# Canon RF 85mm f/2 IS STM in the pipeline [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 6, 2020)

> I have been told by an unknown source that Canon will announce an RF 85mm f/2 IS STM in 2020.
> The same source claims that a whole line of f/2-f/2.8 non-L prime lenses with IS are coming in the next 12 months.
> The same source mentions that the line of prime lenses will start at 18mm and go up to 85mm. This seems like pretty wishful thinking from my point of view, but I have been surprised before.
> Take this one with a grain of salt until we can confirm the information above [CR1].
> The image for this post is of the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM



Continue reading...


----------



## Rivermist (Apr 6, 2020)

The more new lenses the better, people buy into a new system like RF once they see multiple choices for their glass (primes or zooms, pro or not, IS or not, etc..) and especially, for non-professionals, if there are alternatives to $3,000 superlative designs... With a selection of focal lengths starting at 18mm (excellent), it would be disappointing to stop at 85mm, why not a 135mm 2.8 IS (similar to the venerable FD 135mm f:2.5)?


----------



## gdanmitchell (Apr 6, 2020)

If they can produce such a series of smaller f/2 non-L primes, they would increase the appeal of smaller Canon mirrorless bodies to folks doing things like street and travel photography. 

Right now the smaller bodies are interesting, but folks looking to minimize systems size and weight with an R body are stymied by the larger lenses.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 6, 2020)

Rivermist said:


> The more new lenses the better, people buy into a new system like RF once they see multiple choices for their glass (primes or zooms, pro or not, IS or not, etc..) and especially, for non-professionals, if there are alternatives to $3,000 superlative designs... With a selection of focal lengths starting at 18mm (excellent), it would be disappointing to stop at 85mm, why not a 135mm 2.8 IS (similar to the venerable FD 135mm f:2.5)?



I think we are going to have an rf 70-200mm f/4. I also think we are going to have an rf 135mm f/2. (Will it have IS? Hope so!) I don't think an rf 135mm 2.8 would make sense, at least not for years and years.

The ef 135mm f/2 has long been regarded as one of Canon's sweetest primes, and perhaps its best deal, certainly in an L (though the ef 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro is a contender). If the rf version is offered at a similar price, perhaps bumped up as a new release and to account for inflation, a 2.8 just seems superfluous. 

But, I agree, Canon needs to offer cheaper, lighter, smaller lenses, not only for budget reasons, but for the sheer fun and convenience of having decent quality glass that is easy to carry around with a smaller body--and won't be such a heartbreak if lost or damaged when out and about.


----------



## Kjsheldo (Apr 6, 2020)

YES - this is most needed, just make them as professional as possible. Zeiss did this perfectly well with their Loxia and Batis lines for E-Mount. F2 is the perfect balance of aperture, size, and weight. I want a whole lineup of well-made, robust f2 lenses around 300-400 grams. Please.


----------



## Rivermist (Apr 6, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I think we are going to have an rf 70-200mm f/4. I also think we are going to have an rf 135mm f/2. (Will it have IS? Hope so!) I don't think an rf 135mm 2.8 would make sense, at least not for years and years.
> 
> The ef 135mm f/2 has long been regarded as one of Canon's sweetest primes, and perhaps its best deal, certainly in an L (though the ef 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro is a contender). If the rf version is offered at a similar price, perhaps bumped up as a new release and to account for inflation, a 2.8 just seems superfluous.
> 
> But, I agree, Canon needs to offer cheaper, lighter, smaller lenses, not only for budget reasons, but for the sheer fun and convenience of having decent quality glass that is easy to carry around with a smaller body--and won't be such a heartbreak if lost or damaged when out and about.


I agree that 135 f:2 would be great, but looking at what happens when IS gets added (weight, price, L, see the EF 85mm 1.4L), it seems more reasonable to look at 2.8 for that focal length for an "affordable" more compact alternative. I loved the 135L, indeed one of the great lenses of the EF offering but tricky in low light due to absence of IS.


----------



## overniven (Apr 6, 2020)

On my RP, I love my 35mm RF lense. I don't need the size or the cost of an L, having a great mid range option for an 85mm would be great. Right now, I've been using some old adapted Konica Hexanon 85mm and 135mms. 

It'll get the job done for now.


----------



## bbasiaga (Apr 6, 2020)

I love my 85 EF lens. I'm kinda stoked that I don't even need to upgrade when (if, just in case my wife is reading) I go to an RF body. And I might even get free IS through IBIS! Same for the 135L. 

-Brian


----------



## art sanchez (Apr 6, 2020)

Wow that would be awesome, small, stabilized and cheap native glass. I'm in


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 6, 2020)

So does this mean Canon will bring 50mm f2 is stm for RF? If so that would be very interesting addition.


----------



## IcyBergs (Apr 6, 2020)

Would love to see this priced at $499 and see them follow it up with a similarly built 50mm 1.4 IS priced in that range too.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 6, 2020)

100 f2 1:2 macro pleeeaaase


----------



## PiezoSwitch (Apr 6, 2020)

gdanmitchell said:


> If they can produce such a series of smaller f/2 non-L primes, they would increase the appeal of smaller Canon mirrorless bodies to folks doing things like street and travel photography.
> 
> Right now the smaller bodies are interesting, but folks looking to minimize systems size and weight with an R body are stymied by the larger lenses.



Definitely a sentiment I agree with. As someone who uses my M6 a lot as my everyday out and about camera the R system lenses certainly poses some challenges. Weight is obviously a consideration but there's also the issue of their dimensions, especially their diameters. It makes it challenging with my existing camera bags. Generally speaking for everyday use I prefer to use a messenger bag rather than a larger dedicated camera sling bag especially since I need to carry other items as well other than camera gear. Luckily the EF lenses are a nice compromise, I find carrying my 28/2.8 EF IS (or 35/1.8 RF IS) and 100/2 EF with my RP to be a very workable combo.


----------



## SkynetTX (Apr 6, 2020)

Will we have any new EF-S lenses or entry level crop DSLRs in the foreseable future? Currently I don't have the money to buy new mirrorless cameras and RF lenses but a cheap EF-S 70-200 f/2.8 and a 1200D Mark II with a (Digic 6 or) newer processor would be great.


----------



## slclick (Apr 6, 2020)

SkynetTX said:


> Will we have any new EF-S lenses or entry level crop DSLRs in the foreseable future? Currently I don't have the money to buy new mirrorless cameras and RF lenses but a cheap EF-S 70-200 f/2.8 and a 1200D Mark II with a (Digic 6 or) newer processor would be great.


There will be more entry dslr's no worries but as for your other requests, sadly I think not. I'll take a wild stab in the dark and say no more EF-S glass.ever. Some would say you could bet the farm on no more ef-s.


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 6, 2020)

How big and heavy are the associated R camera as going to be? The RP and SL1/2/3 are only slightly larger than the M5 and almost exactly the same weight. My M5 with the Sigma 16 f/1.4 C lens is an absolute joy to carry compared with the 5D3 and Canon 24 f/1.4 L lens and most of the weight difference is in the body itself.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Apr 6, 2020)

If more RF primes are soon on their way I'd like an RF 24mm 2.8 IS please... I hope it will be smallish and light, the same build quality as the RF 35mm 1.8 IS would be fine by me


----------



## ashmadux (Apr 6, 2020)

So we got stiffed as EF users, for the most important 85 and 50 IS.....thank fully my 50 has held up fantastically well.

