Another great video Chris. Quick note though, Digital Camera World did a sharpness test using spatial frequency response in a controlled environment with the regular RF 85 and the DS version, both lenses were very close in terms of center resolution, at f/1.2, the DS still scored higher with a 2600 score vs 2200 for the non DS. However, corner sharpness was where the DS version absolutely destroyed the non DS version! At f/1.2, the DS version scored a whopping 2200 on the chart vs 750 for the non DS version, that is almost 3x the corner sharpness performance for the DS version! Just a note worth sharing. Appreciate all your videos sir.
I never commented under your videos, but I have watched dozens and dozens of them so far, and I've always appreciated your honest and thorough analysis of each lens - and your lovely accent. So here's a thank you for your work that has helped me make choices over the years !
Excellent review! I like the EF version because of it’s character, even if the RF version is technically better. Sometime the resolution can be a problem with old lenses. Another point for the EF version is the possibility to adapt the lens on Sony and Nikon cameras.
I bought a 85 f/1.2 L II, when it was launched because I liked it soft and creamy. Even back then with the legendary Nikon 105 f/2.5, I had to use a B+W Softar filter on it and now I have adapted the 85 f/1.2 L II for my Nikon. IMO, both RF versions are excellent and especially suited for those who chase the modern portrait look (Sharp & Bokeh). However, not all the subjects are young models with beautiful skins and perfect makeups.
@@argentum3919 It's a portrait lens. It's supposed to go soft wide open on the edges. The reason. Most portrait photographers soften images. We used to put a nylon over the lens or Vaseline on a UV filter and put it on the lens. It smooths the skin and helps Bokeh. The EF 85 1.2 was built to do that in camera with no help. Now, people want a perfect sharp image, then soften skin and objects in post. The EF does it in camera. The CA improvement is awesome.
The old one is still amazing for portraits, though! And for concerts and such in low light conditions. Digital corrections can remove most of those aberrations if you're bothered by that. Good deal on the used market these days.
Which is exactly what it was built for. It's a portrait lens. Now they want them to work perfect for video. They were never designed to be edge to edge sharp. If your focus falls off it gives better bokeh and skin smoothing. I think it's funny. People are going to use this for Portraits. Then soften the image in post processing. The EF version does it in the camera.
I was really hoping the RF version wouldn't be as good as it is. I could save a lot of money by getting the EF version or f2 RF version. But it looks like it's truly the best 85mm lens out on the market currently by a landslide.
Sony 85mm 1.4 GM astounds me every time i use it and much lighter. I would argue the Fujifilm GFX 110 f2 (87mm equivalent) is the finest 85mm lens available to buy today
If you judge "best" purely by test chart resolution then sure. But FWIW I've owned the EF mk I and II, the RF f/2 and the RF f/1.2 (non-DS) and of those the EF mk II is the one I've still kept, whiel the two RFs have both been sold on. Totally clean test chart sharpness isn't what you want when shooting most portraits. I even tried stacking multiple diffusion filters on the RF 1.2 and it still was too much and required more softening in post. With the EFs you just shoot them bare and they're good to go right out of camera. Add int he weight/size saving and it makes them much more usable in real world work terms.
@@sebastianmatthews1663 I did the same. Now I have a Canon EF to RF adapter with the variable ND filter. I can adjust it instead of shutter speed and keep my flashes out of HSS. It's just awesome.
A better comparison might have been between the RF and the EF 1.4 L. The sharpest EF lens I have ever used and much faster AF than the old 1.2 L. Also, you can buy it refurbished from Canon for less than $1,500. Great video as always. Keep up the good work.
@@sebastianmatthews1663 If you want maximum sharpness, sure, you use modern lenses, but there are some oldies that beat some of the cheaper lenses released today!
Did you do this test with DLO turned on or off in the R5? Did you have a lens profile enabled in LR, or whatever software you use? New lenses often just have better lens corrections enabled by default via the camera body, and this makes it seem like they have zero chromatic aberration etc. But with the right profile enabled with the EF, I wonder if the result would have been better. And if the lens profile were disabled with the RF, I wonder if it would show more flaws. Not sure what you did or did not have enabled with this particular test! Just a thought. Thanks for the video
None of your _test_ results surprise me in the slightest, but I'm a little surprised and disappointed that you didn't really touch on the rendering, beyond noting the green cast to the DS version of the RF lens. I've owned the EF (both mk I and mk II) and the RF (non-DS, plus the RF 85 f/2) and of the bunch it's the EF mk II which has stayed with me while the RF (and the RF f/2) has been sold on. Yes, for shooting a test chart the RF lens is miles better than the EF, but if that's the kind of job I'm doing (which is quite often, for product & copy work) then I use the 100mm f/2.8L macro, TS-E 135mm f/4L Macro, or a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro instead; sharpness and contrast are _not_ what I buy or use an 85mm f/1.2 for. The RF is so sharp corner-to-corner that I was stacking multiple diffusion filters (Tiffen Black Diffusion/FX 1 and Glimmer Glass 1/4) on it and the files still needed significant, tedious frequency separation smoothing to get an end result which was submittable. With the EF lens you just bung it on, shoot and you're good to go right out of the camera. I honestly can not recall any lenses I've regretted purchasing more than the two RF 85s. They're not appropriate for the technical stuff-that's the 100's and 135's job-but they're _too_ technical for the soft stuff. Very happily resold them and went back to the EF.
