# The Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM: The developers answer 10 questions



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 3, 2019)

> Canon Europe has posted an interview with the developers of the recently announced Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM, a lens that is likely to become another classic.
> *Some questions and answers from the interview:*
> *How is the bokeh different from that of its EF-mount cousin?*
> *Kaishi:* “In terms of bokeh, a key point is that the minimum focusing distance is closer than that of the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM. The strong bokeh created by f/1.2 can be used to create new types of imaging expressions such as close-ups of areas decorated with jewels.”
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## 6degrees (Jun 3, 2019)

How noisy is the autofocus?

Price is too high.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 3, 2019)

Another great lens! So now I need to come up with $15K-$20K.


----------



## navastronia (Jun 3, 2019)

6degrees said:


> How noisy is the autofocus?
> 
> Price is too high.



Why would the autofocus be noisy? None of the other L grade lenses with ring-type USM are noisy.

Also, great, now I’m drooling.


----------



## jonebize (Jun 3, 2019)

Honestly it looks rad.


----------



## padam (Jun 3, 2019)

Great lens, although it will be ruthlessly sharp for portraits.
But, at least, it will probably find focus with confidence.


----------



## danfaz (Jun 3, 2019)

I have no doubt this lens will be awesome, if the RF 50 is any indication.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jun 3, 2019)

they need a better body asap. I cant see going into the new decade with an outdated camera with good lens.


----------



## PGSanta (Jun 4, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Why would the autofocus be noisy? None of the other L grade lenses with ring-type USM are noisy.
> 
> Also, great, now I’m drooling.



You've never touched an RF lens, have you.

All of them are noisy. The 50 1.2, and the 28-70 are basically unusable for video unless you plan to use an external mic away from the camera... they are that loud.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 4, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> You've never touched an RF lens, have you.
> 
> All of them are noisy. The 50 1.2, and the 28-70 are basically unusable for video unless you plan to use an external mic away from the camera... they are that loud.


The reason lapel mics and booms are used. Also why STM lenses are so nice when noise from the lens is a concern. After all, these are not cinema lenses . I've not met a USM lens yet that was suitable for noise free AF during video on a DSLR or MILC. I've no idea what the noise from a Sony or Nikon lens is like. I would imagine they are about the same.


----------



## PGSanta (Jun 4, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The reason lapel mics and booms are used. Also why STM lenses are so nice when noise from the lens is a concern. After all, these are not cinema lenses . I've not met a USM lens yet that was suitable for noise free AF during video on a DSLR or MILC. I've no idea what the noise from a Sony or Nikon lens is like. I would imagine they are about the same.



Sony's run muuuuuuch quieter (the decent to good lenses). I've got no experience with Nikons. 

The only RF I don't have much experience with is the 24-105, I hear that one is significantly quieter than the rest, but it seems to me that Canon doesn't really give a shit about making quiet lenses for the RF yet.

I'm a stills guy, luckily. If I were a video guy... I wouldn't touch any RF stuff yet.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 4, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> Sony's run muuuuuuch quieter (the decent to good lenses). I've got no experience with Nikons.
> 
> The only RF I don't have much experience with is the 24-105, I hear that one is significantly quieter than the rest, but it seems to me that Canon doesn't really give a shit about making quiet lenses for the RF yet.
> 
> I'm a stills guy, luckily. If I were a video guy... I wouldn't touch any RF stuff yet.


 How did I know this was gonna be about Sony? (Rhetorical question.) But seriously, were I a video guy spending that much money on lenses, I think I'd also be using wireless external mics or something else that gets the mic away from the body, making the lens noise not an issue. It's likely that is why Canon doesn't seem to care. They know their market. Heck, I'm a stills guy too, but I have external mics in the event I do any video. I would never consider the camera mic or a mic mounted on camera for my audio. Off camera microphones are very inexpensive. If a shotgun mic must be used (on camera), then something like this: https://www.rode.com/microphones/videomicpro

I could be wrong, but it seems that many of the complaints I read are much ado about nothing, many times by people who are unaffected by what they are complaining about... so they don't really understand that what they perceive as a problem isn't really a problem. The right tools for the job make all the difference.


----------



## 6degrees (Jun 4, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> Sony's run muuuuuuch quieter (the decent to good lenses). I've got no experience with Nikons.
> 
> The only RF I don't have much experience with is the 24-105, I hear that one is significantly quieter than the rest, but it seems to me that Canon doesn't really give a shit about making quiet lenses for the RF yet.
> 
> I'm a stills guy, luckily. If I were a video guy... I wouldn't touch any RF stuff yet.



I assume you have not tried Sony 85 F1.4 GM.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 4, 2019)

padam said:


> Great lens, although it will be ruthlessly sharp for portraits.
> But, at least, it will probably find focus with confidence.



Remains to be seen. Let me explain. 
A lens may be razor sharp at an infinity. And that’s how sites like LensRentals tend to evaluate lenses. 
However, portraiture work is done at a much closer distance to your subject. A few meters for a head and shoulders with a 85mm lens.
Now here is something to be aware off. 
e.g. Sigma 105/1.4 Art was confirmed to be a very sharp lens at an infinity by LensRentals. 
Well, yup.. it sure is at around 2100 points 
But, the same lens evaluated at MFD (1meter) to subject truly sucks in sharpness department with nearly scratching 1600 points mark. A massive difference. 
Same is true for Sigma 85/1.4 Art and 135/1.8 Art. 

