Seeking RF Lens Advice

[alexkizirian]

Hello,

I am a photography enthusiast who enjoys taking primarily Landscape, Portraits, and animal photography (in that order). I currently shoot on the Canon R6 MII and own the RF 16-35 F2.8 and RF 24-105 F4…

I have saved up for a 3rd lense and have been debating between a 50 mm 1.2 and an 85 mm 1.2. I am working on starting a portraits photography side business to help me justify my hobby and the 50 and 85 mm would come in handy. I’ve never used 50 mm before but I have used two 85 mm lenses.
I used to have a canon Ef 85 1.4 and it was was incredible. Loved the quality of photos of that lense especially for its price. When upgrading to the rf system, I bought an RF 85 2.0… I did not like the medoicre boka or the subpar image sharpness so I returned it. I was going to by an 85 mm 1.2 but then I started reading reviews and got the impression that the 55 mm is overall a better and more versatile prime lens not only for portraits but also for landscapes, some Astro photography.. etc..

I’d love to hear from people on their thoughts. After I get either of these, I want to save up for a 100-400 or a 100-500 lense since I love visiting Colorado and shooting wildlife. I want the 100-500 to be better (don’t like the loss in range with extenders…). I look forward to any insight here. I do take some of my images and blow them up into metal prints.

I also do minimal image processing (usually none) and take most photos without a tripod.. I am usually on the move.

I welcome all feedback. Thank you! FYI, here’s a comparison of the ef 85 mm 1.4 shots (girl in red) that I particularly love and 2 85 2.0 equivalents (woman in pink) that made me return it.. I hope a 50 mm 1.2 could do similar things to this 85 mm 1.4 once cropped in..

 

[Terrible Terrestial]

50 mm, either 1.2 or 1.4, is a much more universal lens than the 85. There's a reason 50mm was called the "standard" lens in the traditional 35 mm film photography: it corresponded closely to what naked eye sees. But you can also use it for street, general photography, etc.

So you need to answer your question yourself, because ultimately it boils down to what you understand by "portrait". Portraiture photography is interpreted in various ways. I, for example, love the standard lens portraiture (although I practiced it mostly using the 90 mm Zeiss Planar which is the standard lens in medium-format photography). Standard lenses give you this unsophisticated, not overly "articized" look, and you focus more on the person as they stand in front of you than on the plasticity of the photo. Look at the works of Diane Arbus, Vivian Maier... they would never portrait people using anything else than standard lens. Also, this is not to say you cannot separate the background using a standard lens, which you definitely can in any 1.4 or 1.2 lens. But the perspective distortions are slightly different than in a short tele (which 85mm would be in 35 mm photography). The face is closer to the lens, so it is starting to look more personal or intimate than anything taken with a zoom. Simply because that's how we look at the person with our naked eye.

85 mm is great for a different type of portrait. The model is more distanced from the camera, so they look into the lens in a different way -- the model's eyes are focused closer to infinity. As if there was a precipice between them and the camera. The face is further so the nose is never exaggerated, but the ears on the other hand seem larger. The separation of the background at large aperture opening is stronger, so the look is more dreamy.

Both are amazing lens choices. It is really all in how you, as an artist, want to interpret your "portrait" work.

 

[tpatana]

What he said, 50mm is more versatile for sure. But I love my 85 (DS). Been recently using it more and more as I get used to it. Past few weeks shot multiple portrait sessions as well fashion (runway) shows. Great results in both.

• Canon EOS R5
• RF85mm F1.2 L USM DS
• 85.0 mm
• ƒ/1.2
• 1/200 sec
• ISO 200

• Canon EOS R5
• RF85mm F1.2 L USM DS
• 85.0 mm
• ƒ/1.2
• 1/200 sec
• ISO 3200

• Canon EOS R5
• RF85mm F1.2 L USM DS
• 85.0 mm
• ƒ/1.2
• 1/200 sec
• ISO 3200

For me the choice would be 85mm as I feel the "standard look" of 50mm I can cover with my zoom lense.

 

[alexkizirian]

50 mm, either 1.2 or 1.4, is a much more universal lens than the 85. There's a reason 50mm was called the "standard" lens in the traditional 35 mm film photography: it corresponded closely to what naked eye sees. But you can also use it for street, general photography, etc.

