# Canon officially announces the RF 85mm f/1.2L USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 8, 2019)

> Press Release:
> MELVILLE, NY, May 8, 2019 – Continuing the company’s commitment to providing photographers with core focal-length lenses for the EOS R Full-Frame mirrorless camera system, Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, today announced the RF 85mm F1.2 L USM standard prime lens. The fifth lens in the RF family, the RF 85mm lens provides another vital tool for photographers using the EOS R or EOS RP cameras, in particular, those shooting portrait photography.
> *Preorder: *Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM $2699
> 
> “Optics is at the core of Canon’s heritage. It is engrained in our DNA and the top priority when developing the EOS R Camera System around the RF mount and accompanying lenses,” said Kazuto Ogawa, president and chief operating officer, Canon U.S.A., Inc. “Canon is very enthused to now bring the lenses we shared in the RF lens development announcement, starting with the RF 85mm F1.2 L USM. We envision this product...



Continue reading...


----------



## Foxeslink (May 8, 2019)

sorry for this first comment but the price of that lens is actually ridiculous...


----------



## SecureGSM (May 8, 2019)

Foxeslink said:


> sorry for this first ridiculous comment but the price of that lens ..


You are, certainly, off to a good start. Welcome aboard, Foxeslink


----------



## Foxeslink (May 8, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> You are, certainly, off to a good start. Welcome aboard, Foxeslink



No, I have the R and the Rf50 and that lens is perfect for the price. This new lens should be the same value. No way to put more 300$ on there.


----------



## andrei1989 (May 8, 2019)

the 85 1.2 version 2 was launched at 2199$ in 2006 which, adjusted for inflation, means 2797$
just saying..


----------



## [email protected] (May 8, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



First time I recall them bragging about the “blue goo” since the 35 II.

I wonder if their lens design-to-build process is so long that only now is the materials technology making its way into products; which in some ways would be the optimistic interpretation, as it would suggest a lot more blue goo coming. And if it has anything to do with the 35’s sharpness, that’s a very good thing.

(Hopefully it’s not the reason for the extra $500, though


----------



## edoorn (May 8, 2019)

yep, second lens with the BR. 

I suppose it could be the best 85mm ever released, but man, that price tag.. > 3000 euro's over here in the Netherlands


----------



## ozturert (May 8, 2019)

I don't think I can buy this even if I want to.


----------



## Hector1970 (May 8, 2019)

$2699 is a high starting price. Higher than I would have expected. Very out of line with the RP price. 
It's surely soon that Canon announce a higher end camera that would pair more effectively with buyers who would spend $2699 on a lens. The RP and R are good cameras but I think when you are charging +$2000 for lens you need a high end camera to go with it if you want buyers. It will be interesting. I wonder if it was always Canon's intended strategy or are they behind on their camera masterplan. It's not that it won't work well on the RP or R but consumers in that price range are less likely to purchase a $2699 lens than someone who'd fork out $5000 on a 1DR without blinking. I'll hold onto my EF 85 mm 1.2 for another while - its still a brilliant if flawed lens


----------



## Canon1966 (May 8, 2019)

The lens is bigger than the camera. That's why it's almost $3K. I realize that newer technology costs, but that's too expensive.


----------



## padam (May 8, 2019)

It is so blatantly obvious why the Pro model will be coming later. It simply requires more development work and it also generates less sales.

It also makes sense that an 85/1.2 is going to cost quite a bit more than a 50/1.2 lens. They are obviously planning to make some profit on these and it is up to the customers if they are going to shell out the cash or not or choose something else, there are three other 85mm primes just in Canon's EF range alone. Prices will inevitably start to drop after a while.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 8, 2019)

Thanks Canon, but personally I’d go with my 85/1.4 L IS on an adapter.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (May 8, 2019)

Could the lack of IS in this lens be a hint towards IBIS in the pro model?


----------



## ozturert (May 8, 2019)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Could the lack of IS in this lens be a hint towards IBIS in the pro model?


I think it is due to f1.2 aperture


----------



## Mort (May 8, 2019)

andrei1989 said:


> the 85 1.2 version 2 was launched at 2199$ in 2006 which, adjusted for inflation, means 2797$
> just saying..



That is actually a pretty smart check. I find it's smart to do it with with new car prices as well (I follow a lot of auto websites). 

It's an interesting strategy for Canon. Get all the pro lenses out there before any pro body, so when the pro body comes out, there will be a full lineup of lenses (I'm pulling for decent 1.8 IS models myself...). It's a tough chicken/egg debate. We'll see if this pays off for Canon in the long run.


----------



## wtlloyd (May 8, 2019)

Foxeslink said:


> sorry for this first comment but the price of that lens is actually ridiculous...


Came here to say this!


----------



## Mort (May 8, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> ...The RP and R are good cameras but I think when you are charging +$2000 for lens you need a high end camera to go with it if you want buyers. It will be interesting. I wonder if it was always Canon's intended strategy or are they behind on their camera masterplan. It's not that it won't work well on the RP or R but consumers in that price range are less likely to purchase a $2699 lens than someone who'd fork out $5000 on a 1DR without blinking...



From the many interviews Canon has given, it feels like they intended to have a very optically impressive lens lineup so that when they did come out with the pro version, there would be a full lens lineup. I'm a part timer myself, so I'm rooting for the more lower/midrange 1.4 to 1.8 IS models. Those would also make more sense with the current camera bodies, I think.


----------



## jonebize (May 8, 2019)

I've been digging around for samples images but haven't been able to find anything (aside from the lame stuff in this video). Does anyone know where to find this? Given that this lens is meant to capture photos, it is odd that photos are not immediately exhibited


----------



## Vensterbank (May 8, 2019)

edoorn said:


> yep, second lens with the BR.
> 
> I suppose it could be the best 85mm ever released, but man, that price tag.. > 3000 euro's over here in the Netherlands



I was thinking the same thing! This lens has a big pricetag, aspecially if you keep in mind the price of the 85 1.4 IS USM L...


----------



## NorskHest (May 8, 2019)

I did a double take on that price. No thank you. This will probably be clinical like all the other RF lenses


----------



## Del Paso (May 8, 2019)

Foxeslink said:


> sorry for this first comment but the price of that lens is actually ridiculous...


I'd suggest that you buy the Euro 11900 (!)1,25/75 mm Leica M lens, if you find the price of the RF 1,2/85 ridiculously low


----------



## PureClassA (May 8, 2019)

$2700. Wow. More than i suspected. Looks great but I’m with Neuro on this one. My 85 1.4 IS has become indispensable... the IS part in particular. Had it on the EOS R yesterday with the control ring mount adapter.


----------



## Del Paso (May 8, 2019)

Foxeslink said:


> No, I have the R and the Rf50 and that lens is perfect for the price. This new lens should be the same value. No way to put more 300$ on there.


If you compare a 50 mm and a 85 mm , take a look at the size of the lenses, at the mechanical complexity, at the 85's optical quality, and then, and only then, allow yourself a judgment as to what is a ridiculous price...


----------



## PureClassA (May 8, 2019)

Starting to think there will be a whole lot of adapted EF L glass for some time. These RF L lenses are beautiful but I hope they manage to fill the lower tier glass (sub $1000) sooner than later.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 8, 2019)

That's going to work out at £2,499 in the UK


----------



## Cee Log (May 8, 2019)

easy pass.. the lens might be great but with no IBIS & the 1.8x 4K crop on EOS-R it's not a worthy investment for me as a hybrid shooter. Canon have the balls to show it shooting video but what they omit to admit is that this lens becomes a 153mm F2 in 4K 

I'm sticking to adapted EF glass until a pro body surfaces with hopefully full sensor readout for 4K video.


----------



## Foxeslink (May 8, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> I'd suggest that you buy the Euro 11900 (!)1,25/75 mm Leica M lens, if you find the price of the RF 1,2/85 ridiculously low



There's a big difference between the price of 50 and 85mm. I live in europe so here the RF50 is 2400 and RF85mm is over 3000. It's a lot of money

Btw, i never said the RF50 is low, but i think it's not overpriced. It's obviously an expensive lens no matter what
I'll surely buy the new 85, but not now. Maybe for crhistmas when the price should be about 2300 that time


----------



## Foxeslink (May 8, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> If you compare a 50 mm and a 85 mm , take a look at the size of the lenses, at the mechanical complexity, at the 85's optical quality, and then, and only then, allow yourself a judgment as to what is a ridiculous price...



If you think it's a reasonable price go for it and buy it man 
Not for me that price
As you may seen, 90% of the people says this lens is overpriced. That means something


----------



## padam (May 8, 2019)

It will be fun to see the reactions on the Nikkor Z 58/0.95 manual focus lens, when it gets released.
People are not interested at all (obviously) and yet they click on it and react, sometimes even in the thread for other manufacturers 

Same for the RF 70-200/2.8 IS, or the RF 15-35/2.8 IS, etc.


----------



## Serenesunrise (May 8, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> That's going to work out at £2,499 in the UK


Maybe in six months time...On the Wex website it is £2799 on pre order


----------



## PureClassA (May 8, 2019)

Cee Log said:


> easy pass.. the lens might be great but with no IBIS & the 1.8x 4K crop on EOS-R it's not a worthy investment for me as a hybrid shooter. Canon have the balls to show it shooting video but what they omit to admit is that this lens becomes a 153mm F2 in 4K
> 
> I'm sticking to adapted EF glass until a pro body surfaces with hopefully full sensor readout for 4K video.



You'll be waiting a while longer then. If the "Pro" body is as rumored, you won't see a full readout on a 60MP sensor. You want what I want. An EOS R Cinema body with a sensor size similar to that of the Alpha 7s.

