The fifth lens in the VCM lineup, the RF 85mm F1.4L retains the same dimensions of the other lenses including the 67mm filter ring, and comes in at a much lower price than the existing 1.2L variants.
The new RF-Mount RF85mm F1.4 L VCM Hybrid lens is the latest addition to Canon’s line of VCM lenses, designed for shooters who increasingly are seeking powerful options whether shooting stills or video content. The RF85mm F1.4 L VCM has a focal length of 85mm, making it perfect for portrait-style shooting. The lens provides beautiful background blurring, as well as a F1.4 Maximum aperture, and well-controlled focus breathing.
The main takeaway is that it's smaller and lighter and sells for an MSRP of $1,649.
It will be interesting to see how this lens fairs in image quality. It's almost half the price of the larger F1.2L lenses, so it should provide good value for something that is still an L lens.
Holy Sh!t! I've been wondering and asked here many times if it was possible to fit an RF 85 VCM f/1.4 in the same shell size and they just did it. This is amazing to have 4 primes now all the same exact size. This is insane for my water photography to now travel with one lens port for 4 different lenses. This is definitely a first. I thought I would never replace my Samyang RF 85 1.4 but I'll have to compare the two now to see how the Samyang holds up. The VCM already has the advantage due to size and I'm guessing IQ will be better as well.
Now Canon, is it possible to make a VCM 135 f/2 in the same shell? If not maybe a VCM 105 f/1.8? Please please.
Tempted to sell my 135/1.8 and 85/2 and get this. Never use the 135 because of its size and also still have the EF 135/2, which should be fine for portrait stuff.
Then again, earlier I pondered getting the 50/1.4 to replace the 50/1.2, but that felt like a step too far.
I had not paid much attention to the 50mm VCM or the other VCM lenses, but now that I look at this new 85mm VCM I note that, contrary to the EF 85mm f:1.4 L that I had owned and loved, it does not have in-lens IS, and nor does the 50 mm, or the 35mm, etc.. Is this because it is taken for granted that IBIS will be sufficient to compensate shake, or is it because IS may compromise focus breathing mitigation, or some other reason?
Rivermist wrote:
I had not paid much attention to the 50mm VCM or the other VCM lenses, but now that I look at this new 85mm VCM I note that, contrary to the EF 85mm f:1.4 L that I had owned and loved, it does not have in-lens IS, and nor does the 50 mm, or the 35mm, etc.. Is this because it is taken for granted that IBIS will be sufficient to compensate shake, or is it because IS may compromise focus breathing mitigation, or some other reason?
I buy these primes to shoot at or near wide open which means if there's any sort of light I will never need or use IS. In fact if there's bright light sometimes I'm fighting to keep SS below 1/8000th. For video, I'll be using a gimbal most of the time so no IS needed there. It would be nice on occasion for video handheld but IBIS does a good job nowadays.
I'm glad they did not incorporate IS as it just makes the lens bigger and heavier for something not needed.
Rivermist wrote:
I had not paid much attention to the 50mm VCM or the other VCM lenses, but now that I look at this new 85mm VCM I note that, contrary to the EF 85mm f:1.4 L that I had owned and loved, it does not have in-lens IS, and nor does the 50 mm, or the 35mm, etc.. Is this because it is taken for granted that IBIS will be sufficient to compensate shake, or is it because IS may compromise focus breathing mitigation, or some other reason?
I'd really like a stabilized 50 mm/1.4 (or 1.8) and 85mm/1.4, but it looks like it will be a long wait. Especially since they've never made a stabilized 50, even though one would be a great portrait option for the non-IBIS APS-C bodies.
Rivermist wrote:
I had not paid much attention to the 50mm VCM or the other VCM lenses, but now that I look at this new 85mm VCM I note that, contrary to the EF 85mm f:1.4 L that I had owned and loved, it does not have in-lens IS, and nor does the 50 mm, or the 35mm, etc.. Is this because it is taken for granted that IBIS will be sufficient to compensate shake, or is it because IS may compromise focus breathing mitigation, or some other reason?
When looking for the comparisons neither of the existing RF 85mm 1.2L lenses had IS either. So it would be really odd in their lineup if a lens that's around half the price had features that the bigger lenses did not. As stated I don't think they would be able to put IS into this body regardless, and if you look at the cutaway picture on TDP there isn't much room left inside of this lens body.
artsupreme wrote:
Holy Sh!t! I've been wondering and asked here many times if it was possible to fit an RF 85 VCM f/1.4 in the same shell size and they just did it.
