I'm really sorry but ofc the 100 macro will be sharper when you zoom it to the same size as the 85. The 100 is 1:1 macro and the 85 is 1:2. The 85/2 is also a lot sharper than the 85/1.8 in the corners. The center is pretty much the same but the RF edges it out slightly in all my testing. Your test shots of the model @ 5.18 seem to both be out of focus. I currently do not have the 100 macro but I do have both the 85/2 and the 85/1.8 EF and for me, the 85/2 is superior in image quality, handling, and functionality. Yes, it has CA. But it is easily correctable. It's a bit noisy when focusing but that doesn't bother me. AF for video is dead silent and extremely smooth. I'm shooting with the original EOS R and the R5. However, all this being said. For someone like yourself who already owns the 85/1.8 and 100/2.8 macro then yes this lens makes absolutely no sense at all. But for someone who doesn't have them this lens is very unique. A portrait lens, with 1:2 macro, IS, constant F2 aperture, STM motor for absolute silent video AF, AND a price point of $600 new? The Canon 100 macro is $1300. I think Canon knocked it out of the park with this one. But like I said, I do understand why the lens is not for you. But for anyone reading this who doesn't already have an 85 and a 100, buy it. It's a fantastic lens.
For anyone reading this, you have to keep it real. The RF 85mm F2 is not good for moving subjects. Even the old EF 85mm 1.8 focuses around twice the speed and tracks moving subjects perfectly. The RF is barely sharper in the centre, but better in the corners and has noticeably less CA. If your subjects don't move around, the RF is a great portrait lens. If you like capturing models walking towards the camera, spinning around etc., then the RF is not very good.
The truth is that you do not understand what this lens is made for. It is an ideal lens for hybrid photo and video shooting. Unique glass with the best price/quality ratio. The minimum focal length is 50 cm closer than old 85mm 1.8. You can make a facial portrait of a child!
I like the RF 85 because it's lighter. For me, I'm "new" to mirrorless and digital - hello Kodachrome. Thank you for your objective and personal review. I also have the RF 135 mm, f1.8 L - it's 2.1 lbs. I like the 135 angle-of-view alongside the 85, and I like the f1.8, but I don't like the 2.1 lbs. I'm just a Sunday shooter, so my "needs" are different. Again, thank you for sharing an objective viewpoint. PS: Decades ago, with film, I went from 50mm and 105mm to 35mm and 85mm. I prefer it. Yes - I have both the RF 35mm f1.8 and the RF 85mm f2. Film and manual focus was lighter and quieter.
Who needs background music when you have adorable baby babbling? :) Great video! The 85 intrigued me, but having the RF 100 macro, it didn't seem to make much sense and this video really showed why. Might get the EF version for my film camera, but will skip this version.
I love my Samyang 85 rf. I Also bought the dock to update firmware to make it work with the R6. But it's still a great lens and cost effective. I do find sometimes for whatever reason it does underexpose my image,but this is easily fixable with quickly changing my ISO.
@@anulearntech I have the EF version of the Samyang 85mm 1.4 and it focuses and tracks perfectly, even on an RP. I believe the RF version is sharper and I'd imagine it focuses even better than the EF version.
@@cooloox yes, the ef version is a canon dslr version and will perform slightly worse in both iq and focus speed compared with rf. But the rf and sony Fe should have same IQ, but sony gives its mount specifications and communication protocols to third party lens manufacturers, which canon Nikon dont. So Samyang has to reverse engineer the mount and it will never be as seamless as native. My Samyang and Tamron lenses perform like native lenses when it comes to autofocus.
@@anulearntech Yes, it's a real nuisance, this arrogance on the part of Canon. Samyang has already abandoned the RF mount. Apparently, every time Canon did a firmware update, it broke the Samyang lens and they had to reverse engineer 'again' what Canon had changed. I'm not sure if that's true, but I've read it a few times.
@@cooloox they do it so they can force the user to only buy their expensive glass and make more money from it, but then people don't have many options left.