That said... I bought the EOS R and shot on it yesterday with the 85 (in 4K to an Atomos). Loved it


----------



## woodman411 (May 8, 2019)

Is it just me, or does Canon USA need some new blood for spokesman? Rudy seems nice and all, just comes off as... Old.


----------



## Tom W (May 8, 2019)

I can't wait to see what results people will get with this. I bet it's a fantastic lens!


----------



## Tom W (May 8, 2019)

Mort said:


> It's an interesting strategy for Canon. Get all the pro lenses out there before any pro body, so when the pro body comes out, there will be a full lineup of lenses (I'm pulling for decent 1.8 IS models myself...). It's a tough chicken/egg debate. We'll see if this pays off for Canon in the long run.



I'm kind of wondering if this was the initial strategy or if they were planning on making a big splash in the mirrorless world next year, and had developed the lenses already, to a certain extent. Then, a change of heart and an almost rushed introduction of 2 bodies in the mid and low price range just to get their hat in the ring. 

That is to say that their initial plan was to come in at the high end, and maybe one mid-range body also around late 2019 or early 2020. But, given the competition building and the popularity of mirrorless, they brought 2 bodies to market quickly, using many available parts from the DSLR line and maybe also the M series when applicable. That would explain why the RP in particular came out with no corresponding low-priced kit lens.


----------



## Cee Log (May 8, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> You'll be waiting a while longer then. If the "Pro" body is as rumored, you won't see a full readout on a 60MP sensor. You want what I want. An EOS R Cinema body with a sensor size similar to that of the Alpha 7s.
> 
> That said... I bought the EOS R and shot on it yesterday with the 85 (in 4K to an Atomos). Loved it



I have the R as well.. the crop factor & rolling shutter in 4K is a real PITA for me personally. not to mention lack of IBIS.

I really hope they are not going for a high MP body next but rather a 1DX2 type pro mirrorless body.

As for an RF cine cam, yeah that would make sense. Just make the C200 RF.. i'll take that.


----------



## Tom W (May 8, 2019)

woodman411 said:


> Is it just me, or does Canon USA need some new blood for spokesman? Rudy seems nice and all, just comes off as... Old.



Hey! I resemble that remark!


----------



## LDS (May 8, 2019)

Foxeslink said:


> sorry for this first comment but the price of that lens is actually ridiculous...



C'mon, it's just 2.1 iPhones....


----------



## Tom W (May 8, 2019)

woodman411 said:


> Is it just me, or does Canon USA need some new blood for spokesman? Rudy seems nice and all, just comes off as... Old.


Here you go, someone younger (and some nice photos too)...


----------



## amorse (May 8, 2019)

That is one unit of a lens. No doubt it's an expensive lens, and more than I could justify for how often I'd use it. Most of these really expensive lenses seem to be getting a lot of praise for just how sharp they are, and maybe that's where this price point is being considered. 

Part of me is wondering if this is all intentional and related to the upcoming high resolution body. When the 5Ds/sR were released, Canon had outlined which lenses they felt were a best match in being able to keep up with the high resolution demands of the sensor, and I'm really wondering if we're seeing the same reaction in reverse: building and releasing lenses that are outstandingly sharp to match up with a very high resolution body to come. Releasing a 60-70mp+ camera and noting that while any EF lens will work with the adapter, (nearly) all RF lenses have been designed with this resolution in mind and will provide a superior output - that could be a compelling reason to upgrade glass.


----------



## PureClassA (May 8, 2019)

Cee Log said:


> I have the R as well.. the crop factor & rolling shutter in 4K is a real PITA for me personally. not to mention lack of IBIS.
> 
> I really hope they are not going for a high MP body next but rather a 1DX2 type pro mirrorless body.
> 
> As for an RF cine cam, yeah that would make sense. Just make the C200 RF.. i'll take that.



My needs for the R aren't hindered by the rolling shutter. I don't have much if any call for fast whip pans where that would come into play. I actually did lots of slow to moderate panning last night shooting some dance classes and it didn't bat an eyelash. The rest were all stationary shots on a tripod. The crop is more of the factor everyone has to contend with,, but I shot everything with a 16-35 f4 L IS and a 50mm prime. Even some with the 85 prime. (All EF mounted with adapter) No complaints. This is also why I'd like to see more non-L primes get announced soon. I'd prefer to use a 20-24mm prime with a native mount, but for now, I'm good.


----------



## Cee Log (May 8, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> My needs for the R aren't hindered by the rolling shutter. I don't have much if any call for fast whip pans where that would come into play. I actually did lots of slow to moderate panning last night shooting some dance classes and it didn't bat an eyelash. The rest were all stationary shots on a tripod. The crop is more of the factor everyone has to contend with, but with, but I shot everything with a 16-35 f4 L IS and a 50mm prime. Even some with the 85 prime. (All EF mounted with adapter) No complaints. This is also why I'd like to see more non-L primes get announced soon. I'd prefer to use a 20-24mm prime with a native mount, but for now, I'm good.



when there's a will there's a way.. i'm just saying i find it a ballsy move from canon to promote their $2700 non-stabilized prime as a video asset considering the current limitations and crop factor ratio conversion. it's one thing to make your existing EF lens collection work on EOS R system, it's another to invest that type of cash for that type of result. anyways i agree with you that i'd like to see more affordable RF primes, not because i can't afford L series but rather because investing in them doesn't make sense to me in the current situation.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 8, 2019)

I'll wait a year and see where the price ends up. I'm guessing somewhere closer to 2000. Canon usually tries to charge the early adopters the most (100-400 II, 85 f/1.4 IS, 16-35 f/2.8 III, EOS R, RF 50, RF 28-70, etc.) This is no different -- give it a year and see where it settles.


----------



## PureClassA (May 8, 2019)

Cee Log said:


> when there's a will there's a way.. i'm just saying i find it a ballsy move from canon to promote their $2700 non-stabilized prime as a video asset considering the current limitations and crop factor ratio conversion. it's one thing to make your existing EF lens collection work on EOS R system, it's another to invest that type of cash for that type of result. anyways i agree with you that i'd like to see more affordable RF primes, not because i can't afford L series but rather because investing in them doesn't make sense to me in the current situation.



It makes no sense to me personally either because I already have plenty EF L primes and zooms. I just got the 85L 1.4 IS and the 35L 1.4 mk2 in the last couple years.


----------



## windsorc (May 8, 2019)

With falling sales, increasing prices in a smaller market is the only way to go: that seems to be the intention of Canikon and Sony. Pros will buy this anyway, after that the price may come down to where it should be, around 2200.


----------



## Del Paso (May 8, 2019)

Foxeslink said:


> If you think it's a reasonable price go for it and buy it man
> Not for me that price
> As you may seen, 90% of the people says this lens is overpriced. That means something


Provided the lens is REALLY excellent, I'm ready to invest , but only after the introduction of a Pro R body!


----------



## Viggo (May 8, 2019)

The price is very high no doubt.

But I have to admit, I think the the RF50 is worth it. And I didn’t like the 85 IS. So, I think it’s dumb we have to pay such a high price to get perfection, but I think it will be...


----------



## ethanz (May 8, 2019)

Viggo said:


> The price is very high no doubt.
> 
> But I have to admit, I think the the RF50 is worth it. And I didn’t like the 85 IS. So, I think it’s dumb we have to pay such a high price to get perfection, but I think it will be...



Do it for your daughter. You want to get those beautiful images of her.


----------



## Sean C (May 8, 2019)

As a part timer, I took this chance to get an EF 85mm F1.2 II at a bargain price! At barely more than 1/3 the price, it's not going to depreciate very fast from here so I can sell it if I change my mind and recover the cost.


----------



## GadgetDave (May 8, 2019)

Tom W said:


> I'm kind of wondering if this was the initial strategy or if they were planning on making a big splash in the mirrorless world next year, and had developed the lenses already, to a certain extent. Then, a change of heart and an almost rushed introduction of 2 bodies in the mid and low price range just to get their hat in the ring.
> 
> That is to say that their initial plan was to come in at the high end, and maybe one mid-range body also around late 2019 or early 2020. But, given the competition building and the popularity of mirrorless, they brought 2 bodies to market quickly, using many available parts from the DSLR line and maybe also the M series when applicable. That would explain why the RP in particular came out with no corresponding low-priced kit lens.


I'd buy this explaination - with the idea that all this new high-end glass is to be sure that the lenses can stand up to the rumored 60+MP sensor edge-to-edge - the current rumors seem to be at least 63+ MP, and remember that's *50% MORE pixels* than any current nikon or sony sensor, and double of everything in Canon's stable except the 5DS...


----------



## Ozarker (May 8, 2019)

Cee Log said:


> when there's a will there's a way.. i'm just saying i find it a ballsy move from canon to promote their $2700 non-stabilized prime as a video asset considering the current limitations and crop factor ratio conversion. it's one thing to make your existing EF lens collection work on EOS R system, it's another to invest that type of cash for that type of result. anyways i agree with you that i'd like to see more affordable RF primes, not because i can't afford L series but rather because investing in them doesn't make sense to me in the current situation.


I don't know of a FF sensored ILC or MILC that does 4K video without a crop. Sony's A7R III crops to Super 35 size (1.5 crop factor). There might be a camera from somebody that doesn't crop the 4k on a FF sensor, but I don't have any idea who that would be. Lack of IS wouldn't put me off at all. Gonna look into selling a kidney somewhere.


----------



## peters (May 8, 2019)

Foxeslink said:


> sorry for this first comment but the price of that lens is actually ridiculous...


