I’m fortunate enough to own all three of these lenses. Each has their own specific use case scenario and are superb lenses. It mostly comes down to taste and preference. I love them all, however if i could only choose one it would be the 70-200 2.8. Thank you for the comparison.
What i think? I think you created the best comparison between those 3 stunning lenses. I ended up buying the 70-200mm f2.8 because it does so much more than just portraits. And this review helped me get the verdict i was looking for, thanks a ton and keep up the amazing work. The model did a stunning job as well. Thank you
Amazing work. I like how you tried to take the same shot with all lenses. I think I cracked the code. 85mm 1.2 will be better for street photography, where you want to blur the people in the background, cars, buildings etc. After so many videos of 50mm 1.2 vs 85mm 1.2 comparison no doubt that 50mm is better to take pictures of people around nature. The whole meaning about being out in nature is to grab a bit of nature in your shots at 1.2, and the 50 mm does a very good job.
This is easily the best comparison video for portrait lenses. You’re the only one who mentions practicality between the lenses and the distances between the subject and how that affects communication with the models. I also would have never guessed that some lenses look better than others for the 3 different shot types
This was super helpful, clear and well done - you show us exactly what we want to see! I'd actually love to see a part 2 of this, with backgrounds that are much closer to the model. More of what you'd find if you were taking portraits in busier areas, and didn't have hundreds of feet behind you.
Thank you for the kind words and feedback! I plan to redo this comparison in a few months once the 35mm 1.2 is released so I will bare this in mind then. Thanks again.
I just picked up a canon mirrorless and while I’ve picked up a couple of the RF 1.8s to start, I’m looking at one of these three for my first real RF lens. I was leaning between the 85 and the 70-200, but now I have to consider the 50 also. Thanks for a very useful video.
Going by this comparison, I think the choice is pretty clear. Get the 70-200 f2.8. That gives you more flexibility in focal length and the compression is similar to the 1.2 Primes (at 200mm at least).
I am getting the Sigma Art 50 1.4. It's 1/3 the price of the Canon RF 1.2, and it's 98% as good optically (and AF wise). And even with the adapter it's still smaller than the RF.
Excellent comparison and very useful for someone who is on fence between the 50 and the 85mm. I was an 85mm fan for a decade but i now find the 50mm better for outdoors
You sir are the king of comparisons. I have been watching all your video’s and between you and christopher frost I will never have to do more than 2 videoks worth of research before buying my next lens! Beautiful work!💯
My entire kit is 15-35 2.8, 50 1.2, and 70-200 2.8 and I had the intention of getting the 85mm but honestly since my zoom covers it I think I might just stick with that. The 70-200 has been a joy to use and I can always go to my 50 if I need 1.2. These look great.
If I could only get one (which is pretty much my dilemma), I would go with the 70-200 mm for the versatility. But you really can't go wrong with any of these lenses.
Thank you so much for the comparison!! Veeery helpful. Definitely earned a sub here. I own the RF 2.8 trinity and the light/cheap RF 50 1.8, and I really don’t see the need for anything else. For portraits the 70-200 is so, so good.
Thanks for the great review! Considering the minimal difference in background bokeh that you showed when shooting F2.8 vs F4 on the 70-200, you’ve made me really reconsider the more compact and less expensive RF 70-200mm F4 version. It looks like it could be a pretty solid savings deal, while not compromising too much on image quality.
I own the F4 and it is absolutely a great lens and the bokeh is so closed to the one made with the 2.8. Even for indoor portrait you won't be disappointed (there are lots of videos on utube on this) expecially if you don't get money with photo. I have a friend who owns the F2.8 for indoor sports and in some cases he shoots at 2.8 but just because he needs to freeze the event and so reducing time (he does not like to increase ISO even if he has the R6). Personally, I do not make many photos during indoor sports and I never experiences this needs. Even increasing a little bit the ISO I solve any issue might rise with the timing. Saving money - 1K or more - it s always a great choice
Agreed, comparison between f2.8 and F4 was great. Difference is negligible if you do not extra stop for sport, and lower weight is always better for me.
Fantastic first video! I ordered the 85mm last week. 70-200mm lenses are so capable and versatile but sometimes it’s that extra few percent of magic that a 1.2 prime can bring that’s what it’s all about!
@@JamesReader Thanks! I borrowed one for a few minutes and that told me all I needed to know! I’m lucky enough to have a 28-70 f2 as well but side by side with that at 70mm, the 85mm is a completely different look!
They all look amazing! I think the light situation and the deep background make them look like paintings, and I asked my self it they were like this out of camera? The most stunning are the 85mm ones, even if I like 50mm focal length in general best. The 70-200mm look great, too, but the compression looks to much "tele photo-like" for my personal taste. Thanks for the comparison!
Every RF lens serves it's own purpose. You simply can't buy 1 lens and expect it to behave similarly to another lens, whether your wide open at F2 or 1.4 or whatever depth of field you want for BG seperation, the fact of the matter is, you will end up buying more than 1 lens in your lifetime. It's just the way it is with photography. I use the F2.8 IS 70-200mm for Formula 1 racing and Tennis, can even use that as a 85mm "filler" for distant potrait shots. But at the end of the day, it's always good to be versatile with lens choices for different scenarios. A+ review buddy! Well done.
I am hoping to see an RF 135mm f2 or lower come out soon. I think my favorite is the 85 out of that bunch. The fact the 50mm is about $500 cheaper is a nice carrot...
I'm still using EF lenses, was considering the 135mm 1.8, but since I own the 135mm f2 I'm actually considering the sigma 105mm f1.4. ever used sigma lenses?
This video was VERY helpful to me. I think the 200 is kindest to the subject’s face. The 85 is most artistic in its subject separation. The 50 is the best overall, especially when you adding in other subject matter beyond portraits. Very interesting to see how physically similar all these RF L lenses - stubby and short and HEAVY, oh and EXPENSIVE. Hats off to all involved in this great video. I need all three, lol.
