Sharpest 85mm lens for Canon R5 RF 85mm f2 Macro v RF 1.2 L USM v EF Sigma Art 1.4 EOS Review Part 2

[@anthonyk27]

From what you have said and shown, the RF f2 gives you a lot more bang for your buck, in my opinion. F2, with affordable price, isn't going to equal a lens like the RF 1.2 or Sigma 1.4, just spec-to-spec. However, considering the price and ability to shoot macro (that is helpful for portraits, weddings,product photography & video) its just more versatile dollar-to-dollar. If one is on a tighter budget, like me, the RF 85 f2 just seems like a great lens. Sometimes skill will push the lens, and give one more than just a spec driven lens. Thanks for the very informative, detailed and organized comparison that shows all the features top to bottom! It was very helpful

[@JohnGress]

Thanks Kennedy! I think that is a very good conclusion. Its also a big step up from the EF 85mm f1.8.

[@MichaelGAubrey]

This is sort of what I was expecting from your first video. I thought there might be a slight difference where the focus point was landing, so that there was more in focus further back with the Sigma85Art & RF85/1.2L. Thanks for the follow up!

[@JohnGress]

No problem. Sorry I didn't see this sooner, but I have never seen fall off like this before.

[@damiancanteros]

There is some clarity on the sigma which I really like.

[@AnthonyToglife]

I get people's thought that testing corner sharpness with curvature isn't as precise...but one (me) could argue that two of the three lenses still show sharpness where the macro falls off so that still indicates something...

[@JohnGress]

Yeah, unfortunately, to me it indicates the macro isn't going to work for beauty and hair photography which is most of my business. I am not sure if I said this in my video. Regardless I definitely learned something making this video.

[@runcmd1419]

For general portraiture (not beauty / hair) i find myself softening the hairline in my wide open portraits in post. Not sure if it is the best course of action though.

[@JohnGress]

Well this 85f2 may be for you. I have found over time doing less is more, and applying as many changes as possible in LR or C1 makes it easy to reverse them if your style changes later.

[@runcmd1419]

@@JohnGress Brushing in negative clarity in C1 seems to work well. I find the defocus>sharp

[@JoBo-PhotoArt]

What is noticeable when they are all taken with the same light set is that the f 1.2 has the nicest skin tone with the least highlights.

[@vipersrt30]

after i have seen tests from other people who examined the 85mm f2 lens i think this might not be the most accurate representation. it could be a little bit of a misunderstanding since this might not be an exact perfect comparison outside of the eye sharpness examination. your model is a human and any slight adjustment to the position of your model may cause a shift of how the focal plane is on the lips or the forehead or the hairline. as you noticed how "not so sharp" the 85mm 1.2 on the lips at once, that can be caused by your model moving the chin forward ever so slightly. and the same thing can be said about the forehead for the 85mm f2 test. since your model is most likely holding the same post during the test of a single lens since you can shoot them consecutively while when you switch lenses, you take a little bit of extra time and there you get a possibility of posture change. examining the eye area is accurate enough since any shifts in posture is gonna be compensated by the eye AF in camera. but the forehead or lips sharpness at this point is not exactly the best way to determine sharpness.

[@JohnGress]

The sharpness differences were consistent across multiple shots. As a person who makes the bulk of their income doing beauty and hair shoots, the test was directly applicable to my needs and the choice was abundantly clear.

[@juanmaasecas]

The plane of focus is not perfectly flat. What you are seeing is different waveforms on the focus field of different lenses, not a lens being sharper or not outside the center. I recommend you read a few articles from lensrentals blog.

[@JohnGress]

Can you please link to what you're referring to? What I am seeing is that the macro lens is not preforming the way I needed it to.

[@1fareast14]

@@JohnGress www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/11/practical-use-of-field-curvature-graphs-the-50mm-primes/ is an example. You can test field curvature by focusing in the corner, and seeing if it sharpens up. If it does, the center will go out of focus. I'd be surprised though, because macro lenses are designed for technical purposes, and tend not to exhibit field curvature.