I think we can expect a street price around 2200 or something?
This is a HIGH END (photo) lense, maybe the best in its class on the world. I do not think that this is ridiculous.
What I do miss is a Canon Sensor that can actualy life up to the sharpness that these lenses offer. But the rumours say its coming 

In the video world, the prices are WAY higher. ZEISS Master Primes cost up to 40.000$! For a single Prime lense! Which is "only" resolving for 4k or 6k video cameras, not 50mp + photo sensors. I know the comparison is off, but I do not think that 2500$ for a high end lense is so much. Its obviously not a hobbiest tool 

Also: Lenses are not so quickly outdated, compared to bodies. If you take good care about a lense it can easily last 20 years. If it supports the resolutions that we see in the future, its a quite long-lasting investment. if you do fashion or wedding shootings in the higher price area one can earn that amount of money in 1-2 days. So its rather a business investment and not a ridiculous waste of money.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 8, 2019)

Foxeslink said:


> Maybe for crhistmas when the price should be about 2300 that time


If you’re expecting a 700€ drop by December, you’re probably also expecting a jolly old fat man in a sleigh pulled by eight caribou to land on your roof, slide down your chimney, and put it into your hands. 

Good luck with that.


----------



## NeverPlayMonopoly (May 8, 2019)

I could literally just take a woman to Hawaii for the price of this lens.


----------



## Cee Log (May 8, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I don't know of a FF sensored ILC or MILC that does 4K video without a crop. Sony's A7R III crops to Super 35 size (1.5 crop factor). There might be a camera from somebody that doesn't crop the 4k on a FF sensor, but I don't have any idea who that would be. Lack of IS wouldn't put me off at all. Gonna look into selling a kidney somewhere.



You are _seriously _ mistaken: Nikon Z6/Z7, Sony A7III/A7RIII/A9 & PanasonicS1/S1R can all do FF 4K without a crop.

Canon are the _only _ones left that still can't do full sensor 4K read out in 2019. 

That is because they are using a 4-year-old (5DIV) sensor, when everyone else is using latest gen Sony/TowerJazz sensors.


----------



## BeenThere (May 8, 2019)

NeverPlayMonopoly said:


> I could literally just take a woman to Hawaii for the price of this lens.


Yeah, but which would be more fun?


----------



## mb66energy (May 8, 2019)

Its a really massive lens with
117mm length, 103 mm diameter and a mass of nearly 1300 grams.

(https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/.../standard-medium-telephoto/rf-85mm-f1-2-l-usm)


----------



## RayValdez360 (May 8, 2019)

Cee Log said:


> when there's a will there's a way.. i'm just saying i find it a ballsy move from canon to promote their $2700 non-stabilized prime as a video asset considering the current limitations and crop factor ratio conversion. it's one thing to make your existing EF lens collection work on EOS R system, it's another to invest that type of cash for that type of result. anyways i agree with you that i'd like to see more affordable RF primes, not because i can't afford L series but rather because investing in them doesn't make sense to me in the current situation.


if ti works it works. obviously this lens is for stills but will give a great look on video. anyway who is using telephotos handheld like that anyway. even with is or ibis they are shakey. i would just use it for slo-mo close ups if i ever use a telephoto handheld.


----------



## Ozarker (May 8, 2019)

Cee Log said:


> You are _seriously _ mistaken: Nikon Z6/Z7, Sony A7III/A7RIII/A9 & PanasonicS1/S1R can all do FF 4K without a crop.
> 
> Canon are the _only _ones left that still can't do full sensor 4K read out in 2019.
> 
> That is because they are using a 4-year-old (5DIV) sensor, when everyone else is using latest gen Sony/TowerJazz sensors.


Ahhhh... correct on the Sony. Except that in Super 35 crop mode the image is cleaner than in full sensor mode according to Mirrorless Comparisons .com

"The A7r III gives you the option to choose between full frame mode (the entire sensor is used) and Super35/APS-C mode. The latter crops the sensor by approximately 1.5x which alters the field of view of your lens but gives you better quality (full pixel readout) and the difference is especially visible at high ISOs. "Sony claims that the performance at mid and high sensitivities has been improved in full frame mode on the mark III model but don’t expect the same clean image as when shot in Super35."

I don't shoot video. However, what good is full sensor 4K if it isn't as good as Super 35? Even Sony admits Super 35 is better on their camera. Don't most broadcast cams use Super 35? Think I read that somewhere.

According to someone at dpreview:

"You don’t lose resolution with the A7R3 when shooting 4K crop.
in fact, you gain resolution because the data readout from the full frame sensor is immense and the camera has to drop resolution by pixel binning to keep up. Crop mode has no such limitation and retains full resolution 4K video."

Again, even if the A7R III uses the full sensor, Super 35 is better quality according to Sony. I wouldn't personally know either way. Then again, if the camera is "dropping resolution" through pixel binning, is it even really 4k anymore? Strictly speaking, I think not. I'd imagine Nikon, etc. do the same thing.

I can hear the howls already if Canon were to provide full sensor 4k, but their own crop factor mode provided better quality. Why almost nobody who comes here pushing Sony (not saying you are) never mentions what Sony itself says about it is strange to me.

So to me, it probably is not a matter of Canon not being able to provide it, but rather, Canon not being willing to do it if the resolution is better in crop. I personally find that more ethical than the others.


----------



## Larsskv (May 8, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> Its a really massive lens with
> 117mm length, 103 mm diameter and a mass of nearly 1300 grams.
> 
> (https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/.../standard-medium-telephoto/rf-85mm-f1-2-l-usm)



It’s 1196 grams. Still heavy though.


----------



## bryston (May 8, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks Canon, but personally I’d go with my 85/1.4 L IS on an adapter.


I have the 85 1.4 IS mounted on my RP and I love it!


----------



## cfibanez (May 8, 2019)

I would have expected IS on this lens... or?


----------



## Cwall64 (May 8, 2019)

NeverPlayMonopoly said:


> I could literally just take a woman to Hawaii for the price of this lens.



yea, but the woman you take to Hawaii wont look as good or function the same in 20 years...


----------



## PureClassA (May 8, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I don't know of a FF sensored ILC or MILC that does 4K video without a crop. Sony's A7R III crops to Super 35 size (1.5 crop factor). There might be a camera from somebody that doesn't crop the 4k on a FF sensor, but I don't have any idea who that would be. Lack of IS wouldn't put me off at all. Gonna look into selling a kidney somewhere.



The Sony Alphas all have a FF readout in 4k. You can choose to crop it Super 35 if you wish. The Alpha 7S goes a step further with a 12MP sensor that also gives a FF readout in 4k but it's pixel for pixel in 16:9 at 8.8MP (FF readout with no binning)


----------



## MayaTlab (May 8, 2019)

woodman411 said:


> Is it just me, or does Canon USA need some new blood for spokesman? Rudy seems nice and all, just comes off as... Old.



Get your hands off Rudy you devilish creature. 

Rudy is so smooth he could talk to me about BR elements for two hours and I wouldn't be bored. 

Rudy serving us grand dad telling a story realness is everything.


----------



## Mort (May 8, 2019)

Tom W said:


> I'm kind of wondering if this was the initial strategy or if they were planning on making a big splash in the mirrorless world next year, and had developed the lenses already, to a certain extent. Then, a change of heart and an almost rushed introduction of 2 bodies in the mid and low price range just to get their hat in the ring.
> 
> That is to say that their initial plan was to come in at the high end, and maybe one mid-range body also around late 2019 or early 2020. But, given the competition building and the popularity of mirrorless, they brought 2 bodies to market quickly, using many available parts from the DSLR line and maybe also the M series when applicable. That would explain why the RP in particular came out with no corresponding low-priced kit lens.



Do you think that Canon internal could see the R and RP as sort of a throwaway bodies? One that can be purchased at a relative low cost and allow people to start using the glass? I doubt it, especially for the R, but it is an interesting thought. 

Honestly, the R was almost there. A better processor to overcome the video limitations, staying with tried and true ergonomics, and even without IBIS, I think it would have been more well received.


----------



## PureClassA (May 8, 2019)

cfibanez said:


> I would have expected IS on this lens... or?



That is why they made a version with f1.4 so as to have enough room for the IS motor. f1.2 with IS would be even more obnoxiously huge that it already is


----------



## Tangent (May 8, 2019)

jonebize said:


> I've been digging around for samples images but haven't been able to find anything (aside from the lame stuff in this video). Does anyone know where to find this? Given that this lens is meant to capture photos, it is odd that photos are not immediately exhibited



See canonusa product page


----------



## Cee Log (May 8, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Ahhhh... correct on the Sony. Except that in Super 35 crop mode the image is cleaner than in full sensor mode according to Mirrorless Comparisons .com
> 
> "The A7r III gives you the option to choose between full frame mode (the entire sensor is used) and Super35/APS-C mode. The latter crops the sensor by approximately 1.5x which alters the field of view of your lens but gives you better quality (full pixel readout) and the difference is especially visible at high ISOs. "Sony claims that the performance at mid and high sensitivities has been improved in full frame mode on the mark III model but don’t expect the same clean image as when shot in Super35."
> 
> ...



A7R3 is a high MP stills oriented camera as is the Z7. Those are the only 2 FF mirrorless models that do pixel binning in FF modes.

All the other camera models I've listed that happen to be more direct competitors to EOS R can do FF 4K with not only full readout but supersampled from 6K and with much lower rolling shutter.

Also 1.8x crop is closer to M43 than Super 35. This is very annoying as even EF-S lenses end up having non-standard focal lengths.

I am sorry to say that 4K on EOS R is simply by far the worst of the bunch any way you look at it.


----------



## Ozarker (May 8, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> $2699 is a high starting price. Higher than I would have expected. Very out of line with the RP price.


I fail to see the required relationship between body and lens prices. Of course the price isn't near the RP body price. But what does that have to do with it?

