The EF 85 has image stabilisation. A rare but seriously valuable feature for both stills and video at this length. Considering its near identical performance to the RF, its camera portability and the extra usability for hand held stills and video I give it a clear win.
I can't be more thankful for the fact that you gave us RAW files to compare!!! There is no better way to see what a lens is doing... Thank you again! You are amazing! Liked, subscribed and marked on the bell as well
Another important consideration is the number off years for which the manufacturer will offer support in the form of spare parts and repairs, and having had a very bad experience with the one Sigma lens I bought some years ago, I now only use Canon and Zeiss lenses.
I think overall the 1.4 w/ IS will be my pick. It's close enough in most cases, much cheaper, need an adapter, but IS... If you take a shot that would have been lost without IS even if that image is 5% worse in pixel peeping in best case scenarios, its going to be better than a blurry image from the new 1.2 RF. Also as a bonus, smaller and lighter making it easier to handle for a long day. But I am also shooting with an R5C with no IBIS, so maybe I place a higher value on IS than someone with an IBIS body.
Sold the 85 1.2 II and bought the 85 1.4 IS when i got my R5C, too. Very happy with the change, its a better lens in any regard, even bokeh cause the 1.2 can get very very nervous under certain conditions.
Really great comparision. As I downloaded the raw files and inspected them, I saw that the EF 85mm 1.4IS is not in the same plane of focus, at the guy in the park comparision. In the bokeh comparison, you see that both lenses are in the same spot of focus and how close to the RF 1.2 sharpness and contrast is in the 85 1.4 IS.
Great comparisons, still relevant in 2023. I'm so glad I saw your video. The individual comparisons on every major quality dimension gave me all the information I wanted.
The RF is better overall, apart from the price. For me though the image stabilisation is the killer feature. These are low telephoto lenses and it matters for hand held shots. Mind you, I do shake a bit! BobUK.
Currently have an 80D and was thinking of the 85 1.4 IS. I tried the 1.2 L and while the photos come out with crazy bokeh I find myself taking 15 more shots of a single angle before getting that ONE photo. While the 1.4 IS was a breeze to shoot with, I felt more confident. I’m still on the edge cause eventually I’ll upgrade to the newer EOS R ii when it comes out possibly in 2020 but that RF lens would be over kill for my budget...decisions lol
Buy bathe 1.4 Used because you can always resell it when you get your R version and probably sell it for as much as you bought it for if you find used and cheap enough. I do it all the time
Hard to tell with the new RF because it doesn't have a distance display. If you watch the old video the Canon 85 1.4L with IS was slightly faster then the sigma and I would say this lens is going to be about the same in terms of speed but I think it hits critical focus more often then the others.
seems to me that canon 85mm 1.4 is almost the same as rf 85mm , except cb which gets corrected in camera, and rf costs almost 2x, price doesnt seem to be justified at least in my opinion
@@aleksandar2161 based on what I saw on the video that the Sigma is what is closest to the 85 1.4, not the RF. The RF is just an amazing lens and anyone who earns their living with a camera would be justified in spending the extra cash over any of the other three options.
Hey guys! Greetings from Brazil!! Can i suggest another video? A comparison between RF 85mm f/2 Macro against EF 85mm f/1.2 L with adaptar on a mirrorless camera? Here in Brazil, an used 85mm EF 1.2L has a price similar to a brand new RF 85mm f/2. Thanks!
Solid comparison. The EF 1.4 is almost totally similar in all aspects to the new RF, the old EF 1.2 has still the best bokeh and more importantly it has more character then any of these. The new RF is really great but it lacks the character of the old 1.2. Nowday photographers put way to much emphasis on sharpness...
"Nowday photographers put way to much emphasis on sharpness... " Unfortunately not. In fact, far too many people making claims they don't even realize are objective, like the EF 1.2 has better bokeh than the RF 1.2, which of course is a violation of physics. You know, those 'photographers' who go around saying ridiculous things like 'this old one has more character' because they don't know enough of even the basics to realize they're making factually incorrect statements.