If you want to get the lenses that you want and don't find much choices in Canon, then Sony is very good with variety - both native and 3rd party with many 3rd party options even beating the native.
Such a great video and glad you talked about the old 85. 85mm is a range I rarely use and I just photography my kids wanted to havr an 85 that's portable. Was considering the ef and the rf 2.0, the 1.2 one day but for a travel and street kit it's too large. Got the 85 1 8 and thanks for your video
I wonder what happens to the lens such people send back with no reason? Does that mean Canon repacks the item and sell it as “brand new” to the next customer?
Canon doesn't mention the STM focusing tech on the web page so I emailed them. They "said" it was a Lead-screw type STM. I clearly is not: it's a Gear type STM. I have the RF 35 1.8 STM -- which has Gear type STM -- and it's slow and noisy and hunts just like this lens. I also have the 24-105 7.1 STM: it has the Lead-screw type STM which is super fast and silent. It's safe to say that if Canon doesn't tout the focusing tech in the lens' description, it's Gear type STM (which should be avoided if possible).
This video can be misleading. This lens does not works for her and does not represent an upgrade to what she already has. This doesn't;t mean that this is a bad lens in any way. For the price it can be an excellent choice if you don't already own a 85mm lens. I guess many UA-camrs find the way to attract attention.
I did not say it was a bad lens. I said it doesn't work for what I need. The pictures that it takes are totally fine. I just did not like the focusing system. Also, I do not make any money on UA-cam, I did not make this video for attention. I made it to help out those who are trying to decide what lens is best for them. Thank you for your comment though.
Nice review. I also hate the sound of a lens fishing for focus. Haven’t tried this lens but the 35 RF is fairly noisy too. I really like my old 85 1.8 but has a lot of CA to deal with. It is bought and paid for though so it is ideal.
That's its only major flaw. I get lots of green fringing with mine. Aside from that, mine is very sharp wide open and focuses very fast. It tracks perfectly, too.
Do not take this review into consideration. Accept my advice. I want to think that this string of inaccuracies, errors and wrong comparisons are an accident. And it is not intentionally because they did not want this lens from the beginning and have asked for it with the sole reason of generating content.
Wow, I am sorry you feel this way. I genuinely bought this lens to use. I am primarily a portrait photographer and not a UA-camr. I make no money off this video. This is just my experience with the lens and my opinions. It is ok to have a difference of opinion. I'm sure there are people who agree with you, but there are also people who did not like this lens as well. This lens just didn't work for what I needed and for the style of shooting that I do. Thank you for your comment, and thanks for watching!
i ran tests on both the rf 2 and the ef 1.8 and the sharpness is much much better on the ef 1.8 than the rf 2. If you compare a brick building for example the corners and edges look more rounded on the rf 2 which is completely unrealistic compared to the ef 1.8 while the ef 1.8 has sharper edges and corners on brick buildings. The reason you're seeing a color difference between the rf 2 and the ef 1.8 is because the rf 2 is color saturated. The lack of light coming in the rf 2 which made it frustrating for me to photograph buildings this morning and yesterday. I noticed the severe lack of details in the rf 2 compared to the ef 1.8 because of this. More light better images. Granted the color saturation in the rf 2 looks better for sky portraits of clouds and blue skies but at a cost of it's surroundings and clarity of objects
@@kaydawgy1999 calm down well I guess that's your preference. Third party lens they most likely poop and they won't have the right engineering like canon have like the auto focus of third-party lens most of them will try hard or HUNT TOO MUCH OF the FOCUS.
@@kaydawgy1999 I got the 85 f2 canon and I have the 14mm samyang. My friend has the 85 1.4 samyang and he said it was good until the auto focus kept hunting the auto focus even tho it's already focus on the subject. Yours probably don't do that, but most of the people actually having trouble about the auto focus. In reviews and even my friend.🤷♂️ that's why I bought the rf one. Also the 14mm samyang I have is manual.
