Well you see, your comparison images are at completely different distances of different sized subjects, distance, subject size and etc all control bokeh... This comparison is actually pretty but but I like the actual images. :)
An 85 is a headshot lens. Sure, it can shoot any type of shot you want, but its bread and butter is the headshot. The only headshots here, were with the 70-200. Also, many of the 85's subjects were very distant, and we all know that's an instant bokeh fail so I wouldn't say that was terribly fair. But the overall point is still valid, you can make one look like the other, however an 85mm f/1.2 isn't an industry standard for nothing.
Not a fair comparison for the RF85 IMO. Need the same bg and subject to see the different. Of course at 200mm you got the compression look and while the samples of the 85 are just boring backlit or busy/ distracting bg in the couple image. Versatility = zoom; everything else = prime
I own both. I can tell they are for different proposes. You can make them look similar outside but when you are inside and limited with tight space nothing can replace 85/1.2 because you can’t use 200 mm everywhere and you can clearly see difference between 85/1.2 and 85/2.8
I believe you only need to get to about 130 on the zoom for similar DoF with same framing, but you still have a point. However, the flip side is that you also have 200mm as an option on the zoom to really crush things.
Which one wins? We’ll, that depends on what you are comparing. Your title suggests depth of field is the comparison, and for that the 85 f/1.2 is clearly the winner (assuming framing is the same, i.e. focal length and distance to subject.). What your examples do show, however, is that both lenses do a nice job of rendering out of focus backgrounds and that, when zoomed in, the 70-200 makes a great outdoor portrait lens. Incidentally, 85 1.2 and 130 2.8 have the same depth of field (for same distance to subject), but the field of view is obviously different. If I could only have one? Yeah, definitely would pick the 70-200. As you point out, it’s way more versatile and can be used to take great portraits with shallow DoF at appropriate focal lengths. I still want an 85 f/1.2. Actually, mine is in the mail right now! :-)
I think that the 85 RF 1.2 stands out at Night time with the Boque and + 2 stops of exposure - the images are beautiful! But what I think is that everyone needs RF 28-70 F2.0 + RF 70-200 F2.8 + RF 85 1.2... Thats my DREAM
Some issues I have with this "review/comparison". * No mention of the 1.5 Stops of light loss with the *DS version? * No mention of the 8-Stops of IBIS with RF85mmL lenses on R5/R6 cameras? * For the closer subjects, the background was closer. * No mention of the AMAZING results from BR Optics on the RF85mmL? * There's a large performance difference in extremely low light. * Framing needs to be about the same with subject & backgrounds. It wasn't. I use both lenses and there's quite a difference that you don't seem to have coaxed out during this comparison video. The DS coating was designed to smooth out the bright edges of defocused light (ie "Bokeh Balls") yet you made no such use of this lens in this respect. The Canon Blue Spectrum Refractive Optics are quite an amazing technological addition to the new RF lenses but you neither mention nor applied it in this video. You shot the child with 200mm with almost a quarter kilometer of distance behind the kid to those distant trees in the background. Then you shot the couple with the 85mm with the background merely a dozen meters away. These lenses are apples and oranges to each other and have a different lens character to one another. You appear to have missed out on these aspects.
I agree it would have been better with same subjects, but I don't agree that the 70-200 shots are 'tighter' The one that had the shallowest depth of field look was of his child and that was one of the widest shots. It is more about background selection and distance than tightness.
There's no reason to be nasty in the comments. Comments should be constructive. I do think the comparison would have been more helpful if they were taken with the same subject, the same framing, and the same background.
This video addresses the question I had but I wish you had taken the stills of the same scene with each lens to compare them side by side the way Dustin Abbott does it.
I just ordered a 70-200, so totally agree with the video; I would like to say that when I got to handle both I did feel like the differences between the 85 1.2, and the 70-200 2.8 were much more apparent in low light (especially so since the model I got to compare with was the DS). I will eventually have both, but the 70-200 is just way, way more useful for general use, and probably should be purchased first by 99% of people.
The RF 70-200 was a great purchase. The compact design is incredibly useful for packing my rolling case, allowing me to travel with it vertically in the bag instead of laying flat. Optically, I couldn’t be more delighted. However, the EF 85mm f/1.4L has not been replaced for me. Primes still get packed when I see fit.
