read this thread that you are speaking as if you know more about the camera business than the largest camera company in the world. I was politely pointing out the foolishness of such an opinion.
Your gear list shows that you are a Sony shooter. So, it seems that your comments may be motivated by whatever it is that drives Sony shooters to attack Canon products. I've never understood why Sony fans find it necessary to attack Canon.
Nah. My initial comments were quite well balanced. Then the canon fans all started gushing about how great the lens is and it doesn’t matter that it’s a niche product. You didn’t like my assertion that an 85/1.8 would sell tons more copies and got all upset.
MikeRan - All of your comments have tried to divert attention from the fact that the RF 85 1.2 is arguably the best 85mm lens currently available. Your comments throughout have been that the lens was too expensive, that Canon should have sold a cheaper lens first, and that you know more about how to sell cameras than Canon. None of this has anything to do with the quality of the lens.
Your use of pejorative terms like "defending" and "got all upset" are simply personal attacks. It's the old trick of attacking the person when the facts are against you.
Why is it that Sony shooters feel it so necessary to attack Canon products?
Nope. I never said the lens wasn’t worth $2600. I said most people would be better served with an 85/1.4 and $1000 in their pocket and many more people would buy a $600 85/1.8.
Your comment clearly shows you misunderstood my words because you are so devoted to Canon. I never said this lens was too expensive. I was only suggesting that perhaps they should have prioritized more mainstream lenses rather than this specialty beast.
Oh and yes since you checked my gear list you see I have a Canon specialty beast called the 200/2.0 and I love it. But I would never recommend it to a general photographer without better understanding what they intend to do with a $5600 lens.
I agree with the earlier comment from @panther fan that this type of lens CAN'T be OPTIMAL for most pros. That isn't to say that no pro work will come out of that wide aperture. Sure some will. And some pros will undoubtedly rationalize the purchase that way. (Just as some baseball players find ways to attribute a streak of good performance to something that really has little or nothing to do with it). Plus photography as a business is tough, the photographer is always looking for a competitive edge, and, not surprisingly, lensmakers are quite willing to exploit that insecurity to their own advantage.
A pro should be capable of producing excellent work with an 85mm f/1.4 (or even an f/1.8), I doubt that even 5% of viewers could tell the difference, (and they might not even prefer razor-thin DOF), so I doubt these extra-wide aperture lenses can be justified, ROI-wise. Factor-in the unpleasantness of hours of holding these behemoths and maybe physical therapy bills after long-term use, and any rationale -- results or ROI -- for them becomes even more tenuous.
I'm old enough to remember film days when every mainstream camera maker -- Canon, Konica, Leica, Minolta, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax -- whether for profits or prestige, felt that they had to produce an approx-50mm f/1.2, as well as an f/1.4. For most users, even pros, the f/1.4 made more sense.
So the two of you are saying a Micro Fours camera is enough. Customers won't see a difference between a 45/1.2 or 45/0.95 lens and an 85/1.4 or 85/1.8 lens. And since its been said the DR of the A9 is more than enough, and the M43 cameras are similar at lower ISOs, there is really no argument about it.
But if you are worried those sensors are not big enough, Fujifilm has you covered, right?
For those of you making the snarky comments about the OPs comment, maybe tell us about your pro career you have where you have been pulling in a six figure income living at f1.2. Considering you would be unable to identify the camera and lens combo used for any commercial shoot if shown in a lineup in print or screen that is big talk. In the 60's and 70's fast lenses were made to facilitate focusing in low light. We DID know how to isolate the subject if necessary with slower lenses. Most of the time we did not need to go wider than f2.8 even with Plus-X. As a commercial photographer with a demanding client list, I rarely shoot wider than f5.6 on FF. And yes, µ43 is actually good enough for pro work. Arguably, µ43 is actually better for some pro applications such as events and conferences where a small quiet camera delivers. APS-C is also perfectly adequate for pro level work. Only the ignorant would presume that a pro must only use the the highest end expensive gear.
Jealousy? I don't feel the need for 1195 grams hanging from my (lens) mount to keep away feelings of inadequacy, be it photographic inadequacy or any other kind.
The best f1.2 lens still needs to be used carefully when placing both eyes in focus at portrait distance, and then your subject’s nose and hair will be out of focus. I never sold any photo with these features, LoCA-clear or otherwise, to any client of mine.
The old f1.2 lenses were indeed mediocre. The f2 lenses however, were quite the performers. They only got better these days, and are still my lenses of choice, given price/performance.
If you’re into fine art, MTF charts, extreme still life bokeh, or if you’re just rich enough to own them, those f1.2 lenses are an awesome tool. Most professionals aren’t any of those.
Hey, wait a minute! (RIP John Madden) When only $ony had mirrorless FF cameras, weren't we being constantly reminded that EVERY SINGLE FRAME was in focus with a mirrorless camera?