No one would want a 50 F2 anyways.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 6, 2020)

I would prefer an 85/1.8 instead of the IS but if that one is sharp at 1/2 and still has nice bokeh, then okay.


----------



## ashmadux (Apr 6, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> How big and heavy are the associated R camera as going to be? The RP and SL1/2/3 are only slightly larger than the M5 and almost exactly the same weight. My M5 with the Sigma 16 f/1.4 C lens is an absolute joy to carry compared with the 5D3 and Canon 24 f/1.4 L lens and most of the weight difference is in the body itself.




Depends on your use cases. In my fashion environments, my beloved M cams are not going to cut it except for a b cam or with a wide angle for specific shots. And its simply faster to use a bulky 5d3 when youre shooting and moving rapidly. the joystick is still faster to use than a finger sliding across the screen, and when you have 20 seconds or less to take a shot or get that angle/eye, you need solid, weighted tools to capture them.

Not to mention needing to use a 70-200 or a 24-70...so yeah.


----------



## bbasiaga (Apr 6, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> How big and heavy are the associated R camera as going to be? The RP and SL1/2/3 are only slightly larger than the M5 and almost exactly the same weight. My M5 with the Sigma 16 f/1.4 C lens is an absolute joy to carry compared with the 5D3 and Canon 24 f/1.4 L lens and most of the weight difference is in the body itself.




I think you'll see a range. I saw an RP in the store and it was small which I could see some value in for a travel body. I wonder if that will be the progenitor of the 'rebel' line replacements? Hopefully they keep something in that form factor. I think the R5 will be big like the 5D series. And a 1 series R will likely be larger still. Once a full line is released, I think they'll have it all covered. 

-Brian


----------



## Andy Westwood (Apr 6, 2020)

It is nice to have something to chat about in these dull lookdown days but thinking about it I don't think an RF 85 F2 will be made. Canon have had an EF 85mm 1.8 for years now going to F2 would be a step backwards, surely an RF 85mm 1.8 IS would be more likely and feel like an upgrade given it had IS


----------



## deleteme (Apr 6, 2020)

Viggo said:


> 100 f2 1:2 macro pleeeaaase


I love my EF 100 macro but I lament the unloved EF100 f2. It is the unsung sweet spot of portrait lenses.
I had the EF 85 f1.8 and while it did heroic work, it was too short for my comfort for portrait work. The 135 f2 is no doubt superb but too long for my studio.


----------



## LensFungus (Apr 6, 2020)

I don't expect the lens to fight CAs as good as the RF 85mm 1.2L but if shooting open wide is better than shooting open wide with popular lenses like the Sony 85mm 1.8 or the Fujifilm 56mm 1.2, I would love to own it.


----------



## VICYASA (Apr 6, 2020)

RF 16mm RF f/2 IS STM

Thank you!


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 6, 2020)

Any news here is good news! Nice to see y'all posting! I hope you are all doing well and hope those of you who are still able to work still can.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 6, 2020)

The EF 85 mm f/1.8 isn't at all bulky, so perhaps they could give it that slight bump in aperture?


----------



## slclick (Apr 6, 2020)

ashmadux said:


> So we got stiffed as EF users, for the most important 85 and 50 IS.....thank fully my 50 has held up fantastically well.
> 
> No one would want a 50 F2 anyways.


I'd love a set of f/2 pancakes. 24/28/35/40/50 and something like a short stack of an 85. Not all of us have hard ons for super wide apertures.


----------



## Architect1776 (Apr 6, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Why not non-L lenses up to 200mm f2.8? Canon used to do this and the 200mm f2.8 for amateur sports people with kids might be nice. Who knows though with high ISO's available now?


----------



## IcyBergs (Apr 6, 2020)

slclick said:


> I'd love a set of f/2 pancakes. 24/28/35/40/50 and something like a short stack of an 85. Not all of us have hard ons for super wide apertures.


I second you on the set of f/2 pancakes.

But if history is any indication there is a decent chance that if Canon were to release a non-pancake non-L 50 it would be faster than f/2.


----------



## slclick (Apr 6, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> I second you on the set of f/2 pancakes.
> 
> But if history is any indication there is a decent chance that if Canon were to release a non-pancake non-L 50 it would be faster than f/2.


Oh I agree, also I shouldn't have included the 50 in there, just lumped it with the 85 as as small DG design. No pickle jar. This is a CR1 though so it's all up in the air


----------



## IcyBergs (Apr 6, 2020)

ashmadux said:


> So we got stiffed as EF users, for the most important 85 and 50 IS.....thank fully my 50 has held up fantastically well.
> 
> No one would want a 50 F2 anyways.


If it's small enough, has a short MFD, cheap, and tack sharp I'd take one.


----------



## NowHearThis (Apr 6, 2020)

I like the idea of F2 primes for RF mount. For me the 2 lenses I would want RF18/2 & RF85/2. Now I just hope they are reasonably small, light, and most importantly... affordable.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 6, 2020)

slclick said:


> I'd love a set of f/2 pancakes. 24/28/35/40/50 and something like a short stack of an 85. Not all of us have hard ons for super wide apertures.



Oh, now if we're talking pancakes, that's a different story altogother. I was wondering why an f/2 versus an f1/8 (which in the EF world isn't super bulky at all--but it's certainly no pancake), in another comment.

In an ideal world there'd be a series of pancakes (at whatever aperture they can manage) and a series of nice, normal sized lenses with about a 58mm filter thread on them, in whatever aperture can be managed there. Then the super-duper lenses with no size constraint on them and the letter L to boot.


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 6, 2020)

Viggo said:


> 100 f2 1:2 macro pleeeaaase



Would maybe make an L lens, but I would pay around 1000 bucks for it in an instant ...


----------



## dancan (Apr 6, 2020)

Good idea. I still use EF system and would only change if more options are on the table. Would like many RF lenses instead of using the adaptor.
So a RF 4,0/ 70-200 is also welcome. And furthermore everything with TS.


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 6, 2020)

SteveC said:


> The EF 85 mm f/1.8 isn't at all bulky, so perhaps they could give it that slight bump in aperture?


What about a bump in IS + at least 1:3 closeup capability?


----------



## slclick (Apr 6, 2020)

Is the ask for IS as strong as it used to be for future IBIS bodies? Let's think in terms of keeping size and weight to a minimum. Fuji is a good model for this line of thought.


----------



## picperfect (Apr 6, 2020)

art sanchez said:


> Wow that would be awesome, small, stabilized and cheap native glass. I'm in



"cheap". oh well. I would not hold my breath. I expect € 699 MSRP for a Canon RF 85/2.0 IS.

Canon EF 85/1.8 is reasonably priced at € 375, a bit faster, but no IS.
RF 35/1.8 IS = € 549.
Tamron 85/1.8 VC = € 699. 
Sony FE 85/1.8 = € 499 - but no IS.


