# Here are the specifications for the Canon RF 85mm f/2 IS STM Macro



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 6, 2020)

> Canon will announce the RF 85mm f/2 IS STM Macro on Thursday alongside the EOS R5, EOS R6 and other lenses.
> *Canon RF 85mm f/2 IS STM Macro Specifications:*
> 
> 12 elements in 11 groups
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## zonoskar (Jul 6, 2020)

Could also be a nice budget portrait lens at f2. Hopefully the price will not be too high.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

1:2 macro again! Canon is 2-for-2 with this on the standard RF non-L primes. They won't do this on the superteles of course, but imagine a set of inexpensive primes from 24 - 85 that all have 1:2 macro -- t'would be nice.

- A


----------



## gzroxas (Jul 6, 2020)

Very interesting. One thing I often thought is that the beautiful rendition of 85mm would be even cooler if they could just focus a little closer. I will be considering either this or the Samyang 1.4... the former for versatility, the second for pure portraiture


----------



## Rpaulsen (Jul 6, 2020)

This is going to be a day 1 purchase for me. Hopefully it is less than $600. I am also very interested to find out if I can comfortably move away from my EF 100 f/2.8 Macro and just rely on this lens for ring/detail shots for my wedding photography.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 6, 2020)

Beautiful! And magnification 0.5x as I expected! 
If I was to go into R system this would be one of my first lenses


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 6, 2020)

I really like the 80-90mm range for candid portraits. I also use it a lot for isolation of non-portrait subjects too.

This is a lens that I foresee owning and using. The close minimum focusing distance (MFD) [and the corresponding maximum magnification (is a very welcome feature of this lens). 

The STM (hopefully a fast-ish STM AF) is 'fine' for this lens, imho. While I might prefer (nano/USM) - I do understand that for cost (and video) purposes, STM is quite reasonable too. 

In a sense, I believe the RF 85mm f/2 STM on my planned R5 to be somewhat similar to how I use my 50mm f/1.8 STM on my 80D now. I really like this combination. 

Thanks, Canon (and cheers Nokishita for the 'preview' details)  

PJ


----------



## stevensteven (Jul 6, 2020)

Canon EOS R5 + RF 35MM STM + RF 85 STM. I can't breathe right now.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 6, 2020)

Looks to be relatively compact and lightweight, which is nice. I was hoping we would get 1:1... Hopefully an L quality true macro will come next year. I see macro as one of the (several) areas in which using a mirrorless is more fun than a DSLR (there are situations where the reverse is true too). In the meantime this will be fun to play with.


----------



## RMac (Jul 6, 2020)

R6 + RF 35mm + RF 85mm has a lot of potential as a fairly budget-friend wedding kit. (or RP if you're super budget conscious and are willing to shoot a wedding on single card slot).


----------



## ddixon (Jul 6, 2020)

I love 85mm, but I've never loved my EF 85 1.8. My copy is not super sharp, even stopped down, and the lack of IS means I have to keep the shutter higher, negating some of the speed. I'm not even knocked out with the color rendition. So, newer optics, close-focusing, IS, no adapter? This is my next lens purchase. Unusual for me, I may not even wait a few months to get a refurb.


----------



## esglord (Jul 6, 2020)

I am interested in picking up this lens or a used EF 100mm macro, because I have a baby on the way in the fall and would like to be able to take some newborn detail shots (fingers, toes, ears, etc). I'm assuming 1:2 will be enough for that purpose, but I have no experience with macro photography. Can anyone enlighten me if a 1:2 lens would be limiting for this purpose? Hopefully, I'll also be able to hire a newborn photographer, but with COVID, not sure that will be a viable option right away, so I'm looking to get prepared.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 6, 2020)

esglord said:


> I am interested in picking up this lens or a used EF 100mm macro, because I have a baby on the way in the fall and would like to be able to take some newborn detail shots (fingers, toes, ears, etc). I'm assuming 1:2 will be enough for that purpose, but I have no experience with macro photography. Can anyone enlighten me if a 1:2 lens would be limiting for this purpose? Hopefully, I'll also be able to hire a newborn photographer, but with COVID, not sure that will be a viable option right away, so I'm looking to get prepared.



