# Canon officially announces the RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS & RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 24, 2019)

> *MELVILLE, N.Y., October 24, 2019 –* Completing the “trinity” of RF lenses for the EOS R Full-Frame mirrorless camera system, Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, today announced the RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM telephoto lens. Additionally, the company also announced its first lens to feature Defocus Smoothing lens coating, the Canon RF 85 F1.2L DS. The ninth and tenth lenses in the RF family are both powerful tools for photographers using the EOS R or EOS RP cameras, in particular, those shooting sports or wildlife photography with the RF 70-200mm F2.8L or portrait photography with the RF 85mm F1.2L USM DS.
> *Preorder:*
> Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM $2699 | Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS $2999
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 24, 2019)

Really curious about that 70-200mm lens.


----------



## Jethro (Oct 24, 2019)

Pricing roughly as expected?


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 24, 2019)

Jethro said:


> Pricing roughly as expected?


I would have expected them to be a little bit lower, but it is at it is. 

Pricing in Germany:
2.849 € for the RF 70-200
3.449 € for the RF 85 DS , the normal RF 85 is at 2.999 €
I wouldn't have expected 15% more because of DS, but it's a new feature...


----------



## AlP (Oct 24, 2019)

Not bad:



And a first for dual-Nano USM


----------



## navastronia (Oct 24, 2019)

The tech in the 70-200 sounds interesting to me. I wonder how much real-world performance benefit it will yield.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 24, 2019)

Does the RF 85 1.2 DS, due to suffering light loss at wide apertures, also generate less shallow depth of field wide open? I thought someone said that in one of these threads, and then I noticed that there's a noticeable difference in depth of field if you pause the Adorama video at 2:19 and look at the way the model's ears are rendered with each lens (the RF 85 1.2 and the RF 85 1.2 DS).


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 24, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Does the RF 85 1.2 DS, due to suffering light loss at wide apertures, also generate less shallow depth of field wide open? I thought someone said that in one of these threads, and then I noticed that there's a noticeable difference in depth of field if you pause the Adorama video at 2:19 and look at the way the model's ears are rendered with each lens (the RF 85 1.2 and the RF 85 1.2 DS).


Gordan Liang also has posted hands on preview of both lenses even including comparison with ef 70-200mm.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 24, 2019)

Having ears In focus at 85mm f1.2 isn’t that bad really.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 24, 2019)

Depth of field is an illusion, although, as Einstein said with regard to something else, it is a persistent one.

Only one distance is in focus. How everything else looks to our eyes is determined by how much the light from out of focus areas is collimated.

When an aperture blocks all of the less collimated rays falling on the edges of a lens, none of the blur they would otherwise contribute is seen in the image.
When some, but not all, of the edge rays are reduced and some, but not all, are allowed through then that will affect how sharp or blurry things not perfectly in focus will look.
The more collimated the light that is allowed through the lens is, the sharper out of focus areas will look.
As more less collimated light is allowed through, the blurrier out of focus areas will look.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 24, 2019)

In the UK the RF 85mm f1.2 USM DS is £ 3,249.00 as opposed to £ 2,799.00 for the regular version. £ 450.00 more is a hefty premium for an already expensive lens for anyone other than professionals making a living from either fashion, portraiture, weddings or food. 
The RF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM is slightly more tolerable at £ 2,699.00 given the list price for the EF 70-200 f2.8L IS USM III is £ 2,149.00 (you can buy for £ 1,999.00). 

The problem for Canon is the RP and R only have two non L affordable lenses the RF 24-240mm f4 - 6.3 IS USM and the RF 35mm f1.8 IS STM and this is certainly limiting purchasers. Now the holy trinity is delivered Canon needs to address the lower end and fast or risk losing out to Sony. 

Go back to the RF 85mm f1.2L duo, they would have to be appreciably better than the EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM lens to tempt me as this lens is such a good all rounder and at £ 1,379.00 its almost half the price of the RF 85mm f1.2L IS USM. As for defocusing I can achieve similar results using a polyester filter from Lee Filters that maintains sharpness at the plane of focus but adds softness to out of focus areas for a few £ / Euros / Dollars (Polyester soft set in frames which fits their 100mm holder).


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 24, 2019)

AlP said:


> Not bad:
> View attachment 187202
> 
> 
> And a first for dual-Nano USM



The chart on the left is not as good as the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II/III as previously released by Canon:




Source


----------



## fox40phil (Oct 24, 2019)

No words about the "Minimum focusing distance" for the 70-200?! But for the 85mm... strange!