The rf 85 f2 was worse in sharpness for me than the ef 85 1.8. When you compare building details like brick buildings realistically the rf 2 had the edges and corners rounder instead of flat and sharp like they should be and the bricks themselves were to over saturated where you had a hard time distinguishing the mortar from the bricks on the rf 2 whereas on the ef 1.8 you could see the individual bricks and mortar and the colors weren't over saturated. Granted the oversaturation is nice when portraiting skies but awful at everything else around it.
@S Tra look on this way... For portaits f2.0 at 85mm is nonsense. How many 85mm lens you have with f2? Even all that cheap and small plastic amateur lens is f1.8. So this is semi portait lens and also semi macro lens coz it's not 1:1. So this is semi lens at full price. But okay, for occasional child in yard shooting is okay for someone who is naive enough to pay this semi lens at such a high price. Whole Canon R system is a big mistake because worst lens line up in the market. Pro glass is too big and heavy and plastic crap is... You know... Crap. I left Canon RF camp because of that and never be happier with my photo/video gear.
@S Tra you can't understand why someone complains because some pro lens is big and heavy? Really? He complains because in other brand exist other pro lens which are NOT big and heavy and its even more fast and accurate on the same optical level or even better. This is 2021 soon will be 2022 and pro lens doesn't need to be big and heavy... Except in Canon camp. Luckily there is other choices. And yes, if someone chooses to use apsc he knows its limitations and expecting less shallower background and less light for a cheaper price and smaller size and that's okay. But if you are at FF you expect f1.8 at least for a 85mm lens on that price.
@S Tra it is 170gr lighter which is noticeable and also you forget to say that Sony has much faster AF speed according to new technology. Yes, it matters. When you buy staff like this and use, it matters when you are professional photographer as I am and need to carry 3 or 4 or 5 lens like this in you backpack while you working. I had that 50mm RF and I have now Sony's counterpart and I know what I talking about. But you are just one Canon fanboy who shapshoting his kids in backyard with plastic crap lens. And it's fine. Just don't talk about better mount coz its far beyond your engineering knowledge and obviously your photographic experience. Enjoy in shooting cockroaches in your basement. They are large so you dont need 1:1 macro :) Nancy :D
@@DuskoJovic The Canon 85 F2 weighs 500 grams and costs app $550. The Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM weighs 778 grams and costs app $1800 (I see it from $1700 - $2000). Is there a different 50mm F1.2 Sony you were thinking of? The argument that 1.2 is faster than F2 is ridiculous. ANY 1.2 is going to be faster than F2. I could also say any Canon 1.2 is faster than any Sony F2. It is meaningless unless your goal is to feel better about owning Sony.
I'm really sorry but ofc the 100 macro will be sharper when you zoom it to the same size as the 85. The 100 is 1:1 macro and the 85 is 1:2. The 85/2 is also a lot sharper than the 85/1.8 in the corners. The center is pretty much the same but the RF edges it out slightly in all my testing. Your test shots of the model @ 5.18 seem to both be out of focus. I currently do not have the 100 macro but I do have both the 85/2 and the 85/1.8 EF and for me, the 85/2 is superior in image quality, handling, and functionality. Yes, it has CA. But it is easily correctable. It's a bit noisy when focusing but that doesn't bother me. AF for video is dead silent and extremely smooth. I'm shooting with the original EOS R and the R5. However, all this being said. For someone like yourself who already owns the 85/1.8 and 100/2.8 macro then yes this lens makes absolutely no sense at all. But for someone who doesn't have them this lens is very unique. A portrait lens, with 1:2 macro, IS, constant F2 aperture, STM motor for absolute silent video AF, AND a price point of $600 new? The Canon 100 macro is $1300. I think Canon knocked it out of the park with this one. But like I said, I do understand why the lens is not for you. But for anyone reading this who doesn't already have an 85 and a 100, buy it. It's a fantastic lens.
Thank you!