----------



## art sanchez (Apr 6, 2020)

Great point



picperfect said:


> "cheap". oh well. I would not hold my breath. I expect € 699 MSRP for a Canon RF 85/2.0 IS.
> 
> Canon EF 85/1.8 is reasonably priced at € 375, a bit faster, but no IS.
> RF 35/1.8 IS = € 549.
> ...


----------



## BillB (Apr 6, 2020)

picperfect said:


> "cheap". oh well. I would not hold my breath. I expect € 699 MSRP for a Canon RF 85/2.0 IS.
> 
> Canon EF 85/1.8 is reasonably priced at € 375, a bit faster, but no IS.
> RF 35/1.8 IS = € 549.
> ...


Two "cheap" primes would most likely cost more than th 24-105 f4.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 6, 2020)

slclick said:


> Is the ask for IS as strong as it used to be for future IBIS bodies?


How can we know until IBIS has been proven in the field?


----------



## Trey T (Apr 6, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


How is “told by an unknown source” a possibility? 

Anonymous or unreliable source?


----------



## brad-man (Apr 6, 2020)

Trey T said:


> How is “told by an unknown source” a possibility?
> 
> Anonymous or unreliable source?


Read up on the definition of CR1. It's kinda like a possible maybe...


----------



## BillB (Apr 7, 2020)

Trey T said:


> How is “told by an unknown source” a possibility?
> 
> Anonymous or unreliable source?


Maybe it means a source with unknown reliability


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Apr 7, 2020)

Oh thank goodness! There's 10 RF lenses on the market already, and still only two 85mm options to chose from. I was starting to become concerned that we wouldn't have choices.

Seriously, though, sarcasm aside. Along with the 85mm f/1.8 rumored to be coming this year? Or in place of it? The concentrated strategy of lens production is a bit surprising to me. It's like, you can have the usual trinity (makes sense) or some f/2.0 zoom exotics, or you can have whichever prime lens you want, as long as it's 85mm. I get that there is more than just that available, but nothing approaching the saturation of that particular focal length. There's 10 native RF lenses available right now, with another on the way. Five of them - nearly half - are either 85mm primes or include 85mm in their zoom range. There's only four prime lenses released, and 50% of them are 85mm lenses.

Do we need another? Sure, we need an option for non-L lens buyers. Do we need it right danged now, before the rest of the lens line is even fleshed out reasonably? That's debatable. I'm all for more consumer-grade lenses, as I have said over and over again that adoption by the broader market is going to drive long-term success, and in turn justify further investment in lens engineering. But I am a little bit stymied that this would precede other more logical options and be released so soon in the consumer lineup. I can talk my way into this making sense as an early consumer grade lens. It just feels, well, too early. Even compared to the pace at which it was released in the L lineup.


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 7, 2020)

I would find a RF 105 mm f/2 lens to be much more desirable than another 85mm one, preferably with IS, latest linear AF build, and (if possible) a large maximum magnification for close up work.


----------



## chong67 (Apr 7, 2020)

I am waiting for 14-28. How much longer? I was going to get the 15-35.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Apr 7, 2020)

I doubt they would make an 85mm f2... unless it's intended to cost less than $500


----------



## .jan (Apr 7, 2020)

SkynetTX said:


> Will we have any new EF-S lenses or entry level crop DSLRs in the foreseable future? Currently I don't have the money to buy new mirrorless cameras and RF lenses but a cheap EF-S 70-200 f/2.8 and a 1200D Mark II with a (Digic 6 or) newer processor would be great.


I'm afraid you'll either get cheap or f/2.8 in any Canon zoom lens.


----------



## davidespinosa (Apr 7, 2020)

Combining this rumor with the earlier rumor
https://www.canonrumors.com/are-these-the-7-rf-lenses-canon-will-be-announcing-in-2020-cr1/
we have:
* 18mm f/2.8
* 24mm f/2
* 35mm f/1.8 MACRO IS (existing)
* 50mm f/1.8 MACRO IS
* 85mm f/2 IS

I hope the 18mm is f/2 instead of f/2.8.
If it's only f/2.8, I'll probably get the 15-35mm instead of the primes.
And I bet many people would like 100mm and 135mm.

But overall very good news !


----------



## Kiton (Apr 7, 2020)

I have been complaining about the lack of basic f2 primes for years, maybe decades. Nikon and Leica made their names on f2 primes. Canon followed suit in the days of the FTb. Nikon currently has a series of G primes at f2. It would make sense for canon to produce at least a few in this huge void. I would buy a 28 and 85 immediately. Maybe a 20mm. I have the current 20mm 2.8, garbage lens. I had 2x 50mm 1.4, not great, my 50mm STM out performs the 1.4. I have had the current 85mm 1.8 since the mid 1990s and it is still a decent lens today, but it is time for a refresh!! The current 35mm f2 is very sharp, they did that well. They need to wake the &^%$ up and relaize the entire world does not want to walk around with an f1.0 massive chunk of glass!


----------



## Etienne (Apr 7, 2020)

BillB said:


> Two "cheap" primes would most likely cost more than th 24-105 f4.



But you end up with better photos than the snapshot look that you'll get from a slow standard zoom


----------



## Stuart (Apr 7, 2020)

So this STM design is a video lens?


----------



## slclick (Apr 7, 2020)

Kiton said:


> I have been complaining about the lack of basic f2 primes for years, maybe decades. Nikon and Leica made their names on f2 primes. Canon followed suit in the days of the FTb. Nikon currently has a series of G primes at f2. It would make sense for canon to produce at least a few in this huge void. I would buy a 28 and 85 immediately. Maybe a 20mm. I have the current 20mm 2.8, garbage lens. I had 2x 50mm 1.4, not great, my 50mm STM out performs the 1.4. I have had the current 85mm 1.8 since the mid 1990s and it is still a decent lens today, but it is time for a refresh!! The current 35mm f2 is very sharp, they did that well. They need to wake the &^%$ up and relaize the entire world does not want to walk around with an f1.0 massive chunk of glass!


Once again, get IS out of


Etienne said:


> But you end up with better photos than the snapshot look that you'll get from a slow standard zoom


snapshot look/slow standard zoom. This is what you're calling the 24-105 f/4L ll ? Interesting. You know, there is that saying..."In the right hands..."


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 7, 2020)

Etienne said:


> But you end up with better photos than the snapshot look that you'll get from a slow standard zoom



You would be revealing a pretty low level of competence if you are claiming the 24-105 f/4 is anything less than an excellent, professional level lens. I'm always surprised by the lack of regard the lens gets here, though, so you wouldn't be alone. Look back through the past 20 years--and even this year!--of PPA magazine to see how often the lens was used for their cover photos. And if you could get your hands on a copy of any year's _Loan Collection, _you'd see how often it is used for award winning photos. Landscape and nature photographers have been using it as a reliable and amazingly flexible lens for years also.

You were just being flip, right? A little tongue and cheek to be provactive?