The Tamron 70-200 G2 has only 0,95m! Hoping for something like that...but I won't afford those lenses .... 3000€ for a 85mm is crazy! I bought a used 300mm 2.8IS for this before 6 years!


----------



## AlP (Oct 24, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The chart on the left is not as good as the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II/III as previously released by Canon:
> 
> View attachment 187205
> 
> ...



That is because Canon changed how they calculate MTFs. The charts you copied use the old method and cannot be compared 1:1 to those generated with the new method. The older charts will look better when compared to the new ones.
The EF charts I used are from the website of Canon Japan, which has updated charts for all lenses


----------



## wockawocka (Oct 24, 2019)

So I need to have festoon lights in the background to benefit from the DS?


----------



## Kit. (Oct 24, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Does the RF 85 1.2 DS, due to suffering light loss at wide apertures, also generate less shallow depth of field wide open?


It ought to produce a different kind of blur, lowering microcontrast rather than eliminating details. So, the "depth of field" for lower contrast features should be shallower than for higher contrast features.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 24, 2019)

I like the concept for the 70-200, it’s nice and compact. 

However, at $2700 - “ehh...that’s gonna be a no from me, dog”


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 24, 2019)

Act444 said:


> I like the concept for the 70-200, it’s nice and compact.
> 
> However, at $2700 - “ehh...that’s gonna be a no from me, dog”



Give it a year... Canon typically has the highest prices at launch.


----------



## 6degrees (Oct 24, 2019)

Please drop the price for Canon RF 85mm F1.2 L.

I do not want the Canon RF 85mm F1.2 L *DS*. I do not want any compromise on IQ.


----------



## esglord (Oct 24, 2019)

The RF 70-200 should just fit snugly in my little shoulder bag along with the RP, EF 16-35 F4L, adapter, 77mm filters, and extra batteries/memory cards for when I am hiking around New Zealand in December. This Canon mirrorless thing is starting to fall into place.


----------



## flip314 (Oct 24, 2019)

6degrees said:


> Please drop the price for Canon RF 85mm F1.2 L.
> 
> I do not want the Canon RF 85mm F1.2 L *DS*. I do not want any compromise on IQ.



The non-DS is $300 cheaper than the DS


----------



## 6degrees (Oct 24, 2019)

flip314 said:


> The non-DS is $300 cheaper than the DS



Need more cut to justify the price.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 25, 2019)

Had a chance to demo the 70-200 and the regular 85 1.2 today as well as the other two RF IS trinity zooms. All very impressive to be sure. I really likes the new 70-200. I probably would have preferred a shorter throw from 70-200 but it seem tight and very well made. Too bad it doesn't mount on any of the 4 Canon EOS bodies that I own. The Draw on the conventional 85 1.2 seemed really superb as far as I could tell. Hope Canon is working on a killer R body for those lenses because the competition sure isn't resting. Personally I'd be aiming for something very similar to the Panasonic S1's but with Canon's superior DPAF. I'm still willing to give Canon some time assuming they are trying to get it right but the clock is ticking. The feature sets of the M62 and 1DX3 seem to indicate that Canon is moving in the right direction. In the meantime there are some really nice RF lenses out there looking for a good home.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 25, 2019)

6degrees said:


> Please drop the price for Canon RF 85mm F1.2 L.
> 
> I do not want the Canon RF 85mm F1.2 L *DS*. I do not want any compromise on IQ.



Yes, because IQ is only about microscopic differences in acutance and absolutely nothing else whatsoever, right?


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 25, 2019)

jeffa4444 said:


> In the UK the RF 85mm f1.2 USM DS is £ 3,249.00 as opposed to £ 2,799.00 for the regular version. £ 450.00 more is a hefty premium for an already expensive lens for anyone other than professionals making a living from either fashion, portraiture, weddings or food.
> The RF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM is slightly more tolerable at £ 2,699.00 given the list price for the EF 70-200 f2.8L IS USM III is £ 2,149.00 (you can buy for £ 1,999.00).
> 
> The problem for Canon is the RP and R only have two non L affordable lenses the RF 24-240mm f4 - 6.3 IS USM and the RF 35mm f1.8 IS STM and this is certainly limiting purchasers. Now the holy trinity is delivered Canon needs to address the lower end and fast or risk losing out to Sony.
> ...



