topic Re: RF35mm F1.8 macro vs RF85mm F2 macro? in EF & RF Lenses

RF35mm F1.8 macro vs RF85mm F2 macro?

John_SD — Wed, 14 Jun 2023 16:19:01 GMT

I want to get one of these. I remain mostly an outdoor photographer -- desert, mountains, forests, seashore, very little street, etc. I could certainly make use of either of these lenses, but can only justify one at the present time. i am leaning toward the 35, but can certainly be persuaded to go with the 85. Which would you choose?

Re: RF35mm F1.8 macro vs RF85mm F2 macro?

kvbarkley — Wed, 14 Jun 2023 16:22:50 GMT

For landscapes I would choose the 35, for macro, the 85 due to the longer working distance.

Re: RF35mm F1.8 macro vs RF85mm F2 macro?

amfoto1 — Wed, 14 Jun 2023 20:58:58 GMT

What other lenses do you already have? And what camera will the lens be used upon?

It's pretty hard to recommend without knowing these things.

Scenic shots often are done with wider lenses, such as the 35mm (or even wider) on full frame. .

But if ever wanting to shoot macro and close-ups, the 85mm would be a better choice for more working distance. It's also a better portrait lens. And, a popular street photography focal length. None of these appear to be interests of yours.

***********

Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7DII (x2), 7D(x2), EOS M5, some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR

Re: RF35mm F1.8 macro vs RF85mm F2 macro?

John_SD — Thu, 15 Jun 2023 01:17:32 GMT

I shoot with the EOS RP, and *mostly* with the RF24-105mm f4. Looking to branch out from there.

You are correct, that while portraiture holds marginal interest for me, street photography holds none. Earlier on, I did do some street shooting, but quickly gave it up. You can only shoot so many photos of zombies staring at their phones. Very boring for both photographer and viewer. And I am not interested in sitting for hours and hours on a bench like a bird photographer, hoping for something worthwhile to shoot. No, life is too short.

Back to the topic. I think I will go with the 35. It is on sale right now and I could make use of its macro ability to shoot bugs, flowers, and whatnot. And I think it will be fine for landscapes and at the tidepools.

Re: RF35mm F1.8 macro vs RF85mm F2 macro?

FloridaDrafter — Thu, 15 Jun 2023 02:48:31 GMT

Hello, John!

I have both of those FL's either as zooms or primes and use them for specific purposes. I have the RF 15-35 f/2.8L and love it for landscapes, astro, and just general use, and I have the RF 85mm f/1.2L which I use mostly for portraiture but also landscapes that are further away.

If I had to pick only one, it would be the 35mm. As mentioned, I get more use out of that FL as a general purpose FL (I spend more time at 35 than 15), but your subjects may be way different than mine. BTW, all of our R's are FF, so that may make a difference in lens choice.

I'm sure you know this, but just so you won't be disappointed in case you don't know, neither of these lenses are true "macro" lenses, even though Canon has labeled them as such. Both are 1:2 (magnification of 0.5). They do focus closely, but not macro. I know you didn't mention macro shooting specifically, but responses to your post do as a reason to pick one or the other.

**EDIT** I didn't see your last response about using the 35mm as a macro. I hope my comments help 🙂

Newton

Re: RF35mm F1.8 macro vs RF85mm F2 macro?

ebiggs1 — Thu, 15 Jun 2023 15:12:25 GMT

"I shoot with the EOS RP, and *mostly* with the RF24-105mm f4. Looking to branch out from there."

If I had that lens I would not buy either the 35mm or 85mm lens. Why would you? You already have those FL. There really is no such thing as a "landscape" lens. You can shoot landscapes with any lens. It is all about what you want in the resulting photo. If you are looking to "branch out" buy something you don't have. Perhaps a 300mm or 400mm lens. It may open up a whole new shooting experience for you.

Re: RF35mm F1.8 macro vs RF85mm F2 macro?

ebiggs1 — Thu, 15 Jun 2023 15:22:52 GMT

" I think I will go with the 35.... I could make use of its macro ability to shoot bugs, flowers, and whatnot...."

