Good for you. Your photos demonstrate how well the original 85 f/1.2, that you got, does on the 5DR. The original does better in the DXO ratings than the 85 Mark II. Hope you get a lot a great pictures.
Wondering what the real-world benefit/advantage of the RF85 is over adapting the 85/1.4L IS? Faster AF? For me at least, I don't care about the extra third-stop, whether for light gathering or background blur (I would probably shoot it mostly around f/2 anyway). I have the original EF85/1.2L and got the 85/1.4L IS when it became available, primarily for the faster AF. IS is also nice at times.
I'd like to see more from the RF85 in more difficult subject-background distance ratios (i.e. where subject to background distance isn't large relative to camera to subject distance).
I don't know what the real world advantage would be since I sold my previous 85's but the RF85 is awesome! And I personally hate adapting lenses so I wanted to invest in the RF mount.
rscheffler wrote:
Wondering what the real-world benefit/advantage of the RF85 is over adapting the 85/1.4L IS? Faster AF? For me at least, I don't care about the extra third-stop, whether for light gathering or background blur (I would probably shoot it mostly around f/2 anyway). I have the original EF85/1.2L and got the 85/1.4L IS when it became available, primarily for the faster AF. IS is also nice at times.
I'd like to see more from the RF85 in more difficult subject-background distance ratios (i.e. where subject to background distance isn't large relative to camera to subject distance).
I too would be interested in anyone who can compare the EF 85L IS vs the RF 85L on an RF body to see the real world differences. I've been dabbling with Sony but kept my EF lenses and would like to come back to Canon but would miss the stabilisation of Sony - it is a liberation for personal photography and I would always prefer a stablished 1.4 lens over a non-stabilised 1.2. I have the 85L IS so it's on serious possibility on the EOS-R and then pick up the upcoming stabilised RF 24-70/2.8. Or maybe I'll just wait for an R camera with IBIS but who knows when that will come to market (or at what price!)?
I’ve been on the biggest struggle with staying with canon. I even bought an a9. As soon as I opened it I tried to do the firmware update. It bricked and wouldn’t turn back on.. I felt as if it wasn’t meant to be lol
So returned it and debated till the last second and went with the 85 and stayed canon. If the RF lenses weren’t so good I’d probably be shooting Sony right now. I have to believe that if canon doesn’t release a body to soon to compete with the ye a9 they are stupid and in trouble so I’m hoping it’s soon!! Lol
Yes that very much mirrors my experience - 15 years with Canon and in many respects I am a very devoted Canon fan. I admire so much about the company, particularly the engineering, the attention to detail, the carefully thought out ergonomics and in particular the well built lenses. I think it was on the lensrentals blog they said only Canon lenses are more beautiful on the inside than outside.
But the big advantages Sony offered in terms of size, IBIS, EVF, silent shutter, video and in particular the combination of high resolution and high frame rate - well I ended up straying as Canon dragged their feet on all issues or tried to make customers buy multiple models. I've found the Sony technology to be incredible but it has been an unhappy experience overall because I have had bad luck with the lenses, in particular the 16-35GM and 35ZA, multiple copies, all no good in one area or another (four in the case of the 35mm until I gave up and adapted my 35L II - in truth they would have been useable but I refuse to pay top retail price for something badly built when for similar money Canon provides something well built). My Canon 16-35L III and 35L II are both virtually perfect after quite a lot of hard use and a good few bumps and scrapes. My 70-200L IS (Mark I) looks like it has been through a war zone and has been dropped and banged far more than I care to admit when I went on a 3 month long trip through central Asia and it just keeps going, never missing a beat.
Canon has often been quite conservative and I get the basic premise of offering great lenses to keep people in the system but for me they just went too far in not putting IBIS in - it's such a blatant way to sell a camera while withholding tech for a future update. Nikon has it. Pentax has it. Fuji has it. Sony has it. Olympus had it in 2007. Minolta had it I believe in 2004 or was it even earlier? My iPhone has it. At this rate Leica are probably going to beat Canon to it!