Someone here told you that it was possible.
The lens looks a few mm shorter than 85 mm and is probably closer to f/1.5 than f/1.4, like the other VCM lenses, but still. I am impressed.
This is amazing to have 4 primes now all the same exact size. This is insane for my water photography to now travel with one lens port for 4 different lenses. This is definitely a first. I thought I would never replace my Samyang RF 85 1.4 but I'll have to compare the two now to see how the Samyang holds up. The VCM already has the advantage due to size and I'm guessing IQ will be better as well.
Now Canon, is it possible to make a VCM 135 f/2 in the same shell? If not maybe a VCM 105 f/1.8? Please please....Show more →
The first one: I don't think so. The second one is on the edge. It would be an instant buy for me though, even in a different shell.
Yeah, I ordered it immediately. I wish I had it for my upcoming trip to Asia... would be great for street. I never liked 135 and this would be sweet for that purpose.
artsupreme wrote:
Holy Sh!t! I've been wondering and asked here many times if it was possible to fit an RF 85 VCM f/1.4 in the same shell size and they just did it.
Toothwalker wrote:
Someone here told you that it was possible.
The lens looks a few mm shorter than 85 mm and is probably closer to f/1.5 than f/1.4, like the other VCM lenses, but still. I am impressed.
Yeah, I'm wondering whether this is actually a 'real' f/1.4 lens. The math suggests front element should be 60.7mm and it's a 67mm filter thread. The ring around the front element appears to be more than 6mm wide (3mm on each side = 6mm). It would be interesting to know the t-stop value. DPR mentioned it has some software corrections, which wouldn't be surprising. I wonder if some of that is an EV boost to normalize with other f/1.4 lenses in the lineup.
I have the EF 85/1.4L IS and its front element is around 68mm across, give or take... and its retaining ring is quite narrow so that the edge of the glass is quite near the filter thread. Not the case with the 85 VCM which appears to have a very wide ring around the front element.
I'm also wondering about cat's eyes severity due to stuffing an 85/1.4 into this form factor.
artsupreme wrote:
This is amazing to have 4 primes now all the same exact size. This is insane for my water photography to now travel with one lens port for 4 different lenses. This is definitely a first. I thought I would never replace my Samyang RF 85 1.4 but I'll have to compare the two now to see how the Samyang holds up. The VCM already has the advantage due to size and I'm guessing IQ will be better as well.
Now Canon, is it possible to make a VCM 135 f/2 in the same shell? If not maybe a VCM 105 f/1.8? Please please....Show more →
Toothwalker wrote:
The first one: I don't think so. The second one is on the edge. It would be an instant buy for me though, even in a different shell.
Yes, the math would not work for an 135/2 and 67mm filter thread. f/2.2 or 2.5 should. I agree I'd like to see a fast 100/105 (Canon does 100mm, Nikon does 105mm) in the f/1.8 range.
"One important note about the VCM is that it requires power to hold its position, so when the camera is off, or the lens is not attached to a camera, you may hear and feel slight movement. This is normal, and there is extra cushioning inside the lens to help prevent damage in this situation."
As a Canon copier repairman for over 50 years, I see this as a potential problem some years down the road. This cushioning inside may slowly compact itself and increase the movement. What material is this cushioning made of? Is it some sort of foam material that gets sticky over time like what they put in their copiers? What then? Are these VCM lenses going to have problems 5 years down the road? Are environmental conditions going increase the deterioration of the cushioning? If these VCM lenses were cheap I could understand it, but their not. Their own words state the cushioning is only going to HELP prevent damage.
You're worrying about a future problem that might only become relevant when the majority of these lenses have already been retired and/or replaced by several generations newer products.
Just another 'incentive' for the consumer to upgrade to something newer.
Toothwalker wrote:
Someone here told you that it was possible.
The lens looks a few mm shorter than 85 mm and is probably closer to f/1.5 than f/1.4, like the other VCM lenses, but still. I am impressed.
The first one: I don't think so. The second one is on the edge. It would be an instant buy for me though, even in a different shell.