BTW: Both the R and RP are high end for the vast majority of people... no matter the lens.


----------



## Aaron D (May 8, 2019)

Not an exorbitant price for a phenomenal lens. You could always get one of THESE instead. Wish I had a use for it so I could buy one.


----------



## PureClassA (May 8, 2019)

Cee Log said:


> I am sorry to say that 4K on EOS R is simply by far the worst of the bunch any way you look at it.



If you're using C Log 10 bit out to an external like the Atomos Ninja v (my setup) it looks great. One thing you can do to boost sharpness is actually raise the shapness in your profile setting which is in the same menu screen (Characteristics) used to select the 10 bit C Log output. It's default setting is at 0. It can go as high as 7. I have mine set to 4 and there is a very noticeable difference. And at 4, there is still no haloing or artifacts introduced. Give it a shot! There's actually a youtube video on this showing it compared to the Alpha and I think maybe the Fuji.

UPDATED:

found it


----------



## slclick (May 8, 2019)

480 grams heavier than my Tamron 85 (which is like a tank at 700 g.) Hope all you R folks enjoy this bad billy.


----------



## Foxeslink (May 8, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you’re expecting a 700€ drop by December, you’re probably also expecting a jolly old fat man in a sleigh pulled by eight caribou to land on your roof, slide down your chimney, and put it into your hands.
> 
> Good luck with that.



Not in grey market dude 
RF50mm in grey market is about 1900€


----------



## Ozarker (May 8, 2019)

Cwall64 said:


> yea, but the woman you take to Hawaii wont look as good or function the same in 20 years...


Don't know about that. I've been married to the same woman for 37 years. She functions and looks just as good to me now as she did back in 1982 when she was 17. Some things are far better with age and experience. Of course, I got an "L" model. YMMV


----------



## Tom W (May 8, 2019)

Mort said:


> Do you think that Canon internal could see the R and RP as sort of a throwaway bodies? One that can be purchased at a relative low cost and allow people to start using the glass? I doubt it, especially for the R, but it is an interesting thought.
> 
> Honestly, the R was almost there. A better processor to overcome the video limitations, staying with tried and true ergonomics, and even without IBIS, I think it would have been more well received.



No, not throwaway, but not high-end either. I think they're right where the 5D4 and 6D2 are in terms of position in the lineup, though I think the R might be a little below the 5D4 in a couple of ways. I like the ruggedness of the Mk IV and it is just a great all-around performer to me.

I have the RP also, and I really like it. It's what I chose to get a taste of the full frame mirrorless, given that I have a number of Canon lenses on hand.


----------



## Ozarker (May 8, 2019)

Tom W said:


> No, not throwaway, but not high-end either. I think they're right where the 5D4 and 6D2 are in terms of position in the lineup, though I think the R might be a little below the 5D4 in a couple of ways. I like the ruggedness of the Mk IV and it is just a great all-around performer to me.
> 
> I have the RP also, and I really like it. It's what I chose to get a taste of the full frame mirrorless, given that I have a number of Canon lenses on hand.


A $90k BMW "M" is high end. So is a $350,000 Bentley. Either of those cameras are high end to most people.


----------



## Cee Log (May 8, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> If you're using C Log 10 bit out to an external like the Atomos Ninja v (my setup) it looks great. One thing you can do to boost sharpness is actually raise the shapness in your profile setting which is in the same menu screen (Characteristics) used to select the 10 bit C Log output. It's default setting is at 0. It can go as high as 7. I have mine set to 4 and there is a very noticeable difference. And at 4, there is still no haloing or artifacts introduced. Give it a shot! There's actually a youtube video on this showing it compared to the Alpha and I think maybe the Fuji.



Thanks, I was already aware of that tip. Not really a fan of sharpening though, I usually turn it to zero so it's actually fine that it's there already by default.

Supersampling from 6K has other benefits though such as actual detail increase and elimination of moire issues.

But anyways, that has nothing to do with helping the crop factor or rolling shutter which are my main 2 gripes with the 4K. 

Other than that, EOS R IQ is great, especially in 10-bit. Not arguing that.

Again, if Canon managed to eliminate the crop factor, I would be much much more inclined to purchase their top RF glass but no way I'm spending $2800 on a 85mm f1.2 that performs as a 153mm F2 in video. I suspect I am not alone on this..


----------



## shutterlag (May 8, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...











RF 85mm $2700?


RF 85mm $2700? RF 85mm $2700? RF 85mm $2700? RF 85mm $2700?




www.captiongenerator.com


----------



## bhf3737 (May 8, 2019)

Cee Log said:


> You are _seriously _ mistaken: Nikon Z6/Z7, Sony A7III/A7RIII/A9 & PanasonicS1/S1R can all do FF 4K without a crop.
> Canon are the _only _ones left that still can't do full sensor 4K read out in 2019.
> That is because they are using a 4-year-old (5DIV) sensor, when everyone else is using latest gen Sony/TowerJazz sensors.


Nikon Z6/Z7, Sony A7III/A7RIII/A9 & PanasonicS1/S1R can all do FF 4K without a crop *but with line skipping, pixel binning or oversampling*.
I think it was meant that producing a good quality video (i.e. good detail, better noise handling, better moire handling, better color reproduction, less artifacts, less aliasing) from full-frame readout using the three existing methods (i.e. line skipping, pixel binning, oversampling) has not been proven to do any better than cropping except that in crop the field of view will be changed. Perhaps electing to use cropping is by choice, like any other three techniques, and not by force.

Anyway, producing good quality video in camera, among other factors, depends on resolution power of the lens, less aberration and less focus shift and according to Canon it seems that this new RF 85mm will be good for it.


----------



## PureClassA (May 8, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> Nikon Z6/Z7, Sony A7III/A7RIII/A9 & PanasonicS1/S1R can all do FF 4K without a crop *but with line skipping, pixel binning or oversampling*.



Agreed. I'd rather deal with a crop than some variation of processing. but that is what makes the a7S so unique. FF readout, pixel for pixel


----------



## Del Paso (May 8, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> It’s 1196 grams. Still heavy though.


Seems to be the trouble with all new high-quality lenses: all luminous Sigma, Zeiss and Canon short tele lenses are heavy bricks.
The only exception being Leica M lenses, but at the cost of 2 kidneys.There's no free lunch!


----------



## Del Paso (May 8, 2019)

Cwall64 said:


> yea, but the woman you take to Hawaii wont look as good or function the same in 20 years...


This is shocking!


----------



## Cee Log (May 8, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> Nikon Z6/Z7, Sony A7III/A7RIII/A9 & PanasonicS1/S1R can all do FF 4K without a crop *but with line skipping, pixel binning or oversampling*.
> I think it was meant that producing a good quality video (i.e. good detail, better noise handling, better moire handling, better color reproduction, less artifacts, less aliasing) from full-frame readout using the three existing methods (i.e. line skipping, pixel binning, oversampling) has not been proven to do any better than cropping except that in crop the field of view will be changed. Perhaps electing to use cropping is by choice, like any other three techniques, and not by force.



Oversampling is the way to go. You get even more detail than 1:1 4K. It's the 4K method Z6/A7III/S1employ.

However the severe rolling shutter in 4K seems to indicate EOS R is struggling to do even 1:1 readout.



> Anyway, producing good quality video in camera, among other factors, depends on resolution power of the lens, less aberration and less focus shift and according to Canon it seems that this new RF 85mm will be good for it.



True..perhaps Sony/Nikon/Panasonic video users should rejoice at the perspective of adapting this lens to their systems in order to fully benefit from the lenses FoV & resolving power.. Because for us Canon video shooters it is but a non-stabilized $2700 153mm F2 which is a lens nobody was asking for AFAIK!


----------



## [email protected] (May 8, 2019)

No mention of the DS version in the announcement? Thanks Stefano


----------



## Larsskv (May 8, 2019)

Hey! Some info on the DS version versus the standard RF 85 f1.2 L here: https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...RF-85mm-F12-L-USM-vs-the-RF-86mm-F12-L-USM-DS

Edit: Of most interest to me was the reported light loss from the DS version, of 1,5 stops when shooting wide open. Interesting image samples to.

And the DS version won’t be announced until 2 half of 2019...


----------



## Ozarker (May 9, 2019)

Cee Log said:


> Oversampling is the way to go. You get even more detail than 1:1 4K. It's the 4K method Z6/A7III/S1employ.
> 
> However the severe rolling shutter in 4K seems to indicate EOS R is struggling to do even 1:1 readout.
> 
> ...


I must have missed the marketing surveys. Fortunately, Canon doesn't make these cameras exclusively for the video folks, none of which (according to you), were asking for this lens. That being the case, I have no idea why video people would have any feeling one way or another about the lens.  It really was a struggle when I was younger, but I had to learn that just because I
like or don't like something it doesn't mean the whole world is marching down the same path I am. "Everybody, nobody, everyone, the whole world, all people, etc." are words I try to avoid when talking about my personal preferences, likes, and dislikes.

I'm 100% sure, though, that there will be at least one video person somewhere that is ecstatic about this lens whether he/she asked Canon to build it or not.

BTW: The lens is still f/1.2 whether cropped or not.


----------



## bergstrom (May 9, 2019)

I can't wait to get this, in 10 years!


----------



## Cee Log (May 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I must have missed the marketing surveys. Fortunately, Canon doesn't make these cameras exclusively for the video folks, none of which (according to you), were asking for this lens. That being the case, I have no idea why video people would have any feeling one way or another about the lens.  It really was a struggle when I was younger, but I had to learn that just because I don't like or don't like something it doesn't mean the whole world is marching down the same path I am. "Everybody, nobody, everyone, the whole world, all people, etc." are words I try to avoid when talking about my personal preferences, likes, and dislikes.
> 
> I'm 100% sure, though, that there will be at least one video person somewhere that is ecstatic about this lens whether he/she asked Canon to build it or not.
> 
> BTW: The lens is still f/1.2 whether cropped or not.