The RF 35mm f1.8 is not a macro lens! It is simply a lens that can focus relatively close about 7" I think, if I remember correctly. 1:2 ratio is not macro! If you want to do macro buy a real macro lens. "Macro" is a word that the advertising boys throw around carelessly.

Re: RF35mm F1.8 macro vs RF85mm F2 macro?

amfoto1 — Thu, 15 Jun 2023 17:06:52 GMT

Both lenses would be fine for "close ups" of flowers, insects, etc.

These lenses render 0.50X magnification (half life size) at their closest focus, which is considerably higher than non-macro lenses. However, it also is only half the magnification many other macro lenses provide. For example, the Canon EF 100mm macro lenses (all three versions) focus closer and render full 1.0X magnification (full life size). The Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM is somewhat unusual among macro lenses in that it renders even higher 1.4X magnification.

I don't know how much close-up and macro work you've done, you may or may not be aware..

Magnification, minimum focus distance (MFD) and working distance are among the most critical considerations when choosing a lens. Lens focal length and lens size determine the last two factors. Another is whether or not the lens extends or grows longer when focused closer.

Minimum Focus Distance (MFD) is measured from the sensor plane of the camera to the subject itself. "Working distance" is measured from the front of the lens to the subject, because a significant portion of MFD is occupied by the camera and the lens themselves. Any accessories on the front of the lens will also reduce working distance.

The RF 35mm has an MFD of approx. 7 inches.

The RF 85mm has an MFD of approx. 13.75 inches.

The RF 35mm is slightly under 2.5 inches long, while the RF 85mm is just slightly over 3.5 inches long. But both lenses increase in length when focused to their closest. The RF 35mm increases to 3.5" in length, while the RF 85mm increases to almost 5".

Out in the field, this means "working distance" of these lenses will be...

Around 2.75" for the 35mm lens.

About 8" for the 85mm lens.

This is without anything attached to the front of the lens, like filters, the lens hood, or the Canon NT-24EX Macro Twin Lite flash I often use.

If you want to push either lens to higher magnification it is possible to do so by adding macro extension rings between the lens and the camera. This reduces MFD at the same time it increases the length of the lens, further reducing working distance. When working distance is too short shy subjects like insects will fly away or hide or sting, while more cooperative subjects like flowers might often be shaded by you and the camera.

Either lens would be capable of shooting the following close-up (I used a 100mm)...

But a longer focal length with greater working distance is better for...

For the bee on the California poppy I used an old manual focus Tamron 90mm macro lens that was adapted for use on one of my Canon (an EOS 7D in this case).

Taking all the above in consideration... in my opinion, for macro and close-up photography the RF 85mm would be a much more versatile thanks mostly to it's significantly larger MFD and greater working distance. Especially if wanting to make higher magnification images by adding macro extension tubes. (But, to be honest, BOTH lenses are on my wish list! 😀)

Of course, this puts aside your other purposes for the lens.... landscapes. While an 85mm might be usable at times, a 35mm lens would likely be more useful for that purpose! HOWEVER, I would think you have landscape photography pretty well covered with your 24-105mm, don't you? A large aperture lens... the primary advantage of the RF 35mm... is rarely needed for landscape shots. I usually find myself stopping down instead.

FYI: "life size" macro shots.... also called "1:1" or "100%" magnification... means that on a full frame camera you're able to render an image of an area the same dimensions as your sensor, approx. 24x36mm or slightly less than 1x1.5 inches.

This is approximately the difference between half life size 0.50X (1:2)...

... and full life size 1.0X (1:!)

Both the above were shot with Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens on an APS-C format EOS 30D, with a diffused Canon 550EX flash on an off-camera shoe cord.

***********

Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7DII (x2), 7D(x2), EOS M5, some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR

Re: RF35mm F1.8 macro vs RF85mm F2 macro?

John_SD — Thu, 15 Jun 2023 18:08:02 GMT

"Perhaps a 300mm or 400mm lens. It may open up a whole new shooting experience for you."