The EF 85mm f/1.4L IS is a good lens in terms of imaging a flat test chart and staying sharp all of the way out to the edges, but when using it to take photographs of a three dimensional world, I'm a bit underwhelmed by the character of out of focus areas for a "premium" prime lens. That's probably due to the effects of the amount of flat field correction needed to get that flat test chart performance.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 25, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The EF 85mm f/1.4L IS is a good lens in terms of imaging a flat test chart and staying sharp all of the way out to the edges, but when using it to take photographs of a three dimensional world, I'm a bit underwhelmed by the character of out of focus areas for a "premium" prime lens. That's probably due to the effects of the amount of flat field correction needed to get that flat test chart performance.


I was a bit underwhelmed by the level of CA with the lens. That along affects the character of OOF areas quite a bit.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 25, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> I was a bit underwhelmed by the level of CA with the lens. That along affects the character of OOF areas quite a bit.



It doesn't necessarily have to. The (ancient) EF 135mm f/2 L has relatively high CA compared to many more modern lenses but also gives out of focus areas a buttery smooth look none of the "super sharp" lenses can duplicate.


----------



## jd7 (Oct 25, 2019)

I have to say the RF 70-200 2.8L IS and RF 85 1.2L DS do look good to me! Size and weight of the RF 70-200 seem fantastic (compared with EF versions),. Will have to see how it performs I guess, but seems like it will be great. And I didn't think I'd have any interest at all in the RF 85 1.2L DS, but I do like what I've seen so far. I still need to see a lot more sample photos from it yet, and I'm unlikely to spend the money on one really, but it's appealing to me more than I was expecting.


----------



## londonxt (Oct 25, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> The feature sets of the M62 and 1DX3 seem to indicate that Canon is moving in the right direction. In the meantime there are some really nice RF lenses out there looking for a good home.



I can offer simple home cooking


----------



## glness (Oct 28, 2019)

From the news release: "The ninth and tenth lenses in the RF family are both powerful tools for photographers using the EOS R or EOS RP cameras, in particular, those shooting sports or wildlife photography with the RF 70-200mm F2.8L or portrait photography with the RF 85mm F1.2L USM DS."

Sure, the RF 70-200mm lens looks promising and innovative. However, what sports or wildlife photographer is going to want to put it on an RF mirrorless that only shoots 5 fps with AF?


----------



## flip314 (Oct 28, 2019)

glness said:


> Sure, the RF 70-200mm lens looks promising and innovative. However, what sports or wildlife photographer is going to want to put it on an RF mirrorless that only shoots 5 fps with AF?



In 1987, Canon released the mediocre EOS 650 to support its brand new lineup of EF lenses. It was 2 years until the EOS-1 came out, and by then everyone had switched to Sony.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 28, 2019)

flip314 said:


> In 1987, Canon released the mediocre EOS 650 to support its brand new lineup of EF lenses. It was 2 years until the EOS-1 came out, and by then everyone had switched to Sony.


Almost. This one was A9 of that time (with Sony A mount).

/s


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 29, 2019)

flip314 said:


> In 1987, Canon released the mediocre EOS 650 to support its brand new lineup of EF lenses. It was 2 years until the EOS-1 came out, and by then everyone had switched to Sony.



Nah, but a lot of Canon FD shooters did switch to Nikon, some out of necessity and others out of spite.

They all came running back, and brought a lot of other long time Nikon shooters with them, when the advantages of an all electronic connection between the camera and body and Ring USM AF motors could be fully exploited by the late 1989 EOS-1 and its 1994 followup EOS-1N. Within 3-4 years of the introduction of the EOS-1 Canon passed Nikon as the system of choice for photojournalists and professional sports/action shooters. At the Seoul 1988 Summer games Nikon was still the dominant camera system in use. At the 1992 games in Barcelona it was split about 50/50 and the tide had clearly turned. By Atlanta in 1996 there were almost no Nikons to be seen in a sea of white lenses.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 29, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Nah, but a lot of Canon FD shooters did switch to Nikon, some out of necessity and others out of spite.
> 
> They all came running back, and brought a lot of other long time Nikon shooters with them, when the advantages of an all electronic connection between the camera and body and Ring USM AF motors could be fully exploited by the late 1989 EOS-1 and its 1994 followup EOS-1N. Within 3-4 years of the introduction of the EOS-1 Canon passed Nikon as the system of choice for photojournalists and professional sports/action shooters. At the Seoul 1988 Summer games Nikon was still the dominant camera system in use. At the 1992 games in Barcelona it was split about 50/50 and the tide had clearly turned. By Atlanta in 1996 there were almost no Nikons to be seen in a sea of white lenses.