The takeaway from this exercise is: the lens in question is unlikely to be a ruthlessly Sharp for portraits. Unless shot at a around 4 meters and longer distance to subject.


----------



## PGSanta (Jun 4, 2019)

6degrees said:


> I assume you have not tried Sony 85 F1.4 GM.



I owned one for a while. Still way quieter than my RF lenses. 

I’m not trying to make this a Sony vs. Canon thing, I pretty much left Sony for the RF system, but you’re delusional if you think the offerings currently available offer the same sort of video abilities that Sony is offering. 

The high end lenses are HORRIBLE for hybrid shooters right now; kick ass for stills though.


----------



## deletemyaccount (Jun 4, 2019)

The new glass looks amazing but way too expensive for now. Love to get into this system but RF glass is a one way street. EF glass allows me to go both ways.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 4, 2019)

Get over yourself, any “video guy” who’s serious doesn’t use any onboard mic anyway. That’s just reaching and trying to twist anything into “Sony is better”.


----------



## syder (Jun 4, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Get over yourself, any “video guy” who’s serious doesn’t use any onboard mic anyway. That’s just reaching and trying to twist anything into “Sony is better”.



Agreed.

I guess the 6 C200s we have aren't really video cameras cos they don't even have onboard mics.


----------



## PGSanta (Jun 4, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Get over yourself, any “video guy” who’s serious doesn’t use any onboard mic anyway. That’s just reaching and trying to twist anything into “Sony is better”.



I am a Canon shooter. I happen to formerly be in the other camp. Heavy video users are going to use dedicated gear, but there's a whole lot of hybrid shooters who are using hybrid set ups to create a ton of very professional stuff. FOR NOW, the stuff Canon has released for the RF IS NOT GOOD for these uses, and YES, SONY (THAT EVIL NAME) offers WAYYYYYYYY more for those people RIGHT NOW. 

I don't think Sony is a "better" company, AGAIN I SWITCHED TO AN EOS R, but arguing that Canon is offering hybrid shooters equivalency right now is stupid.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 4, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> I am a Canon shooter. I happen to formerly be in the other camp. Heavy video users are going to use dedicated gear, but there's a whole lot of hybrid shooters who are using hybrid set ups to create a ton of very professional stuff. FOR NOW, the stuff Canon has released for the RF IS NOT GOOD for these uses, and YES, SONY (THAT EVIL NAME) offers WAYYYYYYYY more for those people RIGHT NOW.
> 
> I don't think Sony is a "better" company, AGAIN I SWITCHED TO AN EOS R, but arguing that Canon is offering hybrid shooters equivalency right now is stupid.


Who argued that? Funny. You say Sony is better, yet switched to Canon (I know, not for video). Now you're complaining about something that isn't even an issue for you as a stills guy.  I wish I could get some of that high grade legal California weed here in Texas.

I did video when I had a 70D. Very amateur. But even I knew the best way to get clean audio was through external mics. Had over 1.5 million page views (In 1 year on Google Plus of all places _LogicalPrepper_) before I shut down my account and quit doing videos. The mics are dirt cheap. Especially for guys rocking an R and a 28-70.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 4, 2019)

So the upshot of this article is that lens engineers know how to B/S ans spin too..I love the line...this lens is unequalled in Bokeh...because it's got a slightly closer MFD than the EF version...really? Then the twaddle about negating cats eye Bokeh...only to show multiple images using this lens with exactly that issue on prominent display.
So for your rather exorbitant retail price...you get an 85mm f1.2 lens...with a Blue goo element, a function ring, a much bigger lens, a non fly by wire AF system and pretty much every thing else that the EF lens does exemplary. Optically...sure it'll be sharp...but so is the EF version. Oh...and that lens was a portrait lens...so it doesn't need a closer focus distance than it's already got.

The twaddle about the RF lens being longer than the EF version due to the lack of a mirror box just made me laugh...so are all RF lenses over 35mm going to be bigger and heavier than their EF counter parts? Kind of makes me worry about the rumored RF 500mm f4.


----------



## MayaTlab (Jun 4, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Then the twaddle about negating cats eye Bokeh...only to show multiple images using this lens with exactly that issue on prominent display.



Vignetting, related to "cat eyes bokeh" is all a question of degree. According to this interview Canon may have tried to limit vignetting, which, if excessive, can completely ruin the whole point of a fast aperture as vignetting increases DOF off centre - the RF 50mm is a good example of that, at most common shooting distances there's barely no difference whatsoever for 80% of the frame in terms of DOF and bokeh between f1.2 and f1.4 because of its excessive vignetting. 

Personally I'm expecting this 85mm to be similar (but no better) in terms of vignetting to its EF counterpart, just like the 50mm RF is to the EF, that is to say quite a bit better than the 50mm. Added bonus according to that interview might be a better bokeh performance off axis than the 50mm RF.


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 4, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Who argued that? Funny. You say Sony is better, yet switched to Canon (I know, not for video). Now you're complaining about something that isn't even an issue for you as a stills guy.  I wish I could get some of that high grade legal California weed here in Texas.
> 
> I did video when I had a 70D. Very amateur. But even I knew the best way to get clean audio was through external mics. Had over 1.5 million page views (In 1 year on Google Plus of all places _LogicalPrepper_) before I shut down my account and quit doing videos. The mics are dirt cheap. Especially for guys rocking an R and a 28-70.