this is a good point. few people buy an 85 1.2 to shoot test charts and examine the corners for sharpness. That color fringing in the corners is what adds to the soft rendering in more natural environments.
Very interesting point of view. To be honest i kinda feel the same with my EF 35mm f2 IS USM. This lens is little bit soft wide open And i like my image to look a little bit soft when shooting portrait . There is no soft lens in current RF line up apparently. Even the new nifty fifty is quite sharp. Altho there is one lens that i think can be sharp & soft at the same time. It is the new 100mm macro one. I hope chris will review it soon .
Very helpful. I would love to See how the new samyang 85mm 1.2 compares to the ef 85mm 1.2l II usm, especially in terms of image quality and focus speed.
I find the control rings a nuisance. When I tried to use it but it kept changing values when I didn't want it to because I hit it by accident. I have the EF 1.2 and it is VERY SOFT wide open; seems to map to your finding with the 85mm. I only have the 1.4 on the 85mm as I seldom do any portrait photography.
There's a third option available: the FD 85mm f/1.2 L. Granted, it's a manual focus & aperture lens, but it's actually a bit sharper than the EF 85mm f/1.2 L on an EOS R5 in use (I've got both lenses). I actually prefer the FD version because of the size and weight. The EF doesn't have a very good autofocus, but that could be attributed to the huge glass element.
I think some of us are rather used to the latest mirrorless cameras latching onto the nearest eyeball instantly at fast apertures to stuggle with manual focus now...
@@jukeboxjohnnie Manual focus is not a struggle with all the aids mirrorless give you. Also if you're shooting so close with such a wide aperture that getting an eye in-focus is tough, that usually means most of your image will just be a blurred mess. When you're shooting any portrait you always want to be using enough depth of field that the person's whole face is in-focus; nobody wants a picture where only 1% of them is sharp.
@@sebastianmatthews1663 I shot a great model around manchester city centre UK tuesday evening with a profoto head doing HSS at f1.2 and 1.4, took around 600 shots on an a7r4 pretty much every shot had perfect eye focus and I was able to concentrate on the image, the modern primes squeezed every bit of goodness out of the 61mp sensor, if Id been in the studio Id have used a GFX with its recently improved focus, things move on and weve only a short time on this planet to enjoy these advances. Ive several F-1 & A-1 Canons with a brace of FD lenses on my collecting shelves but ive no intention of using them now :-)
Here for the comparison, I already BIT the RF bullet on this one, but miss the Old version sometimes. The Caligula Bashing made me Laugh/Scream. LOVE YOUR WORK.
The EF 85mm 1.2 is definitely the best portrait lens for the money! Secondary market price - $ 1000. No other modern autofocus lens for this price beats the EF 85mm 1.2 in terms of volume and image.
I don't get huge aperture fast glass. To me from 50mm and up F/1.8 or so is enough. So I went with option C- Tamron's EF mount 85. Great IQ and rendering, relatively light weight (550g), image stabilization (I shoot an R). Hard to beat IMO for $600 or so (unfortunately they are discontinued).
Look at Irene Rudnyk videos for example, I think specially with those kind of busy background a f1.8 wouldn't look nearly as good : ua-cam.com/video/pPU_sj7qCEU/v-deo.html That said I don't think any of these top of line lenses are really "cost-effective", it's rather and issue of getting the best quality possible regardless of the cost.
I guess this is kinda in relation to what lenses used to be for and what people are expecting now. The EF 1.2 was and is a Portrait lens. If you stop down to F1.2 it's expected you want some softness so the edges go soft. Smoothing skin in the process. Kinda like putting a Nylon over the element like the old days. Now with edge to edge sharpness wanted for video. People forget it's a Still camera first and don't realize photographers used to have different lenses for portrait or landscape shoots. Also, nobody shot at F1.2. Because nobody just wanted the eye in focus. New trend. Old way was 5.6 to 8. The CA I agree is great on the RF. What I was hoping to hear was how well the Eye AF worked on the adapted EF lenses compared to the RF lenses. Since the 85mm F1.2 is known to be a bear to get to focus well. I love what it does on my 5ds r. But the hit rate isn't high. I'd love it if the EosR5 nailed focus 95% with the EF 85 like it does with the RF 85.