Very amazing video. Thanks so much for making this! I have the 50 RF 1.2 because 50 is just my favorite lens. And I've always loved my 70-200 EF. But I've never used an 85 and this video just highlights how subtle and also clear how different each lens is. All the images were super helpful and I think you can see the differences in each very easily. Thank you!
Great video! The 50mm works for me but that 70-200mm works well for portraiture. I have the 70-200 f4 and I don’t see much difference between the f2.8 and the f4.
You pointed out something only pros know but you didn’t state or explain the tip: when your subject desires to make a change in how their image looks, you can change it by choosing the right lens. I shoot some fashion photos for fun. When a model says they’re self conscious about their nose, width of their eyes or ear shape, you as the photographer have the ability to make the client/subject appear the way they want to. This is easy if let’s say a bride wants her nose to look smaller or she says she hates how her nose always looks big in photos. You can use the 70-200mm and compress it. Let’s say the client says she always hates how her eyes seem to be too close together, now you can use an 85mm or 50mm (or some other focal length) and get their desired look on camera. This works great when you the photographer have a monitor available for shoots. The subject sees whatever it is in a photo they don’t like, and you can pick a focal length that highlights or minimizes whatever it is they want. You mentioned this about her nose, but didn’t directly state how the photographer can use the lens to make the client super happy with the photos. This where people and their iPhones can’t compete with professional photographers, as you all have this knowledge and can apply it to have the happiest clients!
I have all 3 and all are just beautiful pieces of glass.I mainly use the 85 for portrait sessions,as i love the blur and the look of the images overall.Great video james.
I just discovered this channel and I just love it. The smooth and to the point narration, the image quality, the music and the didactic nature of the videos make one enjoy watching it. Thank you very much for the content.
Fantastic comparison, very useful for me. Thank you. Out of the three lenses here, I only own the RF 50 1.2. I am considering what could be next : 85 or 70-200 and I’ll probably get the 70-200 next as I have order the massive 28-70 for flexibility during wedding and other events such as concerts.
WOW! really loving yer comparison videos. All the photos looked lovely to me. I just bought the RF 24-70mm and looking at what to get next in a prime lens. Its a hard decision, but I'll prolly go with the 85mm. Thanks for posting these.
I guess i don’t need to buy an 85 since i like taking mid length half body portraits and 200 2.8 is much more pleasing to see i really like the compression on the background it gives you more of the 3d pop
If you are a non-professinal and keep taking pictures of the same persons again, nothing can beat the 50mm. While the 85 might give you THE perfect portrait shot - once you have it - it feels kind of dump to take more and more. The background melts away, there isn't really the point anymore to take more photos in my opinion. With the 50 at F1.2 for full body shots you can still see whats going on in the background, and capture magical moments of you loved ones, without every picture looking the same. You might also just consider the RF50 F1.8, if your family and friends are shy or annoyed by the huge lenses :)
I use the 14-35 F4 , The 50MM 1.2 ( my favorite) 70-200 2.8 and the 100MM macro 2.8 which is a super sharp lens. I tested the 28-70 and it's just too bulky and i prefer the background rendering of the 50MM . the 14-35 has also been a hidden gem for portraits as well
Thanks James for this helpful video. I think at the end it depends on what kind of shooting you have . I personally love the 50mm focal length because it can be used in many scenarios. The 85mm is also amazing though expensive and a bit more limited. The 70-200mm is also good and versatile But it is very bulky and drag so much attention if you are shooting in a busy environment.
Really good first Video here on your apparently new channel! :) I also just got the RF 70-200 2.8 And the EF 85mm 1.2 is on the way to me right now. I just love the 1.2 character and the 70-200 just doesn't feel "special", even tough it's a heck of a lens! So sharp, well built and amazingly sharp! You did such e great job of having the shots so organized next to each other. Very easy and fun to follow and experience the difference between the focal lengths. I subbed :) Looking forward seeing more of you here. :) Best, Dani
Thank you Dani! Completely agree regarding the 70-200. A great tool but there's something special about the 1.2 primes. Thanks so much for such great feedback on the video too!
Very useful video mate. Would've been awesome to include the 28-70mm as well as that's a decent lens too. Great video though, regardless. Certainly helped me in choosing my first RF lens.
Great video James. I really like seeing all 3 images side by side. I think this highlights that there is truly no “perfect go to” lens. It really depends on the environment and how much of that you’re trying to incorporate with the subject. It also shows you can get an amazing shot with any of the 3 lenses, and that the results are mostly subjective. The RF lenses are incredible, just like all of the RF cameras. My R5 has been an absolute dream to shoot with, and my R6 being no slouch either. Pretty much the same camera with just slightly less resolution and less video capability.
That was such a nice comparison! I think I agree I liked the 50mm for the mid length and 200mm for the full body. Great images thank you for making this video!
All three are great for different reasons… I do like the versatility of the 70-200 2.8 which is why I got that lens, but also got the Samyang 85 1.4. However I stumbled upon this video cause I was looking to see if I should add the 50mm 1.2 and you’re 100% right for that half / three quarter body look with environmental context 50mm is that sweet spot
Awesome review. I really enjoyed comparing the lens with the same subject framing. It's hard to choose between the 85 or the 70-200. I already own a 50 1.8 and I'm struggling to choose between the other 2 for my car portraits. On one hand, the 85 1.2 or 1.4 melts the background so smoothly with decent compression. But the 70-200 is just so versatile with it's zoom range. Right now I'm watching every 85/70-200 comparison video so ai can absorb as much info before I make my decision :/
Thank you for watching, glad to hear you found the video helpful! How important is 1.2 or 1.4 for car photography? If not, I agree the 70-200 would be a very versatile option.