Sony has had it so many years now we can really say it's a good, long term technology, very mature, doesn't impact on reliability. Had the EOS R had it I would have bought it day one. I've found it a revelation. I use my 24L II on a Sony A7RIII and can shoot at ISO 100 hand held at sunset. I find it great with a 24-70 2.8 lens to allow so much flexibility in places tripods aren't allowed or practical. Adapted it makes my 135L so much easier to use. I really couldn't believe it when Canon released the two new RF mount cameras without it - it is far more useful and has far more impact on image quality than any agonising about dynamic range at ISO 3 million or whatever it is everyone worries about!
I really hope Canon comes out with some top notch R mount bodies soon.
Well I think Sony has woke up Canon and they will put IBIS in the next body. I’d like the 2 slots also. But I’ll anxiously wait for it and keep investing in the sweet RF lenses. I’m waiting for a sweet RF135!!!
Indeed, while I moan about the cameras, over the long term, the lenses do count for more. I've had a 135L for years and love it - I'll be fascinated to see how they improve it - for me the most useful thing will be closer focusing. I will take nice bokeh over absolute sharpness. Indeed I found the 135L did well on a 5DSR so I'm not too worried about perfect MTF charts etc.
I think if we look at Sony's FE lenses it suggests the real benefit to mirrorless is felt with wider lenses so the upcoming 15-35 sounds promising. I am torn about the 24-70 IS. I will likely keep my EF 24-70L. The Sony 24-70GM is bigger than the L and if Canon puts IS in their new one I fear it will be a very large lens.
Most of all I hope Canon does two things aside from the obvious L lenses. One is to give us a full range of decent primes perhaps with f2 for light weight - the EF 85/1.8, 100/2, 35/2 IS for example are all super lenses. The other is I hope we still get some character lenses. The EF 50L for example has such a beautiful look for portraits I am not bothered about it not being that sharp or well corrected, indeed I like it for that. It's hard these days as everyone obsessed over corner sharpness wide open etc but I hope we get some stuff that is unusual or special in some ways.
I am jelly. This is the first of the RF exotics that has tempted me. Still gonna wait to see what the nest R body offers and how the RF 24-70 2.8 reviews. Very much intrigued by the design of the RF 70-200 2.8 too.
Jonesy wrote:
Well I think Sony has woke up Canon and they will put IBIS in the next body. I’d like the 2 slots also. But I’ll anxiously wait for it and keep investing in the sweet RF lenses. I’m waiting for a sweet RF135!!!
I think that Canon caught everybody with the pants down when they put out the 5D at a somewhat affordable price. At the time, Nikon was claiming that full frame was a thing of the past, and Olympus was touting the 4/3 format. I don't think Sony was on the DSLR scene at the time.
Canon grabbed a lot of market share in that time frame, especially with low-priced Rebel bodies and their (mostly) top-notch pro DSLR bodies.
Enter Sony - they surprised the world with a fast dive into mirrorless, with top-notch sensors and some very good lenses.
Yeah, both had burps, but it's time for Canon to catch up. Signs that they're responding are there. I think you're right - IBIS is coming, along with the next generation of Canon sensor. These companies didn't get to where they are in the market by lying down. At least not for very long.
rscheffler wrote:
Wondering what the real-world benefit/advantage of the RF85 is over adapting the 85/1.4L IS? Faster AF? For me at least, I don't care about the extra third-stop, whether for light gathering or background blur (I would probably shoot it mostly around f/2 anyway). I have the original EF85/1.2L and got the 85/1.4L IS when it became available, primarily for the faster AF. IS is also nice at times.
I'd like to see more from the RF85 in more difficult subject-background distance ratios (i.e. where subject to background distance isn't large relative to camera to subject distance).
Native mount, less play in the lens, direct connection between camera and lens, 1/3 stop of light, 12 pin electronic connection.
Sure, I get all that. But in the end, does it make a noticeable difference? The 85L IS is already a great performer on EF cameras and by all accounts, Canon has made adapting EF to RF seamless, in respect to performance.