Thanks Christopher for the great comparison. Could you mind to create a video for lens buyers to test whether the lens comes with any manufacturing defect or misalignment like decentering etc - would be really helpful for us to check the condition and return in case it's detected?
just remember you cant take it with you so you may as well enjoy the money now before it ends up paying for your own care home . the Rf28-70 is a great lens and very heavy . if you pick the right time to purchase you can get savings eg I only paid £2400 for a new RF28-70 due to the double cash back and that the shop had it in £200 cheaper . it has gone up another £100 though. also the RF100-500 is my favourite lens of all just love it at 500mm @ 1.2mtrs and can not wait for the RF100 L macro . the RF85 is one I would like but not sure if its a need or just a want we will just have to see...
Excellent review, as always! I would like to make a suggestion: no one on UA-cam has so far compared the image quality between the RF 85mm f / 2.0 Macro and the classic EF 85mm f / 1.2 Thank you and congratulations!
Does anyone have experience with the EF 85mm 1.2 on the R5/R6? I owned this lens and the AF was very slow on the older canon bodies but I’m curious if the new eye detection improves the slow autofocus? Thanks
I'm using it on a R5. It's nailing focus a lot better then my 5dsr. And I love the softness in portraits. I'm not moving to the RF lens. I use the Canon adapter with built in adjustable ND filter. It's absolutely awesome to work with to keep my flashes out of HSS so I get full power out of them.
Seems your bokeh is cut in half on the non-DS version at 4:44 . It is because you use the first curtain electronic shutter I think. Switch to full mechanical or Full ES and all will be fine ;) (happens above about 1/1600, this is why the DS is globally preserved with its light loss)
Didn't realise the new RF lens was £3200 😳😳😳. Ridiculous! Hopefully that Sigma 50mm DG DN you're reviewing for us won't be anywhere near that expensive!
The 85 1.2 II was my dream lens ever since I started photography and finally it is within reach pricewise. I have a sony camera and I wanted to adapt it with an MC-11. However after seeing your sharpness test I'm no longer convinced that this is better than a Sigma 85 dg dn as portrait lens. They are about the same price used. I get that 85L it is not as sharp as a modern lens but I did not expect it to be this soft. Are you sure that yours represents what we can expect from this lens?
More that the RF version is extra-cold, especially the DS version which as Christopher points out as a green cast. I've had both the RF (non DS) and the EF (mark I and II) and the EF optic is much more neutral. It seems all RF lenses trend a little cool, likely because on modern screens a slightly cool image tends to look sharper with more contrast and Canon want to capitalise on that. Fuji do the same thing.
The new RF 85/1.2 is a great, sharp, perfect lens! The best 85mm money can buy! Great Job Canon! But on the other hand, I love my EF 85/1.2 and the EF 50/1.2 ... Both lenses are not sharp, have color fringes everywhere and low contrast at 1.2 ... :-) That's the 'material' what makes special, unique pictures. And when you shoot portrait pic's - do you really want an ultra sharp lens? You spend hours for skin retouch ... :-) Back in the days with analog cameras, I screwed blur/softening filters in front of my portrait lenses ... Have fun and have a nice day! :-)
Exactly. And the EF 85mm on my Canon R5 means I used the EF to RF adapter that has the variable ND filter. So I can adjust it while shooting to keep my flashes out of HSS. ;-) It's awesome.
Love your channel but something inside of me telling me it’s not 100% fair comparison! I own the eos r and R5 and for majority of the time I was using my the adapter even though it work well don’t get me wrong I also owned the 85 1.4 EF I would notice all these similar results you are getting but I was like yo I didn’t get these with my 5D 4 or 6 D 2 so I said finally I sold all my EF glass now I have the RF 24-70 2.8 85 1.2 35 1.8 50 1.8 (mainly portrait photographer) also waiting on the 100 macro lol nevertheless it was a great choice I feel the 12pin is just so much faster and obviously technology conclusion my RF 85 1.2 IS STELLA, ok why im here, I felt if you used a 5D 4 or even the 1D X 3 if feel the EF 85 1.2 WOULD perform much better, again luvvvvvv your channel and you taught me a lot over the years Thx u
What caught my attention is that in 1.4 the center of the EF is very close in sharpness to the RF...can anyone who has used it in the real world confirm this?
Thank you, the "Caligula" reference resulted in my mug of tea almost being applied forcefully via my mouth to my iMac, lol. Astonishingly good lens, the old version is hideous in comparison! PS You are a highly amusing individual, keep it up!
Both the 85 EF 1.2 and RF 1.2 cited as "averagely fast"??? Wow, that wasn't my experience at all. My EF 85 1.2L II had absurdly slow AF. I had read that lens had slow AF in reviews, but never imagined it was THAT slow. Thought I could deal with it but could not; I had to return it. I much prefer the image quality of the EF 1.2 II, and it was a hard decision to let it go. I really, really disliked RF 85 1.2; worst rending I've ever seen on any lens to my eyes. Wound up with the EF 85 1.4L.