It's always the same....
Canon introduces something new, no one has ever seen or tried.
And they start to complain, arguing they expected properties the new product doesn't have, or should I say, can't have.
A new luminous high-end lens, for instance, should be, at the same time, dead sharp, dirt cheap, lightweight, silent for videos they don't even make...
As you said, quoting W.S., much ado for nothing, or is it for the sake of whining?. To sum it up: Canon will always be *******, welcome to Wonderful (silent!) Sony World!


----------



## padam (Jun 4, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Remains to be seen. Let me explain.


I've seen a few samples taken at mid distances, and it looks to be extremely sharp and well-corrected.

It renders just like the RF 50/1.2, which is sharp at all distances and across the whole frame with negligible field curvature (having this sometimes can be good for faces).

So yes, it will be ruthless, but softness can be generated with the razor-thin depth of field where most of the face is still out of focus.

The RF 28-70/2 wide-open at the long end is weaker than these two, and yet it is still extremely sharp for this, if the subject it in the mid-field "sharpness zone" (which of course increases with stepping down)


----------



## dirtyvu (Jun 4, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> Sony's run muuuuuuch quieter (the decent to good lenses). I've got no experience with Nikons.
> 
> The only RF I don't have much experience with is the 24-105, I hear that one is significantly quieter than the rest, but it seems to me that Canon doesn't really give a shit about making quiet lenses for the RF yet.
> 
> I'm a stills guy, luckily. If I were a video guy... I wouldn't touch any RF stuff yet.



no video guy would use the onboard mics. I'm sorry but you can't get anything resembling professional audio with any built-in mics on any DSLR/mirrorless camera.


----------



## dirtyvu (Jun 4, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> So the upshot of this article is that lens engineers know how to B/S ans spin too..I love the line...this lens is unequalled in Bokeh...because it's got a slightly closer MFD than the EF version...really? Then the twaddle about negating cats eye Bokeh...only to show multiple images using this lens with exactly that issue on prominent display.
> So for your rather exorbitant retail price...you get an 85mm f1.2 lens...with a Blue goo element, a function ring, a much bigger lens, a non fly by wire AF system and pretty much every thing else that the EF lens does exemplary. Optically...sure it'll be sharp...but so is the EF version. Oh...and that lens was a portrait lens...so it doesn't need a closer focus distance than it's already got.
> 
> The twaddle about the RF lens being longer than the EF version due to the lack of a mirror box just made me laugh...so are all RF lenses over 35mm going to be bigger and heavier than their EF counter parts? Kind of makes me worry about the rumored RF 500mm f4.



I've played with the EF 85 mm 1.2 (my friend let's me borrow his) and I find it very difficult to have sharp images. The focusing is way too slow.

On the other hand, I love love love my EF 85 mm 1.4. That is a beast of a lens and much easier to get great results. Focusing is very fast. Setting the 1.2 lens to 1.4 still doesn't get the same sharpness.

How is his argument wrong? 85 mm is 85 mm. The length is from the sensor the center of the lens. If 85 mm = 85 mm, then the camera where the length from the mount to the sensor is shorter, to make it to 85 mm, the length to the lens has to be longer.


----------



## miggyt (Jun 4, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



somewhat weird and awkward answers. how different is bokeh = close focusing and sharpness = cries of joy


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 4, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> It's always the same....
> Canon introduces something new, no one has ever seen or tried.
> And they start to complain, arguing they expected properties the new product doesn't have, or should I say, can't have.
> A new luminous high-end lens, for instance, should be, at the same time, dead sharp, dirt cheap, lightweight, silent for videos they don't even make...
> As you said, quoting W.S., much ado for nothing, or is it for the sake of whining?. To sum it up: Canon will always be *******, welcome to Wonderful (silent!) Sony World!


In fairness, every Sony lens beyond 400mm is completely silent. The most sensitive meters in the world can't detect a sound. I've heard they are lubed with unobtanium grease. The internal mic on Sony bodies are so good that external mics are useless in the Sony world. Come on Canon!!!


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 4, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> In fairness, every Sony lens beyond 400mm is completely silent. The most sensitive meters in the world can't detect a sound. I've heard they are lubed with unobtanium grease. The internal mic on Sony bodies are so good that external mics are useless in the Sony world. Come on Canon!!!


 And don't forget the Sony bodies are (rain) water -cooled...


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 4, 2019)

padam said:


> I've seen a few samples taken at mid distances, and it looks to be extremely sharp and well-corrected.
> 
> It renders just like the RF 50/1.2, which is sharp at all distances and across the whole frame with negligible field curvature (having this sometimes can be good for faces).
> 
> ...


Thank you. Extremely valuable piece of information.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jun 4, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> You've never touched an RF lens, have you.
> 
> All of them are noisy. The 50 1.2, and the 28-70 are basically unusable for video unless you plan to use an external mic away from the camera... they are that loud.



If you’re using equipment that high grade and expensive, wouldn’t you be using an external mic anyway?