1:2 means you can fill the frame with a subject something like 72mm across at mfd. So yes, it would be more than adequate for body parts of even the tiniest baby.


----------



## PeterParker (Jul 6, 2020)

stevensteven said:


> Canon EOS R5 + RF 35MM STM + RF 85 STM. I can't breathe right now.



Already have the 35, just waiting on the other two to become available for preorder! Never been so excited for new kit.


----------



## kten (Jul 6, 2020)

esglord said:


> I am interested in picking up this lens or a used EF 100mm macro, because I have a baby on the way in the fall and would like to be able to take some newborn detail shots (fingers, toes, ears, etc). I'm assuming 1:2 will be enough for that purpose, but I have no experience with macro photography. Can anyone enlighten me if a 1:2 lens would be limiting for this purpose? Hopefully, I'll also be able to hire a newborn photographer, but with COVID, not sure that will be a viable option right away, so I'm looking to get prepared.


should be zero problem for that purpose, short of maybe extreme closeup of hands but even then it'd probably be fine. Basically half size, as scyrene mentioned a 72mm real size object will be projected 36mm sized at min focus. I mention that as may sound like it doubles rather than halves being 1:2 not 2:1 which someone unfamiliar could read that as. So anything smaller than that won't fill your frame although plenty enough detail in fingernails etc, more things like ants or tiny bugs for pure macro work that this is not so suited for but folks likely using mpe 5x for tiny things and 1:1 lenses for the usual fare like 150mm and 180mm (due to working distance at 1:1 vs the shorter focal length true 1:1 macro lenses which many find awkward working distance at max mag) so you should be more than good enough for your use.


----------



## carina_r31 (Jul 6, 2020)

So it's going to be R6 + 35 mm + 85 mm f2 for me. Combined with my EF 50 mm 1.4, this will cover most of my purposes. Maybe I'll catch up the RF 50 mm 1.8 when it's out. Oh boy, really can't wait for Thursday!


----------



## esglord (Jul 6, 2020)

scyrene said:


> 1:2 means you can fill the frame with a subject something like 72mm across at mfd. So yes, it would be more than adequate for body parts of even the tiniest baby.


Thank you, much appreciated


----------



## Act444 (Jul 6, 2020)

Interesting. I’m admittedly more interested in 50mm at this point, so that may be my next RF lens purchase instead - and I’ll wait for reviews/experiences on this one. I will say there is somewhat of an appeal for an 85mm lens that can actually focus close for once - but usually 85 is quite niche for my uses while 50 is more versatile.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 6, 2020)

esglord said:


> I am interested in picking up this lens or a used EF 100mm macro, because I have a baby on the way in the fall and would like to be able to take some newborn detail shots (fingers, toes, ears, etc). I'm assuming 1:2 will be enough for that purpose, but I have no experience with macro photography. Can anyone enlighten me if a 1:2 lens would be limiting for this purpose? Hopefully, I'll also be able to hire a newborn photographer, but with COVID, not sure that will be a viable option right away, so I'm looking to get prepared.



For pictures of your newborn, keep an eye on the working distance and field of view as well. Being crammed into the far corner on a step ladder due to poor lens choices isn't a good way to spend the time for "Baby's first bath" 

That being said, 85mm on full frame is great for portraits and the 100mm macro is my possibly my favourite lens.


----------



## esglord (Jul 6, 2020)

kten said:


> should be zero problem for that purpose, short of maybe extreme closeup of hands but even then it'd probably be fine. Basically half size, as scyrene mentioned a 72mm real size object will be projected 36mm sized at min focus. I mention that as may sound like it doubles rather than halves being 1:2 not 2:1 which someone unfamiliar could read that as. So anything smaller than that won't fill your frame although plenty enough detail in fingernails etc, more things like ants or tiny bugs for pure macro work that this is not so suited for but folks likely using mpe 5x for tiny things and 1:1 lenses for the usual fare like 150mm and 180mm (due to working distance at 1:1 vs the shorter focal length true 1:1 macro lenses which many find awkward working distance at max mag) so you should be more than good enough for your use.