Ironically it is so typical of still shooters to completely disregard the needs of others (i.e "video folks").

Why does it surprise you EOS R hybrid/video shooters have an opinion on a new native lens release? Does our voice not count?

85mm is a popular prime lens focal length both in photography & cinema. 153mm isn't. simple as that.

Again I was just surprised to see this lens advertised for video in the promo, considering the severe 4K limitations.

Canon really need to step up the 4K specs in their upcoming body if they expect to sell these to more than "one video person".

Even still shooters seem shocked by the price, so imagine how hybrid/video people feel about a $2700 153m f/2.

BTW: The lens remains a f/1.2 at aperture value however the DoF becomes closer to a F/2 on a crop sensor.


----------



## slclick (May 9, 2019)

Cee Log said:


> Ironically it is so typical of still shooters to completely disregard the needs of others (i.e "video folks").
> 
> Why does it surprise you EOS R hybrid/video shooters have an opinion on a new native lens release? Does our voice not count?
> 
> ...


Your comment is completely valid however there has been so much chatter about Canon and 4k on this forum for the past few years, the stills community tires of the talk. You can understand, right? Canon has an amazing line of video gear, it's just not the dslr's. 

I'm a stills only guy myself, I just try to tune out the video talk and filter for what pertains to me. However, when the responses to personal wants vs needs not being met and how Canon is ******* because of video features on dslr's arises, I am a bit put off.


----------



## Cee Log (May 9, 2019)

slclick said:


> Your comment is completely valid however there has been so much chatter about Canon and 4k on this forum for the past few years, the stills community tires of the talk. You can understand, right? Canon has an amazing line of video gear, it's just not the dslr's.
> 
> I'm a stills only guy myself, I just try to tune out the video talk and filter for what pertains to me. However, when the responses to personal wants vs needs not being met and how Canon is ******* because of video features on dslr's arises, I am a bit put off.



I understand, but you have to realise Canon once dominated video back in the DSLR FF revolution started by the 5D2/5D3.

Many of us are still with Canon and are patiently waiting to finally get FF 4K (the only option for that in the cinema line costs $37,000).

Every other company is doing it, including Nikon who doesn't even have a video line/department so it's kinda frustrating.

Even more so when you see Canon advertising their pricy new lenses for video, which is the only reason I'm calling them out here.

I'm a EOS Cinema line owner btw. But like many, we also want to use mirrorless for B-cams on gimbals, sliders etc.

Anyways, better video specs will improve lens sales which in turn will help the EOS R system grow. 

It's a win-win even for still only shooters, so keep an open mind towards our "complaints".


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 9, 2019)

Cee Log said:


> Canon really need to step up the 4K specs in their upcoming body if they expect to sell these to more than "one video person".


Is that because you believe your opinion represents that of the majority of video and/or hybrid shooters? I supppse that could be true, but I highly doubt you can support that claim with evidence.


----------



## Ozarker (May 9, 2019)

Cee Log said:


> Ironically it is so typical of still shooters to completely disregard the needs of others (i.e "video folks").



First you say nobody asked for this lens. Disregarding the needs of stills shooters? I don't think you do. However, you can get the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS for your video needs... with zero hit to image quality when using the adapter.



Cee Log said:


> Why does it surprise you EOS R hybrid/video shooters have an opinion on a new native lens release? Does our voice not count?



Not surprised at all. Sure your voice counts. As much as anyone else's.



Cee Log said:


> 85mm is a popular prime lens focal length both in photography & cinema. 153mm isn't. simple as that.



Not true. The lens is 85mm no matter what you mount it on. Crop is in the camera, not the lens. 85mm lenses aren't popular in Cinema? Then why does Canon sell exactly that focal length for it's Super 35 Cinema camers? ($4,000) And where do you get 153mm? It is more like around 127mm.



Cee Log said:


> Again I was just surprised to see this lens advertised for video in the promo, considering the severe 4K limitations.



Again, Canon sells $4,000 85mm cinema lenses for their Super 35 cinema cameras. The lens has zero 4k limitations. You are talking about the camera again, not the lens.



Cee Log said:


> Canon really need to step up the 4K specs in their upcoming body if they expect to sell these to more than "one video person".



 Guess what? Not everybody shoots or wants to shoot in 4K



Cee Log said:


> Even still shooters seem shocked by the price, so imagine how hybrid/video people feel about a $2700 153m f/2.



The price is high. Yup. But then there's the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS for $1,000 less. How people "feel" about the new lens is a personal choice.



Cee Log said:


> BTW: The lens remains a f/1.2 at aperture value however the DoF becomes closer to a F/2 on a crop sensor.



So? Sounds like you need a Sony a7S. What the heck have you been doing up until now? In 1080p the lens is f/1.2. That is most probably the resolution most people use. You don't really own Canon, do you?


----------



## Cee Log (May 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Not true. The lens is 85mm no matter what you mount it on. Crop is in the camera, not the lens. 85mm lenses aren't popular in Cinema? Then why does Canon sell exactly that focal length for it's Super 35 Cinema camers? ($4,000) And where do you get 153mm? It is more like around 127mm.



85mm x 1.8 crop = 153mm

Please read more carefully, I said 85mm lens IS popular in cinema. 153mm IS NOT.





> Again, Canon sells $4,000 85mm cinema lenses for their Super 35 cinema cameras. The lens has zero 4k limitations. You are talking about the camera again, not the lens.



Super35 is a standard. 1.8x is not.

You can't speak about a (FF) lens without it's (1.8x) cropped video performance on the camera. It's a chicken & egg thing.



> So? Sounds like you need a Sony a7S. What the heck have you been doing up until now? In 1080p the lens is f/1.2. That is most probably the resolution most people use. You don't really own Canon, do you?



I probably own more Canon gear than you can ever dream of. Pro DSLRs, Cinema cameras, EOS R, L series glass.


----------



## jonebize (May 9, 2019)

Tangent said:


> See canonusa product page


Three sample images? The way these camera companies market is pathetic. Thanks for the link, though.


----------



## Ozarker (May 9, 2019)

Cee Log said:


> 85mm x 1.8 crop = 153mm
> 
> Please read more carefully, I said 85mm lens IS popular in cinema. 153mm IS NOT.



Read more carefully ---- 85mm is popular with Super 35 cinema shooters. Canon sells 85mm cinema lenses. Super 35 for Canon is 1.5 crop factor. 85mm x 1.5 = 127.5. You said 85mm is not popular with cinema shooters. It is. Not with R shooters? How in the world would *you* possibly know that? What you mean is that YOU don't like it. It is also popular with 1080p shooters in FF. That is the majority of users right now. Canon isn't chasing the $ from outliers.



Cee Log said:


> It's kind of sad you can't make any type of constructive criticism about Canon without being called a Sony troll.



Never called you a Sony troll. Ever. Never ever. Never even suggested, implied, or inferred it. Paranoid?



Cee Log said:


> You however are evidently a blatant fanboy as your user name proudly admits. It's therefore useless to even attempt a conversation with you.



Obviously, yes, I am a fanboy. I wear it like a badge of honor. Thank you for the compliment.  Yet you attempt conversation anyway.

Didn't you say 85mm lenses are not popular with cinema shooters? You absolutely did. So Regardless, 85mm lenses are popular... no matter the crop.


----------



## Cee Log (May 9, 2019)

CN-E 85mm T1.3 is a FF lens not an APS-C/Super35 lens.

1.8x crop is closer to M43 then to Super35.

Every other FF MILC competitor is doing 4K FF+Super35 modes.

FACTS.

It's perfectly valid to expect Canon to do FF 4K in the near future.

Here is a vid from one of the most popular youtube videographers on exactly the topics i've raised in this thread:






He shoots on a C200, 1DX II & EOS R btw...


----------



## sanj (May 9, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> Hey! Some info on the DS version versus the standard RF 85 f1.2 L here: https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...RF-85mm-F12-L-USM-vs-the-RF-86mm-F12-L-USM-DS
> 
> Edit: Of most interest to me was the reported light loss from the DS version, of 1,5 stops when shooting wide open. Interesting image samples to.
> 
> And the DS version won’t be announced until 2 half of 2019...



Thank you so much for this. For ME, the background of the normal lens looks better and the 1.5 stop light loss is a deal breaker. Thank you for pointing that out. I was very curious about this lens and the hype is over for me.


----------



## sanj (May 9, 2019)

Maybe I will change my mind after I see more examples.


----------



## Larsskv (May 9, 2019)

sanj said:


> Thank you so much for this. For ME, the background of the normal lens looks better and the 1.5 stop light loss is a deal breaker. Thank you for pointing that out. I was very curious about this lens and the hype is over for me.


I would like to see more image samples comparing bokeh, but yes, I did also prefer the normal version in those samples. 1,5 stops isn’t too bad though. It makes it effectively f2, which is my most used aperture with the EF 85 f 1.2L.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (May 9, 2019)

Foxeslink said:


> No, I have the R and the Rf50 and that lens is perfect for the price. This new lens should be the same value. No way to put more 300$ on there.




Exactly. Wish it was less money, but after owning the RF 50mm 1.2, hard to say they are not worth the money. I owned a Milvus 85mm and the new RF 50 renders as lovely, but with AF and the extra control. I feel that Canon may become the "Zeiss" of the near future.


----------



## bhf3737 (May 9, 2019)

Cee Log said:


> Oversampling is the way to go. You get even more detail than 1:1 4K. It's the 4K method Z6/A7III/S1employ.