----------



## SouthpawSD (Apr 7, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> You would be revealing a pretty low level of competence if you are claiming the 24-105 f/4 is anything less than an excellent, professional level lens. I'm always surprised by the lack of regard the lens gets here, though, so you wouldn't be alone. Look back through the past 20 years--and even this year!--of PPA magazine to see how often the lens was used for their cover photos. And if you could get your hands on a copy of any year's _Loan Collection, _you'd see how often it is used for award winning photos. Landscape and nature photographers have been using it as a reliable and amazingly flexible lens for years also.
> 
> You were just being flip, right? A little tongue and cheek to be provactive?



THANK YOU!


----------



## AEWest (Apr 7, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> Why not non-L lenses up to 200mm f2.8? Canon used to do this and the 200mm f2.8 for amateur sports people with kids might be nice. Who knows though with high ISO's available now?


I would love an f/4 non L holy trinity of zoom lenses for price and weight reasons.


----------



## Architect1776 (Apr 7, 2020)

AEWest said:


> I would love an f/4 non L holy trinity of zoom lenses for price and weight reasons.



Or even f3.5 which is still relatively smaller.


----------



## jonbenz (Apr 8, 2020)

28th years to give it IS but to remove 1/3rd of a stop and an ok autofocus system? 

Is this the "Revolution" of the R mount? or R stands for "ma*R*keting"?

I would expect at least, the same specs the past lens had but with real improvements (e.i RF 85mm f1.8 IS USM)

And don't get me wrong, I understand there are improvements on, for example, better edges of the frame, better contrast, but maybe they shouldn't have changed the mount for that.

Let's hope this CR1 is just that, a CR1.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 8, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> You would be revealing a pretty low level of competence if you are claiming the 24-105 f/4 is anything less than an excellent, professional level lens. I'm always surprised by the lack of regard the lens gets here, though, so you wouldn't be alone. Look back through the past 20 years--and even this year!--of PPA magazine to see how often the lens was used for their cover photos. And if you could get your hands on a copy of any year's _Loan Collection, _you'd see how often it is used for award winning photos. Landscape and nature photographers have been using it as a reliable and amazingly flexible lens for years also.
> 
> You were just being flip, right? A little tongue and cheek to be provactive?



I am quite familiar with the 24-105 f/4L IS ... I've had one for a dozen years.
Pros use primes and f/2.8 zooms for a reason. I have never seen a pro use a 24-105 f/4 zoom on a job, although I'll take your word that photos from that lens are showing up from time to time. But at the end of the day, the pro workhorse lenses are the f/2.8 zooms and the primes.
I'm actually surprised at the loyalty to the f/4 zoom on this thread, maybe it's the convenience and affordability factor and it may be the only L lens that some people ever buy (because it's in a kit) in which case they would certainly be blown away by the quality.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 8, 2020)

Rivermist said:


> The more new lenses the better, people buy into a new system like RF once they see multiple choices for their glass (primes or zooms, pro or not, IS or not, etc..) and especially, for non-professionals, if there are alternatives to $3,000 superlative designs... With a selection of focal lengths starting at 18mm (excellent), it would be disappointing to stop at 85mm, why not a 135mm 2.8 IS (similar to the venerable FD 135mm f:2.5)?



I think we'd be far more likely to see a 135/1.8 L or 135/2 L in the RF mount first.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 8, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> I would prefer an 85/1.8 instead of the IS but if that one is sharp at 1/2 and still has nice bokeh, then okay.



Meh. The EF 85mm f/1.8 is really a T2.1 lens. Canon has gotten more "honest" in their max aperture claims in the last few years, so an RF85mm f/2 would probably be just as fast as the EF 85mm f/1.8.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 8, 2020)

Andy Westwood said:


> It is nice to have something to chat about in these dull lookdown days but thinking about it I don't think an RF 85 F2 will be made. Canon have had an EF 85mm 1.8 for years now going to F2 would be a step backwards, surely an RF 85mm 1.8 IS would be more likely and feel like an upgrade given it had IS



Except the EF 85mm f/1.8 has a T-stop of T2.1.

In recent years Canon's newer lenses are much closer in T-stop value to their specified f-number than in the early 1990s or even the late 2000s. Probably as a result of improved anti-reflective coatings and also coating the back of some lens elements (needed because digital sensors are much more reflective than film is and can cause ghosting without the additional coatings on the rear of lens elements).

The EF 24-105mm f/4 (2005), for instance, is T5 to T5.2 across it's zoom range. The EF 24-70mm f/4L (2012) is T4 from 24-50mm and T4.1 at 70mm.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 8, 2020)

SteveC said:


> The EF 85 mm f/1.8 isn't at all bulky, so perhaps they could give it that slight bump in aperture?



The EF 85mm f/1.8 is a T2.1 lens. Based on Canon's more recent lens output that have T-stop values much closer to their advertised f-numbers than lenses released in the 1990s, I'd expect an RF 85mm f/2 to also be about T2.1.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 8, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> Why not non-L lenses up to 200mm f2.8? Canon used to do this and the 200mm f2.8 for amateur sports people with kids might be nice. Who knows though with high ISO's available now?



The EF 200mm f/2.8 L is very affordable at less than $1K, but it is an "L" lens.


----------



## picperfect (Apr 8, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The EF 24-105mm f/4 (2005), for instance, is T5 to T5.2 across it's zoom range.



interesting. Do you have a source/link? And are there also T-stops known for the later version EF 24-105 Mk. II and RF 24-105 ? Thanks!

If true it fully confirms my long held suspicions and even exceeds them as far as the extent of lying goes. Imaging gear makers also lie regarding focal length of lenses - especially zooms. Their product claims are typically wider than true on wide end and shorter than true on the long end. Just the "lying amounts" are differing, anything between "acceptable rounding" of 1 or 2% all the way to insidious 10+%.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 8, 2020)

slclick said:


> Is the ask for IS as strong as it used to be for future IBIS bodies? Let's think in terms of keeping size and weight to a minimum. Fuji is a good model for this line of thought.



The RP has no IBIS and whatever very low cost body eventually replaces it will probably not be an IBIS body. It only makes sense that the cheapest lenses aimed at users of the cheapest bodies might have IS to make both the bodies and the lenses more attractive. At this point I'm sure Canon can put IS in an 85mm f/2 cheaper than they can put IBIS in an RP...


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 8, 2020)

picperfect said:


> "cheap". oh well. I would not hold my breath. I expect € 699 MSRP for a Canon RF 85/2.0 IS.
> 
> Canon EF 85/1.8 is reasonably priced at € 375, a bit faster, but no IS.
> RF 35/1.8 IS = € 549.
> ...



EF 85mm f/1.8 hasn't alway been that cheap, though. It's a 1992 vintage lens that introduced for 58,000 yen which was worth about $458 USD in 1992. With inflation, $458 USD in 1992 is worth $844 in 2020.

Not really faster, either as the EF 85mm f/1.8 is a T2.1 lens. Canon's more recent lens offerings have T-stop values much closer to their marketed f-numbers than in the past.