Stellar comment, thank you
For anyone reading this, you have to keep it real. The RF 85mm F2 is not good for moving subjects. Even the old EF 85mm 1.8 focuses around twice the speed and tracks moving subjects perfectly. The RF is barely sharper in the centre, but better in the corners and has noticeably less CA.
If your subjects don't move around, the RF is a great portrait lens. If you like capturing models walking towards the camera, spinning around etc., then the RF is not very good.
For the price point, it is very nice!
The truth is that you do not understand what this lens is made for. It is an ideal lens for hybrid photo and video shooting. Unique glass with the best price/quality ratio. The minimum focal length is 50 cm closer than old 85mm 1.8. You can make a facial portrait of a child!
Thank you very much, great video. What do you think about RF 100 macro?
I like the RF 85 because it's lighter. For me, I'm "new" to mirrorless and digital - hello Kodachrome. Thank you for your objective and personal review. I also have the RF 135 mm, f1.8 L - it's 2.1 lbs. I like the 135 angle-of-view alongside the 85, and I like the f1.8, but I don't like the 2.1 lbs. I'm just a Sunday shooter, so my "needs" are different. Again, thank you for sharing an objective viewpoint. PS: Decades ago, with film, I went from 50mm and 105mm to 35mm and 85mm. I prefer it. Yes - I have both the RF 35mm f1.8 and the RF 85mm f2. Film and manual focus was lighter and quieter.
Who needs background music when you have adorable baby babbling? :)
Great video! The 85 intrigued me, but having the RF 100 macro, it didn't seem to make much sense and this video really showed why. Might get the EF version for my film camera, but will skip this version.
what is sound at 5:15?
I love my Samyang 85 rf. I Also bought the dock to update firmware to make it work with the R6. But it's still a great lens and cost effective. I do find sometimes for whatever reason it does underexpose my image,but this is easily fixable with quickly changing my ISO.
works better on sony with all af modes and tracking, thanks to its open mount.
@@anulearntech I have the EF version of the Samyang 85mm 1.4 and it focuses and tracks perfectly, even on an RP. I believe the RF version is sharper and I'd imagine it focuses even better than the EF version.
@@cooloox yes, the ef version is a canon dslr version and will perform slightly worse in both iq and focus speed compared with rf. But the rf and sony Fe should have same IQ, but sony gives its mount specifications and communication protocols to third party lens manufacturers, which canon Nikon dont. So Samyang has to reverse engineer the mount and it will never be as seamless as native. My Samyang and Tamron lenses perform like native lenses when it comes to autofocus.
@@anulearntech Yes, it's a real nuisance, this arrogance on the part of Canon. Samyang has already abandoned the RF mount. Apparently, every time Canon did a firmware update, it broke the Samyang lens and they had to reverse engineer 'again' what Canon had changed. I'm not sure if that's true, but I've read it a few times.
@@cooloox they do it so they can force the user to only buy their expensive glass and make more money from it, but then people don't have many options left.
haha baby in the background .... thanks for the review ill hold up on buying the canon RP since they're no lenses that i like
Thank you for this video. I’m going to stick with the ef 85mm and the 100mm macro. Thanks for the great content and saving me time.
THANK YOU.
I have this lense for almost a week..I am not impressed. I thought it was because I'm a beginner. But now I realize it's definitely flawed.
As all STM RF lenses, they are slow focusing. But no.1 problem is they are loud when focusing.
Have you considered the samyang 85mm 1.4
So what are you getting now instead? 🤔
I am going to continue using my favorite 100mm macro with the adapter. I imagine I will eventually invest in the rf version when it comes out.
Thank you for your honest opinion.
If you want to get the lenses that you want and don't find much choices in Canon, then Sony is very good with variety - both native and 3rd party with many 3rd party options even beating the native.