I know this thread is not about 4K video processing and we are off topic, so my apology. 
"Oversampling is the way to go" is not necessarily the way to go, I think. In signal processing theory, oversampling (i.e. getting more samples from a signal, as in Nyquest theorem) introduces unwanted artifacts and aliasing and these two need to be filtered with a Low Pass filter, which is also known as AA filter. So you may end up with better noise control, at the expense of slightly more blurred picture. Doing so needs more processing power manifested by reduced battery life and more heat generated. 
So an engineering decision for camera manufacturers is reaching a compromise between the sample size, crop factor, sensor read-out speed, processing power and heat management. Some manufacturers prefer to go for oversampling as you mentioned, the others may go for pixel binning (Z7?), line skipping (A7Riii) and cropping (EOS-R) or a combination of them. So far, no camera manufacturer has come up with a technology which is a clear winner here.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 9, 2019)

"Many of us are still with Canon and are *patiently waiting* to finally get FF 4K (the only option for that in the cinema line costs $37,000)."

Oh I get it - it's like the patience of a child before Christmas.  I think that's called impatience. 

Jack


----------



## Larsskv (May 9, 2019)

The new RF 85 f1.2 L seems to fulfill the lust for sharpness that even the most demanding of us craves for. Personally I feel torn, as GAS drives me to get the best RF-lenses, but on the other hand, for portrait purposes especially, I find that sharpness is overrated. I think the EF 85 LII is sharp enough, even at f1.2, if the shot is perfectly in focus and not affected by chromatic aberration. Since I’m an idiot with GAS and too much money to spend, I guess GAS will win, and I will get it sooner or later anyway.


----------



## Foxdude (May 9, 2019)

Cwall64 said:


> yea, but the woman you take to Hawaii wont look as good or function the same in 20 years...



So true. Plus, you pay the lens once, but the woman is taking your money that 20 years..So the lens is actually cheap.


----------



## Viggo (May 9, 2019)

I have never wanted a lens more, well, since I bought the RF50..


----------



## Cee Log (May 9, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> I know this thread is not about 4K video processing and we are off topic, so my apology.
> "Oversampling is the way to go" is not necessarily the way to go, I think. In signal processing theory, oversampling (i.e. getting more samples from a signal, as in Nyquest theorem) introduces unwanted artifacts and aliasing and these two need to be filtered with a Low Pass filter, which is also known as AA filter. So you may end up with better noise control, at the expense of slightly more blurred picture. Doing so needs more processing power manifested by reduced battery life and more heat generated.
> So an engineering decision for camera manufacturers is reaching a compromise between the sample size, crop factor, sensor read-out speed, processing power and heat management. Some manufacturers prefer to go for oversampling as you mentioned, the others may go for pixel binning (Z7?), line skipping (A7Riii) and cropping (EOS-R) or a combination of them. So far, no camera manufacturer has come up with a technology which is a clear winner here.



I just think Canon went for the lazy route. Sony did battle heat management & battery life but now have it under control on their third gen cameras. Nikon/Panasonic got it right on their first attempt. The AA filter isn't anymore an issue by oversampling since Canon uses them anyways in 5DIV, EOS R/RP etc. There is just no valid reason why we should deal with a 1.8x crop in 2019. At least give us a pixel binned option. Canon goes that direction for 1080p since 5D2.. but for 4K it's 1:1 crop or nothing since 1DC came out in 2013. It made sense back then as that camera only had 18MP resulting in an acceptable 1.3x crop. Same with 1DX2. But for 5D4/EOS R the crop becomes insane, hence the backlash from the video community.

Sorry for the OT. I rest my case!


----------



## Hector1970 (May 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I fail to see the required relationship between body and lens prices. Of course the price isn't near the RP body price. But what does that have to do with it?
> 
> BTW: Both the R and RP are high end for the vast majority of people... no matter the lens.


I'm surprised you fail to see the relationship. For alot of people an R or RP is a financial stretch, the max they would pay for a camera. They are unlikely to buy the 85MM. If you can afford to pay for a 1DR paying for this lens is on'y a little additional extra.


----------



## slclick (May 9, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> I'm surprised you fail to see the relationship. For alot of people an R or RP is a financial stretch, the max they would pay for a camera. They are unlikely to buy the 85MM. If you can afford to pay for a 1DR paying for this lens is on'y a little additional extra.


Canon big whites end all discussion of pricing relationship with bodies. There's nothing to discuss, if you want a look, a perspective, a certain focal length... you pay for that glass. It has no bearing on the body you connect it to. Saying otherwise is grasping at straws and the only thin and slightly possible bearing is the fact there are only two price points for R bodies at this time. That conclusion will be left in the illogical dust once more R bodies are announced.


----------



## sanj (May 9, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Is that because you believe your opinion represents that of the majority of video and/or hybrid shooters? I supppse that could be true, but I highly doubt you can support that claim with evidence.


He has at least one more person. Me. And Canon will up their game in the pro model. No stress.


----------



## lawny13 (May 9, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks Canon, but personally I’d go with my 85/1.4 L IS on an adapter.



And you should. F1.2 fully weather sealed lenses were never small, light, or cheap. 

A f1.4 or f1.8 would be considerably cheaper, and the later might even have IS.


----------



## Joules (May 9, 2019)

Cee Log said:


> At least give us a pixel binned option. Canon goes that direction for 1080p since 5D2.. but for 4K it's 1:1 crop or nothing since 1DC came out in 2013.


Are you sure Canon is using binning in any of their cameras for video?

For the 5D2 and 5D3 I'm almost certain they didn't. It's just line skipping, based on what I remember from the time I followed the magic lantern forum closely.


----------



## jonebize (May 9, 2019)

The reason everyone is complaining is because Canon does a poor job actually demonstrating the advantages of such a large, expensive lens. Look at the product description on Amazon. It's a list of the different types of lens elements and coatings. They think anyone has a clue what any of that is? Do they think anyone really understands the optical advantages of the new lens mount? They have to state (and show) the actual, experiential advantages that matter to the *end user*. So stupid. You shouldn't have to buy a $2,700 lens in order to actually see the advantages over the preceding model. Maybe this is why the camera industry isn't doing well.


----------



## stevelee (May 9, 2019)

Cee Log said:


> Nikon Z6/Z7, Sony A7III/A7RIII/A9 & PanasonicS1/S1R can all do FF 4K without a crop.



So anamorphic to get the aspect ratio?


----------



## Ozarker (May 9, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> I'm surprised you fail to see the relationship. For alot of people an R or RP is a financial stretch, the max they would pay for a camera. They are unlikely to buy the 85MM. If you can afford to pay for a 1DR paying for this lens is on'y a little additional extra.


Because your implication that the lens is presented primarily (context of your statement) for the RP is flawed. The lenses and bodies are distinct and separate tools. I find it silly to criticize it for being out of line with the RP price when there is the R and further body and lens models to come. Don't you think Canon will later release non-L lenses? Then there is also the EF + adapter route. Canon is still giving the adapter away with purchase last I checked.

So lets look at the logic: The 1DX II is going for about $5400 right now. An EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III is $11,999. Is that just a little extra? Hmmmm....

For me a 1DX II is a financial stretch. If I bought a 1DX II I would be unlikely to buy the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III. Fortunately Canon also offers the EF 400mm f/5.6L. Then, what about those using a massive 400mm, 500mm, 600mm, or even 800mm on a 7D Mark II?

Lens price has zero to do with body price. Two different tools. The price of this new 85mm lens has zero to do with the price of ANY body. However, if I were to buy the RP (highly likely) I would also buy this lens because it fits my use case.

***Not knocking you personally. I just do not see what the price of the RP has to do with it.


----------



## LukasS (May 9, 2019)

Pricing is alright IMO, considering shrinking market, quality and longevity of the lens. It will last many bodies over and it's being built with the future in mind. 

I'm considering moving to mirrorles Canon only due to 28-70 F2, my 24-70 2.8 is mostly used lens in my set and even having very cheap Canon RP with 28-70/2 is perfect for my use. I'm still waiting for pro mirrorles body, but in the meantime I will spend by the end of the year some cash on this set. 

85/1.2 would be nice addition as well, as I love to shoot portraits and do them a lot.


----------



## sdsr (May 10, 2019)

Viggo said:


> The price is very high no doubt.
> 
> But I have to admit, I think the the RF50 is worth it. And I didn’t like the 85 IS. So, I think it’s dumb we have to pay such a high price to get perfection, but I think it will be...



Yes, it probably is worth it, given what it is. But the price is so high not just because of "perfection" (I assume you're referring to wide-open sharpness, absence of aberrations etc.) but perfection in a 1.2 lens. It's not clear to me why the two have to go together, though. I think Nikon were smart to make the first primes for their Z cameras f/1.8 and save the faster ones for later. On Nikon forums there's endless complaint that the 50mm 1.8 is overpriced at c. $600. They miss the point because it too approaches optical perfection (again, in terms of sharpness and lack of aberrations wide open) but, because it's only 1.8, it's vastly cheaper (and much smaller and lighter) than the Canon 50 1.2; it's not just another nifty fifty. (Even so, I'm surprised Nikon dodn't charge more for it.) But at least these Canon 1.2 primes make the Sony FE 135 1.8 I just bought seem a relative bargain at only $1900 (relatively small, too)....