I think for my case, not so important. I mostly shoot while the sun is still above the horizon or in a lit environment so 2.8 is plenty. In the future I might expand into different genres of photography like portraits of people so I thought the 85mm might "future-proof" me but after watching your video I can see the 70-200 is clearly still very capable of portraits. So yeah, I'm leaning more towards getting the 70-200 :)
Thanks for this, I’ve a bunch of EF lenses and am torn on which RF lenses to trade in against. I love my 50mm 1.2 EF so it’s a toss up between the absolute quality of the RF 85mm and the versatility of the 70-200. Great comparison.
I have the RF 35mm 1.8 and the RF 85mm F2 and a Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2. I think I'm fixing to get my first RF L prime. I'm heavily considering the 50mm 1.2 because I think having the versatility and replacing a 35/85 combo for sessions. The RF 85m 1.2 is nice also, but I am starting to realize that I could probably replace the look of the 85mm bokeh with a 70-200 2.8... or still just use my RF 85mm F2. The RF 50mm 1.2 does look fabulous. I do like mid-length and 3/4 length a lot, and I feel like the 50mm would be great for that. Just wish it wasn't $2,300! :)
This review has single handedly answered every single question I had in my head for a very long time, combined with other resources. Thank you so much James! (Timestamps below are for me to quickly zoom through this video again for comparison purposes, in case I need it again. Feel free to use them) 1:43 3:05 4:59 5:04 5:21 (MOST IMPORTANT CLIP... FOR ME) 5:43 6:00
Update: I bought a Sigma 70-200 Sports recently. The depth of field does what I was seeking (to a great extent!), and frankly speaking, I'm in no financial position to be testing out Primes right now. I need a Full Frame Camera first. I know what I need, I just can't afford it yet
Bought a Canon R5 this month and I currently have the RF 70-200 f2.8 and RF 24-70 f2.8. I am considering getting my first RF prime and it will probably be the rumored RF 35 f1.2 or 1.4 as I really miss my previous Sony FE 35 f1.4 GM. After watching your video, I am leaning towards RF 50L instead. To me, the model looks better from the RF 50 . Thank you for the fabulous comparison.
I like your logic and approach, good video well done. I have the 50 1.2, 85 1.2 & 70-200 2.8. My goto lens for portraits is always the 85mm, flattering, misty background, just near perfect. A Close second comes the 50mm 1.2, this when there is insufficient space for 85 or there is a small group of people included. The 70-200 is just a weight in my bag, always there but I usually regret it, it does take images differently but doesn't have the crisp features and bokeh background of the primes; I just don't use it. For wildlife I go straight to the 400mm so I don't use the zoom there either. I should also mention the 100mm 2.8 Macro, this is also a great portrait lens for analytical photos, still well ahead of the zoom.
i scout locations for weeks, so i dont want to use 85mm or more for a photo. I dont to all the work to get a wall of bokeh behind my model. So i mostly shoot with 50mm or 35mm. I am waiting for an RF 24mm at the moment.
70-200 is great for portrait..that’s the one I have. The only problem I see with it is that to get the most compresión of the background you have to zoom it to full 200 MM and switched it down to 2.8 F stop, which will require you to distance yourself from the subject a few meters, which in inside settings , you might not have that distance gap available. I think in order to avoid this, an 85 MM or a 50 MM is better. Most of my shootings are inside since I go to churches photographing church services. However, to photograph a pastor while preaching in the pulpit, the 70-200 MM is way better. Because in that case, there is that gap between the pews and the altar.
I've always shot with the 85 F1.2 and more recently I've been looking at both the other two lenses to get a little variation (and so I'm not pressed up against the back wall in the studio) so this was the perfect video! I may have to pick up that 50mm as it's different enough from the 85 but with the same beautiful bokeh.
Not sure a 50mm would make much difference when you already own the 85. 85 to 50 is not a big change worth investing. Maybe better wait for a 35 f1.2 or check out one of the crazy zooms like the 28-70 f2, which was my first zoom lens after shooting with primes for years. It was worth it because the various shooting styles I can get out of a single moment is pretty crazy. It’s now my always on lens. BTW, if you have the 85 f1.2 you could also consider looking at their DS version that’s a background/bokeh masterpiece.
@@Seitenwerk 50mm is hugely different in the look and focal length. I have the 1.8 (as the 1.2 is out of stock everywhere) and I can fit way more in. I have the 15-35 and at 35 the background isn’t compressed enough so I’m getting the lights in as I shoot with them close in. The 24-70 is a nice lens but it doesn’t work for the look I shoot at. And the 85 DS I did consider before I got the standard version, but you lose some light and the bokeh looked a little weird to me when I tested it (but I came from the EF version).
the compression at 200mm is unflattering for the model. Notice how the face compresses and the models face looks wide. Personally I would only shoot portraits at 135mm.
Since this is set up as a portrait comparison: The compression differences on her face at 05:23 (especially her nose and cheeks… and she’s a model) outweigh any bokeh difference. The 85 is very flattering and the 200 is extremely flattering vs the 50. The overall color render on all three is quite nice. The falloff on the 85 is awesome. Thank you for this comparison!
i think that's a case by case basis tho, in my experience. some people look better at long lengths and others short. ive found it really hard to predict myself.
Gotta take a moment to thank James for spending the money and showing us the comparisons. To acquire the equipment to present this type of content is like far beyond what my wallet can do, so thank you for that! 🙏🏼
Great 1st video. I have the Samyang 85mm rf 1.4 and rhe rf 50mm 1.2. I love the 50mm for most settings. I agree for full length, I like the 85mm the best.
it is very hard, smooth as butter backgrounds at 85mm has got to be the ultimate portrait photog lens. Downside - struggle to use indoors without ample space, forget any kind of group shots indoors, thats where 50mm will do better - indoor, low light. 70-200 f2.8 is the versatility king and you would be hard pressed to find differences in background blur from the other two, other than background magnification. horses for courses. I think 85mm suits my style best - high key airy shots.