Oh, I would love that RF400mm f2.8 L. Unfortunately, it would turn my lowly RP into a boat anchor. And it costs $12,000 lol. I suppose I could cheap out and get the RF100-300mm f2.8 L. That's only $9500.

But you make a good point in that a 300mm+ lens would indeed open up a new shooting experience. If only Canon would allow the best third-parties like Sigma and Tamron to make RF-mount lenses. I wish they would follow N*kon's direction in that regard. But that is a different discussion and one where my commentary will be far from pleasant.

Re: RF35mm F1.8 macro vs RF85mm F2 macro?

John_SD — Thu, 15 Jun 2023 18:27:22 GMT

Alan, thank you for the detailed technical explanation. Very informative, and great work by the way. After reading your post and giving the matter some more thought, I agree with you that the 85 may be the better choice. And the difference in price is not that great. I think I would like the 85 for insects, flowers and at the tidepools due to its greater MFD. Splashback and slipping on wet rock and skinning yourself up can be a problem at times as it is, and you can't always see it coming when you're 3 inches away from a sea star or anemone. Ask me how I know.

Re: RF35mm F1.8 macro vs RF85mm F2 macro?

ebiggs1 — Fri, 16 Jun 2023 14:05:11 GMT

"If only Canon would allow the best third-parties like Sigma and Tamron to make RF-mount lenses."

Although I have not personally tried it but most say either of the Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm super zooms will work on your R series camera. You might want to investigate one of those. They are not many thousands of $.

Re: RF35mm F1.8 macro vs RF85mm F2 macro?

John_SD — Fri, 16 Jun 2023 17:30:50 GMT

Yes, I have often considered taking that route. The basic Canon EF to R mount adapter is only $99, while the control ring version is $149. I am just a mere enthusiast and cannot justify spending thousands and thousands of dollars on a lens so I can take some photos. And as I am growing weary of waiting for Canon to catch up to Sony and N*kon and partner with Sigma and Tamron, the adapter may be the best solution. In fact, I have read many reviews from users who state that their adapted EF lenses on Canon R models perform wonderfully.

Re: RF35mm F1.8 macro vs RF85mm F2 macro?

ebiggs1 — Sat, 17 Jun 2023 15:48:42 GMT

" I am just a mere enthusiast and cannot justify spending thousands and thousands of dollars on a lens so I can take some photos."

You know I have heard that phrase or excuse for not buying or pursuing things in life all the time. Everybody has a monetary limit to what they can reasonably do or accomplish. That's for sure! The kids say YOLO, you only go around once in this life. Its not a matter of justifying it, of course it must fit your budget, but is photography something that matters to you? Is it something that you really want to do? Your original post sounded almost like you just wanted something to buy not knowing exactly what. I advise before you do buy or make a decision first decide how important the hobby of phonography is to you. You already have what you need to enjoy the hobby of photography. That's why I don't believe adding a 35mm or 85mm lens would enhance it.

The adapter and either of the 150-600mm super zooms is not, "thousands and thousands of dollars", of dollars. Yes likely around a grand but would be a better option and perhaps open up a whole new part of photography that just might make it a more important part of photography your life.

Re: RF35mm F1.8 macro vs RF85mm F2 macro?

John_SD — Sun, 18 Jun 2023 14:07:45 GMT

LOL. Earnie, I have responsibilities in life. As much as I enjoy photography, it is a matter of priorities. I'm not a pro who can just write off gear, nor am I a bachelor, widower, or some guy in the world alone who can put his hobby first. As for the RF85mm macro, it is a lens that would be ideal for various use cases that apply to me -- shooting at the tidepools, shooting insects and flowers, and the occasional portrait. And I would enjoy having an affordable F2 lens of that nature. I would never use it as my daily "walk around lens."

