p.9 #1 · RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Jman13 wrote:
The 100-400 and 200-800 are excellent. I also really love the 45/1.2, though it definitely shows plenty of CA - but optically it’s roughly the same as the EF 50/1.2L, which many people still use today.
200-800 has mechanical issues, petapixel did an article. Imagine flying to Africa and it breaks apart on arrival
p.9 #2 · RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
In real world use, the 45/1.2 is anything but soft. Is it tack sharp to the corners? No. But it is plenty sharp over about 80% of the frame wide open. And of course, that IS softer than a higher end modern lens - I'm not arguing that. My point is that it is sharp enough for its use case, and I've been very pleasantly surprised by its performance when I take it out. It is more classic in rendering, but it's sharper than I expected, and very usable wide open. It's not going to challenge the 50/1.4L VCM or the RF 50/1.2L, but it's also a fraction of the price, and offers a lot for what it is, IMO.
It would be nice to have Canon develop some lenses similar to Nikon's 1.8S range, though.
p.9 #3 · RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
aCuria wrote:
You blame the RF85/2's slow focus on its so called "long focus throw", yet lenses with much longer focus throw like Canon's own RF100/2.8L Macro can focus silently and plenty fast.
At $600+, I think the RF 85/2 is daylight robbery. the AF implementation is horrendous, and it doesn't even do 1:1 macro. The Tamron 90/2.8 VXD Macro costs around the same, gives you a true 1:1 macro, and has dramatically faster AF. This makes the Tamron the obvious choice for a budget macro lens.
Yes, the 15 fps third-party limitation on Sony sucks, but hey there is no such limitation on the Nikon Z mount version!
The RF 85/2 also becomes pretty useless when you have a videographer shooting next to you, or when genuinely quiet operation is mandatory. Its focusing mechanism makes enough noise that it can be picked up by nearby microphones. Silent electronic shutter doesn't help much if the lens itself is making so much noise every time it focuses.
Front element extension for AF is usually the slowest and most noise-prone AF design possible. Not a fan of that old AF design. I suspect the problem is because the little STM motor has to move large and heavy glass greater distances than internal element focus designs. Rear element focus designs only need to move small elements much shorter distances. And the RF 85 2.0 IS Macro STM, like the old EF 50 2.5 CM, uses front element extension AF. With that said, I've used the RF 85 2.0 IS Macro STM for classical guitar videos without AF noise showing up on the track. The guitar is close-miked with two cardioid pencil mics running into a Tascam recorder with the camera about 3 meters behind the mics. I've only had AF noise problems with a mic mounted directly on the camera, not something I normally do since the sound is terrible for music and talking head.
Sep 08, 2026 at 11:36 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #4 · RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
aCuria wrote:
I agree that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I don't really care what focus motor technology Canon uses, as long as they use whatever implementation delivers the best performance for that lens.
However they obviously dropped the ball with the RF85/2.
You blame the RF85/2's slow focus on its so called "long focus throw", yet lenses with much longer focus throw like Canon's own RF100/2.8L Macro can focus silently and plenty fast.
At $600+, I think the RF 85/2 is daylight robbery. the AF implementation is horrendous, and it doesn't even do 1:1 macro. The Tamron 90/2.8 VXD Macro costs around the same, gives you a true 1:1 macro, and has dramatically faster AF. This makes the Tamron the obvious choice for a budget macro lens.
Yes, the 15 fps third-party limitation on Sony sucks, but hey there is no such limitation on the Nikon Z mount version!
The RF 85/2 also becomes pretty useless when you have a videographer shooting next to you, or when genuinely quiet operation is mandatory. Its focusing mechanism makes enough noise that it can be picked up by nearby microphones. Silent electronic shutter doesn't help much if the lens itself is making so much noise every time it focuses.
I have the RF 85 f/2 and I have used it extensively. My take is different. It is an f/2 lens, so no surprise that it is quasi-macro at .5X magnification and not 1X. There are virtually no f/2 lenses that have 1X or higher magnification. An f/2 .5X magnification is just a different sort of the lens than an f/2.8 1X magnification lens and it doesn't make sense, IMO, to either note that the f/2 .5X has less magnification or that the f/2.8 1X magnification has a narrower aperture. Of course that is true. If you need the f/2 aperture get the f/2 lens. If you need the 1X magnification get the f/2.8 1X magnification lens. If you need both, then you are in a pickle as you really don't have much in the way of options.