Excellent review, thanks! Everything you're doing is good. For camera gear videos, I pretty much watch only you guys and Kai because, profanity. Kidding. Mostly.
Hey Chris, get the Meike grip extension - makes the grip a bit larger, adds the arca mount for tripod work, and its much lighter than a battery grip. Makes handholding larger lenses much more comfortable. Its never off my camera unless it needs to go into a cage.
Satoshi Maetaki, manager of Canon’s ICB Optical Products Development Center, explains:
“If you compare the EF and RF mounts, the lens mount is closer to the sensor on the RF mount than is the case with the EF mount. Because of this the EF version of some lenses can be shorter as the extra distance is taken up by the longer distance between the lens mount and the sensor in a DSLR camera. This naturally makes the RF version longer in total length to compensate for the difference in sensor-to-mount distance."
So it is true (not just for the one-size-fits-all design Sigma lenses): In a DSLR system the space of the mirror box exists once in the camera. In a MILC system it exists multiple times (in each lens), resulting in a storage disadvantage.
Yes, but when you go bellow the focal length that is shorter than the mirror box (eg. Wide angle) you gain advantages which you can’t achieve with the mirror box in place. For telephotos, there is no advantage.
Off course. Then shoot 35mm and wide with mirrorless, and 50mm and longer with DSLR. Although it is easier to extend lens-sensor distance on a mirrorless than it is to retro-focus elements for wide angle on a DSLR. Class-A you've lost.
@Class A: Yes some lenses for mirrorless are as big as their DSLR counterparts, but there are a lot of great mirrorless lenses that are (a lot) smaller then their DSLR counterparts. Look at the Son/Zeiss 35mm f2.8 lens show me one FF DSLR 35mm lens that is this small. And the Sony 24mm f/1.4 is smaller and lighter, only 5mm longer, but 19mm less diameter and 205 grams lighter then the Canon EF lens. The benefits of a mirrorless camera is that you can go small and light when you want, and can go big and heavy when you need!
@lancet "For telephotos, there is no advantage." What about the disadvantage brought up by Maetaki?
Furthermore, I'd be interested in seeing these incredibly small wide-angle MILC lenses.
For film, a short registration distance is indeed good news because film is agnostic to incident angles.
Digital sensors, on the other hand, cannot deal with oblique incident angles well. One can use microlenses but their positioning has to be optimised for a certain range of angles, at least that used to be the case. Hence even wide-angle lenses for MILC need to achieve some level of telecentricity which is why one cannot make them arbitrarily small. Or am I missing something?
Why do all the RF images look warmer / more saturated?
I don't think that can be the effect of lens coatings, or can it? Other comparisons don't show such a difference but I don't know whether they used any compensation.
LoCa (Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration) refers to the inability of a lens to focus all colours at the same plane for objects that are in focus. In other words, a lens with non-zero LoCa will show some colour fringing even for objects that are in perfect focus.
Bokeh-CA refers to the colour fringing in out of focus areas.
Many don't understand that LoCA is a technical term and specifically refers to colour convergence at the focus plane.
@Class A But LoCa is the aberration that causes bokeh CA
While aberrations on in-focus stuff are mostly caused by lateral chromatic aberration. In fact if you have a lens that has so much LoCA that you notice it in the focus plane you will have extremely severe bokeh CA
@panther fan "But LoCa is the aberration that causes bokeh CA"
No. Dispersion is the cause for both LoCa and Bokeh-CA.
LoCa is not dispersion and, as I said, has a technical definition that is not up for discussion. Regular users can be forgiven to not know the details, but a photography website should know better.
Since the launch of the EOS R line in 2018, Canon has mostly concentrated its attentions on high-end RF lenses. The RF 85mm F1.2L IS USM is among the very best.
For the past few weeks, our readers have been voting on their favorite photographic gear. Now that the first round of voting is over, it's time to pick the best overall product of 2019.
We're taking a look back through 2019 by focusing on one of our all-time favorite photographic subjects – Belvedere, a rescue pup who joined the DPReview team last fall and graced many of our sample galleries over the past 12 months.
The Canon RF 85mm F1.2L USM is one of the most impressive lenses released for the nascent RF system, and we've just updated our gallery of sample images.
The EOS R5 has been a long time coming – we knew it had 8K and we knew it had an AF joystick. But now that's it's here, what is it really like to use? Find out in our initial review based on hands-on time with the camera.
Canon's EOS-1D X Mark III is one of the best DSLRs ever made. With fast burst speeds, great video quality and impressive autofocus, the 1D X III is equal parts cinema rig and sports shooter. Find out how it fares against steep competition in our full review.