Yes same situation here.. wifi will kill me with the lens if she learns i have brought RF glass in house 🏠. Sigma and Tamron should catchup with Canon RF glass.. it will be a big boon for photographers.
I've got the EF version of the 85mm 1.2 and was wondering how it compares in focusing speed to the RF version. The glass elements are huge in it so I wouldn't be very surprised if there isn't much difference. The EF version is s l o w.
I owned the EF 85L also previously and now I have the RF version. the RF blows the EF away as far as focusing speed and accuracy goes. I loved my EF 85, but I had such a low keeper rate.
$1,000, $3,000 ... Honestly, with this pandemic, and when people have lost their jobs, and/or their small businesses, nobody can afford those lenses except professionals (magazines), but also rich people who just play with them because they don't know what to do with their money, but that's pretty much it really.
I'm a big fan of your content from years ago, but after the comment about the price and that your mother would kill you hahaha just out of curiosity, how old are you?
That EF-RF adapter is almost useless, i have an R6 and a EF 70-200 L f 2.8, the picture quality is just acceptabile , far far away of the same lens used with 5MKIII.
Another great video Chris. Quick note though, Digital Camera World did a sharpness test using spatial frequency response in a controlled environment with the regular RF 85 and the DS version, both lenses were very close in terms of center resolution, at f/1.2, the DS still scored higher with a 2600 score vs 2200 for the non DS. However, corner sharpness was where the DS version absolutely destroyed the non DS version! At f/1.2, the DS version scored a whopping 2200 on the chart vs 750 for the non DS version, that is almost 3x the corner sharpness performance for the DS version! Just a note worth sharing. Appreciate all your videos sir.
Still, I went with the non DS version because you lose more than a stop of light wide open at 1.2. It's not all about sharpness
@@mitigo me too. And, does stopping down the non DS to match give the same sharpness ?
"As fuzzy as Emperor Caligula's grip on reality". I'm adding this one to my repertoire.
"As fuzzy as Former President Trump's grip on reality". I'm adding this one to my repertoire.
Holy smokes! That RF lens is insane! If I was a pro photographer with a hefty budget I would definitely add that to my arsenal
I never commented under your videos, but I have watched dozens and dozens of them so far, and I've always appreciated your honest and thorough analysis of each lens - and your lovely accent. So here's a thank you for your work that has helped me make choices over the years !
Excellent review! I like the EF version because of it’s character, even if the RF version is technically better. Sometime the resolution can be a problem with old lenses. Another point for the EF version is the possibility to adapt the lens on Sony and Nikon cameras.
I bought a 85 f/1.2 L II, when it was launched because I liked it soft and creamy. Even back then with the legendary Nikon 105 f/2.5, I had to use a B+W Softar filter on it and now I have adapted the 85 f/1.2 L II for my Nikon.
IMO, both RF versions are excellent and especially suited for those who chase the modern portrait look (Sharp & Bokeh). However, not all the subjects are young models with beautiful skins and perfect makeups.
The 85 RF is a jewel but super heavy!
Waiting anxiously for the 100mm RF macro!
are you a small baby?
I am still using my first-gen 85 mm f/1.2 and I’m very happy about it :)
The EF 85 1.2 is one of my favorites. It's a legend! They are flying off the shelf since they discontinued it .
But it seemed crap at f1.2. You are spending all that money for the 1.2 aperture and it looks like a dog's dinner.
@@argentum3919 It often happens, it's very rare for any lens to give of it's best wide open!
@@antonoat Thanks, fair enough.
@@antonoat that’s why you should probably spend the money on 85 f1.4L instead and shoot wide open.
@@argentum3919
It's a portrait lens. It's supposed to go soft wide open on the edges. The reason. Most portrait photographers soften images. We used to put a nylon over the lens or Vaseline on a UV filter and put it on the lens. It smooths the skin and helps Bokeh. The EF 85 1.2 was built to do that in camera with no help.
Now, people want a perfect sharp image, then soften skin and objects in post. The EF does it in camera.
The CA improvement is awesome.
Was waiting for this one! Love my 85 1.2L II (except for the CA and purple)
Another great video, I'll be waiting for the review on that 85mm f/2, go on and throw the f/1.2 as well for comparison, please.
I'm hoping to pickup the new RF version for the R5 but am also patiently waiting for the RF 200mm. Great review/comparison.
I hope sony do a 200mm GM...
The old one is still amazing for portraits, though! And for concerts and such in low light conditions. Digital corrections can remove most of those aberrations if you're bothered by that. Good deal on the used market these days.
Which is exactly what it was built for. It's a portrait lens. Now they want them to work perfect for video. They were never designed to be edge to edge sharp. If your focus falls off it gives better bokeh and skin smoothing.