As a portraitist, there is one key advantage for the 85mm: the distance between me and the model. I think the 85mm gives the perfect distance to keep contact and communicate easily with models without "shouting", that is not easy anymore when I have to frame a full body at 135 or 200mm. The feeling is not the same. In some situations, framing at 200mm can make the model look small compared to the environment while the 85mm keeps good proportions, no surprise. But overall the 70 200 is fantastic and a smarter choice for its versatility.
While I agree, I wouldn't think that the difference from being 85mm to 135mm would be 15-20 meters further away to keep the same framing lol, so I don't think it would mean the difference between talking normaly and shouting.
I have the EF 85 1.4 and EF 70-200 and agree on the aesthetics. I found I don't need it after all and will sell it on eBay. I am not into portrait photography. I am an enthusiast spending his retirement bucks! The EF 70-200 is quite heavy, I won't be getting the RF version. Your little one is darling! BTW So far all of my EF L lenses shoot so well on my R5/6 that I will be buying very few RF lenses; the R5 is an awesome camera! BTW2 I shot some at ISO 12000 and was blown away how little real noise and Topaz Denoise AI fixed what was there!
Completely agree with u. There are so many advantages on the 70-200 (IS, Zoom, more compression, fast focus etc etc). Biggest advantage on the 85 is the light gathering (which is negated on the DS). Really a no brainer. I would complement the 70-200 with an rf 50 1.2. Previously the size of the 70-200 was an issue but the RF is so ridiculously small now.
I think this is an age-old debate and it is interesting where things have ended up with these modern systems. On Nikon DSLR, all the way back to the D70, I always opted for the 85 (or the 105 a little later on). However this was due to very different rendering (as you stated) and size/weight. Canon has totally upended things with the RF70-200/2.8 as it is so easy to take with you being it is collapsable and made of lighter materials. I ended up going the zoom route with the RF. It is just killer. I remain a little 85-curious, but don't have the appetite to add it at this time. Thanks for the comparison. I had the Z 70-200S lens for Nikon as well. What a lens! I think it bests the RF on sharpness and works incredibly well with 1.4x and 2.0x TC. However, it is a monster, Canon has much better bodies in the R5/R6 and the RF renders very well with slightly better bokeh. Really, can't go wrong with either system's 70-200.
I was thinking of combining the 28-70mm F2 RF and the 70-200mm f2.8 RF for most of my needs. Might need something at the lower end but that can wait for now.
Sorry but it felt like you compared your best pictures using 70-200 against some of your average pictures using 85mm. I am sure that wasn’t your intention, but that’s what it looks like.
I was about to head to the store to buy the RF 85 1.2, but now you've really got me thinking. I do often shoot in spaces that might not let me go up to 135mm or higher, so I still might need the 85. But man...I do like that 70-200. It's a tough decision. I'm also thinking of getting the 24-70 f/2.8 at the same time.
Thanks so much for this video! I was asking myself all these questions trying to decide between the 85 and the 70-200. Clearly, with aesthetics so close, versatility of the 70-200 wins.
i have both but i get tired of the 70-200 for portraits because you have to back up far to get the look sometimes u just dont have the room. if using strobes, you have to walk back and forth a lot to move the strobes if there is no assistant wasting a lot of time.
@@RayValdezPhotography bruh you're complaining about something simple like moving your strobe by yourself. It's giving tired and lazy. Do what it takes to get the shot.
I’ve definitely learned to take more photos from really far back - seeing a 200mm baby shot with the baby small in the frame and still tonnes of bokeh is a really interesting look that must require so much distance but definitely gives the subject a much bigger frame compared to everything being super tight all the time. Thanks for a great video!
This video is completely incorrect on bokeh, the RF 85 1.2 looks far nicer on the same subject, at the same size in frame. Unlike any of your video did with a ton of misrepresentations of the lenses and using them on completely different subject sizes with different background distances. Not to mention the RF 85 1.2 is sharper and far easier to use for portrait sessions due to needing to be less than half the distance to the subject than the RF 70-200 2.8.
A great and clear review backed by substantive evidence . I own the 70-200 mm 2.8 and as a keen enthusiast there is little justification for me to own either the 50 or 85 in the 1.2 range. Thank you.
