# RF 85/1.2 L vs RF 85/1.2 L DS (new video w/ comparisons)



## navastronia (Mar 12, 2020)

I found this video entertaining and informative.






Comparisons from Barrera:

RF 85/1.2 L




RF 85/1.2 L DS:




Observations:

1) The DS improves the appearance of bokeh in busy scenes (leaves on the left side of the frame, a couple feet behind the model.

2) The DS produces artificial-looking bokeh in less busy scenes (background some distance behind the model)

3) The DS for some reason intensifies the color of bokeh balls.

4) The 1.5-2 stops of light lost not only produces a deeper DoF, but also (practically speaking) generated blurry images for Barrera in some scenes due to hand-holding at a low shutter speed, probably trying to ensure images captured with each lens were at the same aperture and ISO.

5) The lenses seem to perform the same in all other regards, including sharpness and AF, due to having basically the same design.

I'm leaning 80/20 on getting the standard version someday because I value those 1.5-2 stops of light the DS loses, but it's not out of the question. I would be curious to shoot with the DS myself and see if the BG bokeh still looks weird to me after shooting some of my own work rather than watching how others use it.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 12, 2020)

He shoots Silent LV mode 1, so unfair comparison imo. The regular 85 looks much better when shooting fully mechanical.


----------



## navastronia (Mar 12, 2020)

Viggo said:


> He shoots Silent LV mode 1, so unfair comparison imo. The regular 85 looks much better when shooting fully mechanical.



In that case, if you wouldn't mind, it would be terrific to see a comparison of silent LV vs. mechanical on the 85/1.2 L.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 12, 2020)

navastronia said:


> In that case, if you wouldn't mind, it would be terrific to see a comparison of silent LV vs. mechanical on the 85/1.2 L.


Just the first I found, but others have written more about this.


----------



## navastronia (Mar 12, 2020)

Viggo said:


> Just the first I found, but others have written more about this.



It's an interesting phenomenon, but I just watched the video I posted again, and Barrera never says he's shooting in EFCS. Where did you read that he does?


----------



## Viggo (Mar 12, 2020)

navastronia said:


> It's an interesting phenomenon, but I just watched the video I posted again, and Barrera never says he's shooting in EFCS. Where did you read that he does?


I asked him, check the comments


----------



## navastronia (Mar 12, 2020)

Viggo said:


> I asked him, check the comments



Wow, that was good. Great eye!!


----------



## mkamelg (Mar 12, 2020)

This is currently the best written review of the Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS lens. In this review the lens was also compared to the Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM lens.









Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS review


With Defocus Smoothing, the Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS turns the stock RF 85mm bokeh beast into a bokeh behemoth




www.digitalcameraworld.com





The guy who made it also has a YouTube channel. This video can be seen as a supplement to this written review.






Comparative photos with models were taken at shutter speeds of 1/80 sec and 1/200 sec, so EFCS had no effect on bokeh.

Do I have any thoughts on this topic?

When taking photos with a Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS lens, be very careful what is in the background. Most of the time the background will unfortunately be too cute, and will distract attention from the model. Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM lens has a bit uglier bokeh, but thanks to that the viewer's eyes are automatically directed at the model.

Some member of our Polish forum for Canon equipment users wrote (slightly maliciously) about this (Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS) lens "lens with bokeh effect in the style of Photoshop Gaussian Blur". Some guy by the name of Owen Hall, wrote in the commentary below the video I posted above "It gives me the feel of the new iPhones 11 pro background bluring software? The iphone blurs the background all the same with little character bokeh just like if you took a blur tool to the back ground?".


----------



## navastronia (Mar 12, 2020)

mkamelg said:


> This is currently the best written review of the Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS lens. In this review the lens was also compared to the Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM lens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree. Especially in a fair, head-to-head comparison like that one, it becomes obvious that photographers don’t ~need~ the DS to produce great bokeh.


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 12, 2020)

mkamelg said:


> This is currently the best written review of the Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS lens. In this review the lens was also compared to the Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM lens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with you, I think the DS lens bokeh looks too refined. It lacks personality and character, and almost look artificial. I own the RF 85L non DS, so it might be bias, but I am not tempted to replace it with the DS lens.


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 12, 2020)

Viggo said:


> Just the first I found, but others have written more about this.



Wow! Interesting! Can anyone explain this? Could it be as simple as a difference in exposure?


----------



## Viggo (Mar 12, 2020)

Larsskv said:


> Wow! Interesting! Can anyone explain this? Could it be as simple as a difference in exposure?


I believe the reason is the fact that the mechanical shutter sits some mm’s in front of the sensor while the EFCS is on the sensor, so when they form the slit that normally is just a gap between front and rear curtain they are at different distances. I think it’s how they interact since neither fully electronic or fully mechanical shows this flaw.