----------



## picperfect (Apr 8, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The EF 200mm f/2.8 L is very affordable at less than $1K, but it is an "L" lens.



hmmm. "very affordable" is a relative term. I consider € 779 quite a lot of money for the age-old EF 200/2.8 L (Mk. II = same optical formula), especially when compared to much more universally usable and better IQ EF 70-200/2.8 L IS (any version of it). Not to mention 3rd party 70-200/2.8 with IS, like the Sigma Sport or Tamron G2.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 8, 2020)

jonbenz said:


> 28th years to give it IS but to remove 1/3rd of a stop and an ok autofocus system?
> 
> Is this the "Revolution" of the R mount? or R stands for "ma*R*keting"?
> 
> ...



Dirty little secret: The EF 85mm f/1.8 is a T2.1 lens.

I'd expect an RF 85mm f/2 to also be right around T2.1.

Canon's current lenses tend to have T-stop values closer to their f-number rating than they did in years past.


----------



## picperfect (Apr 8, 2020)

slclick said:


> Is the ask for IS as strong as it used to be for future IBIS bodies? Let's think in terms of keeping size and weight to a minimum. Fuji is a good model for this line of thought.



It is an urban myth that IS adds a lot of size or weight to a lens. Witness for example Canon EF 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 versions with and without IS. Hardly much difference. And the price differential is also largely marketing/profit, rather than truly cost-related. In a lens with quite small moving AF lens elements like an 85/1.8 or f/2.0, impact of IS on size, weight and cost (for maker) are likely below 10% for each of those measures.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 8, 2020)

picperfect said:


> interesting. Do you have a source/link? And are there also T-stops known for the later version EF 24-105 Mk. II and RF 24-105 ? Thanks!
> 
> If true it fully confirms my long held suspicions and even exceeds them as far as the extent of lying goes. Imaging gear makers also lie regarding focal length of lenses - especially zooms. Their product claims are typically wider than true on wide end and shorter than true on the long end. Just the "lying amounts" are differing, anything between "acceptable rounding" of 1 or 2% all the way to insidious 10+%.



Here's a comparison of the EF 85mm f/1.8, EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS, and EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS II at DxO.

Click on 'Measurements' and then 'Transmission' to see the measured T-stop numbers and the difference from f-number to T-stop below that.

The EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS II is about 1/3 stop faster than the older 2005 version. The original is 2/3 stop slower, the II is 1/3 stop slower than f/4.

The EF 24-70mm f/4 is an honest T-4 at all focal lengths below 50mm and only T4.1 at 70mm.

They have not tested the EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS, RF 24-105 IS, nor RF 85s yet. The RF 28-70mm f/2 L is T2.2 across the entire range.

Keep in mind that a lot of those gains with the newer lenses are the result of better lens coatings that do not lose light from reflections. They may have the same size entrance pupils as the older lenses, but more of the light makes it through the lens elements.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 8, 2020)

Etienne said:


> I am quite familiar with the 24-105 f/4L IS ... I've had one for a dozen years.
> Pros use primes and f/2.8 zooms for a reason. I have never seen a pro use a 24-105 f/4 zoom on a job, although I'll take your word that photos from that lens are showing up from time to time. But at the end of the day, the pro workhorse lenses are the f/2.8 zooms and the primes.
> I'm actually surprised at the loyalty to the f/4 zoom on this thread, maybe it's the convenience and affordability factor and it may be the only L lens that some people ever buy (because it's in a kit) in which case they would certainly be blown away by the quality.



I've seen lots of pros use an EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS on the job. It's an indestructible lens that can take abuse and keep on working. Not all pros shoot fashion portraits in a studio in NYC. Some are war correspondents or work in other harsh environments. 

The original EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L had a bad habit of getting knocked out of alignment at the slightest bump to the front barrel due to most of the optical adjustments being placed at the front of the lens (Roger Cicala mentions it in this blog entry and goes into more detail in this one). I've got both the original 24-70/2.8L and 24-105/4L IS. I use the 24-105 a lot more than the 24-70 because most of my work is done in crowds, many of them very rowdy, and on sports sidelines. IS comes in handy more than another f-stop when shooting music festivals from the wings on temporary outdoor stages that vibrate with the music, too.


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 8, 2020)

There is quite a lot of posts of declared f# vs measured t# and phrased in such a way to indicate (to me) that any difference is "lying" by the manufacturer. You do know that these are 2 different things? f# is for the focal length / diameter of the entrance pupil ignoring light loss through the lens. t# is the same but then also takes light loss into account. All lenses have light loss, and with the number of elements in some lenses ranging from 10 to 20 I'm actually surprised that the light loss is as low as reported.

If you want to talk about "lying" from the manufacturers, you should talk about declared values vs measured values for the same thing, such as focal length, or for f#, or for t# (which is rarely declared). I've seen many patent disclosures that list the focal length & f# as declared in the name of the lens, and then the measured value (by the manufacturer) of both which are indeed quite different. I have noticed that the focal length & f# values in the name are almost always shifted in favor of better values for the manufacturer. Those differences are often so different that I would consider them lying, indeed. If you want to know the true value of lying then the tester must mention the declared value for focal length, f# and t# (if any) and then the measured value for each of focal length, f#, and t#. Then you'd really know.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 8, 2020)

picperfect said:


> hmmm. "very affordable" is a relative term. I consider € 779 quite a lot of money for the age-old EF 200/2.8 L (Mk. II = same optical formula), especially when compared to much more universally usable and better IQ EF 70-200/2.8 L IS (any version of it). Not to mention 3rd party 70-200/2.8 with IS, like the Sigma Sport or Tamron G2.



$750 (for the EF 200mm f/2.8 L @ B&H) is a lot cheaper than $1,800 (for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III at B&H). It's also considerably less than $1,260 and $1,200, respectively, for the Sigma Sports and Tamron G2 at B&H.

I'll have to disagree with you about IQ of the 70-200/2.8 lenses versus the 200/2.8 and 135/2 (which have very similar optical designs).
The newer 70-200/2.8 lenses may be "sharper" on the edges (and thus get better "single number" scores from testing sites), but the bokeh is nowhere near as smooth as the 135/2 and 200/2.8. My EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II is a workhorse for sure and I use it a lot. But if I know I can get away with only using 135mm, I'm grabbing the EF 135mm f/2 L *EVERY.SINGLE.TIME.* There's no comparison in the smoothness of the out of focus areas.

Then there's the whole complexity problem of optical alignment with zoom lenses like the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II/III with 23 elements in 19 groups. Again, Uncle Roger doesn't pull any punches regarding how difficult it is to find zoom lenses like these in "near perfect" alignment. He puts it even more succinctly here (emphasis added by me in the excerpt below):



