I think he meant more light.I'm confused. You want to shoot environmental portraiture, but also want to blur the environment away?
Upvote
0
I think he meant more light.I'm confused. You want to shoot environmental portraiture, but also want to blur the environment away?
Hmmm...can't tell the difference between a post and a comment, I guess.And your post isn't meaningless?
Yes that is correct. But a fast wide angle lens will never obliterate the background just separate it better. And the more I can squeeze out the better. Also in environmental/editorial portraits you don’t have to see crisp details just a sense of the subjects in their environments. Think of a cinematic look ( like a single still frame extracted from a movie.)I'm confused. You want to shoot environmental portraiture, but also want to blur the environment away?
I'm confused. You want to shoot environmental portraiture, but also want to blur the environment away?
Besides labelling and external packaging, how does Canon justify the huge cost difference if the optical design is the same?The CN-E is based on the EF lens, so I assume the RF lens will be a different optical design. Still not convinced that there will be IS on this lens.
Isn't that only relevant for macro with stepped/rail images? What are the other use cases?Focus breathing benefits photography to as the magnification is not constantly changing.
Spent fours days and thousands of shots shooting with the RF 85mm f1.2L and the EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM on an R5 last week.The fact that it’s not as buttery as a 50 or 85 is exactly why i want at least a 1.2 (I’d buy a 35mm f1.0 if it were available) I’ve been waiting to upgrade from my 35mm 1.4L II forever. I’m still holding out hope that it will be 1.2 since nothing is official yet.
Likely also more precise mechanical focusing package. I've read somewhere (I think in a LensRentals blog post) that the focus marking on stills lenses are generally not very precise (can be many centimeters off sometimes), while Cine lens focus markings are usually spot on.Besides labelling and external packaging, how does Canon justify the huge cost difference if the optical design is the same?
The CN glass is taken from the highest scoring examples. The mechanical design is to a much higher standard and is marked in T stops not F stops. This selection and manufacturing in much lower volumes creates the price difference.Besides labelling and external packaging, how does Canon justify the huge cost difference if the optical design is the same?
You can make the argument there for the existing lenses too. Why did Canon bother with making the RF 85mm L a f/1.2 when the EF f/1.4L gives you basically the same result? Sometimes it is just because Canon wants to create a halo product, and I personally don't think a 35 f/1.4L is quite "halo" enough.Spent fours days and thousands of shots shooting with the RF 85mm f1.2L and the EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM on an R5 last week.
In Lightroom at a 100% I had to check the side panel to check which lens it was because it was almost impossible to tell the difference at f1.2 or f1.4. Keep in mind we’re talking about a third of a stop.
For most people they would never know unless at 400%
Spent fours days and thousands of shots shooting with the RF 85mm f1.2L and the EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM on an R5 last week.
In Lightroom at a 100% I had to check the side panel to check which lens it was because it was almost impossible to tell the difference at f1.2 or f1.4. Keep in mind we’re talking about a third of a stop.
For most people they would never know unless at 400%
Thats misleading as it really matters how you shoot. There’s two factors, camera distance to subject and subject distance to background. I find the benefits more noticeable when shooting the subject full body in frame and space above and below (subject in the scene) then the extra separation helps. Up close (headshot) I could get separation at 2.8.Spent fours days and thousands of shots shooting with the RF 85mm f1.2L and the EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM on an R5 last week.
In Lightroom at a 100% I had to check the side panel to check which lens it was because it was almost impossible to tell the difference at f1.2 or f1.4. Keep in mind we’re talking about a third of a stop.
For most people they would never know unless at 400%
Canon has had six years with the RF mount plus the several since the EF 35L 1.4II dropped to find a way to deliver a better lens than the one its replacing. I think they nailed the brief with the RF 50 and 85 1.2's- so it will be a bit of a downer if they essentially just release the same lens in the same aperture just with a new mount.
Soz to be piccy but a video usage is not a photo useage. The existing EF 35mm f1.4 II L and the RF 35mm f1.8 are already great for photos. Just no so useful for Video. Personally, I'm only interested in Photos (stils)...so I really don't want to pay extra thousands of research and dev £££/$$$ to give videographers what they want. For me, It's wasted money on features that I'm not interested in. I don't care for focus breathing, I certainly don't care for super silent AF.I hope it's a RF 35mm 1.4 instead of 1.2 I have the RF 50mm 1.2 and the RF 85mm 1.2 and although they are great, the weight on them sucks and makes it not fun to shoot with. Also, the 1.2 primes focus slower for video compared to my RF 24-70mm 2.8. The cheap 1.8 stm primes are a joke. They have slow auto focus for video and struggle in low light for both video and photos. I think Canon needs to come out with a set of 1.4 primes that lack focus breathing and are great for photos while being lighter than 1.2 primes. I would sell my 1.2 primes in a heart beat for 1.4 primes. I'm hoping the 35mm 1.4 similar in size to the Sony GM 35mm 1.4 and the 50mm 1.4 GM.
I completely agree, unfortunatly there are also RF lens snobs out there who a very vocal about their wants for a RF 35L.I bet Canon had a hard time making the RF 35mm better as I suspect the EF 35 1.4L II was the beginning of Canon's new generation of primes. Then while they were getting a new 50mm and 85mm 1.2 for EF word from up top came to make if for RF mount instead as their flagship products.
It is much easier to make a noticeable uprade to lenses that were more dated (50 in 2007 and 85 in 1989 optical designs) than to update a fairly new lens (35 ii). Sufficient new tech need to accumulate to make it be worth an update.
The external packaging is completely different with smooth accurate manual focus and aperture.Besides labelling and external packaging, how does Canon justify the huge cost difference if the optical design is the same?
The T stops on the Sigma 35 f/1.2 and Sony 35 f/1.4 are basically the same.Of course, maybe Canon decides that making a halo product at the 35mm focal length isn't a priority, and that's fine. That doesn't mean I don't look on enviously at the E and L mount folks with the Sigma ART primes though
True but the wider the focal length the less compression there will be.There’s two factors, camera distance to subject and subject distance to background.
Not sure it’s snobbery. Most RF lenses have offered a meaningful improvement over their predecessor, even if that improvement is not optical. I do see the difficulties they might have an improving on the optics of 35L II. Making it f/1.2 would do the trick.I completely agree, unfortunatly there are also RF lens snobs out there who a very vocal about their wants for a RF 35L.