Thank you for confirming. I expect I'll probably end up going for the adapted true macro lens anyway, but I'll wait to see what the price and performance are like for this lens first.


----------



## esglord (Jul 6, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> For pictures of your newborn, keep an eye on the working distance and field of view as well. Being crammed into the far corner on a step ladder due to poor lens choices isn't a good way to spend the time for "Baby's first bath"
> 
> That being said, 85mm on full frame is great for portraits and the 100mm macro is my possibly my favourite lens.


ha, good point. I've got a solid ladder on standby just in case.


----------



## Joel C (Jul 6, 2020)

If this is affordable, this will be a wonderful addition to the working kit on the road. I just wonder how quickly it will AF for my needs of underwater shots. The 35mm was personally a disappointment. I'd like to move away from the adapted 100mm....


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jul 6, 2020)

Could be a very nice travel tele/portrait/macro. Pair it with the rumoured 15-35 f4, a 45 MP sensor and a couple cards/betteries and I'd be good to go.


----------



## Max TT (Jul 6, 2020)

zonoskar said:


> Could also be a nice budget portrait lens at f2. Hopefully the price will not be too high.



It will be difficult to consider this Canon 85 f2 if its anywhere near the price of the Rokinon RF 1.4 which is at $699 full price. 

And by difficult I mean impossible. But will wait for pricing.


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 6, 2020)

Max C said:


> It will be difficult to consider this Canon 85 f2 if its anywhere near the price of the Rokinon RF 1.4 which is at $699 full price.
> 
> And by difficult I mean impossible. But will wait for pricing.



What do you mean 'difficult to consider' *and then* 'by difficult [you] mean impossible'? (Genuine question).

Each person has their individual photographic needs.

If the Canon RF 85mm f/2 STM price is near the Rokinon RF 85mm f/1.4, I would be getting the Canon in a heartbeat.
My reasons being that Canon AF and IS are more important (to me) than the extra light of f/1.4 (compared to f/2).

For others, the extra light gathering potential and subject isolation potential of f/1.4 would be more important.
As I indicated above: horses for courses.

PJ


----------



## bbasiaga (Jul 6, 2020)

esglord said:


> I am interested in picking up this lens or a used EF 100mm macro, because I have a baby on the way in the fall and would like to be able to take some newborn detail shots (fingers, toes, ears, etc). I'm assuming 1:2 will be enough for that purpose, but I have no experience with macro photography. Can anyone enlighten me if a 1:2 lens would be limiting for this purpose? Hopefully, I'll also be able to hire a newborn photographer, but with COVID, not sure that will be a viable option right away, so I'm looking to get prepared.



With macro, the closer you get to 1:1, the closer you are to the lens's front element to get it to focus/ the closer you are to your minimum focal distance. I think you'll have a hard time getting that close. and the subject can't really be moving, because to get depth of field you need to shoot at like F22. Or otherwise do a bunch of focus stacking in software. 

The rule of thumb i was taught when I bought my macro lens was that the 1:1, 1:2 ratio refers to the actual size of the object on the sensor compared to its size in real life. So 1:2 means the object is half the size on the sensor as it is in real life. Considering the sensor is roughly 1" square (order of magnitude, just for an estimate), a baby hand is going to be about that size so you won't have much context even at 1:2. I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind for photos, but hopefully this helps you decide if this is enough for you or not. I think most common baby shots don't rely on macro, but instead DOF/focal point manipulation in a wider field of view. 

-Brian


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jul 6, 2020)

f2 + IS + IBIS should mean that the shutter speed will only be limited by subject motion. More or less. So the only consideration for me, as far as apperture goes, is bokeh and I think for my purposes f2 will be fine. It won't be as crazy sharp or weather sealed as the L but it won't be big, heavy and cospicuous either. Looks like a winner to me. I love my EF 35 f2. When my bag of primes was stolen in a smash and grab that was the first one I replaced. 1:2 is more than enough macro for my travel photgraphy


----------



## secant (Jul 6, 2020)

Ladies and gents, I have the Canon 85/1.2 L should I sell it and get this or the Samyang 85/1.4?
The good old Canon 85/1.2 L is nice but its heavy and really hard to nail focus.