Think your missing the point, the 85 1.2 is a dedicated portrait lens, it will give a result unachievable with a 70-200 At 1.2 that magic fall off with just eyes in focus is a look worth owning the 85mm for, Also think your comparison is flawed not shooting the same subject at the same time with each lens and comparing the results side by side, I don’t disagree the 70-200 is more versatile and will deliver every time, but the 85mm just has that little bit of magic that makes it different, That’s why it’s 1.2 and not 2.8
@@TheEastbelfast yeah i am saying that i have the ef version and still used the 70-200 over it all the time. Now that i have the rf i use it more mainly because the focus is a lot better.
it seems that the author is surprised with the fact that you can get shallow depth of field shooting on 70-200 on the far end. Just use the any DoF calc and you'll find out that you can get a more shallow depth of field with 24-105 F4 then with 28-70 F2.8 The reason to take prime - are: you can shoot in much darker conditions you can shoot at a close distance and there is no need to shout to your model and at you will get sharper images (if you work in ads - you'll notice the difference in sharpness for sure)
I have the Samyang 85 1.4 RF and for the price it’s great. However it is slower AF and I miss 10% of the shots. However it’s quite a difference in price.
The Samyang is an amazing lens. It's sharper than the 70-200 in my shots and has a unique positive character. It's an amazing value compared to the Canon 85's. Make sure you have the latest firmware. In my view anyone having to make a choice between the 70-200 and the Canon 85 because of cost should get the 70-200 and the Samyang/Rokinon.
Thanks for this video, it's really really useful. I'm buying the 70 - 200mm RF F/2.8 next week. I have been shooting portraits on the 50mm F1.2 which is similar to the 85 version and also the 135mm L EF F2 with adapter for the R5. Both these lenses are being sold with the money going towards the new RF 70 - 200mm which should replace them nicely and I'll end up with more versatility of a telephoto zoom, one that shoots images like a prime. I'm really excited for this lens.
I guess you guys never shoot indoors, because it's difficult enough to frame with a 85mm rather than a 50mm, I can't imagine shooting on a longer fl just to emulate an 85mm-kind of background
Definitely a valid point considering the minimum distance you need to actually get a comparable bokeh. Of course also the other effects should be considered. Like compression, which can work for or against you depending on situation and/or subject. Not to forget low light capability
I own both, and use the Rf70-200 a lot for weddings, events and sport. I am fortunate enough to have two bodies and pair this with the Rf28-70 f2 and basically these have you covered. However, when I am taking portraits then the 85 is on one camera and the 28-70 on the other. I am not a fan of over compressed backgrounds that 150-200mm gives you to get similar background blur and you are disconnected from you subjects. To be honest, you can work around it but you feel compromised and if you are tight on space this might not be possible. The extra light you gain gives you cleaner images indoors when shooting natural light. I can’t wait for the 135 to come out as this might be f1.4 which if that is the case it will be amazing but I would still like a 70-135 f2 as that would off the scale…..pretty heavy too I should think but worth it!😂
@@jkahn923 The 28-70mm is so versatile and sharp that it basically stays on the camera most of the time. But the 85mm rocks it at 1.2 and has a look which is quite unique. If you can afford both go for it!
Nice review and it kept moving, not stuck too long on one thing. With your uses I'm sure the 70-200 suits better as you state. However you were comparing a lot at 200mm focal lengths also full body portraits, less headshots / beauty shots. So you compared a relatively narrow use case but did so very well. I use the EF85mm 1.2 ii a lot, I have the 70-200 2.8, it just doesn't do the job as well. So it's horses for courses, the bokeh quality and extent difference between the two can be huge. My only issue is the focus speed but this is very rarely a make / break, I still stick with the 1.2 99%. Evening and club scene the 85 1.2 is hands down the better. In fact I sometimes regret carting the extra weight of the 70-200 with me for the minimal use it gets. If I was shooting sports or paparazi style, ok, the 70-200 has it, but then I'd probably take the 70-300 4.5L anyway.
The 50mm 1.2 and the 85mm 1.2 are two of the most iconic RF primes on the market. While they share many similarities, there are also some key differences between the two lenses. The 50mm 1.2 is a versatile lens that is perfect for everyday photography, while the 85mm 1.2 is a specialized lens that is ideal for portraiture.
good impression of these two lenses. but totally different photos compared. you took picture of small subject (baby) with a 2.8 lens and big subjects from a distance with 1.2 lens, what is the point of comparing background blur here.
I got both RF lenses. But especialy for indoor portraits the focal lengths needed with the 70-200 to get a good background spearation are often too long. Also outdoors the 85 is easier to use since you can get closer (e.g. street photography) while maintaining an intense background spearation.
I have to disagree! I think the 85 shines when you fill the frame with your subject. The images you shared from the 85 have smaller subjects, where your 70-200 images fill the frame(except for your baby, but with small subject you can get much closer). Anyway, not really a direct comparison, which defeats the purpose. I have to say the the RF 70-200 bokeh seems smoother.