[@juzrhyme712]

Honestly imma just go with the sigma, the RF is cheaper but ill just save more and get something a bit better but not as expensive at the 1.2 RF

[@JohnGress]

Its a good middle of the road choice.

[@juzrhyme712]

@@JohnGress Yes thank you John

[@gregdurfee1915]

I've watched both parts and I think this is the best comparison of the 85s I've seen; thank you! I have the RF 85mm f/2. You tested all 3 lenses at the same fixed distances, which I agree is the best way to judge their comparative performance. But you're a professional portrait photographer, and I imagine that one of the factors you consider for every subject shoot is tailoring the bokeh for the effect you're looking for, so besides lighting, you have aperture and distance options to choose. So, I'd be interested in your opinion of the differences between the 2 Canon lenses when you adjust the distances to get the same framing; your test shows that the f/1.2 is a little greater than 85mm. Do you think the f/1.2 fares ever better in performance in this case, or are the differences reduced?

[@JohnGress]

Thanks! Increased focal length would result in more things out of focus at 1.2. 95% of the time I am shooting at f5.6-11 because normally my style is to have more things in focus so I was curious if the 85f2 would work for me, plus I am more inclined to use a 50mm wide open on location. But I just can live with out of focus hair at f8 on a head shot because most of my work is in the beauty industry.

[@robmcd]

@@JohnGress can’t live? I’m here a year later disappointed that there still isn’t an RF 85 1.4. Or DG DN Sigma.

[@G0b1i17an]

Nice review! I have EF 85 1.8 for portrait and food/subject photo. Does new RF 2.0 more sharper than EF version?

[@Promikes]

I have only one question - Why shots on the f2 looks so overexposed? This highlights and contrast looks cheap to both competitors, any idea - why? And plane of focus - is questioanable... i would test more - with static objects, this can be "human factor" otherwise it is impossible bad, but i don't trust this, srsly) can't be true on RF macro lens

[@JohnGress]

Different lenses have different levels of contrast so I am sure this is something that could be recovered from the RAW Files. Also the volume of light hitting the sensor on one model can be more or less than a different model at the same aperture. As for the plane of focus - you just saw 4 images in this video where the same exact thing happened in each frame, the RF f2 was soft outside of the center. If only one of them was soft I could attribute it to a focusing error but not all four The shape of his head didn't change between lens swaps, the camera position / tripod didn't move and you can see when the images from all three lenses are zoomed to fit on the screen that his head position is the same with all three lenses. The idea of using a lens test chart or a newspaper is not really applicable to a people photographer. I need to know how the lens is going to react when photographing a persons head. I am not sure what you mean in your last sentence given the typos, but it seems like you're saying you don't like results of this test so they can't be true. But why would I get the same results from this lens in this test every time? Why would you expect a $600 lens would out perform a $1200 or $2700 lens? I went into this test wanting the f2 to succeed, but it didn't. There is a reason why this lens doesn't have a red stripe.

[@Promikes]

@@JohnGress I completely solid with you about the red stripe - it is clear no-brainer in the comparison, by the way sigma's smoothness is great too, it looks more "alive" and less clinic, more like EF style i think. I just don't understand how such bug can appear on this lens, because I've saw many of tests on youtube and never seen this mentioned. At the moment I want to order this for my R6... But after your review) you broke my dream and I have no money on L, and I don't want outdated Sigma's, and I have no time to wait for new Sigma RF's) I need 85 now... Would be great if you have Samyang RF 85mm f1.4 also (but i think everything on this list will outperform this...still, who knows). Watched like 5-6 videos on your channel, great information - thank you, this really helps out, and differs from the rest.