Such a great video and glad you talked about the old 85. 85mm is a range I rarely use and I just photography my kids wanted to havr an 85 that's portable. Was considering the ef and the rf 2.0, the 1.2 one day but for a travel and street kit it's too large. Got the 85 1
8 and thanks for your video
I wonder what happens to the lens such people send back with no reason? Does that mean Canon repacks the item and sell it as “brand new” to the next customer?
normally sold as open box with a few bucks off
Canon doesn't mention the STM focusing tech on the web page so I emailed them. They "said" it was a Lead-screw type STM. I clearly is not: it's a Gear type STM. I have the RF 35 1.8 STM -- which has Gear type STM -- and it's slow and noisy and hunts just like this lens. I also have the 24-105 7.1 STM: it has the Lead-screw type STM which is super fast and silent. It's safe to say that if Canon doesn't tout the focusing tech in the lens' description, it's Gear type STM (which should be avoided if possible).
這是給喜歡便利性高的人使用，能夠少帶1、2個鏡頭，損失一些性能是合理的
It took me a minute to realize the baby is in the background lol I’m listening to this video with headphones on lll
Before advising me what to do with this lens if i should buy it or not.. start with uploading videos in 4K
Yeah I rented this lens and wasn't pleased also. I liked the EF 85mm 1.4L better.
This video can be misleading. This lens does not works for her and does not represent an upgrade to what she already has. This doesn't;t mean that this is a bad lens in any way. For the price it can be an excellent choice if you don't already own a 85mm lens. I guess many UA-camrs find the way to attract attention.
I did not say it was a bad lens. I said it doesn't work for what I need. The pictures that it takes are totally fine. I just did not like the focusing system. Also, I do not make any money on UA-cam, I did not make this video for attention. I made it to help out those who are trying to decide what lens is best for them. Thank you for your comment though.
Nice review. I also hate the sound of a lens fishing for focus. Haven’t tried this lens but the 35 RF is fairly noisy too. I really like my old 85 1.8 but has a lot of CA to deal with. It is bought and paid for though so it is ideal.
That's its only major flaw. I get lots of green fringing with mine. Aside from that, mine is very sharp wide open and focuses very fast. It tracks perfectly, too.
Ok.. "there is solution formy problem, but i newer used it" ...
I returned this lens, too.
It’s WAY too much money. Too slow to focus. Noisy. Extending element is cheap.
There is a lot of chromatic abrasion on the rf 85 f2 compared to the ef 85 1.8
no sé.... pero ha perdido toda credibilidad cuando ha dicho que el 85 ef 1.8 es UN F-STOP MÁS ALTO, que el 85 rf 2.0 ...
Do not take this review into consideration. Accept my advice. I want to think that this string of inaccuracies, errors and wrong comparisons are an accident. And it is not intentionally because they did not want this lens from the beginning and have asked for it with the sole reason of generating content.
Wow, I am sorry you feel this way. I genuinely bought this lens to use. I am primarily a portrait photographer and not a UA-camr. I make no money off this video. This is just my experience with the lens and my opinions. It is ok to have a difference of opinion. I'm sure there are people who agree with you, but there are also people who did not like this lens as well. This lens just didn't work for what I needed and for the style of shooting that I do. Thank you for your comment, and thanks for watching!
i ran tests on both the rf 2 and the ef 1.8 and the sharpness is much much better on the ef 1.8 than the rf 2. If you compare a brick building for example the corners and edges look more rounded on the rf 2 which is completely unrealistic compared to the ef 1.8 while the ef 1.8 has sharper edges and corners on brick buildings. The reason you're seeing a color difference between the rf 2 and the ef 1.8 is because the rf 2 is color saturated. The lack of light coming in the rf 2 which made it frustrating for me to photograph buildings this morning and yesterday. I noticed the severe lack of details in the rf 2 compared to the ef 1.8 because of this. More light better images. Granted the color saturation in the rf 2 looks better for sky portraits of clouds and blue skies but at a cost of it's surroundings and clarity of objects
ok pal more lies 1.8 and 2.0 is not going to show you much lighting difference BS on your statement.