I think it's funny. People are going to use this for Portraits. Then soften the image in post processing. The EF version does it in the camera.
@@mverick160 Totally agree.
That's what I was thinking about, how easy it would be to color correct those aberrations. Just use the brush tool on color mode in Photoshop.
I was really hoping the RF version wouldn't be as good as it is. I could save a lot of money by getting the EF version or f2 RF version. But it looks like it's truly the best 85mm lens out on the market currently by a landslide.
Better than Sigma 85 Art?
Sony 85mm 1.4 GM astounds me every time i use it and much lighter. I would argue the Fujifilm GFX 110 f2 (87mm equivalent) is the finest 85mm lens available to buy today
If you judge "best" purely by test chart resolution then sure. But FWIW I've owned the EF mk I and II, the RF f/2 and the RF f/1.2 (non-DS) and of those the EF mk II is the one I've still kept, whiel the two RFs have both been sold on. Totally clean test chart sharpness isn't what you want when shooting most portraits. I even tried stacking multiple diffusion filters on the RF 1.2 and it still was too much and required more softening in post. With the EFs you just shoot them bare and they're good to go right out of camera. Add int he weight/size saving and it makes them much more usable in real world work terms.
@@sebastianmatthews1663
I did the same. Now I have a Canon EF to RF adapter with the variable ND filter. I can adjust it instead of shutter speed and keep my flashes out of HSS. It's just awesome.
"My mother would kill me" I would be more worried about your wife/girlfriend :) Btw this RF lens is just amazing.
you didnt get it. he's just kidding
r/wooosh
I love my EF 85mm f1.4 L. It's the best choice for me :)
I’ve just ordered one for my R6 and 6d mkii I can’t wait for it to arrive
A better comparison might have been between the RF and the EF 1.4 L. The sharpest EF lens I have ever used and much faster AF than the old 1.2 L. Also, you can buy it refurbished from Canon for less than $1,500. Great video as always. Keep up the good work.
Classic versus 🆚 i love this
As an owner of the EF 85mm f/1.2 this is an excellent comparison! Thanks as always for a continously well done job!
The RF 85 1.2 non DS is a fantastic lens. I use it for both photo and video and the auto focus and image quality is impeccable.
"The EF lens' image quality is as fuzzy as Emperor Caligula's grip on reality" is one of the best review analogies I've ever heard.
Would love to see a video showcasing the sharpest vintage lenses you can get your hands on!
*Vintage wide lenses left the chat*
Seems counter-intuitive; you don't use vintage lenses if you want sharpness.
@@sebastianmatthews1663 If you want maximum sharpness, sure, you use modern lenses, but there are some oldies that beat some of the cheaper lenses released today!
Did you do this test with DLO turned on or off in the R5? Did you have a lens profile enabled in LR, or whatever software you use? New lenses often just have better lens corrections enabled by default via the camera body, and this makes it seem like they have zero chromatic aberration etc. But with the right profile enabled with the EF, I wonder if the result would have been better. And if the lens profile were disabled with the RF, I wonder if it would show more flaws. Not sure what you did or did not have enabled with this particular test! Just a thought. Thanks for the video
None of your _test_ results surprise me in the slightest, but I'm a little surprised and disappointed that you didn't really touch on the rendering, beyond noting the green cast to the DS version of the RF lens. I've owned the EF (both mk I and mk II) and the RF (non-DS, plus the RF 85 f/2) and of the bunch it's the EF mk II which has stayed with me while the RF (and the RF f/2) has been sold on. Yes, for shooting a test chart the RF lens is miles better than the EF, but if that's the kind of job I'm doing (which is quite often, for product & copy work) then I use the 100mm f/2.8L macro, TS-E 135mm f/4L Macro, or a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro instead; sharpness and contrast are _not_ what I buy or use an 85mm f/1.2 for. The RF is so sharp corner-to-corner that I was stacking multiple diffusion filters (Tiffen Black Diffusion/FX 1 and Glimmer Glass 1/4) on it and the files still needed significant, tedious frequency separation smoothing to get an end result which was submittable. With the EF lens you just bung it on, shoot and you're good to go right out of the camera.
I honestly can not recall any lenses I've regretted purchasing more than the two RF 85s. They're not appropriate for the technical stuff-that's the 100's and 135's job-but they're _too_ technical for the soft stuff. Very happily resold them and went back to the EF.
this is a good point. few people buy an 85 1.2 to shoot test charts and examine the corners for sharpness. That color fringing in the corners is what adds to the soft rendering in more natural environments.
Very interesting point of view. To be honest i kinda feel the same with my EF 35mm f2 IS USM. This lens is little bit soft wide open And i like my image to look a little bit soft when shooting portrait .