Two big decisions Nikon made that were the route cause of their electronic and then digital issues and subsequent sales demise. One, the decision to put the AF motor in the body rather than the lens all whilst keeping that darn F mount, and two, the decision that 135 format digital sensors 'were not needed or desirable' so it took them way too long to offer them and because of that their 'best' lenses image circle didn't even cover the ff format! At the last count there were around 50 different F mount 70-200 f2.8's  

They have since gone back on all of it, they put the AF motors inside the lenses creating untold compatibility issues within the overstretched F mount, they have changed the mount, and they are now fully embracing the market demand for above average priced FF censured bodies.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 31, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Two big decisions Nikon made that were the route cause of their electronic and then digital issues and subsequent sales demise. One, the decision to put the AF motor in the body rather than the lens all whilst keeping that darn F mount, and two, the decision that 135 format digital sensors 'were not needed or desirable' so it took them way too long to offer them and because of that their 'best' lenses image circle didn't even cover the ff format! At the last count there were around 50 different F mount 70-200 f2.8's
> 
> They have since gone back on all of it, they put the AF motors inside the lenses creating untold compatibility issues within the overstretched F mount, they have changed the mount, and they are now fully embracing the market demand for above average priced FF censured bodies.



It was over in the 1990s before anyone offered a full frame digital sensor. Keeping clunky mechanical interfaces from the late 1950s to control aperture as well as AF is what did them in. Canon introduced USM AF motors in 1987 and introduced the EOS-1 in 1989 that could take advantage of the all electronic interface between the camera and lens.

Canon took over as the market leader in 1996 on the basis of AF performance and hasn't looked back since.

Not only was AF performance superior, but so was consistency of exposure from frame-to-frame. This did not become critical until the dawn of the digital age, when it became a deal breaker for folks doing time lapse photography.

I will agree that Nikon's reluctance to sell a FF digital camera for five years from late 2002, when Canon introduced the 1Ds, until late 2007 when Nikon finally introduced the D3 hurt their ability to compete in the "pro" market segment.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 31, 2019)

glness said:


> From the news release: "The ninth and tenth lenses in the RF family are both powerful tools for photographers using the EOS R or EOS RP cameras, in particular, those shooting sports or wildlife photography with the RF 70-200mm F2.8L or portrait photography with the RF 85mm F1.2L USM DS."
> 
> Sure, the RF 70-200mm lens looks promising and innovative. However, what sports or wildlife photographer is going to want to put it on an RF mirrorless that only shoots 5 fps with AF?



One of the first lenses Canon released in the EF mount back in 1987 was the EF 300mm f/2.8L USM (the _very first_ USM lens). The lens had a focus preset function, full-time manual focusing, and electronic ring powered manual focusing which allows the focusing speed adjustment in three steps. 

The EOs-1 body was not introduced until two years later in 1989. Patience, my friend. Have some patience.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 31, 2019)

Yes, the body that will fully utilize these new killer RF mount lenses does not exist yet. I don’t doubt that it will eventually though.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 1, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The EF 85mm f/1.4L IS is a good lens in terms of imaging a flat test chart and staying sharp all of the way out to the edges, but when using it to take photographs of a three dimensional world, I'm a bit underwhelmed by the character of out of focus areas for a "premium" prime lens. That's probably due to the effects of the amount of flat field correction needed to get that flat test chart performance.


The more I use it, the more I love it for portraits. I dont shoot test charts.


----------



## JTP (Nov 1, 2019)

I got to shoot with the RF 70-200 2.8 at the expo @ the Javits center. It's absolutely incredible! I also have the RF 85mm 1.2, RF 28-70 f2, & RF 50mm 1.2 and I'm excited for the addition of the RF 70-200 to my bag.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 2, 2019)

JTP said:


> I got to shoot with the RF 70-200 2.8 at the expo @ the Javits center. It's absolutely incredible! I also have the RF 85mm 1.2, RF 28-70 f2, & RF 50mm 1.2 and I'm excited for the addition of the RF 70-200 to my bag.


Great. What is so incredible about this lens from your perspective? A genuine question. Thank you.


----------



## JTP (Nov 3, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Great. What is so incredible about this lens from your perspective? A genuine question. Thank you.