----------



## RayValdez360 (May 10, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> I know this thread is not about 4K video processing and we are off topic, so my apology.
> "Oversampling is the way to go" is not necessarily the way to go, I think. In signal processing theory, oversampling (i.e. getting more samples from a signal, as in Nyquest theorem) introduces unwanted artifacts and aliasing and these two need to be filtered with a Low Pass filter, which is also known as AA filter. So you may end up with better noise control, at the expense of slightly more blurred picture. Doing so needs more processing power manifested by reduced battery life and more heat generated.
> So an engineering decision for camera manufacturers is reaching a compromise between the sample size, crop factor, sensor read-out speed, processing power and heat management. Some manufacturers prefer to go for oversampling as you mentioned, the others may go for pixel binning (Z7?), line skipping (A7Riii) and cropping (EOS-R) or a combination of them. So far, no camera manufacturer has come up with a technology which is a clear winner here.


c100 is oversampled and it is still like the best 1080p camera out. the sensor is old as hell but it is sharper and has less noise than the 5d iv.


----------



## Larsskv (May 10, 2019)

The computer generated mtfs Canon has released of the RF 85 f1.2 L compares favorably against Lensrentals mtf measurements of the Otus 85 and Sigma 85. 

And that is at f1.2 compared to f1.4! 

The best lens Lensrentals has measured wide open from an mtf standpoint is the new Sony FE 135 f1.8. The Canon RF 85 f1.2 seems comparable to the Sony. 

But that is f1.2 vs f1.8!


----------



## AlanF (May 10, 2019)

Cwall64 said:


> yea, but the woman you take to Hawaii wont look as good or function the same in 20 years...


Neither will you.


----------



## Sharlin (May 10, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Neither will you.



The lens won't complain though.


----------



## Sharlin (May 10, 2019)

Joules said:


> For the 5D2 and 5D3 I'm almost certain they didn't. It's just line skipping, based on what I remember from the time I followed the magic lantern forum closely.



Binning horizontally, skipping vertically. That's how I've understood it anyway.


----------



## AlanF (May 10, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> The lens won't complain though.


The RF 85mm f/1.2 is so sharp it will show every blemish, line, wrinkle and grey hair. You will complain.


----------



## navastronia (May 10, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> The computer generated mtfs Canon has released of the RF 85 f1.2 L compares favorably against Lensrentals mtf measurements of the Otus 85 and Sigma 85.
> 
> And that is at f1.2 compared to f1.4!
> 
> ...



The manufacturer MTFs from pre-release hardware are much less trustworthy than results measured by 3rd parties from off-the-shelf glass, of course, but the findings are still exciting in principle.


----------



## Larsskv (May 10, 2019)

navastronia said:


> The manufacturer MTFs from pre-release hardware are much less trustworthy than results measured by 3rd parties from off-the-shelf glass, of course, but the findings are still exciting in principle.



I agree, but just now, I compared Canons published mtf charts of the 35LII with Lensrentals measurements, and I found them to be almost indistinguishable. Easy to compare if you google “mtf canon 35 L II “and display/search for images.


----------



## unfocused (May 11, 2019)

$300 off at CPW street price.


----------



## bf (May 11, 2019)

It's great for those who afford it!


----------



## gmon750 (May 11, 2019)

Foxeslink said:


> sorry for this first comment but the price of that lens is actually ridiculous...



This lens isn’t for you. Step aside for those that feel this lens is a worthy addition.

I for one will consider it when a pro R body is introduced.


----------



## Foxeslink (May 12, 2019)

gmon750 said:


> This lens isn’t for you. Step aside for those that feel this lens is a worthy addition.
> 
> I for one will consider it when a pro R body is introduced.



Who are you to tell me if this lens is not for me? lol
I want this lens, just not for this price. Cause as you should know, this lens in Europe costs 3250€. It's almost two Eos R Body.


----------



## koenkooi (May 12, 2019)

Foxeslink said:


> Who are you to tell me if this lens is not for me? lol
> I want this lens, just not for this price. Cause as you should know, this lens in Europe costs 3250€. It's almost two Eos R Body.



It's €3049 in most stores in .nl: https://www.cameranu.nl/nl/p2949615/canon-rf-85mm-f-1-2l-usm-ds-objectief . That includes all taxes.


----------



## Foxeslink (May 12, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> It's €3049 in most stores in .nl: https://www.cameranu.nl/nl/p2949615/canon-rf-85mm-f-1-2l-usm-ds-objectief . That includes all taxes.



In my country the inflation is higher, so it costs more.


----------



## uri.raz (May 13, 2019)

Canon1966 said:


> The lens is bigger than the camera. That's why it's almost $3K. I realize that newer technology costs, but that's too expensive.



I guess the price is high because Canon doesn't expect the lens to sell well. All camera equipment sales are plunging, and high end primes are probably doing the worst.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (May 13, 2019)

Who exactly is Canon making these lenses for? I've splurged on a lot of high end cameras and lenses in the past, but even I can't stomach this much for a prime lens.

I understand that these are "professional" lenses, but most of my photographer friends are definitely not in a place where they could drop this money on a lens.

I've been wanting an RF 50 1.2 for a while as well, but you still can't touch those for much under $2000, even used. One of the few used RF 50mms that I've seen come up for sale had sample photos the owner took that consisted of a glass of wine and a middle-aged woman standing next to a horse.

So, are these lenses basically just for extremely wealthy people who have too much money, or maybe a small sliver of upper-echelon professional photographers who make tons of money from their photography?

Seriously, who is the target market for these lenses? A normal person would not have a need for this, and it doesn't seem like spending this much on a lens would make good business sense for most professionals.


----------



## Viggo (May 14, 2019)

Yeah, it went up a bit in price here also now, 3605 USD... maybe a used one in 5 years for me then


----------



## YuengLinger (May 14, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Yeah, it went up a bit in price here also now, 3605 USD... maybe a used one in 5 years for me then


Ha! Just keep telling yourself this.


----------



## danfaz (May 14, 2019)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Who exactly is Canon making these lenses for? I've splurged on a lot of high end cameras and lenses in the past, but even I can't stomach this much for a prime lens.
> 
> I understand that these are "professional" lenses, but most of my photographer friends are definitely not in a place where they could drop this money on a lens.
> 
> ...



I refer you to this excellent post earlier in the thread. Who did they make the EF 85 1.2 II for back in 2006, considering it was the same relative cost then?



andrei1989 said:


> the 85 1.2 version 2 was launched at 2199$ in 2006 which, adjusted for inflation, means 2797$
> just saying..


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (May 15, 2019)

Must be why you see so many people with EF 85mm 1.2 II lenses then... Oh wait.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 15, 2019)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Must be why you see so many people with EF 85mm 1.2 II lenses then... Oh wait.


I’ve seen many professional portrait and wedding photographers with an 85/1.2. Had one myself, swapped it for the f/1.4 IS version (although cost was not a factor in that decision).


----------



## scyrene (May 16, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> Hey! Some info on the DS version versus the standard RF 85 f1.2 L here: https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...RF-85mm-F12-L-USM-vs-the-RF-86mm-F12-L-USM-DS
> 
> Edit: Of most interest to me was the reported light loss from the DS version, of 1,5 stops when shooting wide open. Interesting image samples to.
> 
> And the DS version won’t be announced until 2 half of 2019...



That was really ueful, thanks fo sharing! The DS effect looks lush. Given how much light f/1.2 lets in, I wouldn't be too bothered about the loss of transmission, but others may disagree.


----------



## scyrene (May 16, 2019)

Foxdude said:


> So true. Plus, you pay the lens once, but the woman is taking your money that 20 years..So the lens is actually cheap.



Okay can we lay off the casual misogyny? It's gross.


----------



## Larsskv (May 16, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Yeah, it went up a bit in price here also now, 3605 USD... maybe a used one in 5 years for me then


I noticed a price increase in some online retailers, and my weak character made me hurry to place an order at a store that hadn’t yet increased the price.  I would have bought it sooner or later anyway, so why wait...?


----------



## Cwall64 (May 16, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’ve seen many professional portrait and wedding photographers with an 85/1.2. Had one myself, swapped it for the f/1.4 IS version (although cost was not a factor in that decision).



I love the EF 50 1.2 and the EF 85 1.2 II, when i bought the R i bought the RF 50 1.2, and now i have pre-ordered the 85. I do not understand what all the complaining is about - if it will not pay for itself over the time you want to depreciate it for the business, don't buy it. at that point it seems like a perfect candidate to rent when needed... And Canon will come out with the f/1.8 or 1.4 over time.

I would love to own a BIG white 300, 400,etc EF, but i only use a couple of times a year so easier to rent than buy... But i do not see all the complaining of cost on them.


----------



## Ozarker (May 17, 2019)

Cwall64 said:


> I love the EF 50 1.2 and the EF 85 1.2 II, when i bought the R i bought the RF 50 1.2, and now i have pre-ordered the 85. I do not understand what all the complaining is about - if it will not pay for itself over the time you want to depreciate it for the business, don't buy it. at that point it seems like a perfect candidate to rent when needed... And Canon will come out with the f/1.8 or 1.4 over time.
> 
> I would love to own a BIG white 300, 400,etc EF, but i only use a couple of times a year so easier to rent than buy... But i do not see all the complaining of cost on them.


They complain for the same reason potential clients might complain about the cost of a shoot. Silly thinking. There are lots of things in life people want, but don't want to pay for... then act persecuted on forums.


----------



## David the street guy (May 18, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> They complain for the same reason potential clients might complain about the cost of a shoot. Silly thinking. There are lots of things in life people want, but don't want to pay for... then act persecuted on forums.



It seems reasonable (and even sometimes useful) to complain about the cost of things we need to pay for (electricity, food, public transit, etc.), but not so much for things we want but easily can do without, like a photoshoot or an amazing new lens…

It would be totally irresponsible *for me* to buy the RF 85 f/1.2, but I hope many people will do, and I can't wait to go to my local store to try it!


----------



## koenkooi (May 28, 2019)

Canon released an interview and 2 showcases by ambassadors last week: Interview with developers

Fluff pieces, but it does show more sample images and photos of the lens itself next to other RF lenses.