There is no soft lens in current RF line up apparently. Even the new nifty fifty is quite sharp. Altho there is one lens that i think can be sharp & soft at the same time. It is the new 100mm macro one.
I hope chris will review it soon .
The q&A with your wife sounds pretty interesting Tbh.
Very helpful. I would love to See how the new samyang 85mm 1.2 compares to the ef 85mm 1.2l II usm, especially in terms of image quality and focus speed.
I got the EF II version used and in pristine condition for 600€ and I love it sooo much!
It's a crime that Canon sold the ef 85mm f1.2 for $2000 and got away with it. Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art would've been the way to go
I find the control rings a nuisance. When I tried to use it but it kept changing values when I didn't want it to because I hit it by accident. I have the EF 1.2 and it is VERY SOFT wide open; seems to map to your finding with the 85mm. I only have the 1.4 on the 85mm as I seldom do any portrait photography.
Really ? The control ring on mine is only active when the shutter is half pressed.
There's a third option available: the FD 85mm f/1.2 L. Granted, it's a manual focus & aperture lens, but it's actually a bit sharper than the EF 85mm f/1.2 L on an EOS R5 in use (I've got both lenses). I actually prefer the FD version because of the size and weight. The EF doesn't have a very good autofocus, but that could be attributed to the huge glass element.
I think some of us are rather used to the latest mirrorless cameras latching onto the nearest eyeball instantly at fast apertures to stuggle with manual focus now...
@@jukeboxjohnnie Manual focus is not a struggle with all the aids mirrorless give you. Also if you're shooting so close with such a wide aperture that getting an eye in-focus is tough, that usually means most of your image will just be a blurred mess. When you're shooting any portrait you always want to be using enough depth of field that the person's whole face is in-focus; nobody wants a picture where only 1% of them is sharp.
@@sebastianmatthews1663 I shot a great model around manchester city centre UK tuesday evening with a profoto head doing HSS at f1.2 and 1.4, took around 600 shots on an a7r4 pretty much every shot had perfect eye focus and I was able to concentrate on the image, the modern primes squeezed every bit of goodness out of the 61mp sensor, if Id been in the studio Id have used a GFX with its recently improved focus, things move on and weve only a short time on this planet to enjoy these advances. Ive several F-1 & A-1 Canons with a brace of FD lenses on my collecting shelves but ive no intention of using them now :-)
I bought my ef 85mm three years ago for 800 bucks used and they're amazing!
Sheer comedy at 3:20 ish. Possibly the funnest thing I’ve ever heard on this channel 👍👏😂🤣
Nicely done as always 👌🏻
Here for the comparison, I already BIT the RF bullet on this one, but miss the Old version sometimes. The Caligula Bashing made me Laugh/Scream. LOVE YOUR WORK.
The EF 85mm 1.2 is definitely the best portrait lens for the money! Secondary market price - $ 1000. No other modern autofocus lens for this price beats the EF 85mm 1.2 in terms of volume and image.
I don't get huge aperture fast glass. To me from 50mm and up F/1.8 or so is enough. So I went with option C- Tamron's EF mount 85. Great IQ and rendering, relatively light weight (550g), image stabilization (I shoot an R). Hard to beat IMO for $600 or so (unfortunately they are discontinued).
Look at Irene Rudnyk videos for example, I think specially with those kind of busy background a f1.8 wouldn't look nearly as good : ua-cam.com/video/pPU_sj7qCEU/v-deo.html
That said I don't think any of these top of line lenses are really "cost-effective", it's rather and issue of getting the best quality possible regardless of the cost.
Great video
I guess this is kinda in relation to what lenses used to be for and what people are expecting now.
The EF 1.2 was and is a Portrait lens. If you stop down to F1.2 it's expected you want some softness so the edges go soft. Smoothing skin in the process. Kinda like putting a Nylon over the element like the old days. Now with edge to edge sharpness wanted for video. People forget it's a Still camera first and don't realize photographers used to have different lenses for portrait or landscape shoots. Also, nobody shot at F1.2. Because nobody just wanted the eye in focus. New trend. Old way was 5.6 to 8.
The CA I agree is great on the RF.
What I was hoping to hear was how well the Eye AF worked on the adapted EF lenses compared to the RF lenses. Since the 85mm F1.2 is known to be a bear to get to focus well. I love what it does on my 5ds r. But the hit rate isn't high. I'd love it if the EosR5 nailed focus 95% with the EF 85 like it does with the RF 85.
In you first review of the ef version you did not say the corners were terrible I imagine this is because it’s on the r5 rather than the 6d???? Cheers
Thanks for doing this kind of videos!
after years of contemplation i have finally cashed in on this!
Something about 85mm focal length I love. I would love the RF lens but can't justify the price for a lens I would use once a year though.
Thanks Christopher for the great comparison. Could you mind to create a video for lens buyers to test whether the lens comes with any manufacturing defect or misalignment like decentering etc - would be really helpful for us to check the condition and return in case it's detected?