I really loved how light and nimble the lens was to hold. It just felt great in my hands. The front element extending outwards was a bit peculiar at first, as I am used to the EF, but the light and nimble feel really made up for that fast. What I enjoyed most about the RF version was how sharp it was and how well it focused at 200mm. It brought a sense of security to me that I've never felt before, much like the whole EOS R line does focus wise at maximum aperture. The clarity and colors, to me, are just on another level, though that is incredibly subjective. I'll try and post a few sample pictures in a few days when I can get around to it.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 3, 2019)

JTP said:


> I really loved how light and nimble the lens was to hold. It just felt great in my hands. The front element extending outwards was a bit peculiar at first, as I am used to the EF, but the light and nimble feel really made up for that fast. What I enjoyed most about the RF version was how sharp it was and how well it focused at 200mm. It brought a sense of security to me that I've never felt before, much like the whole EOS R line does focus wise at maximum aperture. The clarity and colors, to me, are just on another level, though that is incredibly subjective. I'll try and post a few sample pictures in a few days when I can get around to it.


Thank you. Most useful comment. 
Could you please share some shots where we could judge bokeh quality, chromatic aberrations and also artistic qualities of the lens: rendering, contrast, colour magic, saturations and in focus to out of focus transition. Cheers.


----------



## Bonich (Nov 3, 2019)

fox40phil said:


> No words about the "Minimum focusing distance" for the 70-200?! But for the 85mm... strange!
> 
> The Tamron 70-200 G2 has only 0,95m! Hoping for something like that...but I won't afford those lenses .... 3000€ for a 85mm is crazy! I bought a used 300mm 2.8IS for this before 6 years!





It looks like minimum focus distance is not constant across the zoom range (like it is true with the RF 24-70). This gives you better maximum magnification at shorter focal length and enables a different photographic approach in closeups: you are free to decide perspective by focal length and can focus down to the desired magnification instead of zooming to 200mm and the focus.
I really like this performance of my RF 24-70 2.8.
BTW: min focus distance of the RF is 0.7m, I do not have data about the corresponding focal length.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 3, 2019)

jeffa4444 said:


> The more I use it, the more I love it for portraits. I dont shoot test charts.



I'm glad you like it. I'm a bit underwhelmed.

Some of those who think that the "sharper" a lens is, the better it is for any purpose remind me of those who think the "nifty fifty" is a "great" lens. It's a great _value _for the price, but it's fairly mundane as wide aperture primes go. But to those who have only used slow zooms and have never used a truly great prime lens, it's the best lens ever made.


----------



## JTP (Nov 4, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Thank you. Most useful comment.
> Could you please share some shots where we could judge bokeh quality, chromatic aberrations and also artistic qualities of the lens: rendering, contrast, colour magic, saturations and in focus to out of focus transition. Cheers.


Most welcome! I'll try to post some this week if I can. I didn't get to shoot a ton, but from what I shot, I really loved.


----------



## JTP (Nov 4, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I'm glad you like it. I'm a bit underwhelmed.
> 
> Some of those who think that the "sharper" a lens is, the better it is for any purpose remind me of those who think the "nifty fifty" is a "great" lens. It's a great _value _for the price, but it's fairly mundane as wide aperture primes go. But to those who have only used slow zooms and have never used a truly great prime lens, it's the best lens ever made.


I agree about sharpness. I have the new RF 50mm 1.2 and it is so sharp that it scares me sometimes to use on any women that doesn't have near perfect skin. You can see nearly every flaw in a persons skin when taking a near close portrait, especially if you don't have soft fill. If the person has deeper pores, be prepared to do a lot of post work.


----------



## Optics Patent (Nov 6, 2019)

This lens may well be what pushed me from Nikon (Z6 that I love) to Canon. I tested and rejected the RP earlier this year, primarily because of the reverse zoom direction, but decided to stubbornly try again to get the better Canon lenses. Z6 has a better rear display flip up for fast low angle shots, a superior view finder with a larger apparent image, and a shutter that doesn't should like a toy (cringe). RP has the weight and size advantage, and Nikon shows no promise to catch up. Even looking to upgrade my Nikon 400mm f2.8 heavyweight, there seems little point with their heavier best option. I'm motivated to force myself to learn to love Canon to have a happier if less comfortable "marriage." I also trust that the RP can be replaced or supplemented by a next generation mirrorless body to get the most out of the pro lenses, and IBIS for my vintage oddballs like Questar 700 mirror lens and manual Nikon collection.


----------