And yes, the 85 f/2 isn't silent, but it also is not nearly as loud in use as you suggest. I find it unobjectionable for almost all my shooting. If a videographer is any more than 5 feet away there is no way they are picking up the sound of that lens. Yes, it really isn't a lens to be used for video with AF, but there are other Canon lenses for that. I like the lens a lot and I for one am very happy with it.
And one last point, it isn't the focus throw that is the major problem with this lens and any macro/quasi macro lens on mirrorless. It is that mirrorless AF systems don't do well when most of the frame is massively out of focus. So when the lens is set at close focus and you want to focus on something at even portrait distance that something will be massively out of focus and the AF will not work well. That is why the focus limiter really is necessary on this lens. If you are focussing on things close then don't let it got too far and when you are focussing on things at medium and long distances then don't let the lens focus too closely or it will get itself in a situation when it can't figure out how to focus. Note this is a problem with mirrorless AF, however, and not a problem with the lens.
p.9 #5 · RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Steve Spencer wrote:
And one last point, it isn't the focus throw that is the major problem with this lens and any macro/quasi macro lens on mirrorless. It is that mirrorless AF systems don't do well when most of the frame is massively out of focus. So when the lens is set at close focus and you want to focus on something at even portrait distance that something will be massively out of focus and the AF will not work well. That is why the focus limiter really is necessary on this lens. If you are focussing on things close then don't let it got too far and when you are focussing on things at medium and long distances then don't let the lens focus too closely or it will get itself in a situation when it can't figure out how to focus. Note this is a problem with mirrorless AF, however, and not a problem with the lens....Show more →
The RF 100 2.8L IS Macro USM is the same in this regard: AF is befuddled when faced with a totally blurred scene. I use MF to get focus in the ballpark and then let AF take over for fine tuning. The limiter made me miss too many shots when I suddenly needed to go from macro to infinity, but forgot to disable the limiter in the heat of the moment.
p.9 #6 · RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Steve Spencer wrote:
Hi Brad,
I alluded to that when I said, "at least with first party lenses," but I don't think things change much if you add the Sigma lenses to the Sony set. The Canon 16-28 f/2.8 IS STM, 28-70 f/2.8 IS STM, and the RF 70-200 f/2.8L IS weigh 2,010 as a trio. The Sigma FE 16-28 f/2.8, Sigma FE 28-70 f/2.8, and the Sony FE 70-200 f/2.8 OSS II GM together weigh 1,965g, for that Sony trio and the two Sigma lenses don't have OSS or can shoot at the max fps. I think the existence of those lenses just makes my point that there really isn't anything to the weight differences outside of a couple of big first generation RF lenses that could use a refresh or which Canon does not care to make smaller because they have smaller alternatives....Show more →
I don't disagree with you, Steve, and missed the "first party," but it was a nitpick. In fact, I'll go farther and say most weight savings end up being a wash elsewhere and, if your interest lies strictly in the holy trinity coverage at f/2.8, find a Canon/Nikon/Sony camera you like and buy their L/S/GM versions, because there may be objective differences between them that ranks one over the other, but they all produce brilliant lenses better than anything available before. If your photos are disappointing, it won't be the lenses' fault.
p.9 #8 · RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Spreading your $ across multiple systems ultimately dilutes the quality of what you can afford and likely sucks some joy out of the process. I used to shoot and love Canon EF, but i eventually switched to Sony mirrorless and did not look back. [ That said, i recently plunked down for a medium format system, with very limited lens build out].
Any major platform can deliver well beyond the abilities of most photographers (myself certainly included). If you are a zoom person, lean into that, and get the nicest set for whichever system. Acquire each, when you have the $. I see a bit of a random act of violence in your collection. Some nice zooms. Some very middling primes, and some decent to good primes. Perhaps the byproduct of impatience, rather than a plan…been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.
Not saying go Sony, but you have a tiny a7c for travel and an a7iv for other work. Think about your actual use cases and one way to solve each. If you want a tiny travel kit, pick either a zoom or max two primes. Commit and ditch the rest of the “because it is light weight” stuff. For your other body, what is its use case? Buy for that, cull the rest. If Canon is your bag, fine. Apply similar logic. How annoyed are you with adapters and using the 17-40L on mirrorless? If only a little, it is a great lens. Problem solved. F/2.8 is not a big deal for wide angle, in a world where 8000 ISO is nearly noise free. When I shot Canon, and ISO 800 looked like chicken pox, that mattered. Not anymore. The Canon 300/4 is is also a nice piece of glass.