[@JohnGress]

Thanks man - good points. The 1.2 is insanely priced. I bought the f2 after watching Gordon Laing's review kzbin.info/www/bejne/hWjdqqmVft6gZpI but, he like many reviewers, only showed what the lenses can do wide open and he didn't move around his frames. He just zoomed in where the only details were eye brow to chin, which of course doesn't have the same depth as eyebrow to hairline. The total lack of videos showing the results at different f-stops is why I realized I had to buy the lenses and conduct this test on my own so I would know what was the best lens for me is as an F8 hair photographer. Maybe the lens I received was a bad copy, but I can't prove it either way because no one else tested it the way I tested it. Everyone is just obsessed with showing the bokeh. I really wanted to results to show that the f2 was the best choice for me, but i just wasn't. Now I think I know why a Canon ambasador positioned it in her video as a great choice for parents wanting to buy their first prime lens.

[@Promikes]

@@JohnGress got it, also want to mention that for me 1.2 in details make "picture" look like its made on medium format - very crisp and accurate on details, man)) later i will buy it))

[@creatorprocourses8477]

Interesting comparison... I would love to see you review the two different Canon 85mm f/1.2 lenses.

[@JohnGress]

Thank you so much!

[@theshopper6902]

John, I have canon 700d and using 50mm f1.8 lens.. So for my crop sensor size.. It is giving me 80mm focal length.. So I stand a way back and using camera horizonal,click full body photo of my brother.. But the background blur is very less and unfortunately I can't come closer to my model to capture head to toe! Is this issue same with full frame camera using 85mm focal length lens with f1. 8?? I can't find any answer on google 🙏😩

[@JohnGress]

It sounds like you feel you have too much depth-of-field and crop sensors have more depth-of-field than full frame sensors.

[@theshopper6902]

@@JohnGress ohh so the f value also multiply with crop factor! Actually there is no specific answer to this... If someone has focal length same as full frame and aperture f1. 8 then how why there comes the difference

[@JohnGress]

Try looking of depth of field. It’s a combination of the f number and the sensor size.

[@theshopper6902]

@@JohnGress ohh, so I need full frame overall! And if I use 85mm lens for full body shot, the depth of field will be sallow. John one more question, since you take vertical photos of pro. models, how do you fit the photos to Instagram dimensions 1:1/4:3..as vertical photos leave a very less space in both sides.. Do you photoshop to stretch the sides?

[@1fareast14]

@@theshopper6902 You can get the appx field of view and aperture (on an ff camera) by multiplying the lens specs by the crop factor. The 1.5 (1.6 for canon) factor comes from the diagonal dimension of the sensor. The reason you go from 1.8 to 2.88 equivalent is because the lens projects the same concentration of light per area, but less of that area is being collected. However, you're not going to get a huge difference in blur by going FF with that same lens. You'll get more light, but the blur circles will actually look the same or smaller, because of the wider field of view. Can I ask why you need that much blur? 80mm 2.8eq. is more than enough for most applications. My MFT portrait lens is 85mm 3.4 equivalent, and I still stop down most of the time. Maybe find better backgrounds that work as part of your images. Blurring them out all the time won't save you. Also have a look at this focal length comparison: www.arri.com/resource/blob/197740/644b2963addc86146bc3eb22131388ff/signature-prime-focal-length-comparison-consistent-look-m08-1160x653-300dpi-grey-data.jpg If you want to do full body shots, you'll have to stand farther away, or use a wider lens. Finally, the DSLR aps-c systems are not kind to those who want fast primes, because they are traps for those who want to spend little. The lens sets are deliberately kept bare so people say "ohh, so I need full frame overall!" Sounds like 50, 85, 135 focal lengths will be your bread and butter. Price out your limit for both body and lens, and buy used. Look at sample images to judge bokeh. The sigma 56mm 1.4 may work, and old Sony/Fuji/Canon bodies can be found cheap. The Canon 6D (used) is still running in the $500 range. If you're just shooting your brother for IG, I can't help you about the cropping, but I can say that you shouldn't shell out yet. Try blurring the background digitally with something like GIMP. It'll be a lot cheaper.

[@MosleydollMUA]

Hello from the UK 😊, trying to decide on a 85mm lens for my portraits, I’m so grateful I found this one as I was considering the sigma and wanted to compare it with the 85 f2 . From what your saying I’m still not sure lol. How about the background bokeh? Is the sigma better at producing it or the rf 85 f2 ? Hope you respond 🤞

[@JohnGress]

I glad you found it too! If you’re stuck between the Sigma and the F2 lens and budget is not an issue, then I would definitely go with the sigma lens because that sharpness fall off I noticed on the f2 lens would be a deal breaker for me.

