More macro - just brought my camera rig out to look for stuff in the yard, and it's just amazing what you can see at this magnification - this is a super tiny weed flower (chickweed)...the whole blossom is about 6-8mm across, and this tiny insect was barely visible to the naked eye (and then only as a thin black line on the petal). This is at 2x magnification, but cropped to vertical from horizontal. Laowa 100mm f/2.8 at f/8.
Nice ... but f8 would have been better DOF-wise. Did you know that the DXO ranked the RF 85/2 a tad higher than the $2,300 RF 50/1.2L and significantly higher than the $3,000 RF 28-70/2L?
bobbytan wrote:
Nice ... but f8 would have been better DOF-wise. Did you know that the DXO ranked the RF 85/2 a tad higher than the $2,300 RF 50/1.2L and significantly higher than the $3,000 RF 28-70/2L?
Depends on what you're after as far as DOF is concerned. I often stop down for macro work, or focus stack (as noted in the first shot on this page of photos)....but other times I like to have a nice soft background with it. All personal choice.
As one who has owned the RF 85/2 for a while, it is indeed a very good lens and I like it a lot. I have also tested and reviewed the RF 50mm f/1.2, and I have to say, I think DXO missed the mark big time on these 'rankings', as while the RF 85 is comparable in sharpness, and perhaps even a bit better in peak sharpness, I don't think it is as good a lens overall. DXO's scores are a bit flawed in how they are calculated, and show the weakness of relying solely on numbers for a 'score'. For instance, a large portion of the gains in the DXO score for the RF 85/2 are for vignetting, and while it does have less vignetting than the 50/1.2, it is also over a full stop slower, and at the same aperture, vignetting is pretty similar between them. The Chromatic Aberration score also only includes lateral CA, where the two lenses both perform very well, though in my experience the 50/1.2 has lower longitudinal CA than the 85/2, especially at equivalent apertures. I still see some on the 85mm even at f/4, while the very low amounts on the 50/1.2 are gone by like f/1.8.
You are right, of course. The rendering of a lens and other intrinsic qualities are what adds to the unique character and appeal of a lens. Pure numbers cannot quantify or describe the “look” or rendering of a lens ... not to mention the Nano USM AF motor, weather-sealing, build quality, etc.
Jman13 wrote:
Depends on what you're after as far as DOF is concerned. I often stop down for macro work, or focus stack (as noted in the first shot on this page of photos)....but other times I like to have a nice soft background with it. All personal choice.
As one who has owned the RF 85/2 for a while, it is indeed a very good lens and I like it a lot. I have also tested and reviewed the RF 50mm f/1.2, and I have to say, I think DXO missed the mark big time on these 'rankings', as while the RF 85 is comparable in sharpness, and perhaps even a bit better in peak sharpness, I don't think it is as good a lens overall. DXO's scores are a bit flawed in how they are calculated, and show the weakness of relying solely on numbers for a 'score'. For instance, a large portion of the gains in the DXO score for the RF 85/2 are for vignetting, and while it does have less vignetting than the 50/1.2, it is also over a full stop slower, and at the same aperture, vignetting is pretty similar between them. The Chromatic Aberration score also only includes lateral CA, where the two lenses both perform very well, though in my experience the 50/1.2 has lower longitudinal CA than the 85/2, especially at equivalent apertures. I still see some on the 85mm even at f/4, while the very low amounts on the 50/1.2 are gone by like f/1.8. ...Show more →
