Canon RF Lenses (Page 2): The "OLD" EF 85's Imatest scores are quite low compared to ANY of the new stuff. The RF 85 f2 macro scores very impressively high ! I have shot some with the...

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

User ID wrote:

in the EF series there’s absolutely nothing shabby or second rate about the non-L 85. Hopefully the RF series follows suit.

The "OLD" EF 85's Imatest scores are quite low compared to ANY of the new stuff. The RF 85 f2 macro scores very impressively high ! I have shot some with the old 85 and was never impressed.
.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

imagemeister wrote:

The "OLD" EF 85's Imatest scores are quite low compared to ANY of the new stuff. The RF 85 f2 macro scores very impressively high ! I have shot some with the old 85 and was never impressed.
.

The EF 85mm f/1.8 was one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned. As is the EF 100mm f/2. I only gave it up to have the much larger and much more expensive L version when they added IS to the f/1.4L model. If I new IBIS was just a few years over the horizon, I wouldn't have changed.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

CHG_CANON wrote:

The EF 85mm f/1.8 was one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned. As is the EF 100mm f/2. I only gave it up to have the much larger and much more expensive L version when they added IS to the f/1.4L model. If I new IBIS was just a few years over the horizon, I wouldn't have changed.

The 100 f2 is slightly better .....

Opusx300

piperplt wrote:

I have a 24-240 R lens that I purchased for my R5.... (show quote)

I had the 24-240 on my R5 and did not have a great experience as my photos tended to have a greenish tint to them.

cactuspic Loc: Dallas, TX

I have two that I have used extensively and like them immensely. I recently posted wood duck pictures with the RF 800. It is sharp, extremely light, and a bit quirky. A fun lens to use that gets you to 800mm cheaper than any option I know of.

Until my buddy show me how sharp his images were with the RF 24-240, I never would have considered the lens. Because of it's range, it is my walk around lens.

I have not used the RF 85mm but I would be surprised if it did not render a quality image. My suggestion is to purchase one from a reputable merchant that accepts returns, such as B&H. Save the packing and put the lens through it's paces. Then decide. I doubt you will return the lens. I think what you will find is that you have good optics in a lighter, non weatherproofed body, that does not have the fast apertures, trucklike build, or the Nth performance factor of their "L" counterparts. I suspect you will be happy with the tradeoffs.

Irwin

Opusx300

cactuspic wrote:

I have two that I have used extensively and like t... (show quote)

Thank you Irvin. Maybe I will try again. I loved the optics. Maybe the green tint can be chalked up to a bad copy

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

Thank you everyone. My R5 should be in stock in a couple weeks. After I use it for awhile, I'll be selling my 5D Mark IV. I'll use that money on a RF lens.

MountainDave

CHG_CANON wrote:

The EF 85mm f/1.8 was one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned. As is the EF 100mm f/2. I only gave it up to have the much larger and much more expensive L version when they added IS to the f/1.4L model. If I new IBIS was just a few years over the horizon, I wouldn't have changed.

I agree. The fact that Canon has produced it continuously for 30 years without needing an upgrade speaks for itself. I have read the 1.4 is pretty amazing.

I read some reviews of the RF85 2.0 yesterday. There is praise for the IQ and it is a better all arounder than the EF 1.8 but Dustin Abbott found the AF performance disappointing. Depending on what one wants to shoot with it, it may or may not be an issue. Reviewers make the RF 1.2 sound like the second coming. Of course, at 2800., it should be!

rcarol

imagemeister wrote:

Have not tried them - but as regards optical acuity, the Imatest numbers I have seen show them to be slightly optically sharper than their EF counterparts - but not quite as good as the Nikon Z lenses

.

I have the 24-105 STM RF non L version and I find it to be an exceptional lens. I do beleive that it is sharper overall than my 24-105 f:4 EF L MK I lens. For me, it was a good purchase. However, it should be noted that while it is very good optically. it is not wearther proof.

Jersey guy Loc: New Joisey

This whole discussion is reminiscent of my early forays into Hi Fi (now referred to as "Stereo") back in the 50's-60's. Everyone was all hung up on frequency response, harmonic distortion, cross-over distortion, etc., and all Audiophiles had to get latest and greatest. Now, I just listen to great music and don't give a rat's patootie about those things.

JhnMhn

Tracy B. wrote:

I am wondering if the Canon RF lenses non "L" are good. I've read mixed reviews and wondered if any of you have tried them?

I have the RF 35 f1.8 macro and am very pleased with it. Small, light, very good optically, and very versatile on my R5.
This is great to carry easily along with my RF 100-500 to have a wide angle available just in case.
My only disappointment is that comatic aberration isn’t acceptable for Astro photography without stopping down to f2.8-F4…but I knew this when I bought it. Had the EF 35 f2 previously, this RF 35 is better optically and really fun to play around with close-up images that relate the foreground subject to the background while still avoiding the visual jumble of too much depth of field. The lens IS allows me to be more compositionally flexible without being fixed to a tripod.

User ID

imagemeister wrote:

The "OLD" EF 85's Imatest scores are quite low compared to ANY of the new stuff. The RF 85 f2 macro scores very impressively high ! I have shot some with the old 85 and was never impressed.
.

Imatest scores ... ROTFLMFAO !

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

User ID wrote:

Imatest scores ... ROTFLMFAO !

You'll have to spell it out for me .......

User ID

imagemeister wrote:

Have not tried them - but as regards optical acuity, the Imatest numbers I have seen show them to be slightly optically sharper than their EF counterparts - but not quite as good as the Nikon Z lenses

.

Imatest numbers ... ROTFLMFAO.

(Download)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

User ID wrote:

Imatest numbers ... ROTFLMFAO.

I'm glad you are so impressed .......

and provide so much entertainment ....