As an enthusiast, I have the EF 85 f/1.2 L II and like the creamy look and now adapted to my Nikon body. The RF 70-200 f/2.8 is liked my Nikon 50 f/1.2 S that has the sharp and smooth look, different from the 85 f/1.2 L II. Personally, I'm OK with my 50 f/1.2 S because the focal length isn't just for portraits (full length doesn't need to be creamy) but for general purposes and probably the same thought to the lens trinity too. Of course, besides depth, there are the focusing distance (85 mm for 3/4 body shot) and low light considerations. Anyway, it seems the new lenses from both Nikon and Canon are more tailored to the modern looks (sharp & bokeh), while the DSLR lenses are suited for the bygone era. 🙂
Both the RF 85mm f1.2 & the 70-200mm f2.8 lenses offer fantastic quality. No doubt, for most people the 70-200mm is much more versatile. However, the 70-200mm is NOT compatible with Canon 1.4 & 2.0 teleconverters. I used the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 lens to cover high school sporting/ candid events for over 15 years.The EF version of this zoom was fantastic & I never had to have the lens serviced by Canon for any reason. A real “workhorse” of a lens. I feel Canon should have made the RF 70-200mm compatible with at least the 1.4 teleconverter.
Separation of subject is comparable but you can’t get such lens compression with the 85mm. But like someone else mentioned already, you need to have that space to increase distance from you and your subject to shoot at 150-200mm. Just depends on your use cases.
I have a super old EF 70-200 F4L that I should probably replace first prior to buying the 85 1.2 but I can't help myself! I love that focal length and just want the best prime I can get at that length. When I need the reach of the 70-200 I'll just cross my fingers that the F4 will be good enough for the situation that I'm in. You've made a compelling argument here though and I can see that a smarter person would probably choose the 70-200 2.8.
as I understand it, the DS versions of the rf85mm 1.2 shoots like a 1.8 or f2 due to the coating and canons admitted 1.3 stops of light loss. Ive seen a few videos where people say the NON DS version is blurrier than the DS version. I want to know your thoughts. I am presented with an opportunity to purchase BOTH 70-200 and the 85 1.2 but wanted to know mores pecifically your response to the DS version.
Bokeh is just one factor. What about sharpness? Also, you mentioned low light benefits and that is also a big difference as you can work longer into the golden hour with cleaner files. But, yes, good to know the legendary Canon 70-200 is getting more legendary. I love both these lenses.
The zoom really looks terrific. I think the 85/1.2 would make more sense for fashion/beauty in a studio or for tighter portraits and then it would give you image quality that competes with larger format cameras.
In a studio, one does not normally shoot at f1.2... One shoots at f8/f11, or f5.6. At these focal lengths, images are sharp across the image. As for tight portraits, 85mm is within the 70-200 focal range..
@@alexandre..9343 The image quality of the RF L primes (the 50 and the 85) is in its own league and looks different, even at these smaller apertures. Beauty and fashion-in studio or on location-are a surely among its most common commercial applications.
I own the RF 70-200 F2.8 and love it BUT to get nice DOF and blurry background you need to be at 150+mm. Also, the rendering is totally different. For example the 85 blurry the backgrounds while still showing how far away the background is and the 70-200 compress the background so much that you cant tell how far away something really is. Is just a matter of preference really.
Thank you. Very interesting. I just today bought a used RF 85/1.2L to add to my kit but I do already own the RF 70-200/2.8L Is. I guess I will have to do your test to see if I end up keeping it. Wish I had seen your video a week ago. Take care.
Thanks for the review. I thought it was nice to know at what focal length the 70-200 could deliver the same DOF look as the 85 if you wanted it. Nice to know the big zoom could pull it off and what that looks like.
Couldn’t you go into crop mode with the RF 85mm and get that same look and also have the lowlight capability and focal length. And still have one lense because that’s what I have been doing on my Eos R and that keeps me from having to carry multiple lenses.
Cropping just cuts out pets of your image. But it won’t be the same like using the specific focal length. Effects like render quality, bokeh, background blur fading, compression, distortion etc are always specific. It’s the same misconception people get when thinking that a crop sensor camera produces the same image when using a 50mm compared to a 85 on Full Frame. It’s still a 50 with parts of the image missing.