----------



## mangobutter (Jul 6, 2020)

Ordering this so extremely hard day 1 pre-order. Currently have an EF 100 F2... guess i'll have to offload that. So my RF kit will consist of an RP/35 IS/85 IS. 

I'll still get 50 F2 IS if it comes out. as long as it's $199 or less.


----------



## Max TT (Jul 6, 2020)

pj1974 said:


> What do you mean 'difficult to consider' *and then* 'by difficult [you] mean impossible'? (Genuine question).
> 
> Each person has their individual photographic needs.
> 
> ...


Your money, do you.

For me, I shot the Rokinon RF AF 14mm f2.8 and had no complaints with the AF. 

So if the 85mm Rokinion is anything close to that performance of the 14mm version, I will much rather the 85mm f1.4 non-IS Rokinon over the f2 IS Canon especially considering the body has builtin IS. 

Maybe if the body didn't have IS, my opinion may have been different.

If there isn't much price difference the Rokinon is my choice. But price is yet to be announced, so I await pricing.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 6, 2020)

mangobutter said:


> Ordering this so extremely hard day 1 pre-order. Currently have an EF 100 F2... guess i'll have to offload that. So my RF kit will consist of an RP/35 IS/85 IS.
> 
> I'll still get 50 F2 IS if it comes out. as long as it's $199 or less.


I have the f/2 100mm too - I love it for small size and really good IQ, but I hate the lousy MFD of 90cm / max. reprod. ratio of 1:8. So I use my EF 100 macro instead.
The f/2 85 macro might be a very good walk around lens like the RF 2 35 and the EF-M 1.4 32 which has a similar field of view (90 x 60 mm instead of 72 x 48mm). Only drawback is that it doesn't work on EOS M and EOS EF cameras which I use currently for time lapses with Magic Lantern ...


----------



## esglord (Jul 6, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> With macro, the closer you get to 1:1, the closer you are to the lens's front element to get it to focus/ the closer you are to your minimum focal distance. I think you'll have a hard time getting that close. and the subject can't really be moving, because to get depth of field you need to shoot at like F22. Or otherwise do a bunch of focus stacking in software.
> 
> The rule of thumb i was taught when I bought my macro lens was that the 1:1, 1:2 ratio refers to the actual size of the object on the sensor compared to its size in real life. So 1:2 means the object is half the size on the sensor as it is in real life. Considering the sensor is roughly 1" square (order of magnitude, just for an estimate), a baby hand is going to be about that size so you won't have much context even at 1:2. I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind for photos, but hopefully this helps you decide if this is enough for you or not. I think most common baby shots don't rely on macro, but instead DOF/focal point manipulation in a wider field of view.
> 
> -Brian


Thanks Brian, this is helpful


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Jul 6, 2020)

Mhh was very interested. Now that I see bigger size and more weight than my current EF 85mm 1.8...
I think I will pass on the instant buy and wait for some reviews. If the IQ isn't greatly improved this will be a pass for me.
Cause the 1992!!! lens has 1.8


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 6, 2020)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> Mhh was very interested. Now that I see bigger size and more weight than my current EF 85mm 1.8...
> I think I will pass on the instant buy and wait for some reviews. If the IQ isn't greatly improved this will be a pass for me.
> Cause the 1992!!! lens has 1.8


The 1992 lens also has the 1992 optical formula (_edit: maybe even older_). And as I too have it, I can tell you it is no pleasure to use it at f/1.8 - let alone the CA.
Some say the T value of the aperture is far from calling it an f/1.8 lens but I have no data in it.

Wait for samples, and if your not convinced wait for some RL reviews, maybe from Brian.
Look if sharpness and bokeh at f/2.0 fullfill your needs.
But don't judge just on spec numbers.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 6, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> The 1992 lens also has the 1992 optical formula. And as I too have it, I can tell you it is no pleasure to use it at f/1.8 - let alone the CA.[..]