@@JamesReader I got so far the 35 1.8 and the 85 2.0. The latter stays on the body most of the time. But I’m thinking that for outdoors the 70-200 would the most versatile and desirable. Already have an RX100 with 24-70 and an ultra wide on the Iphone12
@@JamesReader I am rather reticent about all the F4 lenses since I shoot a lot indoors and in the evenings. So even the f2.8 might seem a tad too dark at times, especially if you compare it to a prime. One other lens that I respect a lot is the 50 1.2 , but since it’s so heavy I’m afraid I might not find it as portable and versatile as I would like.
Best comparison so far, but I was still hoping to see the difference between the 85 at f1.2 and the 70-200 at 85mm and f2.8. The 70-200 having the ability to capture the same focal length as the 85 for full body shots is very valuable, but I'd like to know how much better the bokeh is on the 85 to know if it's worth the investment.
I have the EF 70-200 2.8 IS III and Love it even with adapter on my R5. I have the RF 50 1.8 STM atm & a Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro G2 but plan on grabbing the 50 1.2 L & 85mm 1.2 L this year sometime.
Thank you very much for this on point comparison. Great work and video! 50 mm is magic, 70-200, too - but hefty. I often take my EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM with me and at 200 body shots look really nice, too. 2.8 would be nice, but it breaks my back when shooting. 50 mm would complement my kit, definitely.
I sold my 70-200 2.8 for a 14-35 F4.. I couldn’t justify the weight in the bag as I don’t often use it.. but thanks for doing the F4 examples because I’ll consider the F4 70-200 in the future. I will not buy the 85 1.2 as a protest.. I want a 1.4 or 1.8 L 85.. I might consider the 100mm 2.8 as well … but yeah the 50 1.2 is magic.. but I’ll probably buy a 50 1.4 as well when it comes for travelling.
Me ha sorprendido mucho el 50mm, integrando mucho todo el entorno a la fotografía, con un difuminado muy suave y orgánico respeto los otros, me faltaba que probaras con el 70-28 F2. Buena prueba amigo.
Comparing the 3 photo at end, the 200 looked out of focus a bit, My all time favorite is the 85 mm lens from photo I have taken then the 200 ,50 for me comes in last, Just an opinion, I like all three lens...;)
I would say the 50mm is more versatile, but the 85mm is special for portraits. Not an easy decision, but if I could just have one it would be the 50mm. Let me know what you decide!
Get the 50mm rf 1.2. Take a good luck at the Samyang 85mm 1.4. Much cheaper, and 1.2 vs 1.4 is very minimal. Samyang is much more affordable, and I love it also.
![[Limbus Company - PV] Chapter.7 - Oblivion](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VUpkXPkvoxU/mqdefault.jpg)
![OsamaSon - ik what you did last summer [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4DIQDnu3mr4/mqdefault.jpg)
I’m fortunate enough to own all three of these lenses. Each has their own specific use case scenario and are superb lenses. It mostly comes down to taste and preference. I love them all, however if i could only choose one it would be the 70-200 2.8.
Thank you for the comparison.
Thank you for watching! You have an incredible setup. That 70-200 is hard to beat.
What i think? I think you created the best comparison between those 3 stunning lenses.
I ended up buying the 70-200mm f2.8 because it does so much more than just portraits.
And this review helped me get the verdict i was looking for, thanks a ton and keep up the amazing work.
The model did a stunning job as well.
Thank you
I really appreciate the kind words Sam, thank you!
Amazing work. I like how you tried to take the same shot with all lenses.
I think I cracked the code. 85mm 1.2 will be better for street photography, where you want to blur the people in the background, cars, buildings etc. After so many videos of 50mm 1.2 vs 85mm 1.2 comparison no doubt that 50mm is better to take pictures of people around nature. The whole meaning about being out in nature is to grab a bit of nature in your shots at 1.2, and the 50 mm does a very good job.
If you wanna bring nature, just take a 35MM who will do better job than 50mm. :)
This is easily the best comparison video for portrait lenses. You’re the only one who mentions practicality between the lenses and the distances between the subject and how that affects communication with the models. I also would have never guessed that some lenses look better than others for the 3 different shot types
This was super helpful, clear and well done - you show us exactly what we want to see!
I'd actually love to see a part 2 of this, with backgrounds that are much closer to the model. More of what you'd find if you were taking portraits in busier areas, and didn't have hundreds of feet behind you.
Thank you for the kind words and feedback! I plan to redo this comparison in a few months once the 35mm 1.2 is released so I will bare this in mind then. Thanks again.
@@JamesReader 35 1.4
I just picked up a canon mirrorless and while I’ve picked up a couple of the RF 1.8s to start, I’m looking at one of these three for my first real RF lens. I was leaning between the 85 and the 70-200, but now I have to consider the 50 also. Thanks for a very useful video.
Glad to hear the video helped! There's no bad choice here, you'll love any of them. Thanks for watching.
Going by this comparison, I think the choice is pretty clear. Get the 70-200 f2.8. That gives you more flexibility in focal length and the compression is similar to the 1.2 Primes (at 200mm at least).
I am getting the Sigma Art 50 1.4. It's 1/3 the price of the Canon RF 1.2, and it's 98% as good optically (and AF wise). And even with the adapter it's still smaller than the RF.
Excellent comparison and very useful for someone who is on fence between the 50 and the 85mm. I was an 85mm fan for a decade but i now find the 50mm better for outdoors
You sir are the king of comparisons. I have been watching all your video’s and between you and christopher frost I will never have to do more than 2 videoks worth of research before buying my next lens!
Beautiful work!💯
Thank you so much! That’s really encouraging to hear.
My entire kit is 15-35 2.8, 50 1.2, and 70-200 2.8 and I had the intention of getting the 85mm but honestly since my zoom covers it I think I might just stick with that. The 70-200 has been a joy to use and I can always go to my 50 if I need 1.2. These look great.