Now compare the Nikon F mount 50mm f/1.8 and the Z mount one. You can throw in the RF one for fun, too :)
just remember you cant take it with you so you may as well enjoy the money now before it ends up paying for your own care home . the Rf28-70 is a great lens and very heavy . if you pick the right time to purchase you can get savings eg I only paid £2400 for a new RF28-70 due to the double cash back and that the shop had it in £200 cheaper . it has gone up another £100 though.
also the RF100-500 is my favourite lens of all just love it at 500mm @ 1.2mtrs and can not wait for the RF100 L macro . the RF85 is one I would like but not sure if its a need or just a want we will just have to see...
Thanks, waiting the RF 100MM Macro review
Excellent review, as always!
I would like to make a suggestion: no one on UA-cam has so far compared the image quality between the RF 85mm f / 2.0 Macro and the classic EF 85mm f / 1.2
Thank you and congratulations!
Does anyone have experience with the EF 85mm 1.2 on the R5/R6? I owned this lens and the AF was very slow on the older canon bodies but I’m curious if the new eye detection improves the slow autofocus? Thanks
I'm using it on a R5. It's nailing focus a lot better then my 5dsr. And I love the softness in portraits. I'm not moving to the RF lens. I use the Canon adapter with built in adjustable ND filter. It's absolutely awesome to work with to keep my flashes out of HSS so I get full power out of them.
Oh love the camparison i wish u did more
Seems your bokeh is cut in half on the non-DS version at 4:44 . It is because you use the first curtain electronic shutter I think. Switch to full mechanical or Full ES and all will be fine ;) (happens above about 1/1600, this is why the DS is globally preserved with its light loss)
How does the sigma 85mm 1.4 hold to those lenses?
Much sharper than the EF 1.2, a little less sharp than the RF 1.2
Didn't realise the new RF lens was £3200 😳😳😳. Ridiculous!
Hopefully that Sigma 50mm DG DN you're reviewing for us won't be anywhere near that expensive!
I would like to see the analysis and comparison between these lenses - Brightin star 60mm and 7artisans 60mm
Love to see a less expensive L used for comparisons.
Can you make battle within same modern lens like nikon vs canon 50 f 1.2. I am waiting for sharpness and CA comparison
I would like to hear your opinion about how this lens compare to the Sigma 85 1.4 DG DN Art lens. Thank you!
Compare the RF lens with the EF 85 1.4 please
The 85 1.2 II was my dream lens ever since I started photography and finally it is within reach pricewise. I have a sony camera and I wanted to adapt it with an MC-11. However after seeing your sharpness test I'm no longer convinced that this is better than a Sigma 85 dg dn as portrait lens. They are about the same price used. I get that 85L it is not as sharp as a modern lens but I did not expect it to be this soft. Are you sure that yours represents what we can expect from this lens?
Color tint of the EF one is enormously too warm!Not sure if it's only your copy or the nature of the lens.
More that the RF version is extra-cold, especially the DS version which as Christopher points out as a green cast. I've had both the RF (non DS) and the EF (mark I and II) and the EF optic is much more neutral. It seems all RF lenses trend a little cool, likely because on modern screens a slightly cool image tends to look sharper with more contrast and Canon want to capitalise on that. Fuji do the same thing.
We can see how much we have go for the lens making...
Please compare the RF85 2.0 also to this EF85L 1.2?
Has the Samyang 85mm 1.2 AF or is it manual? That bokeh at 7:24 looks super soft & perfect
can't wait for rf85stm vs ef85usm
Dream lens, dream rewiew
Please if you will do the non L versions comparison, could you please add Samyang RF 85?
I am sure canon sell ton RF camera after you post this video =)). RF 85 1.2 is crazy
My jaw dropped whem I saw the corner sharpness of the rf at f1.2! Well done!
Don't forget the RF lenses will allow autofocus on the whole frame also.
the old 85 is a expensive lens that comes with free color fringing option :D
Nice video as always. Hey Chris, 6:21 where is that located? That's a stunning view. I hope you can give me an answer. Thanks
Tresaith, Ceredigion, Wales
Simple reviews but very informative. Easier for me in buying decision.
I wonder how these would compare on R6. Probably EF would do well.
Expertly reviewed as always Can you kindly review Nikon Z 50mm 1.2 against the Canon RF 1.2 ? Thanks
I'm waiting to try the new Sony 50mm lens so I can throw that into the mix, too :-)
The new RF 85/1.2 is a great, sharp, perfect lens! The best 85mm money can buy! Great Job Canon!
