p.1 #1 · RF 85mm f/2 macro vs. the alternatives .. which appeals more?
Now that you've seen photos from the Canon RF 85mm f/2 macro, what appeals to you more -- this new 85mm macro, or alternatives like:
Canon 100mm 2.8 L macro
Tamron 90mm macro
The several reviews available plus Laing's, show the image quality to be pretty good. But the lens is not weather sealed, and other lenses are longer. The RF 85mm macro has a comfortable weight. Other brands include a lens hood.
p.1 #2 · RF 85mm f/2 macro vs. the alternatives .. which appeals more?
I already have the 100L, but I'm getting the 85/2 because of its size and let's face it I like native RF lenses. What I'd like is a nice 180mm macro, or even longer.
p.1 #3 · RF 85mm f/2 macro vs. the alternatives .. which appeals more?
This lens is more appealing to me as a lightweight Portrait lens than as a macro lens. It seems to be sharp wide open and has IS which will help to shoot at lower ISO/slower shutter speed (especially for indoors and at night).
My dilemma is I already have the Sigma 85 mm F1.4 Art which is super sharp and a BEAST (heavy). The sigma could be a little inconsistent focusing at times, but when it hits it is absolutely sharp. I would love the RF 85mm F1.2 version, but I am find it difficult to spend $2.7K for a prime Lens at this juncture. Maybe one day.
With that said this makes the RF 85mm F2 a great opportunity to pick up a good RF mount prime at a much more reasonable price point. I actually had it on preorder and just cancelled it earlier today (prior to seeing this video). This review makes me want to renew my preorder.
p.1 #4 · RF 85mm f/2 macro vs. the alternatives .. which appeals more?
mdvaden wrote:
Now that you've seen photos from the Canon RF 85mm f/2 macro, what appeals to you more -- this new 85mm macro, or alternatives like:
Canon 100mm 2.8 L macro
Tamron 90mm macro
The several reviews available plus Laing's, show the image quality to be pretty good. But the lens is not weather sealed, and other lenses are longer. The RF 85mm macro has a comfortable weight. Other brands include a lens hood.
&feature=emb_logo
Meh. I'd get the 90/2.8 TSE Macro over the 85/2 for close work. If I needed a true ~100mm macro with AF, then I'd get the latest Canon, whatever that is.
EBH
Oct 19, 2020 at 10:20 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #5 · RF 85mm f/2 macro vs. the alternatives .. which appeals more?
I've used 1:2 macro lenses a lot, the 85/2 is probably a good or great lens but I'd probably get 1:1. People focus on lens performance so much, but even the older 100mm is 1:1 and probably performs well there, and that is a big deal.
Although I like the 180 FL of my tamron, so I'd probably go with a longer FL. I photograph a lot of stuff that flies off for one thing.
p.1 #6 · RF 85mm f/2 macro vs. the alternatives .. which appeals more?
mdvaden wrote:
Now that you've seen photos from the Canon RF 85mm f/2 macro, what appeals to you more -- this new 85mm macro, or alternatives like:
Canon 100mm 2.8 L macro
Tamron 90mm macro
A 1:1 macro RF would appeal to me more. I have the 100EF Macro I can use though what appeals me to it is the closer focusing distance then my 85DS, its lighter weight and it compliments the RF 35 for getting a little closer for flowers and the like.
p.1 #7 · RF 85mm f/2 macro vs. the alternatives .. which appeals more?
stanj wrote:
I already have the 100L, but I'm getting the 85/2 because of its size and let's face it I like native RF lenses. What I'd like is a nice 180mm macro, or even longer.
So would I. The longest macro I have now is the old Sigma 150/2.8.
Canon is long overdue to replace the 180/3.5.
p.1 #8 · RF 85mm f/2 macro vs. the alternatives .. which appeals more?
mdvaden wrote:
alternatives like:
Canon 100mm 2.8 L macro
Tamron 90mm macro
Easy choice, really.
If your work needs "real" macro (1:1), simply pass on the 85mm. Take the 100 2.8 L if you have more cash, or the 90mm if you want to save some.
If you don't need to go that close (1:2 is plenty for typical wedding ring shots), then 85mm makes total sense, size, weight, ergonomics, price, RF native performance, sharpness, AF speed, one stop brighter,...
p.1 #10 · RF 85mm f/2 macro vs. the alternatives .. which appeals more?
RF lenses wouldn't mount to my camera, so I'd have to go with the 100mm L. I already use a 100mm macro lens for my portraits and headshots and it's excellent, but the image stabilization in the L version would certainly be a welcome upgrade.
p.1 #11 · RF 85mm f/2 macro vs. the alternatives .. which appeals more?
I've been transitioning to RF lenses where I can. Down to 4 EF mount lenses including the Sigma Art 85 and the Canon 100 macro. Was thinking (hoping) this new RF 85 could maybe do double duty and possibly replace both of those other 2 lenses.