The new RF 85 1.2 is superior to the old 1.2 in all respects. Besides, the old 1.2 is a terrible vacuum cleaner! I had it and immediately sold it. Now I am the proud owner of RF 85 1.2
Great comparison! I have a rf85 on the way. Will replace my sigma 85art. I was afraid there wouldn‘t be any difference or the sigma being better. Glad so see the rf being so superior.
@@vitaminb4869 thanks for asking. I rarely use it unfortunately, since my 28-70 does the job for all my needs as a wedding photographer for 90%. Other than that it's still an amazing lens.
Very nice comparison. Really shows the difference. I wish you had the RF DS version. I would buy this lens for portraits but want the most bokehlicious version. Thanks!
Wow! the difference is staggering between these lenses. I have a Sigma 85 and thought it is sharp as hell, but wow, the contrast with the RF blows me away. As the Sigma used can be had in the $800-$850 range, I am sticking with it unless I can find the RF in the $2k or lower range. (plus as you said, it can only be used on the RF mount)
Thank you very much for comparison and raws. It's a shame the otus isn't. Too absence of any samyang. Although you have already done a lot putting together these 4 good lenses, maybe we already demand you too much. The RF detail is undoubtedly higher. In the details is the difference (sometimes). I do not want to imagine this lens in a body without olpf. Canon do not want to remove olpf from their bodies, in other brands it is already very normal to remove it today . Thank you again for your great work, It helps a lot to see the real differences between this lenses.
Thanlks 4 your review but there is a bias on your side, why, RF LENS IS STATIONARY WHILE ALL THE OTHER SHOTS THE SUBJECT IS MOVING, U CAN NOT COMPARE SHARPNESS THAT WAY U NEED EVERY SHOT STATIC
Thank you for doing this. I want to add and ask the crowd how many here also see this: I find the EF 1.2L II to look sharper when viewing the whole image compared to the RF in this comparison. When viewing center crops, i still see SOME advantages to the EF actually, however of course i can see the actual level of detail to be greater on the RF. The EF 1.2 at 1.2 on the edges though looses mostly in every way, but the center i still prefer on the EF. that minor less detail i think is when i would not be shooting full frame and would be on something larger if that size were important and in all cases i would prefer the greater depth and tonality to the EF. It looks more 3 dimensional when viewing the entire wall shot on the EF
Also, the added contrast look to the RF is because its letting in less light than the EF. with added contrast setting it would correct this. The EF has added sparkle and micro contrast and clarity i think.
Except I just picked up a used EF 85mm F1.2 II L lens on the used market for less than 700 dollars including shipping. Yes, it's not new, and new ones are still available from sellers, but they are old stock. You cannot even buy these new from Canon directly when you can buy many others including the 1.4 Lens. The RF 1.2 is an impressive lens. But for me, who only shoots for fun now, it's not 2000 dollars more impressive than the 85mm that I'm using on my 5Dsr. Canon recommend this lens for the 5Dsr upon release and I've had amazing results with it so far.
guys, it is already challenging to walk and make photos with the EF 1.2 L ii discretely. Now, you have these MILC shits. With even bigger lenses. So, you do think, that back in the days, when the classic 1.2 was designed, they wasnt able to design similar like these new ones? Have you ever considered, that they considered size, and practicality? THE LEGENDARY ONE is the smallest one. Think about that.
Just like the RF 50 f/1.2, this is the best 85mm lens ever made. These lenses rival, and in some cases beat, the $6-$12k Leica M lenses in sharpness and IQ at a fraction of the cost. When you consider that, the price seems like a bargain. When the price on the RP dropped to $999 with the instant rebates, I snapped one up just to get access to the RF lenses. Ended up selling my a7iii and put that money towards the 50 f/1.2 My suggestion is save yourself money with the RP and put the money you saved on the body into these amazing lenses. No point in spending the extra money on the R anyways when Canon will be putting out better bodies next year.