@@Seitenwerk And this maybe true but some people do like the look of the prime they are using so this may not be bad to crop into the sensor. Because the resolution of most cameras nowadays are more than enough megapixels even when cropping into the pictures. And either way you have to give up something because this is no perfect lense that does it all. As for me I rather have a fast lense any day and just crop in with a high megapixel camera.
Great video. I love the versatility of the 70-200. I have no desire to lug the chubby 85. In my opinion, Canon spends good money on R&D on the 70-200 because it is part of the Holy Trinity. They have to get it right as every Canon pro on earth has the white 70-200 in the bag.
This apples-to-oranges review/comparison is invalid... You didn't do a side-by-side comparison? Shooting DIFFERENT images at DIFFERENT focal lengths with DIFFERENT lenses in DIFFERENT scenarios is NOT a comparison. I was waiting for a 'comparison' till the video ran out. How do you 'compare' 2 lenses WITHOUT doing the actual comparison? I didn't see 1 single image where you compared thesame shot with both lenses.
Pye, you would certainly see a more drastic difference in the rendition of the background on the NON DS 85 RF 1.2. The bokeh balls on DS are comparable to F2.0 and the light transmission is T2.0 because of the defocus element/second aperture. The bokeh is less nervous with bright spots on the DS, but those spots appear smaller in shape, that's why the difference between 85 DS and 70-200 in your Application is so small.
But doesn't the RF 85mm 1.2 DS have the same depth of field as the regular version of the lens? I do prefer the DS version of the look. What do you think?
@@xxjsmoothxx8104 you have a secondary aperture set to F2.0. The depth of field on DS version will not be that razor thin as the regular f1.2 RF85. It's a very specialized lens for a particular application. You will know when you need it. Here is a very detailed explanation. Search this title on RU-vid. " Canon RF 85mm F1.2 L USM DS Lens Announcement Video with Rudy Winston"
i have been watching a few videos on diffraction prior to this, esp. with macrophotography, and it makes more sense now why the lenses with zoom create more depth. it is often explained how the advertised f-number of every lens is actually for the infinity focus point and as the lens focuses closer to the camera it loses light. so in order to get the same amount of light on the 70-200, the subject has to be closer to the infinity focus point than on the 85mm to perform similarly, potentially gathering more light when zoomed in above 85mm.
A video that I didn't know I needed! Great comparison, thanks for that. I have the 70-200 f 2.8 and recently thought of buying the 85 1.2 (DS-Version). I already noticed, that the 70-200 is a great portrait lens at 200 mm, but your comparison really shows the verry little difference to a f 1.2 prime. I am still thinking of buying the 85 mm because of its low-light capabilities. Two things that should be mentioned here: The DS version of the 85 mm 1.2 lens blocks a little of the light compared to the NON-DS version. Not sure the amount but there are videos on youtube about that topic. This can be an issue if you shoot in darker environments or even be an advantage if you shoot outside in bright daylight and you want to shoot at f1.2. Normally you would need a neutral density filter but maybe it works without one with the DS version. The second thing that I want to mention is, that there indeed is a difference in the look of the bokeh between the DS and NON-DS version. While the NON-DS version gives you the round bokeh balls (e.g. when you have city lights in the background or sun shining through trees), the DS version smoothens them significantly. There are comparisons on youtube and you see it on the official website of canon. So in situations without certain lights in the background, you might not always see a difference between DS and NON-DS. But in many situations you do and if you want a calmer background then the DS-version is the way to go.
I believe the better comparison would be with non DS version. Also, one image on the left side and another on the right side would be easier for viewers to compare. I'm expecting atleast the second part of my comment as the production values looked pretty good in the video.
With all respect the comparison is not right , keep the size of subject and distance identical you will find how they make different at same focal point
Great comparison, thanks! Using the R5 and I'm on the fence for the 85 DS version. I've had the 70-200 since March this year and I love it. How do you think they compare regarding details and sharpness? The primes usually have a slight edge there when pixel peeping. Also, did you notice anything about the DS version not being as bright as the non-DS version? I read this on Canon's website: 'Since the transmittance of the lens periphery decreases due to the DS coating, brightness of the lens at maximum aperture is about 1 1/3 stops darker than f/1.2. By updating the camera to the latest firmware, exposure control in AE will be performed appropriately.'
I guess I'm trying to understand where the difference between the RF and ef 70-200 is here .... you get alot more out of focus area the longer focal length you choose.
actually, I would think a comparision in dark scenario would be more fair considering the big aperture from f1.2. Daylight pictures, I am not expecting much difference..
