# Canon explains the defocus smoothing in the new Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS lens



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 24, 2019)

> Defocus smoothing is a new coating from Canon that will improve the look of out of focus areas/bokeh in your images.
> Canon USA explains the technology behind this new feature in the video above.
> Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM $2699 | Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS $2999



Continue reading...


----------



## vjlex (Oct 24, 2019)

Too bad these aren't filters you can screw on and off. I personally prefer the non-DS bokeh, but it would be nice to have the option to smooth them out from time to time.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 24, 2019)

shunsai said:


> Too bad these aren't filters you can screw on and off. I personally prefer the non-DS bokeh, but it would be nice to have the option to smooth them out from time to time.


Technically they are, they just cost $3k.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 24, 2019)

A little off topic, but with a projected cost of $2,699 for the RF 70-200 f/2.8L I'd imagine the rumored RF 70-135mm f/2L to be upwards of $3,500+. OUCH! It'll be a bitter pill, but I'll just have to swallow it.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 24, 2019)

shunsai said:


> ... I personally prefer the non-DS bokeh...


It is quite funny that my wife - non photog - prefers the non-DS bokeh, too. 
Showed the comparison to a photog friend of mine (Nikon) and he was in love with the DS bokeh.

I am so-so. I'm used to the "classical" bokeh and I suppose that's why I like it, too. 
But I also see the DS bokeh as really good, esp. if in-fokus sharpness stays close to the non-DS lens. 

But as the prices of both are far from what I'd be willing to pay for such a lens, I can stay relaxed


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 24, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> ... the rumored RF 70-135mm f/2L to be upwards of $3,500+. OUCH! ...


I'd say north of 4k - if it ever becomes real.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 24, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> I'd say north of 4k - if it ever becomes real.


True, but I didn’t want to get too depressed. Thanks a lot.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 25, 2019)

This is definitely a "rent before you buy" kind of lens. Losing all the light gathering advantage of an f/1.2 lens for a smoother background might be worth it...if the rendering is truly unique. We all buy lenses for the aesthetic they provide, so I will be renting this to see how it works. Might add something special for the RF mount, but I don't believe this could actually be a practical replacement for my needs of an 85mm prime. But maybe a standalone portrait lens with controlled light?


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 25, 2019)

LSXPhotog said:


> ...Losing all the light gathering advantage of an f/1.2 lens for a smoother background might be worth it...
> ...But maybe a standalone portrait lens with controlled light?


I've read about the lower transmission here in the forum. But I didn't see the source for this.
Is this lower transmission compared to the non-DS or how does that perform?

If so, then your last statement seems to be fully correct.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 25, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> I've read about the lower transmission here in the forum. But I didn't see the source for this.
> Is this lower transmission compared to the non-DS or how does that perform?
> 
> If so, then your last statement seems to be fully correct.


Yeah, the 1.5 stops difference and a deeper DoF statement is on Canon website. So valid.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 25, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Yeah, the 1.5 stops difference and a deeper DoF statement is on Canon website. So valid.


WOW! 

Thanks for clearing that up.

So that and the price gap would lead me directly to the non-DS version - if I was in the market for a 85/1.2.
But I'd be more in a market for a non-L, non-DS 85/1.8. 

And as long as Canon does not start to build more consumer/amateur focused RF lenses I'll stay happy with all my EFs


----------



## Viggo (Oct 25, 2019)

I want to see more examples of what the background looks like when there aren’t any bokeh balls. I saw one or two samples with an evenly blurred background and suddenly “huh, hm, that’s interesting”. It looked REALLY good compared to the examples where they just show the effect with round lights.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 25, 2019)

Looks like a GREAT opportunity for a 3rd party filter-set that would be, say, 80% as nice for about $100.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 25, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Looks like a GREAT opportunity for a 3rd party filter-set that would be, say, 80% as nice for about $100.



Filters that apply to not one, but two internal lens elements?


----------



## Kit. (Oct 25, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Filters that apply to not one, but two internal lens elements?


Maybe Photoshop filters?


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 25, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Filters that apply to not one, but two internal lens elements?


In a way. Front element and rear. Two filters.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 25, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> In a way. Front element and rear. Two filters.