So you need to answer your question yourself, because ultimately it boils down to what you understand by "portrait". Portraiture photography is interpreted in various ways. I, for example, love the standard lens portraiture (although I practiced it mostly using the 90 mm Zeiss Planar which is the standard lens in medium-format photography). Standard lenses give you this unsophisticated, not overly "articized" look, and you focus more on the person as they stand in front of you than on the plasticity of the photo. Look at the works of Diane Arbus, Vivian Maier... they would never portrait people using anything else than standard lens. Also, this is not to say you cannot separate the background using a standard lens, which you definitely can in any 1.4 or 1.2 lens. But the perspective distortions are slightly different than in a short tele (which 85mm would be in 35 mm photography). The face is closer to the lens, so it is starting to look more personal or intimate than anything taken with a zoom. Simply because that's how we look at the person with our naked eye.

85 mm is great for a different type of portrait. The model is more distanced from the camera, so they look into the lens in a different way -- the model's eyes are focused closer to infinity. As if there was a precipice between them and the camera. The face is further so the nose is never exaggerated, but the ears on the other hand seem larger. The separation of the background at large aperture opening is stronger, so the look is more dreamy.

Both are amazing lens choices. It is really all in how you, as an artist, want to interpret your "portrait" work.

Really appreciate the thorough and insightful feedback. I definitely can see that there is flexibility with prime lenses depending on what features you are trying to emphasize. Thanks again!

 

[alexkizirian]

What he said, 50mm is more versatile for sure. But I love my 85 (DS). Been recently using it more and more as I get used to it. Past few weeks shot multiple portrait sessions as well fashion (runway) shows. Great results in both.




View attachment 20661



View attachment 20660


View attachment 20659

For me the choice would be 85mm as I feel the "standard look" of 50mm I can cover with my zoom lense.

Thank you for your insight and for the incredible photos you shared. The photos and the models are stunning. Was there much processing with these images?

 

[tpatana]

Thank you for your insight and for the incredible photos you shared. The photos and the models are stunning. Was there much processing with these images?

Not much processing, basic sliders on LR and then the AI-person-skin for smoothing.

 

[Archibald]

I use the 24-105mm L for portraits, usually shooting at f/8 in the studio and at various apertures as needed elsewhere. I have no need for the thin DOF that a super-fast lens can bring. For full-length shots I am at around 50mm, but for head shots, I'm more at 80-100mm. I have a 50mm/1.8 lens and never use it.

The "standard" focal length that approximates the view of the human eye is considered to be the diagonal of the format - which is 43mm for the 35mm frame and around 75mm for medium format, depending on framing. But for mirrored cameras, it was cheaper to make the lenses a bit longer, because there has to be room for the mirror box. That's why 35mm SLRs had standard lenses of 50 or sometimes 55mm. These lenses were intended for general photography, not for portraits.

Here is a photo of Tatyanna taken at 105mm.

• Canon EOS R5
• RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM
• 105.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/250 sec
• ISO 100

 

[alexkizirian]

I use the 24-105mm L for portraits, usually shooting at f/8 in the studio and at various apertures as needed elsewhere. I have no need for the thin DOF that a super-fast lens can bring. For full-length shots I am at around 50mm, but for head shots, I'm more at 80-100mm. I have a 50mm/1.8 lens and never use it.

The "standard" focal length that approximates the view of the human eye is considered to be the diagonal of the format - which is 43mm for the 35mm frame and around 75mm for medium format, depending on framing. But for mirrored cameras, it was cheaper to make the lenses a bit longer, because there has to be room for the mirror box. That's why 35mm SLRs had standard lenses of 50 or sometimes 55mm. These lenses were intended for general photography, not for portraits.

Here is a photo of Tatyanna taken at 105mm.

View attachment 20789

Excellent photo. Thank you for sharing your insight. I appreciate your perspective.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

I’m going to bring a slightly different perspective to this conversation. If you already have an EF 85 1.4 you can buy a $99 EF to RF converter and still use that lens.

If you really want to get RF lenses the RF 50 1.8 and the 85 2 are wonderful lenses and will set you back 1/4 the price of an RF 85 1.2. I use both of those lenses (For portraiture and general photography) and I find them to be excellent. For their price they’re really hard to beat. A few questions to ask yourself:

1) What kind of portraiture are you going to do? If you’re just doing studio stuff I see the 85 and 50 1.2 a waste of money when you already have an 85 1.4 that you could convert. If you don’t need 1.2 don’t spend 1.2 money.

2) Are you mobile or stationary? This is subjective, but if you’re moving a lot how many lenses do you want to carry? You could spend the same money on an RF 28-70 f2 and cover every single scenario.

3) How much money do you want to spend? With the performance of the 50 1.8 and 85 2 I have a hard time justifying their purchase. The only reason I might pick one of them up (probably the 50) is because I am outside a lot and I get rained on. The weather sealing of the L lenses is nice.

Just some food for thought.

 

[Photofarmer]

Good thread good comments such a good non judgemental site rfshooters.