The background melts on the 85mm 1.2. Sometimes thats good if the background is distracting. However, the 50mm 1.2 is nice when you don't have the space to scoot back and you want more of the background to seen. They're both great.
If your EF 50 1.2 is sharper than your RF 50 1.2, get your RF 50 1.2 serviced - the RF is supposed to be MUCH sharper than the EF, especially wide open.
What’s weird tho is that 2 other friends I know who switched to RF lenses say the same thing as me, the EF is sharper for them than the RF 🧐 and what’s crazy is that this RF from KEH has been serviced because they inspect, service and grade everything before listing. Because otherwise yes I totally see what you mean but it’s just interesting how I’m not the only one with that take
@@JessicaWhitaker Strange - my RF 50 1.2 outperforms the 45MP sensor of my R5 even wide open at 1.2, and this is what some lens reviews here on youtube suggest, too. Do you have sample images showing your sharpness problems?
@@tom_k_d No, I don't. But I want to make 2 lens reviews where I review the RF against the EF lens counterpart using an adaptor. I am borrowing these lenses from KEH and want to make as many lens comparisons as possible from these. I plan to do an 85mm and I can definitely do the 50mm 1.2. That would be Interesting
@@JessicaWhitaker I had the EF85 1.4L IS before I switched to the RF 85 1.2, mainly to get rid of the EF's strong LOCA - otherwise, it was a nice lens. It's older EF 85 1.2 II sibling is even worse in that regard.
@@JessicaWhitaker It's probably not the lens. More than likely it is the IBIS of the R5. Get you camera checked out. My first R5 had defective IBIS that made it appear blurry with some RF lenses for no reason. If you haven't make sure your firmware is updated too.
the 85mm shots are pure S3X, just take that wider look from both, 85 isolates the subject and the foreground and the background melts away into a delicious gooey sauce of colours. 50 backgrounds looked a bit distracting. By all means, sometimes you want to keep the background, but here it fits better
Canon just puts a bad taste in my mouth anymore. I shot Canon since before digital up until 5 years ago. They shot themselves in the foot and abandoned long time customers with the whole third party lens fiasco. Any new photographers that think they want Canon I tell them to stick with EF or go somewhere else lol. I'd still take a 1dxiii or 5div over any of their mirrorless simply because I can't promote their new ways. Never thought I'd stray away but here we are.
Naw. The thing Canon has up its sleeve that Sony and Nikon do not is that their adapted EF lenses work as well as native RF glass. I shot Canon for over 15 years, then recently started fresh with the R6 Mark II and got Sigma Art primes and the EF 70-200 2.8 III. They are fantastic and the AF with these lenses is more reliable than I got with a Sony A7IV with mirrorless lenses (that cam has some eye AF issues). I had the 1DIII and 5DIV for many years (shot pro with the 1D for 12 years) and the R6 II with adapted lenses blows them away for AF accuracy... it never misses. I got the Sigma Art 50 1.4 and it focuses faster than the RF versions, and it cost $959 new in Canadian money (so about $750 us or so) with a 7 year Sigma Warranty. And it's actually lighter than the RF version even with the adapter. The whole "Canon sucks because they refuse to let third party lenses" is mostly just a big CZcams meme often promoted by Sony people. It would be nice to have that third party option but it's not the end of the world because the adapter system works so well.
@@77dris not true. Sony and Nikon both do this well.. My EF 200 2.8L prime on third gen Sony is faster and more accurate AF than it was on my 5div lol... And that's on a 7 year old Sony.. Half of my glass is ef mount. Rf glass is either built like crap or way over priced. There is no middle ground where third party would sit. Not saying Canon is bad quality in any way just bad with some of their practices and policies as a company.
I think you’re the first person to ever say the EF is sharper than the RF. Interesting.
She's wrong 😂
The background melts on the 85mm 1.2. Sometimes thats good if the background is distracting. However, the 50mm 1.2 is nice when you don't have the space to scoot back and you want more of the background to seen. They're both great.
If your EF 50 1.2 is sharper than your RF 50 1.2, get your RF 50 1.2 serviced - the RF is supposed to be MUCH sharper than the EF, especially wide open.