----------



## Viggo (Jun 4, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> So the upshot of this article is that lens engineers know how to B/S ans spin too..I love the line...this lens is unequalled in Bokeh...because it's got a slightly closer MFD than the EF version...really? Then the twaddle about negating cats eye Bokeh...only to show multiple images using this lens with exactly that issue on prominent display.
> So for your rather exorbitant retail price...you get an 85mm f1.2 lens...with a Blue goo element, a function ring, a much bigger lens, a non fly by wire AF system and pretty much every thing else that the EF lens does exemplary. Optically...sure it'll be sharp...but so is the EF version. Oh...and that lens was a portrait lens...so it doesn't need a closer focus distance than it's already got.
> 
> The twaddle about the RF lens being longer than the EF version due to the lack of a mirror box just made me laugh...so are all RF lenses over 35mm going to be bigger and heavier than their EF counter parts? Kind of makes me worry about the rumored RF 500mm f4.


There are so many assumptions and wrong things in this post that I can’t even begin....


----------



## padam (Jun 4, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Thank you. Extremely valuable piece of information.


See it here:






As with the RF 50/1.2, probably as sharp or sharper than the equivalent Otus lens (as well as being even faster with quick AF).


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jun 4, 2019)

padam said:


> See it here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He just said “EOS 5R” ? Prototype testing..?


----------



## 6degrees (Jun 4, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> I owned one for a while. Still way quieter than my RF lenses.
> 
> I’m not trying to make this a Sony vs. Canon thing, I pretty much left Sony for the RF system, but you’re delusional if you think the offerings currently available offer the same sort of video abilities that Sony is offering.
> 
> The high end lenses are HORRIBLE for hybrid shooters right now; kick ass for stills though.



Watching others’ video on the noise level between Sony 85mm F1.4 vs Canon RF 50mm F1.2, the former is just too noisy, unacceptable. Canon RF 50mm F1.2 L is not quiet neither. Both are bad in my opinion. If Canon RF 85mm F1.2L is worse, giving the price tag of $2699, not good at all.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jun 4, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Remains to be seen. Let me explain.
> A lens may be razor sharp at an infinity. And that’s how sites like LensRentals tend to evaluate lenses.
> However, portraiture work is done at a much closer distance to your subject. A few meters for a head and shoulders with a 85mm lens.
> Now here is something to be aware off.
> ...



Where can one find resolution evaluations at various distances?

John


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 4, 2019)

chrysoberyl said:


> Where can one find resolution evaluations at various distances?
> 
> John


I left a message for you. Let me known. Regards.


----------



## padam (Jun 4, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> He just said “EOS 5R” ? Prototype testing..?


No, it is the R for sure


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 4, 2019)

dirtyvu said:


> I've played with the EF 85 mm 1.2 (my friend let's me borrow his) and I find it very difficult to have sharp images. The focusing is way too slow.
> 
> On the other hand, I love love love my EF 85 mm 1.4. That is a beast of a lens and much easier to get great results. Focusing is very fast. Setting the 1.2 lens to 1.4 still doesn't get the same sharpness.
> 
> How is his argument wrong? 85 mm is 85 mm. The length is from the sensor the center of the lens. If 85 mm = 85 mm, then the camera where the length from the mount to the sensor is shorter, to make it to 85 mm, the length to the lens has to be longer.



I've owned my EF 85mm f1.2 II L since early 2007 and I use it professionally. It's a hard lens to master...I used to use it with a pair of 5DmkII's and that's hard with that AF system. Way harder than the current 61 point AF system and Rf AF system.

My beef with the size argument is they way the engineers are trying to spin a basic neutral fact in to a positive to discredit the older EF model. When a RF lens is launched that is noticeably shorter than the EF variant....they make a big fuss about it. When they they release an RF lens that is a lot larger than the current EF version...they state that it's not an equal comparison.

I'm sure this lens is going to be sharp, I'm sure it'll have a fast and reliable AF system. But it doesn't stop the existing EF version from being also very capable in the right hands.
I'm sure the cat's eye distortion will be a bit better....I'm sure the vignetting will be a bit better too. But the way the article reads...it's like they have cured it....and from the images shown...they certainly haven't.


----------



## rjbray01 (Jun 4, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Well, the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art lens can currently be bought new in the UK on the grey market for around £770. That's $975 at today's exchange rate.

So, if Canon would like to offer me their new 85mm RF lens for, let's say, $1000 then I would be very happy to give it a look.

Otherwise, err, the Sigma is pretty awesome on my 5Div to be honest ...


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 4, 2019)

rjbray01 said:


> Well, the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art lens can currently be bought new in the UK on the grey market for around £770. That's $975 at today's exchange rate.
> 
> So, if Canon would like to offer me their new 85mm RF lens for, let's say, $1000 then I would be very happy to give it a look.
> 
> Otherwise, err, the Sigma is pretty awesome on my 5Div to be honest ...



Why are you expecting a 1st party f/1.2 lens to be only 2.6% more expensive than a 3rd party f/1.4 lens?!?!


----------



## hollybush (Jun 4, 2019)

dirtyvu said:


> How is his argument wrong? 85 mm is 85 mm. The length is from the sensor the center of the lens. If 85 mm = 85 mm, then the camera where the length from the mount to the sensor is shorter, to make it to 85 mm, the length to the lens has to be longer.



I've seen this misconception pop up in various places a few times in the last few months, so let me correct it now:

The distance from the front of a lens to the focal plane _can_ be less than its focal length. That, rather than the focal length itself, is actually the definition of "telephoto".

Of course, to shorten a lens requires adding extra/more expensive/different elements, and in this case the designers have chosen not to shorten the lens any more than they might have done for an EF version, so it ends up physically longer than the EF lens would have been and also longer than the old EF lens.