I have read that nowadays even RAWs are not what they used to be. Manufacturers would perform some lens corrections without saying so, and would hand out RAWs that actually are not SOOC anymore. This could well explain why, for example, the 11-24f/4 and the RF85 stand apart from any other comparable lenses. I mean, I have seen a lot of lenses in my life and have done countless hours of pixel peeping - and what the RF85 does as compared to the 85f/1.4 is in a different world - a "Lance Armstrong of lenses"...
RF is the king, but the Sigma is definitely the best quality per dollar lens, considering it's the cheapest out of all and only has been beat slightly by the most expensive one...
That lens still isn't out yet so I haven't had a chance to test it, 300$ for smoother bokeh I'm not sure i would go for it since thats the only difference but ill have to wait until I can see some shots from it.
Hey all, I've been looking for a video that explains lenses, I've learned a lot but I'm really looking for, for instance when he says "85 RF" ....what does "RF" mean? Or "IS"...so forth, anyone found a video that explains this....all the videos I see just talks about focal length, prime or zoom, etc....
RF is the mount on the camera: the Full frame DSLR use to have an EF-Mount than the smaller mount (for not full frame cameras (APS-C)) is called EF-S Mount and for the new mirror less camera they call it RF-Mount. So if you have already an EF-MOUNT lens you can still use them on the mirror less system via adapter. But you can not use a RF-MOUNT lens on a DSLR camera because there is no adapter from RF to EF. Because it's physical not possible.
Cool comparison! I would have liked to see them compared at about f2.8 or f4. Also, I know the video is in english, mostly for the US, but could you use give the metric measurements on all instances? (For the rest of the world) Also, can you show me the ruler that measures inches with decimal points? Thanks for the video!
Just a tip, 95% of the world uses metric; it would be great if you could include them in your videos. Imperial measurements are meaningless to folks in metric countries, as metric might be to you.
Excellent video again. For my EOS R, I currently have the Sigma art 85/1.4 EF, great lens but will be replaced by the RF 85/2 macro when it comes out for IS, size, weight, macro and price. Also, plan to replace my Sigma 35/1.4 EF with the RF 35/1.8.
No, the old 1.2 doesn't beat out the others when it comes to light. The old EF has a LOWER T stop than the RF, that's a fact of physics, not a matter of opinion. sigh
But it is true than the new rf is so heavy that lags in autofocus? I saw that is not the faster focus outhere. Can you use put both metric systems? I do never understand the dimensions and weight, thanks a lot!
Basically what you can do just increase a tiny bit of sharpness and contrast to your image during processing and blur little more your background to match the new RF lens (it takes 2 min job). The price of this lens in IRE is 3500 euro which is totally big noooooo !!! I use Canon 85 1.4 IS L and this lens is super sharp enough but as always you can tweak your image to have best outcome. Only fanboys would upgrade to this lens from previous version spending 2000 euros more !!!
The EF 85 has image stabilisation. A rare but seriously valuable feature for both stills and video at this length. Considering its near identical performance to the RF, its camera portability and the extra usability for hand held stills and video I give it a clear win.
I can't be more thankful for the fact that you gave us RAW files to compare!!! There is no better way to see what a lens is doing... Thank you again! You are amazing! Liked, subscribed and marked on the bell as well
The Canon EF 85 1.4 L IS is a pretty awesome buy.
Rf really showing its capabilities
Yeah really stands out above the rest, but they are all great lenses!
LensProToGo the proximity of the glass to the sensor is wicked. Looking at the back of my 50m RF always makes me feel awe lol
Another important consideration is the number off years for which the manufacturer will offer support in the form of spare parts and repairs, and having had a very bad experience with the one Sigma lens I bought some years ago, I now only use Canon and Zeiss lenses.
I think overall the 1.4 w/ IS will be my pick. It's close enough in most cases, much cheaper, need an adapter, but IS... If you take a shot that would have been lost without IS even if that image is 5% worse in pixel peeping in best case scenarios, its going to be better than a blurry image from the new 1.2 RF.
