Canon RF 85mm f/1.2 L USM Lens (Page 3): After a little more thinking and mathematics, I have come up with the interesting idea that in theory the 85 1.2 @1.2 and the 70-200 2.8 @200...

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

After a little more thinking and mathematics, I have come up with the interesting idea that in theory the 85 1.2 @1.2 and the 70-200 2.8 @200 f2.8 have basically the same aperture size and therefore the same blurring possibilities at equivalent distances.

The 85 f2 has the same blurring/aperture size as the 70-200 2.8 @119mm and f2.8.
Longer than 119mm @2.8 and the 70-200 @f2.8 begins to have more blur or, less DOF than the 85 f2 for the same distance.
Disclaimer: No, I have not checked the DOF calculator to see if or how close this theory works out in actual use.
.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Tracy B. wrote:

I am considering purchasing this lens. This will be my first RF lens. I am purchasing this mainly for taking portraits with. I would love to hear from those who have it what they think? I might add I will be purchasing the one without DS. I don't need to hear about the "DS" version. I did my homework, and for me the one without DS is better for me. So please, no talk about the amazing "DS" version.

You might consider the Sigma 105/1.4.... If so let me know, I have one that I almost never used, excellent lens that would be a lot less expensive than the Canon and similar image quality.

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

Tracy B. wrote:

Yes it is tempting, just wish the extender work the the RF model

I pretty much stopped using the 2x extender when I got my R5. I just set the crop to 1.6 which gives me 320mm equivalent while maintaining the 2.8 aperture. I’ve never had a client complain about a lack of resolution or sharpness using it. 320 isn’t 400 but it’s close enough in my view. Since I do allot of late afternoon and evening sports, speed trumps reach.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Tomfl101 wrote:

I pretty much stopped using the 2x extender when I got my R5. I just set the crop to 1.6 which gives me 320mm equivalent while maintaining the 2.8 aperture. I’ve never had a client complain about a lack of resolution or sharpness using it. 320 isn’t 400 but it’s close enough in my view. Since I do allot of late afternoon and evening sports, speed trumps reach.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

Tomfl101 wrote:

I pretty much stopped using the 2x extender when I got my R5. I just set the crop to 1.6 which gives me 320mm equivalent while maintaining the 2.8 aperture. I’ve never had a client complain about a lack of resolution or sharpness using it. 320 isn’t 400 but it’s close enough in my view. Since I do allot of late afternoon and evening sports, speed trumps reach.

Yes, that is an option. Thanks
However, you have to times the aperture by 1.6x also, but it is still under 5.6.

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

I'm not sure what you mean but the aperture remains 2.8 whether your shooting full frame or 1.6 crop.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I have been shooting with an R5 for about a year and a half and really have not felt the need to change to RF lenses from my EF lenses. I have always paid a premium for great glass and just can't believe that the RF lenses really are worth the additional expense. The best lenses from a couple of years ago are still high performing lenses today.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

Tomfl101 wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean but the aperture remains 2.8 whether your shooting full frame or 1.6 crop.

https://youtu.be/f5zN6NVx-hY

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

What Tony is referring to is background blur equivalency. A crop sensor camera will need to be moved farther away from the subject in order to maintain the same image size with the same focal length. This will increase DOF and sharpen the background. But the amount of light striking the sensor will be the same. Switching the R5 from full frame to 1.6 has no effect on exposure. 2.8 is 2.8

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

Tomfl101 wrote:

What Tony is referring to is background blur equivalency. A crop sensor camera will need to be moved farther away from the subject in order to maintain the same image size with the same focal length. This will increase DOF and sharpen the background. But the amount of light striking the sensor will be the same. Switching the R5 from full frame to 1.6 has no effect on exposure. 2.8 is 2.8

Look at video from 2:30 - 3:30 a smaller sensor get less light. So you have to multiply the f- stop by the crop factor also.

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

Not true. Cropping in post is exactly the same as cropping in camera. When you crop in post do you see the image get darker?

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

Tomfl101 wrote:

Not true. Cropping in post is exactly the same as cropping in camera. When you crop in post do you see the image get darker?

We can agree to disagree. Thanks

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

FYI, Tomfl101 is CORRECT ......

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Aperture stays the same. 2.8 is 2.8 whether I put my 70-200 on my full frame 1Dx2 or my H crop sensor 1D MkIII. Or my daughters 1.6 crop body. The same amount of light is passing through the lens it is just hitting a larger or smaller sized sensor. If smaller the rest of the light just doesn’t hit the sensor.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

Notorious T.O.D. wrote:

Aperture stays the same. 2.8 is 2.8 whether I put my 70-200 on my full frame 1Dx2 or my H crop sensor 1D MkIII. Or my daughters 1.6 crop body. The same amount of light is passing through the lens it is just hitting a larger or smaller sized sensor. If smaller the rest of the light just doesn’t hit the sensor.

I agree with your last sentence.