But on the other hand, I love my EF 85/1.2 and the EF 50/1.2 ... Both lenses are not sharp, have color fringes everywhere and low contrast at 1.2 ... :-)
That's the 'material' what makes special, unique pictures. And when you shoot portrait pic's - do you really want an ultra sharp lens? You spend hours for skin retouch ... :-)
Back in the days with analog cameras, I screwed blur/softening filters in front of my portrait lenses ... Have fun and have a nice day! :-)
Exactly. And the EF 85mm on my Canon R5 means I used the EF to RF adapter that has the variable ND filter. So I can adjust it while shooting to keep my flashes out of HSS. ;-) It's awesome.
Hi Chris, do you have any plans to review the TTArtisan 50mm f/0.95 Lens? Cheers.
Maybe one day :-)
@@christopherfrost I'm going to take that as a likely, "yes." :-)
Is this the EF 85mm f1.2 L ii or the mark 1 version though?
Both versions are ass
@@KiddRobin213 The mk ii is actually fairly good. Not better than the RF version apparently...still ok.
Good question. It's the Mark ii
Love your channel but something inside of me telling me it’s not 100% fair comparison! I own the eos r and R5 and for majority of the time I was using my the adapter even though it work well don’t get me wrong I also owned the 85 1.4 EF I would notice all these similar results you are getting but I was like yo I didn’t get these with my 5D 4 or 6 D 2 so I said finally I sold all my EF glass now I have the RF 24-70 2.8 85 1.2 35 1.8 50 1.8 (mainly portrait photographer) also waiting on the 100 macro lol nevertheless it was a great choice I feel the 12pin is just so much faster and obviously technology conclusion my RF 85 1.2 IS STELLA, ok why im here, I felt if you used a 5D 4 or even the 1D X 3 if feel the EF 85 1.2 WOULD perform much better, again luvvvvvv your channel and you taught me a lot over the years Thx u
DS version is Darker? why such a difference in exposition time?
The coating that makes the DS possible subtracts about 2/3 stop of light
What caught my attention is that in 1.4 the center of the EF is very close in sharpness to the RF...can anyone who has used it in the real world confirm this?
Thank you, the "Caligula" reference resulted in my mug of tea almost being applied forcefully via my mouth to my iMac, lol. Astonishingly good lens, the old version is hideous in comparison! PS You are a highly amusing individual, keep it up!
Can you realize the RF 85 f1.2 VS EF f1.4 video?
Nah but you can check my standardised review of the 1.4 on my channel
You could get an adaptor... if you can find one that is.
I would love 35mm vs 85 mm
Both the 85 EF 1.2 and RF 1.2 cited as "averagely fast"???
Wow, that wasn't my experience at all. My EF 85 1.2L II had absurdly slow AF. I had read that lens had slow AF in reviews, but never imagined it was THAT slow. Thought I could deal with it but could not; I had to return it. I much prefer the image quality of the EF 1.2 II, and it was a hard decision to let it go. I really, really disliked RF 85 1.2; worst rending I've ever seen on any lens to my eyes. Wound up with the EF 85 1.4L.
Funny you should mention Caligula.
Love the expression 'hideously expensive' lol
I love my rf 85 1.2
The price of the R version just confirms again why 1.2 is overkill. For the sake of a third of a stop 1.4 would be better value and smaller.
I guessed the outcome pretty accurately. Id rather have the very best lenses and economise elsewhere
Who would have ever thought there'd be sth better than EF ...
Yes same situation here.. wifi will kill me with the lens if she learns i have brought RF glass in house 🏠. Sigma and Tamron should catchup with Canon RF glass.. it will be a big boon for photographers.
image quality that RF version is a killer.
I've got the EF version of the 85mm 1.2 and was wondering how it compares in focusing speed to the RF version. The glass elements are huge in it so I wouldn't be very surprised if there isn't much difference. The EF version is s l o w.
I owned the EF 85L also previously and now I have the RF version. the RF blows the EF away as far as focusing speed and accuracy goes. I loved my EF 85, but I had such a low keeper rate.
5:20 looks like near field bokeh was sacrificed for other things. in the new lens close bokeh is awful but who cares ))
$1,000, $3,000 ... Honestly, with this pandemic, and when people have lost their jobs, and/or their small businesses, nobody can afford those lenses except professionals (magazines), but also rich people who just play with them because they don't know what to do with their money, but that's pretty much it really.
There's a reason why the RF is both bigger and "feels more cheap". Image quality and weight reduction. As well as longevity belive it or not.
Longevity? How so?
@@detectivejonesw That type of plastic is more resistant to outside effects.
I'm a big fan of your content from years ago, but after the comment about the price and that your mother would kill you hahaha just out of curiosity, how old are you?
Rf performance is impressive
I love my 85 Ef 1.2L. It is strong lens. But the RF is fragile . Only time Will tell
That EF-RF adapter is almost useless, i have an R6 and a EF 70-200 L f 2.8, the picture quality is just acceptabile , far far away of the same lens used with 5MKIII.
The new RF version looks fantastic, the old EF version looks mediocre at best.