Also as a bonus, smaller and lighter making it easier to handle for a long day.
But I am also shooting with an R5C with no IBIS, so maybe I place a higher value on IS than someone with an IBIS body.
Sold the 85 1.2 II and bought the 85 1.4 IS when i got my R5C, too. Very happy with the change, its a better lens in any regard, even bokeh cause the 1.2 can get very very nervous under certain conditions.
Planning to use the 85 is on an ursa and yeah. Having a really fast lens with IS is like they made that lens for the ursa
Really great comparision. As I downloaded the raw files and inspected them, I saw that the EF 85mm 1.4IS is not in the same plane of focus, at the guy in the park comparision. In the bokeh comparison, you see that both lenses are in the same spot of focus and how close to the RF 1.2 sharpness and contrast is in the 85 1.4 IS.
I wondered that too, glad you picked up on that because the 1.4 IS is the one I'm really looking at
for some reason I like low contrast lens, like original 85 1.2. Gives some kind of atmospheric feel to the shots.
I'm going to find a nice copy of the original 85L, it will be much less expensive than the RF version and still focus well on the upcoming R6.
@@raksh9 i use the 1.2 mark II with the r6 and its a great combo
Wow. That RF 85 1.2 is just fantastic. Great video.
RF really should be winning everything since it's 2-3 the cost of the competition
Great comparisons, still relevant in 2023. I'm so glad I saw your video. The individual comparisons on every major quality dimension gave me all the information I wanted.
Dope video. I can't bring myself to pull the trigger on the RF, but this sure makes a compelling argument for continuing to rent it lol
I love the sharpness of the RF, but my backup camera is a 90d so I need to stick with the EF f/1.4 with adapter for my R6 for now.
The RF is better overall, apart from the price. For me though the image stabilisation is the killer feature. These are low telephoto lenses and it matters for hand held shots. Mind you, I do shake a bit! BobUK.
What about AF performance compared with the Canon 1.4?
Good test. Thank you.
Thanks for the complete information 👍🏼
Wowza. This video finally helped me if I should get the f/1.2 or f/1.4 EF… Dang! Thank you so much.
Brilliant review - well done. I have til RF 35mm macro Is on my Canon RF for street photography.
Currently have an 80D and was thinking of the 85 1.4 IS. I tried the 1.2 L and while the photos come out with crazy bokeh I find myself taking 15 more shots of a single angle before getting that ONE photo. While the 1.4 IS was a breeze to shoot with, I felt more confident. I’m still on the edge cause eventually I’ll upgrade to the newer EOS R ii when it comes out possibly in 2020 but that RF lens would be over kill for my budget...decisions lol
Buy bathe 1.4 Used because you can always resell it when you get your R version and probably sell it for as much as you bought it for if you find used and cheap enough. I do it all the time
Great test! Thanks for putting in the work to make this!
Thanks for taking the time to watch!
Nice video man thanks for sharing!!
How about the AF speed? Which one is the best?
Hard to tell with the new RF because it doesn't have a distance display. If you watch the old video the Canon 85 1.4L with IS was slightly faster then the sigma and I would say this lens is going to be about the same in terms of speed but I think it hits critical focus more often then the others.
Great video.
The only real competitor to 85 RF it's actually 105 ART F1.4
seems to me that canon 85mm 1.4 is almost the same as rf 85mm , except cb which gets corrected in camera, and rf costs almost 2x, price doesnt seem to be justified at least in my opinion
@@aleksandar2161 based on what I saw on the video that the Sigma is what is closest to the 85 1.4, not the RF. The RF is just an amazing lens and anyone who earns their living with a camera would be justified in spending the extra cash over any of the other three options.
Thanks for this video!
Thanks for watching!