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 12, 2020)

Viggo said:


> I believe the reason is the fact that the mechanical shutter sits some mm’s in front of the sensor while the EFCS is on the sensor, so when they form the slit that normally is just a gap between front and rear curtain they are at different distances. I think it’s how they interact since neither fully electronic or fully mechanical shows this flaw.


It has to be something, and this theory seems plausible...


----------



## stevelee (Mar 13, 2020)

It is a matter of taste. I don't much care for extremely unfocused backgrounds. I think they look unnatural and distract from the subject. Sometimes the subject looks more like a cardboard cutout than a 3-dimensional person. For me the goal would be to approximate the look of the background in real life when your eyes focus on something in the foreground. That is tricky for a variety of reasons. In real life if you look at the background, your eyes focus on it. With a picture, your eyes can focus on the blurry background, and you can admire or hate or whatever the background bokeh as such. If there is much difference in distance the parallax becomes part of the perception, and that is not really simulated in a 2-D photo, that I know of.

So while you can't do a real equivalent (that word again!), you can be judicious enough in trying to make it look right. If you are going after an extreme of close subject, distant background, f/1.2 on a telephoto or small telephoto, that's fine with me. It's just that I see that as a special effect, like using a TS lens to make a miniature effect. It can be fun or just a cliché, or likely both.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 13, 2020)

navastronia said:


> 4) The 1.5-2 stops of light lost not only produces a deeper DoF, but also (practically speaking) generated blurry images for Barrera in some scenes due to hand-holding at a low shutter speed, probably trying to ensure images captured with each lens were at the same aperture and ISO.


No it doesn't, how does T stop impact depth of field? It doesn't.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 13, 2020)

stevelee said:


> So while you can't do a real equivalent (that word again!),


Equivalence is a relatively simple concept that ends up with answers people don't really like because it goes against their initial intuition and they normally miss one or two of the basic criteria,

But as a concept in photography it is well understood and defined, it has been written about at length and explained in very great detail and is very easy to test for yourself even if you only have one camera and a zoom lens.


----------



## navastronia (Mar 13, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> No it doesn't, how does T stop impact depth of field? It doesn't.



look at the sample images at 100% and you’ll see greater DoF in every DS image, at the same aperture. Those images are available to download in the video’s description.


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 13, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> No it doesn't, how does T stop impact depth of field? It doesn't.



T-stops in themselves don't affect DoF, but the DS coating is basically a gradient aperture, so it does affect DoF.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 13, 2020)

navastronia said:


> look at the sample images at 100% and you’ll see greater DoF in every DS image, at the same aperture. Those images are available to download in the video’s description.


I don't know what you are seeing in the files but I'm not seeing the same as you. Many of his comparison images are not sharp anyway but here is the best comparison I could see and the earrings don't look different to me.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 13, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> T-stops in themselves don't affect DoF, but the DS coating is basically a gradient aperture, so it does affect DoF.


Bullshit. What's a gradient aperture? Now show me a good comparison image with differences in the DoF. How that DoF is rendered yes, the character is going to look different but that is the whole point, but not the actual DoF as in "acceptably sharp".


----------



## navastronia (Mar 13, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't know what you are seeing in the files but I'm not seeing the same as you. Many of his comparison images are not sharp anyway but here is the best comparison I could see and the earrings don't look different to me.
> 
> 
> View attachment 189145
> ...



I stared at them for a while, really went over them with a fine-toothed comb, and it does look to me like the DS has more DoF at the same apertures.

Look at the way the fence poles are rendered in the below 2 images. The focus point appears to be the same, and yet there's more bokeh on the 85 L than the 85 L DS.

You can also see that the leaves on the right-hand side are more OoF on the 85 L. 

*85 L*




*85 L DS


*


----------



## jd7 (Mar 13, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> No it doesn't, how does T stop impact depth of field? It doesn't.


I agree about T stop. I cannot see how T stop could effect depth of field.

However it seems Canon thinks the DS lens does give greater DOF one way or another. 





Canon RF 85mm F1.2L USM DS first shoot - Canon Europe


Wedding photographer Félicia Sisco was the first pro to shoot with Canon's EF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS lens. How does the Defocus Smoothing coating work, and how does it compare to the non-DS lens?




www.canon-europe.com





I haven't tried to investigate why that might be though.

I note the Canon article says depth of field "appears" deeper with the DS lens, but since depth of field is inherently about perception anyway I cannot see that "appears" is particularly significant in Canon's statement.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 13, 2020)

Why would you want greater depth of field in a lens that you got to make the background appear blurrier?


----------



## stevelee (Mar 13, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Equivalence is a relatively simple concept that ends up with answers people don't really like because it goes against their initial intuition and they normally miss one or two of the basic criteria,
> 
> But as a concept in photography it is well understood and defined, it has been written about at length and explained in very great detail and is very easy to test for yourself even if you only have one camera and a zoom lens.