----------



## navastronia (Jun 4, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> Sony's run muuuuuuch quieter (the decent to good lenses). I've got no experience with Nikons.
> 
> The only RF I don't have much experience with is the 24-105, I hear that one is significantly quieter than the rest, but it seems to me that Canon doesn't really give a shit about making quiet lenses for the RF yet.
> 
> I'm a stills guy, luckily. If I were a video guy... I wouldn't touch any RF stuff yet.



I don’t know anyone serious about film who 1) uses autofocus 2) captures audio with a shotgun mic on the camera. As was said above, that’s why we use booms and lapel mics.


----------



## FramerMCB (Jun 4, 2019)

rjbray01 said:


> Well, the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art lens can currently be bought new in the UK on the grey market for around £770. That's $975 at today's exchange rate.
> 
> So, if Canon would like to offer me their new 85mm RF lens for, let's say, $1000 then I would be very happy to give it a look.
> 
> Otherwise, err, the Sigma is pretty awesome on my 5Div to be honest ...


Fair point. But I'm rather positive when I say, that you won't need to be worried about being tempted by this new RF lens. I will never, ever work on your 5D Mk IV. So, I would stick with your Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art...


----------



## IsaacImage (Jun 4, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Remains to be seen. Let me explain.
> A lens may be razor sharp at an infinity. And that’s how sites like LensRentals tend to evaluate lenses.
> However, portraiture work is done at a much closer distance to your subject. A few meters for a head and shoulders with a 85mm lens.
> Now here is something to be aware off.
> ...


very interesting especially regards to a 105
I found 105 and 40 Art the sharpest lenses I ever had 
do you have a link to the information ?


----------



## MayaTlab (Jun 4, 2019)

IsaacImage said:


> very interesting especially regards to a 105
> I found 105 and 40 Art the sharpest lenses I ever had
> do you have a link to the information ?



I have no idea where secureGSM gets his info.

That said both the 40 and 105mm from Sigma intentionally introduce some degree of aberrations, such as spherical aberration, to enhance background blur smoothness / transitions (a perfectly corrected lens will produce evenly illuminated shapes with a hard edge when defocused, a lens with a purposefully finely tuned set of aberrations may be able to produce a blur that's more gaussian), and the aberrations mix may vary depending on focus distance. 

Given the available samples it doesn't seem to be at the detriment of resolution IMO, at least not in a particularly significant way.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 4, 2019)

Really looking forward to seeing examples of photos taken by photographers who purchase the lens, not just have a copy for evaluation. I've posted before, I'm not thrilled with the overall look of images from the ef 85mm 1.4L IS, though, mechanically, it performs well, achieving sharp focus, reasonably quickly. Just kind of flat results compared to similar lighting scenarios with the ef 85mm 1.2L II sold to buy the IS version. 

(For comparison, what does "thrill" me? The ef 35mm f/1.4L II, the ef 135mm f/2L, the ef 85mm f/1.2L II which I sold, the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 Macro, the ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...at times, when things come together just right, the ef 24-70mm f/2.8L II.)

Hopefully this newest 85mm will enter the ranks of Canon's best lenses.

But as great as it might be, I'm holding out for a more robust RF mount body, one that hopefully has a joystick as an alternative to touch screen AF point selection, two cards, a less punishing 4k crop factor, and better weather sealing.

Canon knows customers such as myself will be joining the RF club at some point! Very happy that serious portraiture is still a high priority.


----------



## transpo1 (Jun 4, 2019)

And all that for only $2699!


----------



## peters (Jun 4, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> You've never touched an RF lens, have you.
> 
> All of them are noisy. The 50 1.2, and the 28-70 are basically unusable for video unless you plan to use an external mic away from the camera... they are that loud.


Who the hell would ever use an internal microphone? :-D


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 5, 2019)

IsaacImage said:


> very interesting especially regards to a 105
> I found 105 and 40 Art the sharpest lenses I ever had
> do you have a link to the information ?



I don’t have a link. these are numbers (repeatable through a quite a number of tests and lenses) from my own quick tests. Happy to share my methodology over message. 

In addition to the information above:
Sigma 105/1.4 Art is an extremely slow focusing at MFD lens. Up to one full second slow at 1meter to subject. Not so much at 2m, 4m or infinity.


----------



## Joules (Jun 5, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> I don’t have a link. these are numbers (repeatable through a quite a number of tests and lenses) from my own quick tests. Happy to share my methodology over message.


So, did you only do your test at MFD and infinity?

I don't think anybody who's for example ever seen a review from Christopher Frost should be shocked that a lens performs poorly when used at mfd, especially wide open.

What I would be shocked about is if that situation wouldn't improve dramatically by movinv further than MFD. The way you phrased your initial Response it seemed to me like one could misinterpret in a way that suggests a linear relation between distance and resolution. Without having looked at that myself, I would not expect that to be the case.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 5, 2019)

Joules said:


> So, did you only do your test at MFD and infinity?
> 
> I don't think anybody who's for example ever seen a review from Christopher Frost should be shocked that a lens performs poorly when used at mfd, especially wide open.
> 
> What I would be shocked about is if that situation wouldn't improve dramatically by movinv further than MFD. The way you phrased your initial Response it seemed to me like one could misinterpret in *a way that suggests a linear relation between distance and resolution*. Without having looked at that myself, I would not expect that to be the case.