The way I understood it is that apodization filters need to be really close of the aperture, so a front or back filter won't do much.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 25, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> The way I understood it is that apodization filters need to be really close of the aperture, so a front or back filter won't do much.


Like I said, it could be worthwhile if it were about 80% appealing as the real thing. Especially for those who already own the normal 1.2.

Personally normal looks just spectacular.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Oct 25, 2019)

The shown examples are much nicer than anticipated. Although I'd be satisfied with photos from both versions. I think the size of final print would matter quite a bit. Around 16 inches and bigger, the DF files should become more apparent.


----------



## RunAndGun (Oct 25, 2019)

In a way, sounds similar to what is going on in the motion/“Cine” world right now, with a lot of lens manufacturers releasing “soft” versions of their lenses, where they’re essentially messing with(even removing) the lens coatings, but they’re going for the whole image, not just the bokeh. Sigma’s ‘Classic’ Cine Primes just announced in the last several months are the same f-stop as their existing high-speed Cine Primes(most* are f/1.4 / T1.5) but because of the coating manipulation/differences, they are slower in actual light transmission, going from T1.5 to T2.5.

*14mm & 135 are slower at f/1.8 / T2 in standard high-speed version and go to f/1.8 / T3.2 in the soft versions.

20, 24, 28, 35, 40, 50, 85, 105 are all f/1.4 / T1.5 in standard versions


----------



## Kit. (Oct 25, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> In a way. Front element and rear. Two filters.


Those both mostly contribute to vignetting.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 25, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Those both mostly contribute to vignetting.


People have been using CP filters and others in both positions for decades without unacceptable compromise. I'm not speaking about a perfect match, but a workable alternative that allows the option of defaulting to the normal background of the rf 85mm 1.2L.

I predict we will see some third-party products looking to imitate the defocus smoothing. I'm not guessing how good they will be!


----------



## Kit. (Oct 25, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> People have been using CP filters and others in both positions for decades without unacceptable compromise.


As far as I know, people haven't been using _radial gradient_ filters yet, but even if they had, radial gradient is not defocus control.


----------



## lawny13 (Oct 27, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> A little off topic, but with a projected cost of $2,699 for the RF 70-200 f/2.8L I'd imagine the rumored RF 70-135mm f/2L to be upwards of $3,500+. OUCH! It'll be a bitter pill, but I'll just have to swallow it.



Eh... I kinda disagree. 

We only have 1 example to compare it to, and that is the 28-70 f2 vs the 24-70 f2.8 IS. The difference in price between those two is surprisingly small. So if you apply the same logic that is what I think we should expect for the 70-135. It would be a different story of it was 70-200 f2. So you lose a bit of range and you gain some speed. 

The 28-70 is 500 more than the 24-70. So I would say that the 70-135 would be 1k or less compared to the 70-200.Also take into account sales and price drops over the course of the first year...


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 27, 2019)

lawny13 said:


> Eh... I kinda disagree.
> 
> We only have 1 example to compare it to, and that is the 28-70 f2 vs the 24-70 f2.8 IS. The difference in price between those two is surprisingly small. So if you apply the same logic that is what I think we should expect for the 70-135. It would be a different story of it was 70-200 f2. So you lose a bit of range and you gain some speed.
> 
> The 28-70 is 500 more than the 24-70. So I would say that the 70-135 would be 1k or less compared to the 70-200.Also take into account sales and price drops over the course of the first year...


I think the logic applies in the opposite direction:

1. f/2 vs f/2.8 is more expensive. It also is twice as fast as f/2.8. In other words, the difference between having to shoot at ISO 1600 @ f/2.8 vs ISO 600 at f/2. I don't think a $700 price difference ([email protected] $2,999 vs 24-70 @ $2,299 USD) is small. At least not in my world.

2. An RF 70-135mm f/2L is a portrait lens that would be a dream for me. Maybe others. I cannot envision any scenario where this lens would be less money than a 70-200 f/2.8L. It would be great if true, but I highly doubt it. I wouldn't complain. 

3. The 28-70 loses range and gains speed also. Higher price and a completely different character than a 24-70. I absolutely loved my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II, but the 28-70 outclasses it in every way in my opinion. Especially in bokeh and speed. My 24-70 was razor sharp.