Not bad. My kit is a Tamron 24-70 G2, Sigma 50 1.4, and a Sigma 70-200 2.8
@@SnowyLeopardFrom1997i am waiting for any rf 50mm f1.4 around in the middle end of this year
Same kit as me 🤝
Me too except 24-70 f/2.8 not 15-35. And I have the 35 and 50 f/1.8 too
@@BOLANGTHANG I got mine used for $400 in decent condition... Not complaining 🤣
If I could only get one (which is pretty much my dilemma), I would go with the 70-200 mm for the versatility. But you really can't go wrong with any of these lenses.
Thank you so much for the comparison!! Veeery helpful. Definitely earned a sub here. I own the RF 2.8 trinity and the light/cheap RF 50 1.8, and I really don’t see the need for anything else. For portraits the 70-200 is so, so good.
I love the 70-200 F2.8 L USM!!! It's a game changer for myself. Thanks for putting this together.
Thanks for the great review! Considering the minimal difference in background bokeh that you showed when shooting F2.8 vs F4 on the 70-200, you’ve made me really reconsider the more compact and less expensive RF 70-200mm F4 version. It looks like it could be a pretty solid savings deal, while not compromising too much on image quality.
I owned the f4 version for a bit - it's an awesome lens, you won't be disappointed.
I own the F4 and it is absolutely a great lens and the bokeh is so closed to the one made with the 2.8. Even for indoor portrait you won't be disappointed (there are lots of videos on utube on this) expecially if you don't get money with photo. I have a friend who owns the F2.8 for indoor sports and in some cases he shoots at 2.8 but just because he needs to freeze the event and so reducing time (he does not like to increase ISO even if he has the R6). Personally, I do not make many photos during indoor sports and I never experiences this needs. Even increasing a little bit the ISO I solve any issue might rise with the timing. Saving money - 1K or more - it s always a great choice
Agreed, comparison between f2.8 and F4 was great. Difference is negligible if you do not extra stop for sport, and lower weight is always better for me.
I have the 70-200f4. For me the 2.8 is worth it if you shoot varied subject matter. The f4 has let me down quite a few times especially indoors.
If you don't have to work in low light or catch action, ie: sports or weddings, you likely don't need the f2.8.
Fantastic first video! I ordered the 85mm last week. 70-200mm lenses are so capable and versatile but sometimes it’s that extra few percent of magic that a 1.2 prime can bring that’s what it’s all about!
Thank you! Completely agree, you're gonna love that lens!
@@JamesReader Thanks! I borrowed one for a few minutes and that told me all I needed to know! I’m lucky enough to have a 28-70 f2 as well but side by side with that at 70mm, the 85mm is a completely different look!
They all look amazing! I think the light situation and the deep background make them look like paintings, and I asked my self it they were like this out of camera? The most stunning are the 85mm ones, even if I like 50mm focal length in general best. The 70-200mm look great, too, but the compression looks to much "tele photo-like" for my personal taste. Thanks for the comparison!
Every RF lens serves it's own purpose. You simply can't buy 1 lens and expect it to behave similarly to another lens, whether your wide open at F2 or 1.4 or whatever depth of field you want for BG seperation, the fact of the matter is, you will end up buying more than 1 lens in your lifetime. It's just the way it is with photography.
I use the F2.8 IS 70-200mm for Formula 1 racing and Tennis, can even use that as a 85mm "filler" for distant potrait shots.
But at the end of the day, it's always good to be versatile with lens choices for different scenarios. A+ review buddy! Well done.
I am hoping to see an RF 135mm f2 or lower come out soon. I think my favorite is the 85 out of that bunch. The fact the 50mm is about $500 cheaper is a nice carrot...
I'm still using EF lenses, was considering the 135mm 1.8, but since I own the 135mm f2 I'm actually considering the sigma 105mm f1.4. ever used sigma lenses?
This video was VERY helpful to me. I think the 200 is kindest to the subject’s face. The 85 is most artistic in its subject separation. The 50 is the best overall, especially when you adding in other subject matter beyond portraits. Very interesting to see how physically similar all these RF L lenses - stubby and short and HEAVY, oh and EXPENSIVE. Hats off to all involved in this great video. I need all three, lol.
50 is my favourite of the three too! Thank you for watching and for the kind words!
Very amazing video. Thanks so much for making this! I have the 50 RF 1.2 because 50 is just my favorite lens. And I've always loved my 70-200 EF. But I've never used an 85 and this video just highlights how subtle and also clear how different each lens is. All the images were super helpful and I think you can see the differences in each very easily. Thank you!
Thank you for watching, really glad to of helped!
The full body shot with 85 mm f1.2 is a 3D pop. Amazing.
I love the one at 200 because I like the look of the buildings and trees in the background are pulled in
Great video! The 50mm works for me but that 70-200mm works well for portraiture. I have the 70-200 f4 and I don’t see much difference between the f2.8 and the f4.
You pointed out something only pros know but you didn’t state or explain the tip: when your subject desires to make a change in how their image looks, you can change it by choosing the right lens. I shoot some fashion photos for fun. When a model says they’re self conscious about their nose, width of their eyes or ear shape, you as the photographer have the ability to make the client/subject appear the way they want to. This is easy if let’s say a bride wants her nose to look smaller or she says she hates how her nose always looks big in photos. You can use the 70-200mm and compress it. Let’s say the client says she always hates how her eyes seem to be too close together, now you can use an 85mm or 50mm (or some other focal length) and get their desired look on camera. This works great when you the photographer have a monitor available for shoots. The subject sees whatever it is in a photo they don’t like, and you can pick a focal length that highlights or minimizes whatever it is they want.
You mentioned this about her nose, but didn’t directly state how the photographer can use the lens to make the client super happy with the photos.
This where people and their iPhones can’t compete with professional photographers, as you all have this knowledge and can apply it to have the happiest clients!
Amazing comment and info. Thank you David.
Incredible comparison, i was looking for such a video for a long time! Great Work.
I have all 3 and all are just beautiful pieces of glass.I mainly use the 85 for portrait sessions,as i love the blur and the look of the images overall.Great video james.