The Panasonic Lumix DC-G100 (G110 in some regions) is a mirrorless camera designed for vlogging. Its 20MP Four Thirds sensor is paired with clever tracking audio technology, but we have our reservations.
The Olympus PEN E-PL10 is the latest in the company's entry-level mirrorless line-up. It's a beginner-friendly camera that does many things well, but ultimately doesn't stand out amongst its competition.
What’s the best camera for under $2000? These capable cameras costing less than $2000 should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $2000 and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.
We've updated our 'best cameras over $2000' buying guide, and the Sony a7R IV is now our favorite mirrorless camera in the $2000-4000 price range. It sits alongside the Nikon D850, which is our choice for those who prefer DSLRs.
If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that might be a bit older but still offer a lot of bang for the buck.
What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.
Chris and Jordan took the new Sony 12-24mm F2.8 GM to Calgary's eclectic Ingelwood neighborhood. From record stores to spice shops, find out what got their attention when it was time to go wide.
The Epson V600 remains one of the most popular flatbed film scanners on the market. Revisit our review of this affordable and (mostly) easy-to-use option and see how its output compares to local lab scans.
Canon's mirrorless EOS R5 comes with a ton of features and capability stemming from its design inside and out. Come along with us on a guided tour of Canon's new high-end, high-megapixel camera and check it out for yourself.
Announced alongside the EOS R5, the R6 offers a lot of the same technology but in a more affordable, slightly more enthusiast-focused model. Take a closer look.
Alongside the EOS R5 and R6, Canon has announced a brace of lenses, all in the short to long telephoto range. Filling out the 'long' end are one L-series zoom, and two innovative primes.
Alongside a trio of telephoto lenses, Canon also announced a new 85mm this week. The RF 85mm F2 Macro IS STM is a compact, affordable alternative to the pro-oriented 85mm F1.2L.
The EOS R5 has been a long time coming – we knew it had 8K and we knew it had an AF joystick. But now that's it's here, what is it really like to use? Find out in our initial review based on hands-on time with the camera.
Think you've read everything there is to know about the new Canon cameras? Chris and Jordan share eight important things you may have missed from today's Canon EOS R5 and R6 announcements.
We've been shooting around with the new Canon EOS R6. Initial impressions of image quality are positive, and out-of-camera JPEGs appear similar to that of the gold award-winning Canon EOS-1D X III. Have a look for yourself.
Canon has officially released the long-awaited EOS R5, the company's top-end full-frame mirrorless camera. Featuring a new 45MP CMOS sensor, Dual Pixel AF II system, 8K video capture and 20 fps bursts, this is the RF-mount camera we've been waiting for.
Although the Canon EOS R6 doesn't have the 45MP sensor and 8K video capture of the higher-end R5, it's still an incredibly capable camera with specs that outshine similarly priced peers.
The Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM is the company's first super-zoom lens for RF-mount. Despite a relatively slow aperture range, it's very versatile, offering five stops of stabilization, weather-sealing and compatibility with Canon's new teleconverters.
Canon's RF 85mm F2 Macro IS STM is an inexpensive telephoto prime lens with a minimum focus distance of just 0.35m (14") and a 0.5x magnification. When attached to the new R5 and R6, it offers a whopping eight stops of shake reduction.
Canon has announced a pair of super-telephoto fixed-aperture primes. The 600mm and 800mm use diffractive optics to keep their size and weight down. They'll also be compatible with new 1.4x and 2x RF teleconverters.
Canon has announced a new small-footprint inkjet photo printer, the imageProGraf Pro-300. it will produce prints up to 13 x 19" and it goes on sale later this month for $900. A new textured photo paper will also arrive in July.
The new compression standard is set to reduce video file sizes by half to save space and speed-up transmission, paving the way for more portable 8K footage.
Sony recently confirmed plans to launch a successor to the video-centric a7S II. We don't even know the name of the camera, but Jordan already has a feature wish list for the new 'a7S III' – and it doesn't include 8K.
The Pixii camera is an interesting little rangefinder camera that features a 12MP APS-C sensor and lacks a rear LCD display, opting instead to pair with your mobile device, which can be used to view and transfer images.
Sirui is launching an Indiegogo campaign for a wide-angle answer to its existing 50mm F1.8 anamorphic lens. The 35mm APS-C lens will come in a Micro Four Thirds mount with adapters for other systems.
Sony has added a 12-24mm F2.8 to its top-shelf 'G Master' series of lenses. It's the widest constant F2.8 zoom currently offered for full-frame, with a hefty price tag to match: it will sell for $3000 when it ships in mid-August.
Canon's EOS-1D X Mark III is one of the best DSLRs ever made. With fast burst speeds, great video quality and impressive autofocus, the 1D X III is equal parts cinema rig and sports shooter. Find out how it fares against steep competition in our full review.
Comments