Re: RF35mm F1.8 macro vs RF85mm F2 macro?

ebiggs1 — Sun, 18 Jun 2023 15:18:06 GMT

Sounds like you made a rational decision. Perhaps not the one I would make but it does look like the RF 85mm fits your wants. Keep in mind the RF 85mm F/2 Macro IS STM is not a macro lens. It does have a a rather close focus ability so that may do all you want. The advertising boys are pretty careless using that word.

Re: RF35mm F1.8 macro vs RF85mm F2 macro?

ebiggs1 — Sun, 18 Jun 2023 15:32:41 GMT

" I'm not a pro who can just write off gear, nor am I a bachelor, widower, or some guy in the world alone who can put his hobby first."

Let's see it was 1955, I remember when I got my first camera an Argus 75 using 620 film. After a year or two using it I decided I needed to do my own developing. So, in my grandma's bathroom with the window blacked out and three large soup bowls I started developing 620 B&W film. Now some 6 decades later and a wife and three kids plus nine grands, my hobby has grown beyond anything I could of imagined.

In the middle there somewhere, I landed a job at Hallmark Cards in KC. Hallmark was heavily involved in photography at that time. I did a lot of event photography for them. Started a side line photography business and all of a sudden I am retired. I am still very much into photography. You see where this can or could lead you?

Re: RF35mm F1.8 macro vs RF85mm F2 macro?

ebiggs1 — Sun, 18 Jun 2023 15:34:25 GMT

BTW, I still have that very same Argus 75. It is sitting on a shelf beside its replacement an Argus C3.35mm camera.

Re: RF35mm F1.8 macro vs RF85mm F2 macro?

amfoto1 — Wed, 21 Jun 2023 23:40:01 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
....Keep in mind the RF 85mm F/2 Macro IS STM is not a macro lens....

It is true that the RF 85mm f/2 can "only" do !:2 (or 0.50X) magnification. However, I don't know that it's fair to say it's "not a macro lens". Back in the last century, many macro lenses could only do 1:2 mag on their own. They often used some sort of extension to push them to full 1:1 (1.0X). One of the last lenses of that design was the old Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 "compact macro"... 1:2 by itself, 1:1 when you added the matched extension.

Even with lenses that can do 1:1 or higher, an awful lot of "macro" shots are done at considerably less than the lens' maximum magnification. 1:2 can be great for most flowers, for example.

Plus, generic macro extension tubes can be used to push the RF 85mm f/2 to higher magnification, if wanted. Canon doesn't make any for the RF mount yet. But Kenko and a couple other 3rd party manufacturers do.

I thought the same thing as you, EB... that both 35mm and 85mm focal lengths are already covered by John's RF 24-105mm lens. But then he mentioned wanting close up ability, which both the RF 35mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/2 offer. I pointed out that the working distance of the 35mm lens would be a whole lot less than the 85mm.

So I just checked the close focus ability of the two RF 24-105mm lenses (we don't know which John has). The f/4L USM version goes to about 0.24X. But I was a little surprised to see the more affordable f/4-7.1/STM version can do 0.50X (i.e., the same 1:2 as the 35mm and 85mm). HOWEVER, then I noticed that it has even shorter minimum focus distance than the 35mm. So that 24-105mm must do it's close focusing at its shorter focal lengths, close to the 24mm end of it's zoom range. If that's true, it would have the same problem as the 35mm... too close for some subjects (but probably fine for some others).

Cheers!

P.S. Now you know why I have five different macro lenses! 😗

***********

Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7DII (x2), 7D(x2), EOS M5, some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR

Re: RF35mm F1.8 macro vs RF85mm F2 macro?

ebiggs1 — Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:13:07 GMT

" I don't know that it's fair to say it's "not a macro lens"."

It is 'fair' to say it, or they, are not macro lenses because they are not. They aren't built like a macro lens. The word is used loosely by the ad department boys. But if it does the job for you, I have no objection to whatever you want to call it.

A “macro” lens is a lens that is optimized to achieve sharpest focus at 1:1 magnification. Even if a normal lens could focus to 1:1 it is not optimized to get best IQ at that close focus distance. Just like you can use a normal lens to do some macro photography a true macro lens can also be used for normal photography.