Thank u for the review....I needed it
Hey guys! Greetings from Brazil!! Can i suggest another video? A comparison between RF 85mm f/2 Macro against EF 85mm f/1.2 L with adaptar on a mirrorless camera? Here in Brazil, an used 85mm EF 1.2L has a price similar to a brand new RF 85mm f/2. Thanks!
No Brasil está ainda mais caro hoje. Hoje, no Brasil, o melhor custo benefício é o Sigma 85mm f1.4
Great video! Thank you!!!
Solid comparison.
The EF 1.4 is almost totally similar in all aspects to the new RF,
the old EF 1.2 has still the best bokeh and more importantly it has more character then any of these.
The new RF is really great but it lacks the character of the old 1.2.
Nowday photographers put way to much emphasis on sharpness...
"Nowday photographers put way to much emphasis on sharpness...
"
Unfortunately not. In fact, far too many people making claims they don't even realize are objective, like the EF 1.2 has better bokeh than the RF 1.2, which of course is a violation of physics. You know, those 'photographers' who go around saying ridiculous things like 'this old one has more character' because they don't know enough of even the basics to realize they're making factually incorrect statements.
@@expatphotographer8745 😄
The new RF 85 1.2 is superior to the old 1.2 in all respects. Besides, the old 1.2 is a terrible vacuum cleaner! I had it and immediately sold it. Now I am the proud owner of RF 85 1.2
Nice comparison
Which of these have better video tracking?
plz compare it with zeiss otus 85mm
arafin eric RF glass is like the Otus but with autofocus kinda😁
Your links here and on the 1.2 comparison are not working. Can you update them?
Dude, I bought the Sigma lens after watching your video! Thanks for what you do and all your hard work. I appreciate you!
Annette G hows the AF for stills?
Can you make a small comparison between 85mm 1.2 L Rf, 85mm f2 IS macro, and 85mm Samyang 1.4 RF?
Great comparison! I have a rf85 on the way. Will replace my sigma 85art. I was afraid there wouldn‘t be any difference or the sigma being better. Glad so see the rf being so superior.
Yeah its a fantastic lens just so darn big!
What are your thoughts about the RF85 2 years later?
@@vitaminb4869 thanks for asking. I rarely use it unfortunately, since my 28-70 does the job for all my needs as a wedding photographer for 90%. Other than that it's still an amazing lens.
Great comparison! Which one works the best for Dual Pixel AF in video?
Thanks! I would say its a close tie between the RF and Canon 1.4L with IS.
the RF seems nice, esp. with chromatic aberration, but will its performance be affected noticeably if it's applied on an RF adapter for dslr?
Great comparison with no mention to autofocus?
Thanx man
Very nice comparison. Really shows the difference. I wish you had the RF DS version. I would buy this lens for portraits but want the most bokehlicious version. Thanks!
autofocus is really important too
“From my perspective as a customer, there doesn't seem to be much of a difference, so it's not worth the effort.”
should do some vintage shootouts : )
I would love to sadly we don't have many vintage lenses.
Sigma is the best value by far. Here in Canada it comes with a 7 year warranty and they can always change the mount for you on request.
Are there any comparisons for the photo and video autofocus speed and precision on r5 or r6? This would be really helpful, thanks
Best review out . Can you do a video of the rf 50mm
Already did! ruclips.net/video/hIMCHmJSGaA/видео.html
Wow! the difference is staggering between these lenses. I have a Sigma 85 and thought it is sharp as hell, but wow, the contrast with the RF blows me away. As the Sigma used can be had in the $800-$850 range, I am sticking with it unless I can find the RF in the $2k or lower range. (plus as you said, it can only be used on the RF mount)
Yup and the Sigma with the adapter makes it unwieldy
Where’s the EF USM?
Ef 85 mm 1.4 vs ef 85mm 1.2 wich best lence
Thank you very much for comparison and raws. It's a shame the otus isn't. Too absence of any samyang. Although you have already done a lot putting together these 4 good lenses, maybe we already demand you too much. The RF detail is undoubtedly higher. In the details is the difference (sometimes). I do not want to imagine this lens in a body without olpf. Canon do not want to remove olpf from their bodies, in other brands it is already very normal to remove it today . Thank you again for your great work, It helps a lot to see the real differences between this lenses.
