RF35mm F1.8 macro vs RF85mm F2 macro?

[John_SD]

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?

[ebiggs1]

"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 $.

[John_SD]

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. 

[ebiggs1]

" 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.

[John_SD]

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." 

[ebiggs1]

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.

[ebiggs1]

" 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?

[ebiggs1]

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

[amfoto1]

---

@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

[ebiggs1]

" 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.