----------



## Mort (May 31, 2019)

Tom W said:


> No, not throwaway, but not high-end either. I think they're right where the 5D4 and 6D2 are in terms of position in the lineup, though I think the R might be a little below the 5D4 in a couple of ways. I like the ruggedness of the Mk IV and it is just a great all-around performer to me.
> 
> I have the RP also, and I really like it. It's what I chose to get a taste of the full frame mirrorless, given that I have a number of Canon lenses on hand.


 
How do you like the RP? I played with it in store and came away with the thought that if my 6D died tomorrow, I'd probably snag one of those as cheaply as I could as a holdover camera. Loved how small, yet comfortable it was, especially with the RF 35 on it.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 15, 2019)

I saw a review of the 85 RF where they stated pretty much what we all expected, but they were quite disappointed with corner and edg performance regarding sharpness. Anyone seen this in other reviews, are there other reviews yet?


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 15, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I saw a review of the 85 RF where they stated pretty much what we all expected, but they were quite disappointed with corner and edg performance regarding sharpness. Anyone seen this in other reviews, are there other reviews yet?



I've only seen a single indenpendent review so far, this one. All the others I can find were Canon sponsored where the harshest criticism was "maybe a bit large". Do you have links for the review(s) you encountered?


----------



## stevelee (Jun 15, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I saw a review of the 85 RF where they stated pretty much what we all expected, but they were quite disappointed with corner and edg performance regarding sharpness. Anyone seen this in other reviews, are there other reviews yet?


A lot of folks consider fuzziness around the edges of an 85mm lens to be a feature, not a bug. I would think those who want an f/1.2 to include a lot of them.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 15, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> I've only seen a single indenpendent review so far, this one. All the others I can find were Canon sponsored where the harshest criticism was "maybe a bit large". Do you have links for the review(s) you encountered?


I believe it was this one:









Canon RF 85mm F1.2L USM review


Is this the lens that could make Canon portrait photographers switch to the mirrorless RF format?




www.digitalcameraworld.com


----------



## Viggo (Jun 15, 2019)

stevelee said:


> A lot of folks consider fuzziness around the edges of an 85mm lens to be a feature, not a bug. I would think those who want an f/1.2 to include a lot of them.


I have the RF50 and it’s not soft at the edges, and that doesn’t take away for any background or smoothness. So I don’t think it NEEDS to have fuzzy edges to have nice background.


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 15, 2019)

RF 1,2/85: next DXO victim.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 17, 2019)

Some more test pictures: pictureline.com. A huge difference in CA in the FoCal shots.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 17, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I have the RF50 and it’s not soft at the edges, and that doesn’t take away for any background or smoothness. So I don’t think it NEEDS to have fuzzy edges to have nice background.


My point was more that if you are going to have the background out of focus anyway, corner sharpness is not a big concern.

And I was partly speaking out of my own experience of going to full frame. I used the 50mm f/1.4 with my Rebel for my portrait lens. I already had the 100mm f/2.8 macro, so it was my portrait lens when I first got the 6D2. The results can look a little too, I don't know, "clinical" maybe. So when the refurbed 85mm f/1.8 was on sale, I bought it, even though I don't take a lot of portraits. It was cheap enough to get to have on hand. I've made some nice photos with it, though not a real head-and-shoulders portrait yet.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 17, 2019)

stevelee said:


> My point was more that if you are going to have the background out of focus anyway, corner sharpness is not a big concern.
> 
> And I was partly speaking out of my own experience of going to full frame. I used the 50mm f/1.4 with my Rebel for my portrait lens. I already had the 100mm f/2.8 macro, so it was my portrait lens when I first got the 6D2. The results can look a little too, I don't know, "clinical" maybe. So when the refurbed 85mm f/1.8 was on sale, I bought it, even though I don't take a lot of portraits. It was cheap enough to get to have on hand. I've made some nice photos with it, though not a real head-and-shoulders portrait yet.


Corner sharpness is a big issue as soon as I compose another way than dead center, so pretty much always.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 17, 2019)

stevelee said:


> My point was more that if you are going to have the background out of focus anyway, corner sharpness is not a big concern.
> 
> And I was partly speaking out of my own experience of going to full frame. I used the 50mm f/1.4 with my Rebel for my portrait lens. I already had the 100mm f/2.8 macro, so it was my portrait lens when I first got the 6D2. The results can look a little too, I don't know, "clinical" maybe. So when the refurbed 85mm f/1.8 was on sale, I bought it, even though I don't take a lot of portraits. It was cheap enough to get to have on hand. I've made some nice photos with it, though not a real head-and-shoulders portrait yet.



The 85mm f/1.8 can be the poster child for DLO. With the data loaded into the camera DPP4 does a much better job than LR for pulling out details and fixing other lens issues. For me the frustration with the DPP UI, the 30 seconds per picture and size increase from ~25MiB CR3 to ~130MiB tiffs is worth it when using the the 85mm wider than f/2.8.
I wish Canon would allow storing more EF lens profiles in the camera, if you don't have the profile you need to do more manual labour in DPP  I'm very happy that on RF the lens itself has the DLO data, so no more futzing around with EOS utility.


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 17, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Corner sharpness is a big issue as soon as I compose another way than dead center, so pretty much always.


If we are lucky the lack of edge sharpness is a result of field curvature/not having a flat focus plane. If so, when focusing at the edge, you will hit the actual focus plane and get a much sharper result than the test figures suggests.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 17, 2019)

I’m generally mystified by discussions of how to get autofocus to choose left eye vs. right, and the like. If I am using DOF that shallow, I am likely to use manual focus unless maybe a first shot fortuitously got what I was trying for. 

If I want greater DOF, I stop down, and other optical issues abate anyway.

I don’t begrudge others’ having different styles and priorities. But I don’t always understand what they are trying for well enough to relate to what they say.

I realized when I ordered the 85mm f/1.8 that buying it could turn out to be mostly a waste of money for me. But it wasn’t a lot of money. Eventually I will use it enough to learn its peculiarities well enough to know when to use it vs. the 100mm vs. the 24-105 zoom.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 18, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I saw a review of the 85 RF where they stated pretty much what we all expected, but they were quite disappointed with corner and edg performance regarding sharpness. Anyone seen this in other reviews, are there other reviews yet?


For portrait guys (well, for me) corner sharpness isn't a big deal, especially wide open and especially if I crop. Looking straight ahead, my peripheral vision isn't sharp. I'm hoping the same is true for everyone.  Seems more natural to me. The architecture and landscape folks will be interested in this lack of corner sharpness, I guess, but they'll be stopping down anyway. Or I think they would. I guess my big photography sin is never checking out the corners or pixel peeping or reading MTF charts. For all I know, all my lenses are crap. 

If I had the money I would be all over the RP and 85RF, 50RF, 28-70RF... corner sharpness or not.

Some people would say the RF "L" lenses wouldn't be appropriate for the RP. To that, I just chuckle.


----------



## BillB (Jun 18, 2019)

stevelee said:


> I’m generally mystified by discussions of how to get autofocus to choose left eye vs. right, and the like. If I am using DOF that shallow, I am likely to use manual focus unless maybe a first shot fortuitously got what I was trying for.
> 
> If I want greater DOF, I stop down, and other optical issues abate anyway.
> 
> ...


I like to pair the 85f1.8 up with the 16-35f4 to add some length to all that wide angle. flexibility without adding a lot of weight. I also like the combination of the 85mm and the 40mm, but the combination isn't really that much lighter than the 24-105.


----------



## BillB (Jun 18, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> For portrait guys (well, for me) corner sharpness isn't a big deal, especially wide open and especially if I crop. Looking straight ahead, my peripheral vision isn't sharp. I'm hoping the same is true for everyone.  Seems more natural to me. The architecture and landscape folks will be interested in this lack of corner sharpness, I guess, but they'll be stopping down anyway. Or I think they would. I guess my big photography sin is never checking out the corners or pixel peeping or reading MTF charts. For all I know, all my lenses are crap.
> 
> If I had the money I would be all over the RP and 85RF, 50RF, 28-70RF... corner sharpness or not.
> 
> Some people would say the RF "L" lenses wouldn't be appropriate for the RP. To that, I just chuckle.


If you are shooting an 85mm f1.2 lens wide open, how often are you going to have the corners inside the depth of field anyway?


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 18, 2019)

BillB said:


> If you are shooting an 85mm f1.2 lens wide open, how often are you going to have the corners inside the depth of field anyway?


Exactly.


----------



## dcm (Jun 18, 2019)

BillB said:


> If you are shooting an 85mm f1.2 lens wide open, how often are you going to have the corners inside the depth of field anyway?



Probably only on a test chart or brick wall.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 18, 2019)

dcm said:


> Probably only on a test chart or brick wall.


Or when you use one of the other 5665 focusing points than the one in the dead center, but, 90% of shooters use the middle one, so I guess then the issue is much less than for me.


----------



## Mark Webb Photography (Jun 19, 2019)

Found this review from Kamera Express on youtube today, looks like an excellent lens:


----------



## Viggo (Jun 19, 2019)

Mark Webb Photography said:


> Found this review from Kamera Express on youtube today, looks like an excellent lens:


Thanks for sharing !

Which focusing. mode is she using when the guy dances at ca 5:14? It seems like a small box that’s horizontal?


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 19, 2019)

Mark Webb Photography said:


> Found this review from Kamera Express on youtube today, looks like an excellent lens:



Oooh, that was shot where I live, I wish I had advance warning to be able to sneak a peek


----------



## BJonesy22 (Jun 19, 2019)

Anyone hear about it being delayed?


----------