IMO 1/3 of a stop is more a marketing thing that a photographic advantage.
Jonesy wrote:
Well I think Sony has woke up Canon and they will put IBIS in the next body. I’d like the 2 slots also. But I’ll anxiously wait for it and keep investing in the sweet RF lenses. I’m waiting for a sweet RF135!!!
I greatly hope Canon releases a 70-135/2L IS to pair with the 28-70/2... I'd love it for weddings and events.
Note that you may have to cut & paste this link into your browser in order to view the test images of the RF lens and the EF 85mm f/1.2L II version lens. (If I click the link above I get EF-S 10-18mm lens test images on the right side)
Also note that the size difference between the test chart images due to disparity in pixel densities between the EOS R and the EOS 5DsR test cameras makes the comparison between the two lenses difficult.
I have to say that at wider aperture settings the RF lens definitely blows the the EF 85mm f/1.2L II out of the water! Even more so when it comes to longitudinal CA where there's no contest at the wider apertures.
On the other hand the comparison to the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS appears to be very close however it is difficult to compare due to the aforementioned disparity in the size of the test images.
When compared to the RF 50mm f/1.2L the RF 85mm is better wide open with notably less vignetting and about the same with both lenses stopped down to f/5.6.
Shot a 14 hour wedding with it yesterday, 80% of the day at 35/85. Normally I shoot 35/85 (1.4L IS) or 35/105 (Sigma 105 1.4). I've shot and owned every similar 85 at some point and am still looking for the unicorn resolution monster that draws as well as the 85L II.
The one sentence review would be that it is the RF 50s bigger, badder, older brother. I'm a big fan of the RF 50 and it is basically that lens with a fresh injection of roids.
Quick review:
- The resolution is ridiculous (similar league as Sigma 105). We won't know the final damage until Roger completes his tests but I will be very surprised if it tests worse than the best of the best.
- The rendering is improved from the 85L 1.4 IS. Maybe still not *quite* as smooth as the old 85L II, I'll make a judgement after going through my assistant's files (who shot same scenes with 85L II).
- Focus is fast and accurate on the R. Speed is similar to the 85 1.4L IS although the R is not the quicket body to start with. So possible that it could be faster with a pro R camera in the future.
- Balances well on gripped EOS R
- BLUE GOO IS BACK. 0 CA anywhere it seems, very similar rendering and feel to 35L II images.
- Focus limiter. I always thought it was so stupid the 85L II did not have one and it is superbly helpful.
Cons:
- Bigger than expected. It is BIG and chunky. Substantially bigger than 85L IS and old 85L II. Close to the 85 Art.
- Hood is ginormous. I really like the relatively short hood of the 85L IS
- 82mm filters. Most of my favorite Canon lenses are 77 (16-35 f/4 IS, RF 50, EF 24-70 f4, 70-200 IS II) so for me this is unfortunately a con but not a huge one.
mb126 wrote:
Shot a 14 hour wedding with it yesterday, 80% of the day at 35/85. Normally I shoot 35/85 (1.4L IS) or 35/105 (Sigma 105 1.4). I've shot and owned every similar 85 at some point and am still looking for the unicorn resolution monster that draws as well as the 85L II.
The one sentence review would be that it is the RF 50s bigger, badder, older brother. I'm a big fan of the RF 50 and it is basically that lens with a fresh injection of roids.
Quick review:
- The resolution is ridiculous (similar league as Sigma 105). We won't know the final damage until Roger completes his tests but I will be very surprised if it tests worse than the best of the best.
- The rendering is improved from the 85L 1.4 IS. Maybe still not *quite* as smooth as the old 85L II, I'll make a judgement after going through my assistant's files (who shot same scenes with 85L II).
- Focus is fast and accurate on the R. Speed is similar to the 85 1.4L IS although the R is not the quicket body to start with. So possible that it could be faster with a pro R camera in the future.
- Balances well on gripped EOS R
- BLUE GOO IS BACK. 0 CA anywhere it seems, very similar rendering and feel to 35L II images.
