Which lens do you think wins? Let us know if in the comments below ⬇

I own both. I can tell they are for different proposes. You can make them look similar outside but when you are inside and limited with tight space nothing can replace 85/1.2 because you can’t use 200 mm everywhere and you can clearly see difference between 85/1.2 and 85/2.8

You didn't compare tight shots, your shots of the 70-200 are tighter. You should have shot the same subjects for a more fair comparison.

Which one wins? We’ll, that depends on what you are comparing. Your title suggests depth of field is the comparison, and for that the 85 f/1.2 is clearly the winner (assuming framing is the same, i.e. focal length and distance to subject.). What your examples do show, however, is that both lenses do a nice job of rendering out of focus backgrounds and that, when zoomed in, the 70-200 makes a great outdoor portrait lens. Incidentally, 85 1.2 and 130 2.8 have the same depth of field (for same distance to subject), but the field of view is obviously different. If I could only have one? Yeah, definitely would pick the 70-200. As you point out, it’s way more versatile and can be used to take great portraits with shallow DoF at appropriate focal lengths. I still want an 85 f/1.2. Actually, mine is in the mail right now! :-)

Thanks so much for this video! I was asking myself all these questions trying to decide between the 85 and the 70-200. Clearly, with aesthetics so close, versatility of the 70-200 wins.

I’ve definitely learned to take more photos from really far back - seeing a 200mm baby shot with the baby small in the frame and still tonnes of bokeh is a really interesting look that must require so much distance but definitely gives the subject a much bigger frame compared to everything being super tight all the time. Thanks for a great video!

I think that the 85 RF 1.2 stands out at Night time with the Boque and + 2 stops of exposure - the images are beautiful! But what I think is that everyone needs RF 28-70 F2.0 + RF 70-200 F2.8 + RF 85 1.2... Thats my DREAM

The RF 70-200 was a great purchase. The compact design is incredibly useful for packing my rolling case, allowing me to travel with it vertically in the bag instead of laying flat. Optically, I couldn’t be more delighted. However, the EF 85mm f/1.4L has not been replaced for me. Primes still get packed when I see fit.

I was about to head to the store to buy the RF 85 1.2, but now you've really got me thinking. I do often shoot in spaces that might not let me go up to 135mm or higher, so I still might need the 85. But man...I do like that 70-200. It's a tough decision. I'm also thinking of getting the 24-70 f/2.8 at the same time.

thanks for the detailed video, just brought the 70-200!!

I just ordered a 70-200, so totally agree with the video; I would like to say that when I got to handle both I did feel like the differences between the 85 1.2, and the 70-200 2.8 were much more apparent in low light (especially so since the model I got to compare with was the DS). I will eventually have both, but the 70-200 is just way, way more useful for general use, and probably should be purchased first by 99% of people.

This video addresses the question I had but I wish you had taken the stills of the same scene with each lens to compare them side by side the way Dustin Abbott does it.

A great and clear review backed by substantive evidence . I own the 70-200 mm 2.8 and as a keen enthusiast there is little justification for me to own either the 50 or 85 in the 1.2 range. Thank you.

Thanks for the review. I thought it was nice to know at what focal length the 70-200 could deliver the same DOF look as the 85 if you wanted it. Nice to know the big zoom could pull it off and what that looks like.

Great comparison, thanks! Using the R5 and I'm on the fence for the 85 DS version. I've had the 70-200 since March this year and I love it. How do you think they compare regarding details and sharpness? The primes usually have a slight edge there when pixel peeping. Also, did you notice anything about the DS version not being as bright as the non-DS version? I read this on Canon's website: 'Since the transmittance of the lens periphery decreases due to the DS coating, brightness of the lens at maximum aperture is about 1 1/3 stops darker than f/1.2. By updating the camera to the latest firmware, exposure control in AE will be performed appropriately.'

Some issues I have with this "review/comparison". * No mention of the 1.5 Stops of light loss with the *DS version? * No mention of the 8-Stops of IBIS with RF85mmL lenses on R5/R6 cameras? * For the closer subjects, the background was closer. * No mention of the AMAZING results from BR Optics on the RF85mmL? * There's a large performance difference in extremely low light. * Framing needs to be about the same with subject & backgrounds. It wasn't. I use both lenses and there's quite a difference that you don't seem to have coaxed out during this comparison video. The DS coating was designed to smooth out the bright edges of defocused light (ie "Bokeh Balls") yet you made no such use of this lens in this respect. The Canon Blue Spectrum Refractive Optics are quite an amazing technological addition to the new RF lenses but you neither mention nor applied it in this video. You shot the child with 200mm with almost a quarter kilometer of distance behind the kid to those distant trees in the background. Then you shot the couple with the 85mm with the background merely a dozen meters away. These lenses are apples and oranges to each other and have a different lens character to one another. You appear to have missed out on these aspects.