While Gordon Laing's review gave the RF 85 good marks, I think I'd wait for a legit RF 1:1 macro in the 100mm range. If I recall there was one on the Canon RF lens roadmap posted recently. Likewise I'll hold out for the RF equivalent of the EF 85 1.4, Hopefully priced halfway between this new 85 and the RF 85 1.2
p.1 #13 · RF 85mm f/2 macro vs. the alternatives .. which appeals more?
jtford9 wrote:
I've been transitioning to RF lenses where I can. Down to 4 EF mount lenses including the Sigma Art 85 and the Canon 100 macro. Was thinking (hoping) this new RF 85 could maybe do double duty and possibly replace both of those other 2 lenses.
Maybe the main thing hesitating me about the RF 85mm macro is that it becomes another 85mm in my bag at a time when macro is what I'm trying to figure out right now. And for primes, I'd like to get something longer than what I have. Presently, I have 35mm, 50mm and 85mm.
Tamron's 90 isn't different enough to look away from the RF 85mm macro. 100mm or longer sounds better.
p.1 #14 · RF 85mm f/2 macro vs. the alternatives .. which appeals more?
I look at this as an update of the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. I think Canon is highlighting close focus mostly because the old 85 f/1.8 had a minimum focusing distance of 850mm, which isn't very close, and is sometimes limiting. Close focusing makes this lens more generally useful, rather than making it a specialized option for macro photography. That's my opinion, anyway.
p.1 #15 · RF 85mm f/2 macro vs. the alternatives .. which appeals more?
mdvaden wrote:
Maybe the main thing hesitating me about the RF 85mm macro is that it becomes another 85mm in my bag at a time when macro is what I'm trying to figure out right now. And for primes, I'd like to get something longer than what I have. Presently, I have 35mm, 50mm and 85mm.
Tamron's 90 isn't different enough to look away from the RF 85mm macro. 100mm or longer sounds better.
And the Tamron needs an adapter too... So you're right, the RF 85 for the price and the native mount compares favorably with the Tamron. Also would probably hold resale value if you look to sell it after a better fit macro comes along in the RF mount. If I recall that's your plan for your RF 35 and 50 once the RF 35 1.2 shows up.
Wondering if your macro needs would be covered with the 1:2 macro range on the RF 85 if you can use the photo stacking feature of the R5?
p.1 #16 · RF 85mm f/2 macro vs. the alternatives .. which appeals more?
jtford9 wrote:
Wondering if your macro needs would be covered with the 1:2 macro range on the RF 85 if you can use the photo stacking feature of the R5?
The RF 85 would more than cover my needs because I shoot more along the lines of wedding details and closeups. I'd be shooting a group of mushrooms, rather than a single shroom, for example. I would barely use the 1:1 aspect of most macro lenses, most of the time.
p.1 #17 · RF 85mm f/2 macro vs. the alternatives .. which appeals more?
The Samyang/Rokinon RF 85 / 1.4 for about the same price is a decent contender. Kinda ticks me off that Canon charges an extra $60 for the hood for the 85 / 2 STM IS, but then again, if they charged $649 for the lens instead of $599, and included the hood, I probably wouldn't have complained, so...
What I really want to see is if Sigma doesn't put out an RF version of their 85 / 1.4A in the significantly reduced size and weight that they did for Sony.
p.1 #18 · RF 85mm f/2 macro vs. the alternatives .. which appeals more?
Mike_5D wrote:
Maybe a little longer too, for more working distance. How about a 135 f/2 L IS with 1:1 macro? Of course they'd never do that.
I agree that a 135mm length would be a better fit, if you look at how the RF lens offering is set up so far, there will be a “blow off my socks” very substantial 135 f:1.8 L at $2500, and probably a more compact and portable 135 f:2.5 or f:2.8 IS macro in the $1000 price range. I have the RF 35 f:1.8 and while I don’t use it for macro, the ability to get closer to a subject than with a traditional lens has come in handy more than once, and would be a benefit for a 135 medium tele lens as well.
p.1 #19 · RF 85mm f/2 macro vs. the alternatives .. which appeals more?
Just picked up my copy; will give it a go the next few days to see how it performs. At first I see this as an extra lightweight option, next to the 85 1.4 EF adapted. That is significantly heavier (more than twice in fact with ef-rf adapter) and bigger. If it's 'good enough' for my use at some point I might even sell the 85 EF. Also have a 100 macro, which I'll still keep, for now at least.
FYI, I also had a review copy of the Samyang here for a while. It's a very good lens, but I had some issues focussing in difficult situations and in tracking mode. Plus, IBIS not working, and not the full extent of AF points available.
p.1 #20 · RF 85mm f/2 macro vs. the alternatives .. which appeals more?
DanielScott wrote:
... the image stabilization in the L version would certainly be a welcome upgrade.
It is. Soon after getting the 100/2.8L IS Macro, I sold my 85/1.8 and 135/2L, which I used as backup to the 70-200/2.8L IS II at events and etc. The IS is a boon for handheld shooting at all focus distances, and it's particularly useful for 'candid' shots in poor light, and in close company. It's way less intrusive than the big zoom.
