Hi Guest!
Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
Offline
Been seeing a lot of great reviews on this lens, the Canon RF 85mm f/2.0. Comparisons between this RF 85 f/2.0 and the MUCH more expensive RF 85 f/1.2 suggests that the differences in IQ area almost indistinguishable in most situations (you really have to pixel peep to see much difference). But at $499 vs $2800, it's an attractive option. The more expensive f/1.2 has a stop and a half more aperture, but is that worth +$1300 ? Maybe if you're a professional portrait photographer, but this f/2.0 85 has a lot going for it and stacks up, as I said, very well in IQ in most situations against the f/1.2.
1. For one thing, this f//2.0 version, besides being much less dinero, also has Macro capability that the f/1.2 does not
(For the price of the 85 f/1.2 I could but the 85 f/2 PLUS the RF 135 f/1.8).
2. The f/2.0 version has image stabilization, the f/1.2 does not (not a huge issue for shooting portraits with an IBIS body)
3. The f/2.0 is less than half the weight of the f/1.2 so makes a lot more sense if lugging gear on a hike.
4. The F/2.0 has a 67mm filter size (vs 82mm for the f/1.2), thus filters would be more affordable.
5. Both have 9-blade apertures and Bokah looks great on both (obviously f/1.2 will blow things out a bit more and have shallower DOF, but not (IMHO) $1300 worth).
6. Both have metal RF mounts (sometimes Canon puts a plastic lens mount on their cheaper lenses, but not here).
7. The difference in IQ is almost non-existent unless you really zoom in, then the 1/2 has ever so slightly better resolution, but when you stop down at all, those differences disappear.
So of these reasons, you can see why this may end up being my next RF lens. I've always wanted a good 85 for portraits, and this also has Macro capability which scratches another itch I've had.
On the down side:
1. This lens is not weather sealed like the more expensive lens is (not a big issue as this would not be a lens I'd be using in the pouring rain)
2. The lens hood is sold separately and is pricey ($49 for the Canon, although Vello seems a knock off of $13 and Vello's hoods are decent)
1. For one thing, this f//2.0 version, besides being much less dinero, also has Macro capability that the f/1.2 does not
(For the price of the 85 f/1.2 I could but the 85 f/2 PLUS the RF 135 f/1.8).
2. The f/2.0 version has image stabilization, the f/1.2 does not (not a huge issue for shooting portraits with an IBIS body)
3. The f/2.0 is less than half the weight of the f/1.2 so makes a lot more sense if lugging gear on a hike.
4. The F/2.0 has a 67mm filter size (vs 82mm for the f/1.2), thus filters would be more affordable.
5. Both have 9-blade apertures and Bokah looks great on both (obviously f/1.2 will blow things out a bit more and have shallower DOF, but not (IMHO) $1300 worth).
6. Both have metal RF mounts (sometimes Canon puts a plastic lens mount on their cheaper lenses, but not here).
7. The difference in IQ is almost non-existent unless you really zoom in, then the 1/2 has ever so slightly better resolution, but when you stop down at all, those differences disappear.
So of these reasons, you can see why this may end up being my next RF lens. I've always wanted a good 85 for portraits, and this also has Macro capability which scratches another itch I've had.
On the down side:
1. This lens is not weather sealed like the more expensive lens is (not a big issue as this would not be a lens I'd be using in the pouring rain)
2. The lens hood is sold separately and is pricey ($49 for the Canon, although Vello seems a knock off of $13 and Vello's hoods are decent)