Good glass doesn’t have to be L or GM. There are many good lenses in both line ups not that tier. The highest tier is often the heaviest…which I don’t care about, but you might. Worry less about marketing and concentrate on your actual uses and what would make you use a lens or body. Drop the rest.
Shoot more. Collect less. Words I should also listen to…
Jim
p.9 #9 · RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Gochugogi wrote:
Front element extension for AF is usually the slowest and most noise-prone AF design possible. Not a fan of that old AF design. I suspect the problem is because the little STM motor has to move large and heavy glass greater distances than internal element focus designs. Rear element focus designs only need to move small elements much shorter distances. And the RF 85 2.0 IS Macro STM, like the old EF 50 2.5 CM, uses front element extension AF. With that said, I've used the RF 85 2.0 IS Macro STM for classical guitar videos without AF noise showing up on the track. The guitar is close-miked with two cardioid pencil mics running into a Tascam recorder with the camera about 3 meters behind the mics. I've only had AF noise problems with a mic mounted directly on the camera, not something I normally do since the sound is terrible for music and talking head.
As you noted, the AF noise can be picked up by a microphone mounted directly on the camera, even though Canon slows the 85/2’s focus motor to a crawl in video mode to reduce that noise.
However, my bigger complaint is when shooting photos collaboratively alongside a videographer or sound recording. In a quiet environment, the AF noise from my lens can be picked up by their microphone and end up in their recording.
Unfortunately this is a complaint I have had before... DSLR quiet mode and lens focus noise getting picked up in a concert hall choir recording. I was maybe 4-5 meters away from the mics, not anywhere close.
p.9 #11 · RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
aCuria wrote:
At $600+, I think the RF 85/2 is daylight robbery. the AF implementation is horrendous, and it doesn't even do 1:1 macro. The Tamron 90/2.8 VXD Macro costs around the same, gives you a true 1:1 macro, and has dramatically faster AF. This makes the Tamron the obvious choice for a budget macro lens.
There’s nothing wrong with the concept of the RF 85mm f/2 macro, it’s the same as my Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro Planar, which might be where Canon got the idea, and which is one of my most-used lenses. The problem is the execution. There’s no way in the 2020s that I’d spend AUD $1000, which is what Canon are asking, for a lens without weather sealing, and that’s before considering all the other reported deficiencies it might have, such as AF motor, lack of hood, and lesser-quality coatings. But that’s me. Others might be fine with it.
It’s a real shame because a lens like this is great for travel, allowing for street, portraits, and close-ups of small things like flowers. I even used the Zeiss to get a shot of a bee in flight.
(The Zeiss indeed doesn’t have weather sealing either, but I bought it 15 years ago.)
p.9 #12 · RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Grenache wrote:
Spreading your $ across multiple systems ultimately dilutes the quality of what you can afford and likely sucks some joy out of the process. I used to shoot and love Canon EF, but i eventually switched to Sony mirrorless and did not look back. [ That said, i recently plunked down for a medium format system, with very limited lens build out].
Any major platform can deliver well beyond the abilities of most photographers (myself certainly included). If you are a zoom person, lean into that, and get the nicest set for whichever system. Acquire each, when you have the $. I see a bit of a random act of violence in your collection. Some nice zooms. Some very middling primes, and some decent to good primes. Perhaps the byproduct of impatience, rather than a plan…been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.
Not saying go Sony, but you have a tiny a7c for travel and an a7iv for other work. Think about your actual use cases and one way to solve each. If you want a tiny travel kit, pick either a zoom or max two primes. Commit and ditch the rest of the “because it is light weight” stuff. For your other body, what is its use case? Buy for that, cull the rest. If Canon is your bag, fine. Apply similar logic. How annoyed are you with adapters and using the 17-40L on mirrorless? If only a little, it is a great lens. Problem solved. F/2.8 is not a big deal for wide angle, in a world where 8000 ISO is nearly noise free. When I shot Canon, and ISO 800 looked like chicken pox, that mattered. Not anymore. The Canon 300/4 is is also a nice piece of glass.
Good glass doesn’t have to be L or GM. There are many good lenses in both line ups not that tier. The highest tier is often the heaviest…which I don’t care about, but you might. Worry less about marketing and concentrate on your actual uses and what would make you use a lens or body. Drop the rest.
Shoot more. Collect less. Words I should also listen to…
Jim...Show more →