Go for the Samyang RF 85mm 1.4 it looks much better than the Canon RF 85 2.0
Lol it's not lmao you should watch more reviews videos or you try it for yourself and get rid of your bias.
@@Eye-Wandering tf you mean biased? I have both lenses phagstick
@@kaydawgy1999 calm down well I guess that's your preference. Third party lens they most likely poop and they won't have the right engineering like canon have like the auto focus of third-party lens most of them will try hard or HUNT TOO MUCH OF the FOCUS.
@@Eye-Wandering so lemme ask you, have you tried both these lenses on your camera?
@@kaydawgy1999 I got the 85 f2 canon and I have the 14mm samyang. My friend has the 85 1.4 samyang and he said it was good until the auto focus kept hunting the auto focus even tho it's already focus on the subject. Yours probably don't do that, but most of the people actually having trouble about the auto focus. In reviews and even my friend.🤷♂️ that's why I bought the rf one. Also the 14mm samyang I have is manual.
The rf 85 f2 was worse in sharpness for me than the ef 85 1.8. When you compare building details like brick buildings realistically the rf 2 had the edges and corners rounder instead of flat and sharp like they should be and the bricks themselves were to over saturated where you had a hard time distinguishing the mortar from the bricks on the rf 2 whereas on the ef 1.8 you could see the individual bricks and mortar and the colors weren't over saturated. Granted the oversaturation is nice when portraiting skies but awful at everything else around it.
far more trusted review than many on the market ....
Why would anybody keeping it? For portraits isn't fast enough, for macro isn't close enough. Yet another expensive plastic garbage lens from Canon.
@S Tra look on this way... For portaits f2.0 at 85mm is nonsense. How many 85mm lens you have with f2? Even all that cheap and small plastic amateur lens is f1.8. So this is semi portait lens and also semi macro lens coz it's not 1:1. So this is semi lens at full price. But okay, for occasional child in yard shooting is okay for someone who is naive enough to pay this semi lens at such a high price. Whole Canon R system is a big mistake because worst lens line up in the market. Pro glass is too big and heavy and plastic crap is... You know... Crap. I left Canon RF camp because of that and never be happier with my photo/video gear.
@S Tra you can't understand why someone complains because some pro lens is big and heavy? Really? He complains because in other brand exist other pro lens which are NOT big and heavy and its even more fast and accurate on the same optical level or even better. This is 2021 soon will be 2022 and pro lens doesn't need to be big and heavy... Except in Canon camp. Luckily there is other choices.
And yes, if someone chooses to use apsc he knows its limitations and expecting less shallower background and less light for a cheaper price and smaller size and that's okay. But if you are at FF you expect f1.8 at least for a 85mm lens on that price.
@S Tra sony 50mm 1.2 is by far smaller and lighter and also faster. If that is because larger mount then it is bad mount.
@S Tra it is 170gr lighter which is noticeable and also you forget to say that Sony has much faster AF speed according to new technology. Yes, it matters. When you buy staff like this and use, it matters when you are professional photographer as I am and need to carry 3 or 4 or 5 lens like this in you backpack while you working. I had that 50mm RF and I have now Sony's counterpart and I know what I talking about. But you are just one Canon fanboy who shapshoting his kids in backyard with plastic crap lens. And it's fine. Just don't talk about better mount coz its far beyond your engineering knowledge and obviously your photographic experience. Enjoy in shooting cockroaches in your basement. They are large so you dont need 1:1 macro :) Nancy :D
@@DuskoJovic
The Canon 85 F2 weighs 500 grams and costs app $550.
The Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM weighs 778 grams and costs app $1800 (I see it from $1700 - $2000).
Is there a different 50mm F1.2 Sony you were thinking of?
The argument that 1.2 is faster than F2 is ridiculous. ANY 1.2 is going to be faster than F2. I could also say any Canon 1.2 is faster than any Sony F2. It is meaningless unless your goal is to feel better about owning Sony.