Thank you for this video Pye! Always enjoy your content! I have the 28-70mm f2 and love it. I really like shooting with zoom lenses as the flexibility, for me, is super important! The 85 1.2 is a fantastic lens, but a bit more specialized than the 70-200. I can see the 70-200 being great for so many things and at this price point makes more sense to me personally. I dont like switching lenses from both a time, photo opportunity timing and dust hazard angle. Thanks again and take care!
Ha, wish I found this video over the 8 months I struggled with this debate when I had both. I eventually settled with the RF85, the 1.2 was too sweet :) - Great vid.
Bro you must be new to the 70-200 at 200mm 2.8 because the look you get from that with the compression you could NEVER get with an 85. The 85 is also awesome but way different and this is going back to film days always been like this. By the way tamron 70-200g2 is just as sharp as Nikons 85 1.8 which is one of the sharper lenses. Canons ef version also awesome. Now here is a secret weapon I should not even speak of. Get the 200mm 1.8 older lens super sharp use it with IBIS! you will be blown awayyyy!!! By the way the photoshoot at the beach was FIRE!!
so much misinformation ! other than aperture, bokeh also has a lot to do with focusing distance, also with the distance between subject and background. you shot those photos at different locations with different focusing distances, background are different too. you are not comparing apple to apple
I don’t even consider the 85 usually. I go for 50 1.2, 100 2.8 macro and if lucky the 70-200. 50 seems to have the most natural look and compression to it and allows me to bring it inside and in low light situations. The 100 os just beautiful for outside portraits when you want that extra compression. If not for it’s macro capabilities I would’ve gotten the 70-200 first.
Modern zoom lenses are as good as primes. Only difference is maximum aperture. Otherwise sharpness and other parameters of zooms are as good as primes. I tested Nikkor 50mm f:1.2 with Nikkor 24-70mm f:2.8 and found the zoom is fine.
Awesome video. So for me the 70-200 wins. Just because of versatility. Now the real question comes. Should I buy an EF 70-200 (with adapter, which I already own) or an RF 70-200? I also own a Canon 6D. I just can't make up my mind.
85 is easier to manage and communicate with the subject. The Bokeh in 85 F1.2 will be much better than 70200 in 85f2.8. However, 200mm will bring extra compression
I am lucky to have the RF 50 f/1.2. I like the versatility a 50 mm gives me. However, for portraits its perhaps a little bit too close, especially when starting the shoot. 70-200 f/2.8 would complement that quite well, starting with the zoom and establishing a connection to the persons you are shooting and then perhaps chaning to the 50mm for different kind of shots. That said, I am even no professional photographer, so what do I say here. In the end, I have the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II USM and it is just so heavy and bulky that I rarely take it with me. Thus it sits there in my shelf for already 7 years, and I probably used it 4-5 times for minor things. Bad investement for me. I always took the f/4 with me when I went to vacations or whatever. This could change with the RF version. Still keeping my f/4 glass, but the f/2.8 has to go. Only thing that is sad about it is, that the f/2.8 is a stellar lens. Quiet IS, very accurate and fast AF, very sharp from 2.8 on, look & feel is very reassuring... and I will probably not get more than 900-1000€ for that lens nowadays, even as new condition. :/
Love your channel and I got hooked like 8yrs ago when you did the canon shootout series, which I watched as each episode was being released. I would love to see that in the RF series of lens even though they are not as vast as EF at this point. As a fulltime working architectural photographer I shoot with the RF 15-35 and the RF 24-70. I get businesses asking for corporate headshots & environmental shots. I have been torn between the 50 1.2, 85 1.2 & 70-200 2.8. What are your thoughts on what RF lens I should go with for my need.....and in all honesty, want?
The photos that u have taken with 70-200mm are more tight than photos u took with 85mm and for that reason this is not equal compare of these lenses. For use I think 70-200mm f2.8 is more useful for reason u can zoom in but for portrait photography 85mm f1.2 is absolutely INCOMPARABLE!
I was just going through the comments and happened to notice you on here! Funnily enough I’ve just ordered the 85mm, I used to use the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 for all sorts but these days the extra magic at a shorter focal length is what it’s about! Completely agree with you on versatility for most people though.
Hello Pye how are you? I have a question about the canon RF 28-70mm. How do you compare them up to the RF85mm and 70-200mm 2.8. Which is the better by in your professional opinion. Weddings , Portraits etc.?