My $0.02 on this topic is that you can't get enough IS, and wherever possible it should be included, IBIS or no IBIS. Sure the ultra-wide aperture lenses never had IS as they were / are huge (85mm 1.2, 28-70 zoom, etc..). But if Canon continues to put IS in expensive L lenses it is not because they are appealing to the owners of non-IBIS bodies like the R8. Canon continues to put IS in lenses long after launching IBIS. The RF 10-20 has IS, despite common misconceptions that IS is only really needed for telephoto lenses. They added IS to the RF 2.8 trinity 15-35 / 24-70 / 70-200, as well as the 135mm f:1.8, the Z lenses 24-105 and 70-200, etc.. This all speaks to the continued interest in this feature. Why? Because with high resolution sensors microscopic moves result in flawed pixel-level sharpness that can only be avoided with very high shutter speeds. IS allows a much broader range of shutter speeds in hand-held conditions while improving sharpness of all the static elements in the picture. The EF 85 1.4 accommodated IS in a relatively compact enclosure. But maybe the Voice Coil Motor concept uses space differently from USM, and this would be the reason no VCM lens has IS.
tr1957 wrote:
I'd really like a stabilized 50 mm/1.4 (or 1.8) and 85mm/1.4, but it looks like it will be a long wait. Especially since they've never made a stabilized 50, even though one would be a great portrait option for the non-IBIS APS-C bodies.
At this point, I have to suspect that either IBIS is deemed acceptable or Tamron's late model EF experiment with the SP 45/1.8 VC suggested to lensmakers that image stabilized 50s don't generate enough market interest. I too think a stabilized RF 50, maybe along the lines of Nikon's 50/1.8 S in performance, would be a nice lineup addition.
--
As to the new RF 85/1.4, I wonder how CA will shake out. The EF 1.2 was notorious, and even the EF 1.4 still had more than contemporary competitors like the Sigma 85/1.4 and Tamron 85/1.8. Since this new lens doesn't keep the blue spectrum refractive element of the RF 85/1.2 (deployed otherwise only on the EF 35/1.4 II and which is supposed to squash CA), just something I'm interested to see in light of Canon's particular history with 85s.
Rivermist wrote:
My $0.02 on this topic is that you can't get enough IS, and wherever possible it should be included, IBIS or no IBIS. Sure the ultra-wide aperture lenses never had IS as they were / are huge (85mm 1.2, 28-70 zoom, etc..). But if Canon continues to put IS in expensive L lenses it is not because they are appealing to the owners of non-IBIS bodies like the R8. Canon continues to put IS in lenses long after launching IBIS. The RF 10-20 has IS, despite common misconceptions that IS is only really needed for telephoto lenses. They added IS to the RF 2.8 trinity 15-35 / 24-70 / 70-200, as well as the 135mm f:1.8, the Z lenses 24-105 and 70-200, etc.. This all speaks to the continued interest in this feature. Why? Because with high resolution sensors microscopic moves result in flawed pixel-level sharpness that can only be avoided with very high shutter speeds. IS allows a much broader range of shutter speeds in hand-held conditions while improving sharpness of all the static elements in the picture. The EF 85 1.4 accommodated IS in a relatively compact enclosure. But maybe the Voice Coil Motor concept uses space differently from USM, and this would be the reason no VCM lens has IS. ...Show more →
I owned the EF 85 1.4 IS and it was a great lens but it's bigger and much heavier than the new compact lightweight RF version. Canon realizes IS is used very little in these fast primes and is it's not really needed anymore with cameras having IBIS. So making these new primes as small and lightweight as possible is the best move. I don't know anyone who buys fast primes to shoot them at small apertures where you'd need IS. The landscape photographers I know use tripods where IS is not necessary with small apertures. IS can be reserved for much slower lenses that will benefit from it from f/2.8 and smaller.
artsupreme wrote:
I owned the EF 85 1.4 IS and it was a great lens but it's bigger and much heavier than the new compact lightweight RF version. Canon realizes IS is used very little in these fast primes and is it's not really needed anymore with cameras having IBIS. So making these new primes as small and lightweight as possible is the best move. I don't know anyone who buys fast primes to shoot them at small apertures where you'd need IS. The landscape photographers I know use tripods where IS is not necessary with small apertures. IS can be reserved for much slower lenses that will benefit from it from f/2.8 and smaller.
To add to this, this particular 'VCM' lineup is essentially a 'cinema'-style lineup, in that the lenses have the same body and filter thread dimensions, along with a nod to weight reduction. These lenses are intended to be swapped out on gimbals in addition to their photo chops.
johnctharp wrote:
To add to this, this particular 'VCM' lineup is essentially a 'cinema'-style lineup, in that the lenses have the same body and filter thread dimensions, along with a nod to weight reduction. These lenses are intended to be swapped out on gimbals in addition to their photo chops.
Yup, there are just so many benefits to having all the lenses the same size - water housings, gimbals, filters, etc, and it makes for better organizing/storage and packing in the travel bags.