4. I also loved my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, however the bokeh was always a little too busy with too many hard edges. f/2 would fix a lot of that going by what the bokeh of my former 135mm f/2 looked like. So all these things make the lens more desirable to me. So I think the price will be upwards of $3,500.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 28, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> 1. f/2 vs f/2.8 is more expensive. It also is twice as fast as f/2.8. In other words, the difference between having to shoot at ISO 1600 @ f/2.8 vs ISO 600 at f/2. I don't think a $700 price difference ([email protected] $2,999 vs 24-70 @ $2,299 USD) is small. At least not in my world.



I'm guessing you meant ISO 800 not 600.

But really, your point is made. It's a stop faster, but not a stop more expensive. Could be worth the trade for some (although probably not for me).


----------



## lawny13 (Oct 31, 2019)

1. f/2 vs f/2.8 is more expensive. It also is twice as fast as f/2.8. In other words, the difference between having to shoot at ISO 1600 @ f/2.8 vs ISO 600 at f/2. I don't think a $700 price difference ([email protected] $2,999 vs 24-70 @ $2,299 USD) is small. At least not in my world.

*Agreed*

2. An RF 70-135mm f/2L is a portrait lens that would be a dream for me. Maybe others. I cannot envision any scenario where this lens would be less money than a 70-200 f/2.8L. It would be great if true, but I highly doubt it. I wouldn't complain. 

*Definitely didn’t say that the 70-135 would be cheaper. But u don’t think it will be more expensive as some suggest. Like 5k it so would be ridiculous (IMHO). Think it will follow a similar trend as the 28-70. Though a 700 dollar difference isn’t trivial, for an extra stop of light... sounds about right no?*

3. The 28-70 loses range and gains speed also. Higher price and a completely different character than a 24-70. I absolutely loved my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II, but the 28-70 outclasses it in every way in my opinion. Especially in bokeh and speed. My 24-70 was razor sharp.

*This is exactly the point right? Something difference than the many many similar lenses out there. Kinda why I like canon. Sony didn’t bring about the MILC revolution, but basically just did the same ol same ol in terms of lenses. In the end it is those lenses and how they render that truly make the image. So I see it as canon bringing something special to the tavle*

4. I also loved my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, however the bokeh was always a little too busy with too many hard edges. f/2 would fix a lot of that going by what the bokeh of my former 135mm f/2 looked like. So all these things make the lens more desirable to me. So I think the price will be upwards of $3,500.

*Maybe but some how I don’t see it being much more than that. I would estimate it to be at 3500 (hopefully, and hopefully lower than that) *


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 31, 2019)

lawny13 said:


> 1. f/2 vs f/2.8 is more expensive. It also is twice as fast as f/2.8. In other words, the difference between having to shoot at ISO 1600 @ f/2.8 vs ISO 600 at f/2. I don't think a $700 price difference ([email protected] $2,999 vs 24-70 @ $2,299 USD) is small. At least not in my world.
> 
> *Agreed*
> 
> ...


NO, I don't think $5k. I do think up to $3,500. Of course, less would be fantastic.


----------



## tron (Feb 18, 2020)

28-70 is huge, heavy and does not have IS. Of course it will be fantastic for portrait shooters. I got RF24-70 f/2.8L IS and I didn't regret it since I wanted it with IS and my current R does not have IBIS! My target is low light interiors. And, I do not want an even bigger than that normal zoom lens.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 18, 2020)

tron said:


> 28-70 is huge, heavy and does not have IS. Of course it will be fantastic for portrait shooters. I got RF24-70 f/2.8L IS and I didn't regret it since I wanted it with IS and my current R does not have IBIS! My target is low light interiors. And, I do not want an even bigger than that normal zoom lens.


I had a look at the 28-70 yesterday for the first time and I did not expect it to be that big, it made the 85 look like EF 50 L, lol.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 18, 2020)

Viggo said:


> I had a look at the 28-70 yesterday for the first time and I did not expect it to be that big, it made the 85 look like EF 50 L, lol.


Yup. It is a monster.


----------