 The most used aperture on mine is f/2.2, most defects have cleared up by then and DoF is still small enough. So being able
to use f/2.0 on this new lens would be a win for me.


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 6, 2020)

esglord said:


> I am interested in picking up this lens or a used EF 100mm macro, because I have a baby on the way in the fall and would like to be able to take some newborn detail shots (fingers, toes, ears, etc). I'm assuming 1:2 will be enough for that purpose, but I have no experience with macro photography. Can anyone enlighten me if a 1:2 lens would be limiting for this purpose? Hopefully, I'll also be able to hire a newborn photographer, but with COVID, not sure that will be a viable option right away, so I'm looking to get prepared.


If you plan to photograph your newborn's "details", a 1:2 will be more than you actually need: in other words, just perfect!
So, don't hesitate, just wait for some serious reviews about this lens.
Yet, I expect it to offer great value and optical quality for the money.
And, above all, enjoy your baby!
Cheers!


----------



## mangobutter (Jul 6, 2020)

So this RF 85 will be roughly the same width as an EF 100 F2 but a little bit longer. About 15 or so mm longer. I wonder if it will internal focus or external? The length might suggest internal.... seems a bit on the long side. but in keeping with the RF 35, i'm guessing it likely will be external.


----------



## CaMeRa QuEsT (Jul 7, 2020)

The Tamron 35mm and 85mm f/1.8 VC are the only lenses in the market that are comparable to Canon's, and yet Canon can sell the 35mm for $100 less than Tamron: $499 vs. $599. The Tamron 85mm is currently $749, maybe Canon is going to sell theirs for $599?


----------



## Joel C (Jul 7, 2020)

CaMeRa QuEsT said:


> The Tamron 35mm and 85mm f/1.8 VC are the only lenses in the market that are comparable to Canon's, and yet Canon can sell the 35mm for $100 less than Tamron: $499 vs. $599. The Tamron 85mm is currently $749, maybe Canon is going to sell theirs for $599?


If this lens is 599$ I will buy it on spec alone lol. Seriously, I will likely buy it at 699$ even...


----------



## Rpaulsen (Jul 7, 2020)

RMac said:


> R6 + RF 35mm + RF 85mm has a lot of potential as a fairly budget-friend wedding kit. (or RP if you're super budget conscious and are willing to shoot a wedding on single card slot).



I have this exact plan in mind. I already have 2 R’s and the 35. Will definitely be getting this lens and probably the R6 after selling an R to a friend. I plan on using those two lenses as light weight supplements for dance floor (and the 85 probably for ring shots), not as my primary, pairing them with the 15-35 L, 50L, and down the line the 70-135L.


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 7, 2020)

Max C said:


> Your money, do you.
> 
> For me, I shot the Rokinon RF AF 14mm f2.8 and had no complaints with the AF.
> 
> ...



Thanks MaX C for your reply and explanation.

Yes, you make a valid point that the R5 has IBIS, so the Canon RF 85mm STM's IS is not such a deal-maker.

I will definitely consider the Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 as an option. I have the Rokinon 12mm f/2 on my M5, and it is very good optically (but obviously a fully manual lens).

Regards

PJ


----------



## Joules (Jul 7, 2020)

pj1974 said:


> Yes, you make a valid point that the R5 has IBIS, so the Canon RF 85mm STM's IS is not such a deal-maker


Keep in mind that we do not no how well and under what circumstances the IBIS works. It may be a good experience for RF lenses only, for example.


----------



## navastronia (Jul 7, 2020)

Owning my EF 85 1.8 has been extremely cost-effective. I can't see this lens performing well enough for me to justify upgrading. That said, to have IS in a short telephoto would be nice, so, maybe?? I really don't want to buy lower-end lenses anymore. I'd rather invest in the best and keep it for 20 years.


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 7, 2020)

Joules said:


> Keep in mind that we do not no how well and under what circumstances the IBIS works. It may be a good experience for RF lenses only, for example.