where do you read that I suggested a linear relation between distance and resolution?
i suggest the following:
Sigma 105/1.4 is a week performer at MFD, it is OK at around 1.6m, good at 3m and excellent at infinity.
Canon L glass are a more consistent performers transitioning from MFD to infinity. there is a weakness at MFD but not as much as in Sigmas case.

and finally:

++++ Without having looked at that myself, I would not expect that to be the case.
SGSM: Yup, have a look.. come back with solid facts and then lets have a conversation. at this stage your allegations are a little bit unsubstantiated...

p.s.: tests for SIgma 105/1.4 Art are done at: 1m, 1.6m, 3.0m, infinity


----------



## Joules (Jun 5, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> where do you read that I suggested a linear relation between distance and resolution?
> i suggest the following:
> Sigma 105/1.4 is a week performer at MFD, it is OK at around 1.6m, good at 3m and excellent at infinity.
> Canon L glass are a more consistent performers transitioning from MFD to infinity. there is a weakness at MFD but not as much as in Sigmas case.
> ...


I didn't accuse you of suggesting that there was a linear relation between the two. I wrote that it could be misunderstood to mean that. I at least got that impression on the first read, it simply is what comes to my mind when talking about numerical data with only two datapoints. One could do a lot of things if the day is long though. Apologies if it came across as an attack.

Thanks for following up with the Evaluation of more distances. I'm indeed curious about your method for getting the corresponding numbers. I didn't come across any reviews which measure resolution over distance. My Sigma 150-600mm seems to exhibit just the opposite effect, getting poorer with larger distances - or maybe that's just because the amount of air between lens and subject increases too far after some point, or simply because I didn't use it enough yet to really get a good grip in its performance. A qay to put some numbers on it could be cool.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 6, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> So for your rather exorbitant retail price...you get an 85mm f1.2 lens...with a Blue goo element, a function ring, a much bigger lens, a non fly by wire AF system and pretty much every thing else that the EF lens does exemplary. Optically...sure it'll be sharp...but so is the EF version. Oh...and that lens was a portrait lens...so it doesn't need a closer focus distance than it's already got.



Price? Consider inflation and the price of the 85mm 1.2 II when released. 

Having a sharper portrait lens with the same or better bokeh is pretty important to this portrait photographer, especially if it does AF noticeably faster.

Sorry, but I can't agree with your assertion that a portrait lens doesn't benefit from closer focus distance. Some portrait photographers even use macro just to get a little closer.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 6, 2019)

Joules said:


> I didn't accuse you of suggesting that there was a linear relation between the two. I wrote that it could be misunderstood to mean that. I at least got that impression on the first read, it simply is what comes to my mind when talking about numerical data with only two datapoints. One could do a lot of things if the day is long though. Apologies if it came across as an attack.
> 
> Thanks for following up with the Evaluation of more distances. I'm indeed curious about your method for getting the corresponding numbers. I didn't come across any reviews which measure resolution over distance. My Sigma 150-600mm seems to exhibit just the opposite effect, getting poorer with larger distances - or maybe that's just because the amount of air between lens and subject increases too far after some point, or simply because I didn't use it enough yet to really get a good grip in its performance. A qay to put some numbers on it could be cool.



The Sigma 150-600 is a tricky one to calibrate and by the sound of it you never proper calibrated your lens at infinity. 

Infinity for you lens at 600mm end is approx. 100meters to subject 
For 150mm end the infinity sits at around 25 meters to subject. 

Adding further to a complexity of the getting your lens adjusted to your camera, calibration has to be done at 16 point in total. It usually takes around 2-3 hours to calibrate a long Sigma zoom lens. I hope it helps.


----------



## victorshikhman (Jun 6, 2019)

I have a general question for the portrait photogs... How can you get an entire face in focus at f1.2? When I shoot my 50mm at 1.8 on an 80D, it's basically a crapshoot if I get a subject's face entirely in focus, and I can't really tell until I'm watching on a monitor. Any tips?


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 6, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> I have a general question for the portrait photogs... How can you get an entire face in focus at f1.2? When I shoot my 50mm at 1.8 on an 80D, it's basically a crapshoot if I get a subject's face entirely in focus, and I can't really tell until I'm watching on a monitor. Any tips?



Many portrait photographers use lenses capable of extremely shallow depth of field so they can choose how much of the face to have in focus and out of focus. We practice over and over with friends, families, and mannequin heads and other objects. The shallow depth of field gives creative options that simply aren't available in most kit lenses or other slow lenses. 

The short answer to your question: Your subject has to be far enough away for the entire face to be in focus. But is that the distance you want for a portrait? If not, you must stop down to an aperture that does have the whole face in focus.

If your subject's face is at an angle to the axis of the lens, then you need even more depth of field than if your subject is looking straight into the lens. But even straight on, a shallow depth of field will have the nose blurred out, or the ear lobes, etc.

A shallow depth of field can produce dramatic, lovely results, or just look off. Depends on the skill and intent of the photographer (and sometimes luck).

On a technical note, here's a link to one of many available DoF calculators:









Depth of Field (DoF) calculator | PhotoPills


This Depth of Field (DoF) calculator will help you get the creative control on the design of your photos. Decide the zone of sharpness you need to tell the story you want and get your message across.




www.photopills.com


----------



## mjg79 (Jun 6, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> So for your rather exorbitant retail price...you get an 85mm f1.2 lens...with a Blue goo element, a function ring, a much bigger lens, a non fly by wire AF system and pretty much every thing else that the EF lens does exemplary. Optically...sure it'll be sharp...but so is the EF version. Oh...and that lens was a portrait lens...so it doesn't need a closer focus distance than it's already got.
> 
> The twaddle about the RF lens being longer than the EF version due to the lack of a mirror box just made me laugh...so are all RF lenses over 35mm going to be bigger and heavier than their EF counter parts? Kind of makes me worry about the rumored RF 500mm f4.