> First, most (but not all) of you are aware that zooms are not primes. Every zoom ever made is better at specific focal lengths than at others. I know many of you don’t want it to be so, because you want to know this zoom scores 72.1 and this other one is a 68.4. But MTFs are useful for grown-up photographers who consider their lens a tool. These photographers want to know where their tool works best and worst so they may use its strengths and avoid its weaknesses. You will sometimes find that brand X’s zoom is better at one end, and brand Y’s zoom better at the other. So it goes.
> 
> *Second, while I’m not going to put out variance graphs (yet), remember that all zooms vary more than primes. All. Every one ever.* *There are no exceptions.* So the average zoom MTF is a broad brush; you can get tendencies from this but not ‘this is how your copy will look pixel peeping information.’ The average data may show that the Wunderbar 70-200mm is sharper at 70mm than at 200mm. Something like 15% to 30% of copies, though, might be sharper at 200mm so if yours is sharper at 200mm, well good for you. Similarly, the Wunderbar may be sharper than the Ultraboy 70-200mm on average. But if you compare one copy of each, 20% to 30% of the Ultraboys could be sharper than the Wunderbar.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 8, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> There is quite a lot of posts of declared f# vs measured t# and phrased in such a way to indicate (to me) that any difference is "lying" by the manufacturer. You do know that these are 2 different things? f# is for the focal length / diameter of the entrance pupil ignoring light loss through the lens. t# is the same but then also takes light loss into account. All lenses have light loss, and with the number of elements in some lenses ranging from 10 to 20 I'm actually surprised that the light loss is as low as reported.
> 
> If you want to talk about "lying" from the manufacturers, you should talk about declared values vs measured values for the same thing, such as focal length, or for f#, or for t# (which is rarely declared). I've seen many patent disclosures that list the focal length & f# as declared in the name of the lens, and then the measured value (by the manufacturer) of both which are indeed quite different. I have noticed that the focal length & f# values in the name are almost always shifted in favor of better values for the manufacturer. Those differences are often so different that I would consider them lying, indeed. If you want to know the true value of lying then the tester must mention the declared value for focal length, f# and t# (if any) and then the measured value for each of focal length, f#, and t#. Then you'd really know.




I'm not sure who your response is to, because you don't use the "reply" function, but nowhere have I said they were "lying" or intentionally misleading. I've even mentioned at least once that most of the gain in f-number vs. T-stop is due to improved anti-reflective coatings and using AR coatings on the back side of some lens elements to deal with ghosting due to reflection of far flatter and more reflective digital sensors as compared to film.

I've only said that the net amount of light making it out the back of the lens with Canon's newer lenses tend to show less of a difference between f-number and T-stop than their older lenses, such as the EF 85mm f/1.8 from way back in 1992, did.

*Everyone is moaning about how a proposed 85mm f/2 lens would be a "downgrade" or a "step back" from the EF 85mm f/1.8. All I'm pointing out is that, functionally speaking, the EF 85mm f/1.8 from 1992 is probably not any faster than an 85mm f/2 lens from 2020.*


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 8, 2020)

Etienne said:


> I am quite familiar with the 24-105 f/4L IS ... I've had one for a dozen years.
> Pros use primes and f/2.8 zooms for a reason. I have never seen a pro use a 24-105 f/4 zoom on a job, although I'll take your word that photos from that lens are showing up from time to time. But at the end of the day, the pro workhorse lenses are the f/2.8 zooms and the primes.
> I'm actually surprised at the loyalty to the f/4 zoom on this thread, maybe it's the convenience and affordability factor and it may be the only L lens that some people ever buy (because it's in a kit) in which case they would certainly be blown away by the quality.


Actually, there is a working pro on this forum that takes fantastic photos (automobiles) with a 24-105 f/4 zoom. Just because you haven't seen a pro use one means nothing.


----------



## mariuspavel (Apr 8, 2020)

STM and IS, is a great news for RF mount lenses.
But when is the new R5 come out. Now I have a 5DIV and I wait to see what's the price tag to see my other purchases.


----------



## slclick (Apr 8, 2020)

picperfect said:


> It is an urban myth that IS adds a lot of size or weight to a lens. Witness for example Canon EF 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 versions with and without IS. Hardly much difference. And the price differential is also largely marketing/profit, rather than truly cost-related. In a lens with quite small moving AF lens elements like an 85/1.8 or f/2.0, impact of IS on size, weight and cost (for maker) are likely below 10% for each of those measures.


No one is suggesting it's a huge difference yet there is a difference. And that EF tele zoom you use as a reference? I can notice the size and weight. many can. many have. No myth.


----------



## slclick (Apr 8, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Actually, there is a working pro on this forum that takes fantastic photos (automobiles) with a 24-105 f/4 zoom. Just because you haven't seen a pro use one means nothing.


Primes vs Zooms with primes coming out on top without egos involved used to be a thing, not a thing any longer. Yet some keep their ego in the argument. ymmv.


----------



## picperfect (Apr 8, 2020)

slclick said:


> No one is suggesting it's a huge difference yet there is a difference. And that EF tele zoom you use as a reference? I can notice the size and weight. many can. many have. No myth.




Myth.

EF 70-200 / 4 L 705 grams vs. 4 L IS (Mk. I) 760 grams, both exactly same size.
If you were blindfolded and get 1 of each in your hands, I don't think you could tell which is which. And even less so, when both would be attached to the same model camera.


----------



## slclick (Apr 8, 2020)

Tell you what, you so desperately need to win, I'll roll over and end this nonsense.

Press Release:

"No difference, I just used them side by side in Wisconsin and Bernie and I both concede!"


----------



## Architect1776 (Apr 8, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The EF 200mm f/2.8 L is very affordable at less than $1K, but it is an "L" lens.



$1.000.00 is not affordable for a very large portion of the population of users.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 8, 2020)

slclick said:


> Primes vs Zooms with primes coming out on top without egos involved used to be a thing, not a thing any longer. Yet some keep their ego in the argument. ymmv.



Actually, the ego insecurities of f/4 users is showing it's ugly face


----------



## AEWest (Apr 8, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> $1.000.00 is not affordable for a very large portion of the population of users.


The word "affordable" is a very imprecise word - it means different things to different people. 

So marketers can get away with using it very widely and not be worried about getting sued - even $100K cars can be considered "affordable" if their competitor's cars are say $125K.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 8, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > I would prefer an 85/1.8 instead of the IS but if that one is sharp at 1/2 and still has nice bokeh, then okay.
> ...


I don't know why my post made you laugh and "Meh".
I didn't compare any f-stops of the old EF to f-stops of the new RF lenses.
So my statement stays the same:
_"I would prefer an 85/1.8 instead of the IS but if that one is sharp at 1/2 and still has nice bokeh, then okay." _
Maybe you could tell me what is funny with half a 1/3 step of more light? Or a lens that delivers IQ wide open.


----------



## slclick (Apr 8, 2020)

Etienne said:


> Actually, the ego insecurities of f/4 users is showing it's ugly face


I own both. These are tools, not keyboard warrior trophies.


----------



## jonebize (Apr 9, 2020)

f/2 is a nice sweet spot for that 85mm focal length. Good choices Canonn


----------



## davidespinosa (Apr 9, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Maybe you could tell me what is funny with half a step of more light?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think everybody goes by the 1/3-stop scale.
So f/1.8 is one-third stop faster than f/2.
Your call whether that's significant...


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 9, 2020)

davidespinosa said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think everybody goes by the 1/3-stop scale.
> So f/1.8 is one-third stop faster than f/2.
> Your call whether that's significant...


you're correct!


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 11, 2020)

picperfect said:


> Myth.
> 
> EF 70-200 / 4 L 705 grams vs. 4 L IS (Mk. I) 760 grams, both exactly same size.
> If you were blindfolded and get 1 of each in your hands, I don't think you could tell which is which. And even less so, when both would be attached to the same model camera.