Cheers, Joules...  

Yes, precisely, we do not (yet) know how effective Canon's IBIS is (particularly as this is the first production IBIS, and it's coming out in a few days, in their new mirrorless FF bodies) 

That's why I wrote that for me, IS in a lens is still a plus [but potentially not as big a plus - as it would have been if the R5 (and R6) don't have IBIS]. I currently have my sights on the R5, and the RF 85mm f/2 STM is a prime I could see myself getting also. 

I look forward to doing some testing myself (prior to a possible purchase) - of the R5 and R6 with various RF mount lenses. 

Regards

PJ


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2020)

Price just was pushed out: £649

No dollar figure yet, assume the normal windage between GBP and USD

- A


----------



## sobrien (Jul 7, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Price just was pushed out: £649
> 
> No dollar figure yet, assume the normal windage between GBP and USD
> 
> - A



Also published is an image showing a three position focus limiter. Very welcome development given the MFD. Bodes well I feel.


----------



## Joel C (Jul 7, 2020)

I personally feel that the R6 is going to be the better fit for my needs. (I really have zero use for 8k video considering the storage and editing complications) 

I think the increased speed of the R6 with this macro lens is going to work really well, but, am going to have to do some real world tests before I can sell the EOS R ahead of time. Which is kind of a bummer. 


Luckily this lens is priced so that has become less of a concern, unless the whole setup is a failure.


----------



## secant (Jul 7, 2020)

Joel C said:


> I personally feel that the R6 is going to be the better fit for my needs. (I really have zero use for 8k video considering the storage and editing complications)
> 
> I think the increased speed of the R6 with this macro lens is going to work really well, but, am going to have to do some real world tests before I can sell the EOS R ahead of time. Which is kind of a bummer.
> 
> ...


The R6 would be better fit for my wallet as well, given the rumored price is close. And due to its spec it has to be cheaper than the R5 I am pretty sure.


----------



## samolot (Jul 25, 2020)

I have the EOS R with the 24-105 F4. I want a dedicated portrait lens. Seeing as theyre similarly priced, would you go with the Samyang F1.4 or the RF F2? 

And because misery loves company, I figured this lens would have fun being in the same cart as the RF 600 F/11. 

Cheers


----------



## Iwasaki (Sep 7, 2020)

samolot said:


> I have the EOS R with the 24-105 F4. I want a dedicated portrait lens. Seeing as theyre similarly priced, would you go with the Samyang F1.4 or the RF F2?
> 
> And because misery loves company, I figured this lens would have fun being in the same cart as the RF 600 F/11.
> 
> Cheers



I would go RF for sure.


----------



## samolot (Oct 25, 2020)

For the rare few who have the 85 F2, care to share your experiences? I ended up getting the Samyang 85 and have actually enjoyed it a lot. On the EOS R - quick focus, decent enough bokeh, sharp images.


----------



## Iwasaki (Oct 25, 2020)

samolot said:


> For the rare few who have the 85 F2, care to share your experiences? I ended up getting the Samyang 85 and have actually enjoyed it a lot. On the EOS R - quick focus, decent enough bokeh, sharp images.



I have to say that I do really like the images off my first session. Really smooth bokeh and quite good to handle. Haven't used its macro capabilities yet.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 27, 2020)

ddixon said:


> I love 85mm, but I've never loved my EF 85 1.8. My copy is not super sharp, even stopped down, and the lack of IS means I have to keep the shutter higher, negating some of the speed.


I must have been lucky with my copy. I bought it when refurbs were on sale. Before that, I was using the 100mm macro for portraits and didn't care for the look, though I really like the lens for macros and as a small telephoto. The 85mm exceeded my expectations, so I use it more than I had anticipated. As a portrait lens, I used it today to make a video of my singing something they will incorporate into a virtual choir for Sunday. That range of focal lengths puts full frame cameras a good distance so facial features look natural.

As for the RF, I can't imagine that f/2 will be that different from an f/1.8 per se.


----------

