delsol9400
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Funny you mention dust, my first rf 85 1.2 came brand new with a ton of dust in it. I sent it back, this one, only a couple specs. Apparently it's normal, I try not to obsess about it. It does not impact image quality at all. I've used many lenses and the rf 85 1.2 produces some of the best images I've seen - even at f/8 where most people don't intend to use it, it excels, my studio images are razor sharp. However the build quality could be better. My first one did not make a clicking noise when you touched it, this one does. I was going to make a video about the clicking sound but I figured people would think I'm nuts. I thought about sending it in under warranty but I also figured canon would think I'm nuts. The first version of the lens I had did not click when you touched the plastic. I would have returned this one too, but got busy and missed the return window.
sebjmatthews wrote:
The build quality of most of the RF lenses is much better than the EFs.
The composite plastics they're using are much safer materials than the metals that some of the older lenses used—hack youtubers may tell you that anything metal is "built like a tank", but the reality is that metal can't be crafted and fitted within as tight tolerances as the modern composites, shifts more with environmental changes, and metal passes any and all shock on to the more fragile gearing and glass, instead of absorbing some of it like the plastics do—and, at least on most of the lenses I've had and closely inspected so far, they're all fit together much more tightly and precisely than anything I ever saw out of the EF line, barring the TS-E 90mm and 135mm macro Ls.
The only exception to this has been the RF 85mm f/2, which is perhaps the worst-made first-party lens released after the 80s that I have ever encountered; considering I've owned or rented every Canon EF lens, that's saying something. I went through three copies of the RF 85mm f/2 and they were uniformly terrible in build, and especially in focus. The EF 50mm f/1.4 had a (slightly exaggerated) reputation for having a fundamentally faulty focus motor, but that lens is a masterpiece compared to the RF 85 f/2's. Of the three copies I went through, the motors on two broke completely, and the third was making very harsh grinding noises when I sent it back and gave up on the lens for good. But the even bigger issue was how much dust was drawn inside all of them. I only ever used them in a sterile studio environment, meticulously kept clean for archival shots (sometimes you don't need 100mm+ and true 1:1 for some larger objects, so I was hoping the 85 would be a comparatively 'wide' option), yet somehow they filled with dust faster than anything I've ever used. The focus rings and switches had massive gaps on all three copies, and the opening around the front was like something you'd find on one of those £40 all-manual lenses that no-name Chinese factories are churning out on eBay. I've got lenses from the 1950s which have less dust inside than those RF 85s did after a couple of weeks.
The only first-party lenses I've ever encountered which could compete with the RF 85mm f/2 for consistently poor build quality would be the old 'micro motor' EF 35mm f/2 from 1990, and the first generation Fujifilm XF 56mm f/1.2. Those three lenses are all simply diabolical in build.
... Okay, rant aside, for every other lens the RF series beats the EF in build quality, hands-down. Every other lens is better-built than its EF counterpart. The RF 70-200 f/2.8L, in particular, is masterfully made; the extending design is not a problem at all when the barrels are made and assembled that precisely. It's only a shame it has such bad focus breathing, otherwise it'd be the best 70-200 (or equivalent) made to date, for any system. It's quite bizarre that an externally-zooming lens is the one with the worst breathing. But that's an optics design issue, not a build quality issue....Show more →
|
But there's a solution - wrap all your lenses and it will stop bothering you: 