FACT: EF 70-200mm f/4 L released in 1999 - in use weight with hood and tripod ring: 924g - Manufacturer published weight (lens only): 705g
FACT: EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS released in 2006 - in use weight with hood and tripod ring: 969g - Manufacturer published weight (lens only): 760g
FACT: EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS II released in 2018 - in use weight with hood and tripod ring: 979g - Manufacturer published weight (lens only): 800g

In use weight with hood and tripod ring as listed at The-Digital-Picture


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 11, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> $1.000.00 is not affordable for a very large portion of the population of users.



It's a lot more affordable than the $1,800 lens to which the original commenter was comparing it.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 11, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> I don't know why my post made you laugh and "Meh".
> I didn't compare any f-stops of the old EF to f-stops of the new RF lenses.
> So my statement stays the same:
> _"I would prefer an 85/1.8 instead of the IS but if that one is sharp at 1/2 and still has nice bokeh, then okay." _
> Maybe you could tell me what is funny with half a 1/3 step of more light? Or a lens that delivers IQ wide open.



*Everyone is moaning about how a proposed 85mm f/2 lens would be a "downgrade" or a "step back" from the EF 85mm f/1.8. All I'm pointing out is that, functionally speaking, the EF 85mm f/1.8 from 1992 is probably not any faster than an 85mm f/2 lens from 2020.*


----------



## SteveC (Apr 11, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> *Everyone is moaning about how a proposed 85mm f/2 lens would be a "downgrade" or a "step back" from the EF 85mm f/1.8. All I'm pointing out is that, functionally speaking, the EF 85mm f/1.8 from 1992 is probably not any faster than an 85mm f/2 lens from 2020.*



But wouldn't the depth of field be at least somewhat different? If you're going for that "shallow depth of field" effect, how different are the two?

Come to think of it, seeing as how I own one of those f/1.8s, I can try figuring it out.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 11, 2020)

SteveC said:


> But wouldn't the depth of field be at least somewhat different? If you're going for that "shallow depth of field" effect, how different are the two?
> 
> Come to think of it, seeing as how I own one of those f/1.8s, I can try figuring it out.



I think to most users, the difference in DoF between an f/1.8 and f/2 lens is far less significant than the difference between 1/40" and 1/60" in low light. And the shutter speed is determined by the T-stop number, not the f-number.

An f1.8/T2.1 lens would give marginally shallower DoF than an f2/T2.1 lens, but would not allow for any faster shutter speed.* So it would not be any "faster", even if it does give slightly shallower DoF.*

Even f/2 at 85mm is shallow enough to only be usable in a very controlled situation where your human subject is able to hold poses without moving for more than just a few fleeting moments.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 11, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I think to most users, the difference in DoF between an f/1.8 and f/2 lens is far less significant than the difference between 1/40" and 1/60" in low light. And the shutter speed is determined by the T-stop number, not the f-number.
> 
> An f1.8/T2.1 lens would give marginally shallower DoF than an f2/T2.1 lens, but would not allow for any faster shutter speed. So it would not be any "faster", even if it does give slightly shallower DoF.
> 
> Even f/2 at 85mm is shallow enough to only be usable in a very controlled situation where your human subject is able to hold poses without moving for more than just a few fleeting moments.



Well, I just ran the experiment, looking at bokeh (I don't disagree with your point about exposure times--thank you for the clear explanation, too, it was one more bit of technical education for me). There is a noticeable difference with the lens at f/1.8 focusing on near clutter with a painting about 20 feet beyond, bokehed out, versus same lens, same camera (an M50) at f/2.0. A face on the painting that's about a foot tall still has darker areas for eyes and mouth at 2.0, and loses about half that on its way to being a uniform pink blur at 1.8. (Hypothetically, 1.6 or maybe 1.4 would reduce it entirely to a pink blur.)

But it's not a gigantic deal-breaker difference, except maybe to a bokeh fanatic. Still, I'd pay a bit extra for it if I had the option to.

And I'm glad to see signs of RF lenses for mere mortals being developed. It shows, I think, that Canon really does want "regular people" (well, regular people who prize full frame, admittedly that's already a pretty select group) to move there and it's not going to remain a boutique (albeit backward compatible) mount any more within the realm of full frame.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 11, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Well, I just ran the experiment, looking at bokeh (I don't disagree with your point about exposure times--thank you for the clear explanation, too, it was one more bit of technical education for me). There is a noticeable difference with the lens at f/1.8 focusing on near clutter with a painting about 20 feet beyond, bokehed out, versus same lens, same camera (an M50) at f/2.0. A face on the painting that's about a foot tall still has darker areas for eyes and mouth at 2.0, and loses about half that on its way to being a uniform pink blur at 1.8. (Hypothetically, 1.6 or maybe 1.4 would reduce it entirely to a pink blur.)
> 
> But it's not a gigantic deal-breaker difference, except maybe to a bokeh fanatic. Still, I'd pay a bit extra for it if I had the option to.
> 
> And I'm glad to see signs of RF lenses for mere mortals being developed. It shows, I think, that Canon really does want "regular people" (well, regular people who prize full frame, admittedly that's already a pretty select group) to move there and it's not going to remain a boutique (albeit backward compatible) mount any more within the realm of full frame.



It seems to me that the amount of out-of-focus blur and the qualities of the bokeh aren't usually included in what is referred to as "lens speed". Saying a lens is "faster" means it allows a shorter shutter time than a lens that is "slower". If I want to talk about out-of-focus blur and bokeh, I'll talk about a "wider aperture" lens, not a "faster" lens.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 11, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> *Everyone is moaning about how a proposed 85mm f/2 lens would be a "downgrade" or a "step back" from the EF 85mm f/1.8. ...*



Where is *MY* moan? Where is *MY *complain?
Why should you generalize and project *YOUR *opinion about others on my post? 
And why *EVERYTHING in bold???  *

By the way:
Because I see this f/1.8 patent I would not talk about an 30 year old lens design...
If this is optically not so good as an f/2.0 design then i still state


Maximilian said:


> ... but if that one is sharp at 1/2 and still has nice bokeh, *then okay*. (_edit: okay to the f/2.0 design, if you don't understand_)



But you should better make an excuse to anyone that you've embedded in your generalization.


----------



## picperfect (Apr 11, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Even f/2 at 85mm is shallow enough to only be usable in a very controlled situation where your human subject is able to hold poses without moving for more than just a few fleeting moments.



LOL! Just use Servo-AF or "EyeTracking / Continuous" or whatever it is called on your camera for handheld wide-open portraits. Model and/or photog can wobble around, focus will still be on cornea ... or on eyelash ... at worst ... grrr ;-)

Even a "cheap" Canon RF 85mm lens should be *f/1.8*, not f/2.0. Following your observations, the T-value should be even better compared to the old EF 85/1.8 with T/2.1. 

I'd find a Canon RF 85/*2.0* only worthwhile if it was as compact and light as the Pentax smc 77/1.8 Limited - L 48 x D 64 mm, filter 49mm (!), 270 grams - despite full metal construction and including built-in sliding metal lens shade.