Well this is the reality on two fronts. One is that we are at the point of diminishing returns, especially for lenses like fast 50s and 85s where for most sharpness isn't the be all and end all. We already saw that with the 85/1.2 L II vs the 85/1.4 IS L - for portraits the older lens has arguably a nicer rendering. And with fast 50s the new RF 50/1.2 is a technological tour de force and yet for photographing most people, especially women over the age of about 23, I would always choose the older EF 50/1.2 L.

Regarding the RF lens being longer it's not twaddle it's physics. Sony has shown this over and over again. Apart from primes around 28mm and wider there is either no size advantage or there is a size penalty. The 24-70GM for example is longer than the 24-70L II. The Sony 50/1.4 is huge as is their 85GM. There will be advantages with wider lenses - the 24GM, 16-35GM and Nikon's new 14-30/4 are all considerably smaller than their equivalent SLR lenses.

It's a pity. I always assumed that a 300/2.8 would be big regardless but I thought mid-range lenses would see big improvements. But if for example you look at the 35/1.4s or mid range zooms available for the Sony mount they are essentially SLR sized even the ones designed from the ground up. If you want an f1.4 aperture, sharp corners and auto focus at 35 or 50 or 85mm then there will be compromise somewhere. Only Leica make a top performing 35/1.4 that is small but it costs a fortune and sacrifices autofocus.

I think however that many people here are missing a key part of Canon's strategy. I believe Canon is serious when they say they will keep the EF mount going. The two compliment each other well and given it's electronic there is no problem adapting. This is more sensible I think than what Sony did. So for example Canon gives us the EF 70-200 2.8L III. It will work perfectly on either EF or RF though will balance better on an EF camera. In the RF mount they will give an extending 70-200 2.8L. For many professionals they will want the non-extending one but there will be plenty who will like the smaller design. There's no right or wrong.

I've used an A9 with some telephoto lenses, native and adapted. It's an amazing bit of kit, there's no question, but the ergonomics are poor compared to a 1DX. And that's not just button placement etc I believe it's physics and balance - such lenses will be big and heavy and a 1DX sized camera, or even a 5dIV one matches up better with a centre of gravity more centralised. There is no way Canon will push their professional users to start using something ergonomically inferior to the previous model. So while I think EF-S won't last much longer as the M can replace it better in 95% of scenarios, I think EF and RF will play together well. You will be able to use a 400/2.8, 35/1.4 and 135/2 from the EF range, for example (none of which would actually get any better by virtue of the RF mount anyway) along with the new 15-35/2.8 - and use them all on the EOS-R and when required mount the EF lenses on a EF mount camera (which would likely be most of the time with the 400 and possibly even with the others). How this plays out in terms of business only time will tell but there is a logic to what Canon says.


----------



## mjg79 (Jun 6, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> I have a general question for the portrait photogs... How can you get an entire face in focus at f1.2? When I shoot my 50mm at 1.8 on an 80D, it's basically a crapshoot if I get a subject's face entirely in focus, and I can't really tell until I'm watching on a monitor. Any tips?



It's a fair question really. One thing to remember is that when further from the subject it becomes less of an issue. If for example you take a full length portrait with an 85/1.2 you get a fast fall off in focus without having to worry about whether it's eyeball or eye lashes in focus.

But the real answer is that the beauty of many top quality lenses is not just the aperture. Both the EF 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 are lenses I've used extensively. When I first bought the 85 I shot it all the time at 1.2. Looking back now I realise that was a mistake. Both of those lenses have a lovely look that isn't dependent on being wide open. The bokeh is nice, the fall off in focus graceful, the colours and contrast rich and deep.

Someone on this forum actually did a comparison - I think it was the 50L vs the 50 1.4. Shooting both at 1.4 or 2.8, the L still produced softer bokeh.

These days if I am taking a portrait it's rare I will use a lens wide ope, there is usually little to be gained from it. The 135L in particular I find looks great at f/2.8.


----------



## ken (Jun 6, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> ...
> I'm sure the cat's eye distortion will be a bit better....I'm sure the vignetting will be a bit better too. But the way the article reads...it's like they have cured it....and from the images shown...they certainly haven't.



When the Canon engineers said " I believe to a certain extent that users can see the improvements to the bokeh shape being cut out in the peripherals [compared to the shape on a DSLR]." they were _not_ talking about cat's eye distortion. They were talking about bokeh clipping that occurs at f/1.2 along the edges of a photo with the EF lens.

This is a well known phenomenon due to the mirror box and that lens being wide open. See examples here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2894543
(or just google "having your bokeh balls chopped off".)

So it does appear, from all of the samples on that page, the RF lens doesn't suffer from this issue.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 7, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> I have a general question for the portrait photogs... How can you get an entire face in focus at f1.2? When I shoot my 50mm at 1.8 on an 80D, it's basically a crapshoot if I get a subject's face entirely in focus, and I can't really tell until I'm watching on a monitor. Any tips?