Thank you Darryl! I always look forward to seeing your work with the 85mm on Instagram! What a lens!!
Respect for the time spent on comparing all shots. Great video mate.
I just discovered this channel and I just love it. The smooth and to the point narration, the image quality, the music and the didactic nature of the videos make one enjoy watching it. Thank you very much for the content.
Thank you so much!
I would have liked to see the other bookend of the 70-200 lens: three shots at 70mm f/2.8.
The primes are on another level.
Very nice comparison. I was undecided for a while between the 50 and the 85, but your video has pulled me more to the 50 now 🙂
Really glad to hear it helped, you're gonna love that 50mm!
Fantastic comparison, very useful for me. Thank you.
Out of the three lenses here, I only own the RF 50 1.2. I am considering what could be next : 85 or 70-200 and I’ll probably get the 70-200 next as I have order the massive 28-70 for flexibility during wedding and other events such as concerts.
WOW! really loving yer comparison videos. All the photos looked lovely to me. I just bought the RF 24-70mm and looking at what to get next in a prime lens. Its a hard decision, but I'll prolly go with the 85mm. Thanks for posting these.
Thank you Leeloo! I think the 85mm would be great in combination with the 24-70.
More interesting 100-135 mm
The work you made is appreciated, and keep going, we are waiting for the reviews for each lens
I guess i don’t need to buy an 85 since i like taking mid length half body portraits and 200 2.8 is much more pleasing to see i really like the compression on the background it gives you more of the 3d pop
If you are a non-professinal and keep taking pictures of the same persons again, nothing can beat the 50mm. While the 85 might give you THE perfect portrait shot - once you have it - it feels kind of dump to take more and more. The background melts away, there isn't really the point anymore to take more photos in my opinion. With the 50 at F1.2 for full body shots you can still see whats going on in the background, and capture magical moments of you loved ones, without every picture looking the same.
You might also just consider the RF50 F1.8, if your family and friends are shy or annoyed by the huge lenses :)
Best review on three lenses I’ve ever seen
Wow, thank you!
My kit included the 85mm because i love the bokeh of the lens, I also packed with 50mm f1.8 for close distance and 24-70mm for studio environment
Fantastic comparison! Simple, and to the point with proper examples. Great model as well.
Thank you!
Thanks James! This video is very well done - perfect balance between brevity and detail, great photos and well-chosen examples. Impressive work.
Thank you so much Mihu!
Very nice production. A real joy to watch!
I use the 14-35 F4 , The 50MM 1.2 ( my favorite) 70-200 2.8 and the 100MM macro 2.8 which is a super sharp lens. I tested the 28-70 and it's just too bulky and i prefer the background rendering of the 50MM . the 14-35 has also been a hidden gem for portraits as well
Thanks James for this helpful video.
I think at the end it depends on what kind of shooting you have . I personally love the 50mm focal length because it can be used in many scenarios. The 85mm is also amazing though expensive and a bit more limited. The 70-200mm is also good and versatile But it is very bulky and drag so much attention if you are shooting in a busy environment.
Thank you Mohammed! I couldn’t agree more, I always come back to the 50mm.
85 mm is a gun, I took it and didn't regret it! The best portrait lens! I got rid of zooms because I don’t need them in my leisurely work!
I just like how big and dramatic the 200mm makes images feel.
Really good first Video here on your apparently new channel! :)
I also just got the RF 70-200 2.8
And the EF 85mm 1.2 is on the way to me right now. I just love the 1.2 character and the 70-200 just doesn't feel "special", even tough it's a heck of a lens! So sharp, well built and amazingly sharp!
You did such e great job of having the shots so organized next to each other. Very easy and fun to follow and experience the difference between the focal lengths.
I subbed :)
Looking forward seeing more of you here. :)
Best, Dani
Thank you Dani! Completely agree regarding the 70-200. A great tool but there's something special about the 1.2 primes. Thanks so much for such great feedback on the video too!
Very useful video mate. Would've been awesome to include the 28-70mm as well as that's a decent lens too. Great video though, regardless. Certainly helped me in choosing my first RF lens.
Great video James. I really like seeing all 3 images side by side. I think this highlights that there is truly no “perfect go to” lens. It really depends on the environment and how much of that you’re trying to incorporate with the subject. It also shows you can get an amazing shot with any of the 3 lenses, and that the results are mostly subjective. The RF lenses are incredible, just like all of the RF cameras. My R5 has been an absolute dream to shoot with, and my R6 being no slouch either. Pretty much the same camera with just slightly less resolution and less video capability.
Can i ask you something ?
Going for R5 + 28-70 F2
Or Going for R6 With 28-70 and a rf prime ?
Best comparison I have seen on these ! Great job bro!
Really nice and precise comparison review of these 3 lenses. A joy to watch, thanks.
Thank you Michael!
Great video - I own all three and far and away the Rf 85 1.2 wins for me. My all time favorite lens
That was such a nice comparison! I think I agree I liked the 50mm for the mid length and 200mm for the full body. Great images thank you for making this video!
All three are great for different reasons… I do like the versatility of the 70-200 2.8 which is why I got that lens, but also got the Samyang 85 1.4.
However I stumbled upon this video cause I was looking to see if I should add the 50mm 1.2 and you’re 100% right for that half / three quarter body look with environmental context 50mm is that sweet spot
Such a great and interesting video it looks like I have to get all 3 lenses to get each of the styles that I want
Nice video man. I have the RF70-200, very happy with it.
Awesome review. I really enjoyed comparing the lens with the same subject framing. It's hard to choose between the 85 or the 70-200. I already own a 50 1.8 and I'm struggling to choose between the other 2 for my car portraits. On one hand, the 85 1.2 or 1.4 melts the background so smoothly with decent compression. But the 70-200 is just so versatile with it's zoom range. Right now I'm watching every 85/70-200 comparison video so ai can absorb as much info before I make my decision :/
Thank you for watching, glad to hear you found the video helpful! How important is 1.2 or 1.4 for car photography? If not, I agree the 70-200 would be a very versatile option.