It may be well defined, but people very often mean different things by it. I won't bother to document from various threads here. I recall a web site that expends page after page dealing with what it means.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 15, 2020)

stevelee said:


> It may be well defined, but people very often mean different things by it. I won't bother to document from various threads here. I recall a web site that expends page after page dealing with what it means.


Then they are wrong, if it has a definition people can't mean different things by it, that is the very definition of definition! Some people might use the word incorrectly in which case we need to try to educate them.

This is probably the link you mean. http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/


----------



## stevelee (Mar 15, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Then they are wrong, if it has a definition people can't mean different things by it, that is the very definition of definition! Some people might use the word incorrectly in which case we need to try to educate them.
> 
> This is probably the link you mean. http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/


Yes, I think that is it. Do you agree with his ten-bullet-point definition? If not, why is he wrong?

In his and other discussions much seems to be made of total light hitting the sensor. I’ve never understood the practical ramifications of that when taking pictures.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 15, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Why would you want greater depth of field in a lens that you got to make the background appear blurrier?


I think because how blurry the background appears isn't just a function of depth of field, and in any event bokeh is not inherently about amount of blur.

Depth of field describes which parts of the subject are considered to appear "in focus" when viewed under the relevant conditions (regarding display size and distance from view to image and assuming average eyesight).

As a general proposition, shallower depth of field is associated with a blurrier background - at least assuming the same focal lengh is used. I believe that as you move to longer focal lengths you can have situations where for a given framing it is easier to get greater depth of field while getting at least as much background blur or more, because the amount of blur is substantially related to the actual aperture (rather than f-stop, which is relative aperture).

However, I also understand that different lens designs can create different amounts of blur at a particualr f-stop / depth of field. Further, better bokeh would mean a better quality of blur, but that does not necesasrily have to mean more blur.

Perhaps greater DOF could be an advantage with an 85 f/1.2, so as to help get more of the subject in focus while still getting great bokeh? (Of course, the amount of your subject which is in focus depends substantially on distance to subject, but for example in a portrait setting it is easy with 85mm to be close enough to the subject that at f/1.2 you are only getting, say, eyes in focus with nose and ears already out of focus. That may be a look you want, but equally it may not be.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 15, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Yes, I think that is it. Do you agree with his ten-bullet-point definition? If not, why is he wrong?
> 
> In his and other discussions much seems to be made of total light hitting the sensor. I’ve never understood the practical ramifications of that when taking pictures.


Yes I do.

He lays out a clear definition of equivalence, essentially taking images with identical photographic metrics, DoF, noise, angle of view, subject movement, etc, within the limits of available sensors, from systems with different sized sensors when reproduced at the same size.

There is no practical ramification of the same amount of light hitting the sensor when _taking pictures_, but when viewing them at the same size output the entire point is the different sensors images need to have the same noise levels (again within available sensor efficiency), to do that you have to even up the amount of light each sensor receives regardless of size.

This is incredibly easy to prove especially if you have a FF camera and a 2x zoom like a 70-200 or a 24-70. For instance take a picture at 150mm, f5.6, and 400 iso, compare that entire image to a crop the size of an APS-C, so a 1.5 crop shot at 100mm, f3.5 and 200 iso. Take those two images from the same place and they will be identical by every meaningful photographic metric. To make it easier to see the similarities do the same at higher iso's.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 15, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Yes, I think that is it. Do you agree with his ten-bullet-point definition? If not, why is he wrong?
> 
> In his and other discussions much seems to be made of total light hitting the sensor. I’ve never understood the practical ramifications of that when taking pictures.


I may be wrong about this, but I think of it this way. If you use a larger sensor, the image has to be enlarged less to get to a given output size. So, for a given output size, the light captured by the sensor doesn't have to be spread out as much as from a smaller sensor to get to the given output size, ie the larger sensor has, in a sense, "more light" to squash into the output image than than a smaller sensor. I understand this makes a difference because it means for a given output size, the signal to noise ratio is higher for a larger sensor than a smaller sensor, and signal to noise ratio is important in determining things like how much noise will appear in the image.

(Note that in what I've said above, I am assuming the larger and smaller sensrors have similar quantum efficiency.)

EDIT: I see PBD just beat me with a post which I think is saying something similar to what I've said above(?)


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 12, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I stared at them for a while, really went over them with a fine-toothed comb, and it does look to me like the DS has more DoF at the same apertures.
> 
> Look at the way the fence poles are rendered in the below 2 images. The focus point appears to be the same, and yet there's more bokeh on the 85 L than the 85 L DS.
> 
> ...


For me, I just can't see enough difference between the two that favors $300 more for the DS. I had wondered whether or not I would regret not waiting for the DS, but now I am glad I didn't. Happy for those that own, and find it better, for themselves. I just don't see it. I prefer the harder edges on the bokeh balls myself. Once one starts stopping down the effect is lost anyway.


----------