Given the number of messages here about focusing on one eye or the other, folks must like really shallow depth of field and don't seek to get the whole face in focus.

For fairly normal looking perspective in a head-and-shoulders shot, you want the subject 10 or so feet from the lens, for typical faces; maybe a little closer for folks with flat faces and a little farther away for people with bulbous noses. That is why many photographers prefer 85mm to 100mm lenses for such full-frame portraits: it puts the subject in the ballpark of that distance. 85mm at f/1.2 will give you about five inches of depth of field on a subject 12 feet away. So you ought to get the ears and nose reasonably sharp with careful focus, though not right on the eyes. Put the subject a little farther away or stop down a little, and the whole face should be in focus more easily.

Your 50mm f/1.8 on an 80D will put you about the right subject distance or a bit closer. So at 10 feet and f/1.8, you should have about 9 inches to play with.


----------



## degos (Jun 7, 2019)

hollybush said:


> The distance from the front of a lens to the focal plane _can_ be less than its focal length. That, rather than the focal length itself, is actually the definition of "telephoto".



Indeed, which is why a "600mm" f4 lens is 480mm long. And conversely one particular reverse-telephoto 28mm lens is 116mm!


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 7, 2019)

stevelee said:


> Given the number of messages here about focusing on one eye or the other, folks must like really shallow depth of field and don't seek to get the whole face in focus.
> 
> For fairly normal looking perspective in a head-and-shoulders shot, you want the subject 10 or so feet from the lens, for typical faces; maybe a little closer for folks with flat faces and a little farther away for people with bulbous noses. That is why many photographers prefer 85mm to 100mm lenses for such full-frame portraits: it puts the subject in the ballpark of that distance. 85mm at f/1.2 will give you about five inches of depth of field on a subject 12 feet away. So you ought to get the ears and nose reasonably sharp with careful focus, though not right on the eyes. Put the subject a little farther away or stop down a little, and the whole face should be in focus more easily.
> 
> Your 50mm f/1.8 on an 80D will put you about the right subject distance or a bit closer. So at 10 feet and f/1.8, you should have about 9 inches to play with.



++++ 85mm at f/1.2 will give you about five inches of depth of field on a subject 12 feet away. So you ought to get the ears and nose reasonably sharp with careful focus...

Yup, 5 inches in total being 2.5 inches near focus and 2.5 inches far focus. Therefore Subjects ears won’t be in a critical focus at f1.2 in majority of cases.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 7, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Yup, 5 inches in total being 2.5 inches near focus and 2.5 inches far focus. Therefore Subjects ears won’t be in a critical focus at f1.2 in majority of cases.


If you focus on the eyes, the ears will definitely be noticeably out of focus. Focus a bit farther back, and maybe both nose and ears could be close enough in focus with a lot of faces. Autofocus is unlikely to hit the right spot. I'd personally stop the lens down a bit rather than risk it.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 7, 2019)

stevelee said:


> If you focus on the eyes, the ears will definitely be noticeably out of focus. Focus a bit farther back, *and maybe both nose and ears could be close enough in focus with a lot of faces. *Autofocus is unlikely to hit the right spot. I'd personally stop the lens down a bit rather than risk it.


Hint: measure distance from tip of your own nose to the rear edge of your own ears. It would likely measure around 6 inches. Then consider how you fit 6 inches within the 5 inches of DOF. 
Does it ring the bell? 
Therefore, unless you are chasing a very particular look, I would suggest stopping down to f2.8 at least. Or increasing distance to subject.


----------



## vjlex (Jun 9, 2019)

Anyone with the EF 85 1.2L II and the EOS R? I'm curious about the mirror box clipping the bokeh balls. Since there is no mirror box, has that clipping been eliminated? Or was it from something else?


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 9, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Why are you expecting a 1st party f/1.2 lens to be only 2.6% more expensive than a 3rd party f/1.4 lens?!?!


And I want the 2,8/400 mm to cost a maximum 10% more than the 5,6/400, otherwise I'll enter Wonderful Sony World!
Canon, be warned!


----------



## Pape (Jun 9, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> And I want the 2,8/400 mm to cost a maximum 10% more than the 5,6/400, otherwise I'll enter Wonderful Sony World!
> Canon, be warned!


sounds like canon needs learn use plastic 3d printer 
I wonder if 3d printed plastic lenses would be good enough if made like 30cm diameter?


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 9, 2019)

shunsai said:


> Anyone with the EF 85 1.2L II and the EOS R? I'm curious about the mirror box clipping the bokeh balls. Since there is no mirror box, has that clipping been eliminated? Or was it from something else?



The EF-RF adapter is doing a good job of pretending to be a mirror box.


----------



## vjlex (Jun 10, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> The EF-RF adapter is doing a good job of pretending to be a mirror box.


Disappointing, but I guess that makes sense.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 10, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> The EF-RF adapter is doing a good job of pretending to be a mirror box.



I was wondering if you had any images that demonstrate how EF-RF adapter causing bokeh balls clipping? Thank you.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 10, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> I was wondering if you had any images that demonstrate how EF-RF adapter causing bokeh balls clipping? Thank you.



I have no lenses that have clipped balls on EF, but here's a shot of how narrow the adapter is inside.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 10, 2019)

so far, there has been no evidence that ef-rf adapter affects image quality of adapted EF lenses used on R-series cameras. not a slight sign of vignetting levels being affected by the adaptor.


----------