I think for my case, not so important. I mostly shoot while the sun is still above the horizon or in a lit environment so 2.8 is plenty. In the future I might expand into different genres of photography like portraits of people so I thought the 85mm might "future-proof" me but after watching your video I can see the 70-200 is clearly still very capable of portraits. So yeah, I'm leaning more towards getting the 70-200 :)
Thanks for this, I’ve a bunch of EF lenses and am torn on which RF lenses to trade in against. I love my 50mm 1.2 EF so it’s a toss up between the absolute quality of the RF 85mm and the versatility of the 70-200. Great comparison.
Thank you for watching Mark. A tough decision, I went 70-200 first and picked up the 85 later down the line. Let me know which way you go
I have the RF 35mm 1.8 and the RF 85mm F2 and a Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2. I think I'm fixing to get my first RF L prime. I'm heavily considering the 50mm 1.2 because I think having the versatility and replacing a 35/85 combo for sessions. The RF 85m 1.2 is nice also, but I am starting to realize that I could probably replace the look of the 85mm bokeh with a 70-200 2.8... or still just use my RF 85mm F2. The RF 50mm 1.2 does look fabulous. I do like mid-length and 3/4 length a lot, and I feel like the 50mm would be great for that. Just wish it wasn't $2,300! :)
Sounds like the 50mm 1.2 would be a great option. I quite often bring just the 50 to a shoot and never feel like I am missing out.
Great Comparison! Thank you for including the f4 for the 200
This review has single handedly answered every single question I had in my head for a very long time, combined with other resources. Thank you so much James!
(Timestamps below are for me to quickly zoom through this video again for comparison purposes, in case I need it again. Feel free to use them)
1:43
3:05
4:59
5:04
5:21 (MOST IMPORTANT CLIP... FOR ME)
5:43
6:00
So glad to hear it helped you Bahaa! I really appreciate the feedback. Thanks for the timestamps also.
Thanks again James. I'll be waiting for more reviews like this one (with images to compare, to help us make our decisions). Keep shining!
Update: I bought a Sigma 70-200 Sports recently. The depth of field does what I was seeking (to a great extent!), and frankly speaking, I'm in no financial position to be testing out Primes right now.
I need a Full Frame Camera first. I know what I need, I just can't afford it yet
This comparison is presented so well. Thanks for your efforts!
Thank you for watching!
The rf 85 is the winner in my book. I love mine for close, mid, and from wayyy back for environmental portraits.
Bought a Canon R5 this month and I currently have the RF 70-200 f2.8 and RF 24-70 f2.8. I am considering getting my first RF prime and it will probably be the rumored RF 35 f1.2 or 1.4 as I really miss my previous Sony FE 35 f1.4 GM. After watching your video, I am leaning towards RF 50L instead. To me, the model looks better from the RF 50 . Thank you for the fabulous comparison.
Thanks so much for watching, glad to of helped. The 50 really is amazing.
I like your logic and approach, good video well done.
I have the 50 1.2, 85 1.2 & 70-200 2.8.
My goto lens for portraits is always the 85mm, flattering, misty background, just near perfect.
A Close second comes the 50mm 1.2, this when there is insufficient space for 85 or there is a small group of people included.
The 70-200 is just a weight in my bag, always there but I usually regret it, it does take images differently but doesn't have the crisp features and bokeh background of the primes; I just don't use it.
For wildlife I go straight to the 400mm so I don't use the zoom there either. I should also mention the 100mm 2.8 Macro, this is also a great portrait lens for analytical photos, still well ahead of the zoom.
Merci pour ces comparaisons.
Une vidéo agréable à regarder. 😊
i scout locations for weeks, so i dont want to use 85mm or more for a photo. I dont to all the work to get a wall of bokeh behind my model. So i mostly shoot with 50mm or 35mm. I am waiting for an RF 24mm at the moment.
Super solid video, loved the easy breakdown and comparison, well done!
70-200 is great for portrait..that’s the one I have. The only problem I see with it is that to get the most compresión of the background you have to zoom it to full 200 MM and switched it down to 2.8 F stop, which will require you to distance yourself from the subject a few meters, which in inside settings , you might not have that distance gap available. I think in order to avoid this, an 85 MM or a 50 MM is better.
Most of my shootings are inside since I go to churches photographing church services. However, to photograph a pastor while preaching in the pulpit, the 70-200 MM is way better. Because in that case, there is that gap between the pews and the altar.
What a waste of photography
I've always shot with the 85 F1.2 and more recently I've been looking at both the other two lenses to get a little variation (and so I'm not pressed up against the back wall in the studio) so this was the perfect video! I may have to pick up that 50mm as it's different enough from the 85 but with the same beautiful bokeh.
Thanks for watching Gareth!
Not sure a 50mm would make much difference when you already own the 85. 85 to 50 is not a big change worth investing. Maybe better wait for a 35 f1.2 or check out one of the crazy zooms like the 28-70 f2, which was my first zoom lens after shooting with primes for years.
It was worth it because the various shooting styles I can get out of a single moment is pretty crazy. It’s now my always on lens.
BTW, if you have the 85 f1.2 you could also consider looking at their DS version that’s a background/bokeh masterpiece.
@@Seitenwerk 50mm is hugely different in the look and focal length. I have the 1.8 (as the 1.2 is out of stock everywhere) and I can fit way more in. I have the 15-35 and at 35 the background isn’t compressed enough so I’m getting the lights in as I shoot with them close in.
The 24-70 is a nice lens but it doesn’t work for the look I shoot at. And the 85 DS I did consider before I got the standard version, but you lose some light and the bokeh looked a little weird to me when I tested it (but I came from the EF version).
Great video! Love the comparison! Very clear & professional, keep up the good work! My preference of course 50-85. Have a nice day!
