Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Next OL lens test report - Canon RF 85mm f/1.2 USM L
#11
I guess most any lens would show ugly boken when photographing foliage, grass and other random stuff like that at distances that make the background just discernable... no?
#12
(07-25-2020, 02:03 PM)Rover Wrote: I guess most any lens would show ugly boken when photographing foliage, grass and other random stuff like that at distances that make the background just discernable... no?

Yes, as that is the most difficult subject with regard to bokeh, especially tall/long sliver-type onjects like grass blades and such - just look at the Oly 40-150 PRO review here on the site what it actually can cause.

Having said that, considering the short distance to the grass, with this lens it is not bad at all. BTW, longer lenses, especially shor tto medium telelenses do worse at this than other lenses. However, the only lenses I know doing better in this regard are the EF 50 F/1.2L, the RF 50L and the TS-Es - the latter are truly exceptional when it comes to OOF rendering, both in fore- and background.

Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 1 zoom, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#13
I'm not sure whether I can agree with this assessment, Wim.

First of all - from a real-life perspective this is barely relevant. When you buy this lens you will use it at these large-aperture settings. And how high are the chances that something "busy" is surrounding your main subject? Probably very slim.

This is different with long tele lenses where the distant landscape is often not fully blurred out.

Still - I've seen better "technical" bokehs than on the RF 85mm. And not just a few.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#14
Like I mentioned before, it seemsto be a 85mm thing, often not the smoothest bokeh at closer up transitions, or in worse cases, not the smoothest background bokeh at all. Not sure what "provokes" designers at this focal length to make it so. Some exceptions are the Zeiss Milvus and I think Otus, and the not very sharp Samyang.

I have to agree that this RF 85mm f1.2 does render pretty nicely in normal use, and with its f1.2 blur capacity it is a very desirable lens (and if you want ridiculous sharpness it gets even more desirable). Not to mention the technical excellence of the lack of CA (BR) and the total lack of distortion...

By the way, at f1.2 the light fall off more a function of the sensor than of the size of the front element.

Typo: " the RF 85mm f/1.2 USM L is super-sized compared to is (its) distant EF cousin ..."

A bit off-topic.. I just now looked at a review of the Nikkor Z 58mm f0.95 lens... It is quite a bokeh disaster, especially compared to this Canon 85mm f1.2.
#15
I could well imagine that the shift in priority to excessive sharpness has caused this. The EF 85L was much softer at f/1.2.
But, as mentioned, it's not a big deal anyway and there's always the DS version.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#16
(07-26-2020, 05:51 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: Like I mentioned before, it seemsto be a 85mm thing, often not the smoothest bokeh at closer up transitions, or in worse cases, not the smoothest background bokeh at all. Not sure what "provokes" designers at this focal length to make it so. Some exceptions are the Zeiss Milvus and I think Otus, and the not very sharp Samyang.

I have to agree that this RF 85mm f1.2 does render pretty nicely in normal use, and with its f1.2 blur capacity it is a very desirable lens (and if you want ridiculous sharpness it gets even more desirable). Not to mention the technical excellence of the lack of CA (BR) and the total lack of distortion...

By the way, at f1.2 the light fall off more a function of the sensor than of the size of the front element.

Typo: " the RF 85mm f/1.2 USM L is super-sized compared to is (its) distant EF cousin ..."

A bit off-topic.. I just now looked at a review of the Nikkor Z 58mm f0.95 lens... It is quite a bokeh disaster, especially compared to this Canon 85mm f1.2.

Can you please post a link to that review of the Nikkor BC ?
Dave's clichés
#17
One quick more serious question - informally did you visually test the performance at infinity. I.e, does it maintain the sharpnes at infinity ?
#18
Well, you can check a few "infinity" shots in the sample image section.

However, I didn't check whether the performance is maintained at f/1.2 - during daylight you'd need an ND filter for that ...

Please note that Canon's own MTFs are for infinity - and they don't indicate any issue there.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#19
(07-26-2020, 08:11 AM)davidmanze Wrote:
(07-26-2020, 05:51 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: Like I mentioned before, it seemsto be a 85mm thing, often not the smoothest bokeh at closer up transitions, or in worse cases, not the smoothest background bokeh at all. Not sure what "provokes" designers at this focal length to make it so. Some exceptions are the Zeiss Milvus and I think Otus, and the not very sharp Samyang.

I have to agree that this RF 85mm f1.2 does render pretty nicely in normal use, and with its f1.2 blur capacity it is a very desirable lens (and if you want ridiculous sharpness it gets even more desirable). Not to mention the technical excellence of the lack of CA (BR) and the total lack of distortion...

By the way, at f1.2 the light fall off more a function of the sensor than of the size of the front element.

Typo: " the RF 85mm f/1.2 USM L is super-sized compared to is (its) distant EF cousin ..."

A bit off-topic.. I just now looked at a review of the Nikkor Z 58mm f0.95 lens... It is quite a bokeh disaster, especially compared to this Canon 85mm f1.2.

Can you please post a link to that review of the Nikkor BC ?

https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/...ple_images
#20
The foliage/ tree shots mostly look good to me  ........ some widening of stems and a little fringing against strong back-light in one shot sure..... but wide open at F0.95 ?? ..... and of course showing the difficulties of nailing the nearest eye of the subject ....... generally more félicite than to criticise IMHO!
Dave's clichés
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)