RF85L is the best 85mm ever
Sorry to be asking on this video but : where do I get the dimmer switch for the Laowa 24mm macro lens???
www.venuslens.net/product/spare-parts/ you can find it here its called LED control Cable
Thanlks 4 your review but there is a bias on your side, why, RF LENS IS STATIONARY WHILE ALL THE OTHER SHOTS THE SUBJECT IS MOVING, U CAN NOT COMPARE SHARPNESS THAT WAY U NEED EVERY SHOT STATIC
So, nowadays with the Sigma being at close to 1k on amazon (sometimes less) new, it should be a no brainer yo have with the RP!
Thank you for doing this. I want to add and ask the crowd how many here also see this: I find the EF 1.2L II to look sharper when viewing the whole image compared to the RF in this comparison. When viewing center crops, i still see SOME advantages to the EF actually, however of course i can see the actual level of detail to be greater on the RF. The EF 1.2 at 1.2 on the edges though looses mostly in every way, but the center i still prefer on the EF. that minor less detail i think is when i would not be shooting full frame and would be on something larger if that size were important and in all cases i would prefer the greater depth and tonality to the EF. It looks more 3 dimensional when viewing the entire wall shot on the EF
Also, the added contrast look to the RF is because its letting in less light than the EF. with added contrast setting it would correct this. The EF has added sparkle and micro contrast and clarity i think.
Except I just picked up a used EF 85mm F1.2 II L lens on the used market for less than 700 dollars including shipping. Yes, it's not new, and new ones are still available from sellers, but they are old stock. You cannot even buy these new from Canon directly when you can buy many others including the 1.4 Lens. The RF 1.2 is an impressive lens. But for me, who only shoots for fun now, it's not 2000 dollars more impressive than the 85mm that I'm using on my 5Dsr. Canon recommend this lens for the 5Dsr upon release and I've had amazing results with it so far.
May I know where you picked the lens? I am looking for one, but not sure where to get it.
guys, it is already challenging to walk and make photos with the EF 1.2 L ii discretely. Now, you have these MILC shits. With even bigger lenses. So, you do think, that back in the days, when the classic 1.2 was designed, they wasnt able to design similar like these new ones? Have you ever considered, that they considered size, and practicality? THE LEGENDARY ONE is the smallest one. Think about that.
Great information! RF 85mm is a bit too expensive!
Just like the RF 50 f/1.2, this is the best 85mm lens ever made. These lenses rival, and in some cases beat, the $6-$12k Leica M lenses in sharpness and IQ at a fraction of the cost. When you consider that, the price seems like a bargain. When the price on the RP dropped to $999 with the instant rebates, I snapped one up just to get access to the RF lenses. Ended up selling my a7iii and put that money towards the 50 f/1.2 My suggestion is save yourself money with the RP and put the money you saved on the body into these amazing lenses. No point in spending the extra money on the R anyways when Canon will be putting out better bodies next year.
I have read that nowadays even RAWs are not what they used to be. Manufacturers would perform some lens corrections without saying so, and would hand out RAWs that actually are not SOOC anymore. This could well explain why, for example, the 11-24f/4 and the RF85 stand apart from any other comparable lenses. I mean, I have seen a lot of lenses in my life and have done countless hours of pixel peeping - and what the RF85 does as compared to the 85f/1.4 is in a different world - a "Lance Armstrong of lenses"...
what camera are you use with the Canon 85mm 1.4L?
RF is the king, but the Sigma is definitely the best quality per dollar lens, considering it's the cheapest out of all and only has been beat slightly by the most expensive one...
Why not the OTUS??? ;-)
Coz all of those would loose. Totally different league
Andres Garcia and the otus would loose in af speed 😂
Yeah a little more pricier than the rest but it would be interesting to see if the new RF is even close.