Thanks for watching John!
the compression at 200mm is unflattering for the model. Notice how the face compresses and the models face looks wide. Personally I would only shoot portraits at 135mm.
Yeah I think 135mm is a nice compromise. Thank you for watching!
Since this is set up as a portrait comparison: The compression differences on her face at 05:23 (especially her nose and cheeks… and she’s a model) outweigh any bokeh difference. The 85 is very flattering and the 200 is extremely flattering vs the 50. The overall color render on all three is quite nice. The falloff on the 85 is awesome. Thank you for this comparison!
i think that's a case by case basis tho, in my experience. some people look better at long lengths and others short. ive found it really hard to predict myself.
Gotta take a moment to thank James for spending the money and showing us the comparisons. To acquire the equipment to present this type of content is like far beyond what my wallet can do, so thank you for that! 🙏🏼
Thank you so much for the kind words!
Great 1st video. I have the Samyang 85mm rf 1.4 and rhe rf 50mm 1.2. I love the 50mm for most settings. I agree for full length, I like the 85mm the best.
Nice video, would love to see some other places with the 3 lenses
Awesome video!!! Great comparisons!!! I went with the rf 85 1.2, it is such a great lens!!!
Thank you! That's an incredible lens, congrats!
Excellent comparison!!! Great work!!
it is very hard, smooth as butter backgrounds at 85mm has got to be the ultimate portrait photog lens. Downside - struggle to use indoors without ample space, forget any kind of group shots indoors, thats where 50mm will do better - indoor, low light. 70-200 f2.8 is the versatility king and you would be hard pressed to find differences in background blur from the other two, other than background magnification. horses for courses. I think 85mm suits my style best - high key airy shots.
Good job 👍 looking forward for more comparisons. Hopefully there’ll be more RF lenses soon. Cheers
Thanks Dan! Let's hope, I'm really wanting a 1.4/1.2 35mm/28mm lens from Canon.
@@JamesReader I got so far the 35 1.8 and the 85 2.0. The latter stays on the body most of the time. But I’m thinking that for outdoors the 70-200 would the most versatile and desirable. Already have an RX100 with 24-70 and an ultra wide on the Iphone12
@@grecudanalexandru you will love the 70-200. You should consider the f4 version too, it's excellent.
@@JamesReader I am rather reticent about all the F4 lenses since I shoot a lot indoors and in the evenings. So even the f2.8 might seem a tad too dark at times, especially if you compare it to a prime. One other lens that I respect a lot is the 50 1.2 , but since it’s so heavy I’m afraid I might not find it as portable and versatile as I would like.
Thank you for that review! Just what I was trying to see.
Fantastic video comparison is what I was looking for 👍
Thank you Anthony!
Best comparison so far, but I was still hoping to see the difference between the 85 at f1.2 and the 70-200 at 85mm and f2.8.
The 70-200 having the ability to capture the same focal length as the 85 for full body shots is very valuable, but I'd like to know how much better the bokeh is on the 85 to know if it's worth the investment.
Thank you! I actually covered this in one of my newer videos. It’s the 70-200 f4 vs 2.8 video. I compare the 70-200 to the 85mm 1.2 at various crops.
I have the EF 70-200 2.8 IS III and Love it even with adapter on my R5.
I have the RF 50 1.8 STM atm & a Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro G2
but plan on grabbing the 50 1.2 L & 85mm 1.2 L this year sometime.
Very good video, please add a 35mm to the mix also if possible!
Thank you! I'm looking forward to re-doing this once Canon release a 1.4/1.2 35mm RF lens.
Great comparison! Thank you for doing this video.
Thank you very much for this on point comparison. Great work and video! 50 mm is magic, 70-200, too - but hefty.
I often take my EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM with me and at 200 body shots look really nice, too. 2.8 would be nice, but it breaks my back when shooting. 50 mm would complement my kit, definitely.
Thanks for this video... seems to answer the question everyone is having.
Great review! 50mm for headshot and mid and 200mm for full body for me!
Great review, thank you for the video
Great video! Thank you for all of the comparisons
Thank you Frank!
This was a great review and fantastic shots!
Thank you Mike!
Great comparison, wish you had more vids.
I use the 50mm for features. On the red Komodo. It’s stunning
I sold my 70-200 2.8 for a 14-35 F4.. I couldn’t justify the weight in the bag as I don’t often use it.. but thanks for doing the F4 examples because I’ll consider the F4 70-200 in the future. I will not buy the 85 1.2 as a protest.. I want a 1.4 or 1.8 L 85.. I might consider the 100mm 2.8 as well … but yeah the 50 1.2 is magic.. but I’ll probably buy a 50 1.4 as well when it comes for travelling.
Nice video brother!
Thank you Mitch!
良い比較動画ですね。85mmが頭一つ飛び抜けている印象がしました。
Really nice review and comparison
Very helpful video.. Since i've got the sigma 70-200mm f2.8 sport, i think i should buy next the rf 85mm f1.2 for portraits shots.
Me ha sorprendido mucho el 50mm, integrando mucho todo el entorno a la fotografía, con un difuminado muy suave y orgánico respeto los otros, me faltaba que probaras con el 70-28 F2. Buena prueba amigo.
Comparing the 3 photo at end, the 200 looked out of focus a bit, My all time favorite is the 85 mm lens from photo I have taken then the 200 ,50 for me comes in last, Just an opinion, I like all three lens...;)
Damn I’m debating the 50 & the 85 I’m leaning towards the 50, but I love the compressions of the 85mm when doing full body. Thanks for sharing!
I would say the 50mm is more versatile, but the 85mm is special for portraits. Not an easy decision, but if I could just have one it would be the 50mm. Let me know what you decide!
Get the 50mm rf 1.2. Take a good luck at the Samyang 85mm 1.4. Much cheaper, and 1.2 vs 1.4 is very minimal. Samyang is much more affordable, and I love it also.