answers: 19

  1. Alexey
    24.10.2019

    Dear photo equipment store, hello!
    I got acquainted with your price list.
    Please advise where you can sell a kidney more expensive.

    Reply

  2. Pavel Gorbunov
    24.10.2019

    I'm afraid the kidney won't be enough ...

    Reply

  3. Pavel Gorbunov
    24.10.2019

    Arkady, a question for you: isn't this DS (DEFOCUS SMOOTHING) Coating lens a kind of functional analogue of the “Softfocus” system of the Canon EF 135 / 2,8 Softfocus lens?

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      24.10.2019

      No, it's not. Different principles of work. Yes, and DS is primarily designed only for F / 1.2.

      Reply

    • Roman
      24.10.2019

      Soft Focus adds spherical aberration when enabled, making it stronger. A very mediocre effect, I haven't really found where to use it. All contrasting areas are covered with such a fog. Although without this effect, the lens itself is nothing like its price and age - a compact and fast 135 / 2.8, quite sharp, inexpensive alternative to the 135 / 2.0 monster.

      85 / 1.2 DS works in a special way only in those areas of the image that are out of focus, making the bokeh even more creamy and pleasant, in sharp areas everything is fine, if not unmatched.

      Quality corresponds to the price In the end, there is 85 / 1.8, which is still good, and 85 / 1.4IS, and the original 85 / 1.2L II. Price gradation, everything is still produced and is fully compatible.

      Reply

      • Pavel Gorbunov
        24.10.2019

        Thank you!

        Reply

    • Rodion
      24.10.2019

      For some reason, it seems to me that DS is a “rough” transparent polycrystalline coating, “smoothing” (scattering light more evenly than the original asphere with concentric grooved circles) the aspheric surface to neutralize the effect of onion rings. If there is more information - share.

      Reply

      • Roman
        24.10.2019

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe8nitSwe3c - Well, judging by the video, they apply the coating on two surfaces.

        And judging by the scheme 85 / 1.2 without DS (if they have one) https://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-RF-85mm-F1.2-L-USM-Lens/Design.png these are not aspherical lenses.

        Reply

      • Roman
        24.10.2019

        If I understand correctly, this is the first meniscus after the first gluing and the second element in the gluing before this tricky BR element that reduces the chromaticity.

        Reply

      • Rodion
        24.10.2019

        Then how does the too work? Just some kind of gradient?

        Reply

      • Roman
        25.10.2019

        I don’t know ... Asferika gives rings in bokeh, DO elements especially. But this is not the case here. It seems to be a matter of spherical aberration. A bad example of bokeh is when, as a result of SA, the scattering circle has a brighter border than the center - the most creepy example is bagels in mirror lenses. Traditional canons and Zeiss give an even circle of scattering, until recently it was difficult to achieve this, while maintaining other optical characteristics. Well, there may also be characteristic "lemons" or "cat's eyes" when this circle is flattened.

        And now Canon has gone further and is trying to achieve that the scattering circle becomes a "donut in reverse" - bright in the center and disappearing from the outside. That is, it is somehow incomplete (or re - I don’t remember) corrected spherical aberration, but how exactly the spraying allows to solve this problem, and only for the blur zone I still don’t understand.

        Reply

  4. Andrei
    24.10.2019

    Weight: 1195 g. - fixed with the weight of a sickly zoom ...

    Reply

  5. Boris
    24.10.2019

    Of course, such optics are expensive, but what is cheap now? One can only welcome the development of the line of NEW OPTICS TO A NEW CLASS OF CAMERAS. After all, the old ones, for DSLRs, fit without problems. "Mirrorless" is the real near future, and the present is already. The problem of high cost is a matter of time. Authoritative magazines of the late 90s and early 2000s wrote that digital photography will not soon replace film due to imperfection and enormous cost (4-9 thousand dollars). But only two or four years have passed - and here you go! - DSLRs costing less than a thousand. So it is with the new class of cameras and optics for them. And it's very good that Kenon creates something completely new, and does not modernize the old!

    Reply

  6. Pavel Gorbunov
    24.10.2019

    I give an idea: Lewis Carroll, "Alice in Mirrorless"))

    Reply

  7. koba
    25.10.2019

    Canon has announced the price for this lens - $ 3000! Even if they wrote 2999, it would be calmer in my soul ... So it is for the richest and for the most commercial, or the most financially courageous. Now Kenon needs to release some 58 / 0,9 with autofocus for some $ 20000, so as not to hit his face in the mud in front of Nikon's manual 58 / 0.95 for $ 8000.

    Reply

    • Roman
      25.10.2019

      In contrast to the 58 / 0.95, created according to the principle: “because we can” - manual and absolutely overwhelming, the 85 / 1.2L is quite suitable for work. Why aren't you confused by 400/4 DO for 7000 USD?

      Reply

      • koba
        25.10.2019

        Because it’s 400mm and aperture for such a focal length, there are huge lenses, etc., but there isn’t all this, the margin is just going through the roof. That nikon is also suitable for work, even interesting.

        Reply

      • Joe
        29.10.2019

        “The markup is off the charts here” about a high-quality, modern new high-aperture autofocus lens priced at $ 3000 - that's ridiculous.
        You don't know about Leica lenses at all? I will help you with advice - look for a price, for example, on the Leica APO-Summicron-M 50mm f / 2 ASPH. Try to measure how many huge lenses and apertures are "underdone" for $ 8000.
        Have you never heard of Zeiss either? Zeiss Otus 85mm f / 1.4 - less aperture and non-autofocus, but for $ 4500.
        Well, for the breadth of horizons, I recommend taking an interest in the prices of movie lenses. For example, Cooke Anamorphic.
        And tell us later about the “off-scale markup” on the lens, the cost of which roughly corresponds to the average salary of one Japanese in one month. If, in your opinion, $ 3000 for such a lens is expensive, then give examples of cheap lenses of similar quality with similar characteristics without the “off scale markup”.

        Reply

  8. Carl Zeiss
    01.11.2019

    I had a chance to test Canon's R series in the week, along with a line of lenses. Including this. What can I say ?! The prices for them are certainly not low. But the quality is just great! Glass perfectly removes in conditions in which ordinary glass and carcasses can not even really focus.
    Robust, well-crafted technology. The only caveat: the manufacturer strongly does not recommend changing lenses when the camera is turned on. So that the stub, which is in the lens in the form of a lens levitating in the magnetic field, does not slam it on the lens body from the inside. When the krivorukovy user disconnects a lens from the carcass which is not switched off previously.

    Reply

Reply

 

 

Top
mobility. computer