[@davidrodgersphotography]

Thanks for putting this video and the initial one out, they are extremely informative. On the focal length of the rf 1.2, is it tighter versus the other two lenses? On the head shots it does seem more punched in than the other two, but on the wider shots they all seem about the same, that may be just a result of me viewing on KZbin on my phone though :) Again thanks for the review, you have saved me from spending money only to be disappointed!!!

[@JohnGress]

Thanks David. I really appreciate it. IYou can tell on a bigger screen that he is bigger in the full body photos. Everything was shot on a tripod and I didn't move it between shots.

[@JustinMyersPhoto]

Cool follow up! I think some of the differences in sharpness seem to be due to the rendering of flat lens element in the macro lens vs the typical, more rounded elements in the other lenses. When you create a lens for versatility like the RF 85mm f2, there have to be compromises somewhere. Although the overall quality and versatility of that lens for the price is impressive, it just can’t keep up with the RF 85mm L in everything 👍 good stuff

[@JohnGress]

I guess you did see part 2! Good points. It is a great value.

[@JustinMyersPhoto]

@@JohnGress 👍

[@michaelmottlau5941]

Well done, thanks.

[@JohnGress]

Thanks! I hope it helped inform your decision.

[@projecthowto]

Great review!

[@JohnGress]

Thanks!

[@Mowikan]

If you have the time and could borrow a fuji x-t4 with the 50mmf1 I would love to see the difference:)

[@JohnGress]

That would be interesting.

[@manishpanwar6626]

Hi John, if u use a flat subject such as a sheet of paper with Lines & Text printed on it will give us much accurate findings as the plane of focus remains the same. Thank for making videos, helps us a lot.

[@JohnGress]

That is true, but what I need to know if how the lenses will react when focusing on people. Most of my work is related to the beauty industry and if I cant have a sharp lip and hair at f8 it doesn't matter how sharp the lens is in the center or on a test chart.

[@peterthart531]

Much appreciated. The 85 1.2 is for sure more like a 90....which is fine. I loved my old Summicron 90 f/2 but alas in the digital age I cannot justify Leica purchases.

[@JohnGress]

Thanks man! I wish I had noticed this sooner, but at least i got the info out there.

[@jiwobawono7586]

Thank you very much sir. I conciderate RF 85mm F.2 for my gear for budget and I decided to get one. Thanks again for the review and comparation.

[@JohnGress]

Glad I could help! Congrats!

[@timothyconner3474]

I'm thinking the average person won't see much of a difference vs the pixels peeping photographers that we are.

[@afcl1984]

You should try the Samyang

[@EugeneMaynard]

🙏🏾

[@JohnGress]

Thank you!

[@un_cetatean]

Sharpness is way overrated these days cause 80-90% of people are watching our photography work on smartphones or crappy laptop screens lol.

[@zecchinon]

Partially true. In his case I believe some of his work demands big prints.

[@JohnGress]

Thanks @Fernando Zequinão. True. As a commercial hair and beauty photographer the sharpness in the mid-fame from the F2 just wont cut it.

[@vladimirtalijan]

Nobody should care about "sharpness" at 300%, Canon lenses have significantly better colors than Sigma, look at the skintones, and also they are better built and have better AF. Every 3rd party lens is reverse engineered, that will never work as good and as reliable. It's not about unlimited sharpness, that's only what beginners are looking for.

[@JohnGress]

This video discusses sharpness as fit to screen and 100%, plus it concludes that the Sigma lens is not the best choice. Perhaps you did not watch the video. As a professional with over 25 years of experience, who makes the bulk of their income doing beauty and hair shoots, the sharpness test was directly applicable to my needs and the choice was abundantly clear.

[@acephotography4893]

Sigma is a terrible brand

[@JohnGress]

It was pretty much on par with the EF 85 1.4 🤷🏼‍♂️