- Focus limiter. I always thought it was so stupid the 85L II did not have one and it is superbly helpful.
Cons:
- Bigger than expected. It is BIG and chunky. Substantially bigger than 85L IS and old 85L II. Close to the 85 Art.
- Hood is ginormous. I really like the relatively short hood of the 85L IS
- 82mm filters. Most of my favorite Canon lenses are 77 (16-35 f/4 IS, RF 50, EF 24-70 f4, 70-200 IS II) so for me this is unfortunately a con but not a huge one.
I'll be most interested in how you find the images render compared to the old EF 85L 1.2 II. Sometimes I still regret selling mine for the IS. I think the holy grail of lenses likely never really exists - as they get ever more corrected they tend to get ever more "neutral" and seem to have less character and often harsher bokeh. This has often been what kept me away from Sigma Art lenses. Their 35 Art is very sharp but I dislike the background rendering. If you compare it to the Zeiss ZE 35 1.4 you can see the difference; the Zeiss is less well corrected, at 1.4 it isn't as sharp in most cases, but has a beautiful bokeh. With 85s the ZE 85/1.4 Planar and Summilux-R Leica 85 are both good examples of lenses that tend to test poorly for wide open resolution but have a very gentle rendering for the background. The Otus 85 is probably the closest I've seen to a lens that manages to appeal to both sides.
I suppose really it all just goes to show we are spoilt for choice!
If it's anything like the RF 50, it's a winner; and a great start to the key portrait lenses for the new system.
Manny, this is true even of the Milvus 35/1.4 (in case you were reflecting on the older unit). Zeiss restrain the f1.4 performance even on what is - in my opinion - the best 35mm ever made.
At f4 it is stronger than the Otuses 28 and 55. Its on-axis fine detail goes from 56% to 86% from f1.4 to f4! It's not correction so much as design intent, therefore. Zeiss could of course make any lens great wide open, but they know it works against a well-rounded performance - this approach is right through their ranges, 135/2 APO included.
They know these lenses are going to be used for people: at short range wide open, and plenty of sharpness in all of them for that usage. They are chasing better drawing qualities and largely succeed, as you say. If the sharpness stands out, it's too obvious, too edgy (acutance). Sharpness is the quality that, when it is done right, does not draw attention to itself. Viewers can appreciated the content instead, then.
_manny_ wrote:
I'll be most interested in how you find the images render compared to the old EF 85L 1.2 II. Sometimes I still regret selling mine for the IS. I think the holy grail of lenses likely never really exists - as they get ever more corrected they tend to get ever more "neutral" and seem to have less character and often harsher bokeh. This has often been what kept me away from Sigma Art lenses. Their 35 Art is very sharp but I dislike the background rendering. If you compare it to the Zeiss ZE 35 1.4 you can see the difference; the Zeiss is less well corrected, at 1.4 it isn't as sharp in most cases, but has a beautiful bokeh. With 85s the ZE 85/1.4 Planar and Summilux-R Leica 85 are both good examples of lenses that tend to test poorly for wide open resolution but have a very gentle rendering for the background. The Otus 85 is probably the closest I've seen to a lens that manages to appeal to both sides.
I suppose really it all just goes to show we are spoilt for choice!...Show more →
It is interesting that you mention the Otus 85 as a good balance. When the Otus 55 was released I actually found many of the test shots and photos captured with it clinically sharp but lacking a great deal of character in their rendering. When they got around to the 85, I feel like they had the zeiss character back with beautiful bokeh. Still not worth the price of admission nor the weight to me but its a brilliant lens.
TDP's Randall got around to posting test shots with this 85 and it looks to improve greatly on resolution AND lateral CA over the current 85/1.2. Looking forward to more photos taken with it. I will mention that it is still humongous and heavy compared to the EF variant.
I think one thing that will be interesting in the inevitable lens rental tear down is how this lens is built internally. The EF 85/1.2 is designed in a way that if the focusing mechanism fails for whatever reason, the entire lens has to essentially be replaced (ask me how I learned...). Hoping this new design is actually able to be fixed.