What’s weird tho is that 2 other friends I know who switched to RF lenses say the same thing as me, the EF is sharper for them than the RF 🧐 and what’s crazy is that this RF from KEH has been serviced because they inspect, service and grade everything before listing. Because otherwise yes I totally see what you mean but it’s just interesting how I’m not the only one with that take
@@JessicaWhitaker Strange - my RF 50 1.2 outperforms the 45MP sensor of my R5 even wide open at 1.2, and this is what some lens reviews here on youtube suggest, too. Do you have sample images showing your sharpness problems?
@@tom_k_d No, I don't. But I want to make 2 lens reviews where I review the RF against the EF lens counterpart using an adaptor. I am borrowing these lenses from KEH and want to make as many lens comparisons as possible from these. I plan to do an 85mm and I can definitely do the 50mm 1.2. That would be Interesting
@@JessicaWhitaker I had the EF85 1.4L IS before I switched to the RF 85 1.2, mainly to get rid of the EF's strong LOCA - otherwise, it was a nice lens. It's older EF 85 1.2 II sibling is even worse in that regard.
@@JessicaWhitaker It's probably not the lens. More than likely it is the IBIS of the R5. Get you camera checked out. My first R5 had defective IBIS that made it appear blurry with some RF lenses for no reason. If you haven't make sure your firmware is updated too.
the 85mm shots are pure S3X, just take that wider look from both, 85 isolates the subject and the foreground and the background melts away into a delicious gooey sauce of colours. 50 backgrounds looked a bit distracting. By all means, sometimes you want to keep the background, but here it fits better
The 50mm is ok, but the 85mm looks simply magical!
Blog post with high-res sample images: www.jessicawhitaker.co/blog/canon-rf-50mm-vs-85mm-lens-comparison
Jessica this is the correct spelling to “ bargain “. Thank you for your great videos.
OMG LOL. Thank you. Spell check works 90% of the time in Final Cut Pro. OOps. Thank you and I will keep an extra eye out in the future
Do you mostly take full body portraits, get the 50. Do you do mostly take face portraits, get the 85.
You want them cheap, buy them in the US or in Canada. Easily get a thousand off.
Canon just puts a bad taste in my mouth anymore. I shot Canon since before digital up until 5 years ago. They shot themselves in the foot and abandoned long time customers with the whole third party lens fiasco. Any new photographers that think they want Canon I tell them to stick with EF or go somewhere else lol. I'd still take a 1dxiii or 5div over any of their mirrorless simply because I can't promote their new ways. Never thought I'd stray away but here we are.
Naw. The thing Canon has up its sleeve that Sony and Nikon do not is that their adapted EF lenses work as well as native RF glass. I shot Canon for over 15 years, then recently started fresh with the R6 Mark II and got Sigma Art primes and the EF 70-200 2.8 III. They are fantastic and the AF with these lenses is more reliable than I got with a Sony A7IV with mirrorless lenses (that cam has some eye AF issues). I had the 1DIII and 5DIV for many years (shot pro with the 1D for 12 years) and the R6 II with adapted lenses blows them away for AF accuracy... it never misses.
I got the Sigma Art 50 1.4 and it focuses faster than the RF versions, and it cost $959 new in Canadian money (so about $750 us or so) with a 7 year Sigma Warranty. And it's actually lighter than the RF version even with the adapter.
The whole "Canon sucks because they refuse to let third party lenses" is mostly just a big CZcams meme often promoted by Sony people. It would be nice to have that third party option but it's not the end of the world because the adapter system works so well.
@@77dris not true. Sony and Nikon both do this well.. My EF 200 2.8L prime on third gen Sony is faster and more accurate AF than it was on my 5div lol... And that's on a 7 year old Sony.. Half of my glass is ef mount. Rf glass is either built like crap or way over priced. There is no middle ground where third party would sit. Not saying Canon is bad quality in any way just bad with some of their practices and policies as a company.
@@77drisabsolutely not true. my Nikon adapted lenses works even better on the Z mount.
Oh that is super Interesting. what do you mean by " the whole third party lens fiasco." what happened?
@@JessicaWhitaker just Canon not allowing third party AF lenses for their FF mirrorless.