What are your thoughts on the RF 85 1.2 DS ? Worth it or not ?
That lens still isn't out yet so I haven't had a chance to test it, 300$ for smoother bokeh I'm not sure i would go for it since thats the only difference but ill have to wait until I can see some shots from it.
Rf is beast... One day I'm gonna get it
Great video :) For future videos, it would be nice to see the measurments in metric as well.
85mm 1.2 ii have moor artistic look about it.
Yeah it’s a little more stylized just outdated mechanics
You missed the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM.
Hey all, I've been looking for a video that explains lenses, I've learned a lot but I'm really looking for, for instance when he says "85 RF" ....what does "RF" mean? Or "IS"...so forth, anyone found a video that explains this....all the videos I see just talks about focal length, prime or zoom, etc....
shuttermuse.com/canon-lens-terminology-abbreviations/ this should help you out
RF is the mount on the camera: the Full frame DSLR use to have an EF-Mount than the smaller mount (for not full frame cameras (APS-C)) is called EF-S Mount and for the new mirror less camera they call it RF-Mount.
So if you have already an EF-MOUNT lens you can still use them on the mirror less system via adapter. But you can not use a RF-MOUNT lens on a DSLR camera because there is no adapter from RF to EF. Because it's physical not possible.
Cool comparison!
I would have liked to see them compared at about f2.8 or f4. Also, I know the video is in english, mostly for the US, but could you use give the metric measurements on all instances? (For the rest of the world) Also, can you show me the ruler that measures inches with decimal points?
Thanks for the video!
RF glass is superior to ALL glass. It’s like zeiss with autofocus
Better than Zeiss. More like Leica M mount with AF
@@michaelbell75 agree
RF is so fvcking insane
Just a tip, 95% of the world uses metric; it would be great if you could include them in your videos. Imperial measurements are meaningless to folks in metric countries, as metric might be to you.
Excellent video again.
For my EOS R, I currently have the Sigma art 85/1.4 EF, great lens but will be replaced by the RF 85/2 macro when it comes out for IS, size, weight, macro and price.
Also, plan to replace my Sigma 35/1.4 EF with the RF 35/1.8.
I think you will regret it! Unless you mainly travel and do street photography...
@@Francisfphoto_ yes 100% canon rf 85- 2 lens is very bad quality... Also 35 1.4 sigma is better than canon rf 35 1.8
“From my perspective as a customer, there doesn't seem to be much of a difference, so it's not worth the effort.” please！！！！
No, the old 1.2 doesn't beat out the others when it comes to light. The old EF has a LOWER T stop than the RF, that's a fact of physics, not a matter of opinion. sigh
I've got the Sigma version for €800. Steal of a deal if you ask me.
Can’t find the 50s comparison
It will be coming up this week still working on it!
It up links in the description
RF 85/2 is véry good j think!
RF85f1.2 absolutely monster lens
It is a beast!
But it is true than the new rf is so heavy that lags in autofocus? I saw that is not the faster focus outhere. Can you use put both metric systems? I do never understand the dimensions and weight, thanks a lot!
Ruben Martin not all. It’s super fast to focus.
Basically what you can do just increase a tiny bit of sharpness and contrast to your image during processing and blur little more your background to match the new RF lens (it takes 2 min job). The price of this lens in IRE is 3500 euro which is totally big noooooo !!! I use Canon 85 1.4 IS L and this lens is super sharp enough but as always you can tweak your image to have best outcome. Only fanboys would upgrade to this lens from previous version spending 2000 euros more !!!
Yeah no thanks, I rather not be carrying a brick of a lens worth 2700 US. Dumb idea. I have changed into lenses that are smaller and easier to carry
Thank you for a great comparison. Any chance to download raw files?
Yeah ill get those up soon and ping this thread!
@@lensprotogo Thanks a lot!
bit.ly/2YjaAIt here you go!