----------



## SecureGSM (Apr 11, 2020)

picperfect said:


> LOL! Just use Servo-AF or "EyeTracking / Continuous" or whatever it is called on your camera for handheld wide-open portraits. Model and/or photog can wobble around, focus will still be on cornea ... or on eyelash ... at worst ... grrr ;-)
> 
> Even a "cheap" Canon RF 85mm lens should be *f/1.8*, not f/2.0. Following your observations, the T-value should be even better compared to the old EF 85/1.8 with T/2.1.
> 
> I'd find a Canon RF 85/*2.0* only worthwhile if it was as compact and light as the Pentax smc 77/1.8 Limited - L 48 x D 64 mm, filter 49mm (!), 270 grams - despite full metal construction and including built-in sliding metal lens shade.


Michael is right.

FYI, at 2 m to subject, 85/2.0 vs 85/1.8 DOF:

there.is.no.difference......
85/2 lens could be made small and light.... there is an obvious advantage for studio / controlled light. what the heck would you need a huge 85mm lens for when you shoot stopped down to at least F8 anyway?


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 11, 2020)

picperfect said:


> LOL! Just use Servo-AF or "EyeTracking / Continuous" or whatever it is called on your camera for handheld wide-open portraits. Model and/or photog can wobble around, focus will still be on cornea ... or on eyelash ... at worst ... grrr ;-)
> 
> Even a "cheap" Canon RF 85mm lens should be *f/1.8*, not f/2.0. Following your observations, the T-value should be even better compared to the old EF 85/1.8 with T/2.1.
> 
> I'd find a Canon RF 85/*2.0* only worthwhile if it was as compact and light as the Pentax smc 77/1.8 Limited - L 48 x D 64 mm, filter 49mm (!), 270 grams - despite full metal construction and including built-in sliding metal lens shade.



If the 1/3 stop difference between 85mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/2 is that huge to you, then you can go ahead and take a "pass" on the upcoming RF 85mm f/2 at a fairly affordable price point and pay ever how much you need to for an RF mount 85mm lens that goes wider than f/2. In my opinion the distinction is only significant for spec sheet bragging rights competitions.


----------



## picperfect (Apr 11, 2020)

no. i dont buy expensive primes (if its expensive its gotta be more universally useful to me = excellent zoom) and i will certainly not accept an 85/1.8 as a "high effort lens" justifying a high price tag. 

especially with the optical advantages (presumably) offered by RF mount - should make it easier to construct decent iq lenses with moderately wide apertures. 

f/2 would have been a fest in 1920. in 2020 it would be a totally uninspiring, boring, SLOW 85mm lens - even more so for "the world's leading imaging gesr maker" and its a brand new mount system with supposedly superior mount geometry. a poor (man's) joke!

at 85mm focal length f/1.8 has been STANDARD since 1987. f/1.4 is semi-fast. f/1.2 is fast. f/1.0 is very fast. less than f/1 is crazy. 

if it is only f/2 it would need to have a really low price, excellent IQ and be as compact as the Pentax smc 77/1.8 (!) limited if Canon wants me to consider it. otherwise i got 85mm covered with my 70-200/2.8.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 12, 2020)

picperfect said:


> no. i dont buy expensive primes (if its expensive its gotta be more universally useful to me = excellent zoom) and i will certainly not accept an 85/1.8 as a "high effort lens" justifying a high price tag.
> 
> especially with the optical advantages (presumably) offered by RF mount - should make it easier to construct decent iq lenses with moderately wide apertures.
> 
> ...



The lion's share of the optical advantage is with lenses having a focal length shorter than the 44mm registration distance of the EF mount plus a little room for the glass. By 85mm the advantage is much less.

It's 1/3 stop. You're pitching a tantrum like it is a three stop difference. No f/2 lens is slow.

If you think f/2 is "slow", then your 70-200/2.8 is "glacial". And the out of focus areas are way too busy compared to even the cheapest 85 primes.


----------



## picperfect (Apr 12, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The lion's share of the optical advantage is with lenses having a focal length shorter than the 44mm registration distance of the EF mount plus a little room for the glass. By 85mm the advantage is much less.
> 
> It's 1/3 stop. You're pitching a tantrum like it is a three stop difference. No f/2 lens is slow.
> 
> If you think f/2 is "slow", then your 70-200/2.8 is "glacial". And the out of focus areas are way too busy compared to even the cheapest 85 primes.



tantrum? nope. just personal experience. i had the ef 100/2.0 for some time, and sold it. bokeh fringing/loCA was unbearable, all the purple borders along every contrast edge ruined the out of focus areas. 5 pixels wide, not fixable in post, because it would only change purple fringes to grey fringes. 

70-200 2.8 ii so much better, in every way. 

also, and since it is only 1/3 of a stop difference, there should be no difficulty for Canon to make an 85 f/1.8 instead of a f/2.0. 

prime lenses sure will need every bit if advantage over much more versatile zooms.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 13, 2020)

picperfect said:


> tantrum? nope. just personal experience. i had the ef 100/2.0 for some time, and sold it. bokeh fringing/loCA was unbearable, all the purple borders along every contrast edge ruined the out of focus areas. 5 pixels wide, not fixable in post, because it would only change purple fringes to grey fringes.
> 
> 70-200 2.8 ii so much better, in every way.
> 
> ...



Someone implied an 85mm f/1.8 would be huge, but the thread diameter is still only 58mm, pretty much the "normal" diameter for things like kit lenses, at least when it's Rebels we're talking about. Not at all huge.


----------



## BillB (Apr 13, 2020)

picperfect said:


> no. i dont buy expensive primes (if its expensive its gotta be more universally useful to me = excellent zoom) and i will certainly not accept an 85/1.8 as a "high effort lens" justifying a high price tag.
> 
> especially with the optical advantages (presumably) offered by RF mount - should make it easier to construct decent iq lenses with moderately wide apertures.
> 
> ...


Well, f2.0 is only a CR1 rumor.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 17, 2020)

picperfect said:


> tantrum? nope. just personal experience. i had the ef 100/2.0 for some time, and sold it. bokeh fringing/loCA was unbearable, all the purple borders along every contrast edge ruined the out of focus areas. 5 pixels wide, not fixable in post, because it would only change purple fringes to grey fringes.
> 
> 70-200 2.8 ii so much better, in every way.
> 
> ...



I've also seen a lot of purple fringing with EF 100mm f/2 lenses when used outdoors in bright light. Not so much with EF 85mm f/1.8 lenses.


----------



## BillB (Apr 17, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I've also seen a lot of purple fringing with EF 100mm f/2 lenses when used outdoors in bright light. Not so much with EF 85mm f/1.8 lenses.



The purple fringing is really bad if you are photographing chrome motorcycle handlebars in bright sunlight, especially with the lens wide open.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 17, 2020)

BillB said:


> The purple fringing is really bad if you are photographing chrome motorcycle handlebars in bright sunlight, especially with the lens wide open.



In a situation like that, the purple fringing is bad with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II also. I shoot a lot of high school marching bands performing. Those silver instruments (Flutes and low brass with larger diameter tubing, in particular) are not a lot different than handlebars in terms of the way they reflect sunlight or even artificial stadium lighting at night..


----------