Thanks for this video, it's really really useful. I'm buying the 70 - 200mm RF F/2.8 next week. I have been shooting portraits on the 50mm F1.2 which is similar to the 85 version and also the 135mm L EF F2 with adapter for the R5. Both these lenses are being sold with the money going towards the new RF 70 - 200mm which should replace them nicely and I'll end up with more versatility of a telephoto zoom, one that shoots images like a prime. I'm really excited for this lens.

As a portraitist, there is one key advantage for the 85mm: the distance between me and the model. I think the 85mm gives the perfect distance to keep contact and communicate easily with models without "shouting", that is not easy anymore when I have to frame a full body at 135 or 200mm. The feeling is not the same. In some situations, framing at 200mm can make the model look small compared to the environment while the 85mm keeps good proportions, no surprise. But overall the 70 200 is fantastic and a smarter choice for its versatility.

I think this is an age-old debate and it is interesting where things have ended up with these modern systems. On Nikon DSLR, all the way back to the D70, I always opted for the 85 (or the 105 a little later on). However this was due to very different rendering (as you stated) and size/weight. Canon has totally upended things with the RF70-200/2.8 as it is so easy to take with you being it is collapsable and made of lighter materials. I ended up going the zoom route with the RF. It is just killer. I remain a little 85-curious, but don't have the appetite to add it at this time. Thanks for the comparison. I had the Z 70-200S lens for Nikon as well. What a lens! I think it bests the RF on sharpness and works incredibly well with 1.4x and 2.0x TC. However, it is a monster, Canon has much better bodies in the R5/R6 and the RF renders very well with slightly better bokeh. Really, can't go wrong with either system's 70-200.

Incredbile shots. Wow on the first infant photo with the 70-200. Amazing!!!!

i have been watching a few videos on diffraction prior to this, esp. with macrophotography, and it makes more sense now why the lenses with zoom create more depth. it is often explained how the advertised f-number of every lens is actually for the infinity focus point and as the lens focuses closer to the camera it loses light. so in order to get the same amount of light on the 70-200, the subject has to be closer to the infinity focus point than on the 85mm to perform similarly, potentially gathering more light when zoomed in above 85mm.

I have the EF 85 1.4 and EF 70-200 and agree on the aesthetics. I found I don't need it after all and will sell it on eBay. I am not into portrait photography. I am an enthusiast spending his retirement bucks! The EF 70-200 is quite heavy, I won't be getting the RF version. Your little one is darling! BTW So far all of my EF L lenses shoot so well on my R5/6 that I will be buying very few RF lenses; the R5 is an awesome camera! BTW2 I shot some at ISO 12000 and was blown away how little real noise and Topaz Denoise AI fixed what was there!

I am switching from Nikon to Canon and I was struggling to decide between these 2 lenses. This video helps me a lot on my decision process. Thank you

Love your channel and I got hooked like 8yrs ago when you did the canon shootout series, which I watched as each episode was being released. I would love to see that in the RF series of lens even though they are not as vast as EF at this point. As a fulltime working architectural photographer I shoot with the RF 15-35 and the RF 24-70. I get businesses asking for corporate headshots & environmental shots. I have been torn between the 50 1.2, 85 1.2 & 70-200 2.8. What are your thoughts on what RF lens I should go with for my need.....and in all honesty, want?

Thank you Pye.. makes me convinced i really want 70-200 f2.8

I was thinking of combining the 28-70mm F2 RF and the 70-200mm f2.8 RF for most of my needs. Might need something at the lower end but that can wait for now.

Great comparison! Love the RF 70-200mm!

Completely agree with u. There are so many advantages on the 70-200 (IS, Zoom, more compression, fast focus etc etc). Biggest advantage on the 85 is the light gathering (which is negated on the DS). Really a no brainer. I would complement the 70-200 with an rf 50 1.2. Previously the size of the 70-200 was an issue but the RF is so ridiculously small now.

I was confused between the same choice of lenses and your video helped a lot. I m going for R5 with 15-35 24-70 70-200 all f2.8. But I would like to add the 50 f1.2, what would you say about that? Does 50 make enough difference? I don't do many human subjects, most of my subjects are Motorcycles or Landscapes.

I have both the RF 85 1.2 and the RF 70-200. I love them both.

i have both but i get tired of the 70-200 for portraits because you have to back up far to get the look sometimes u just dont have the room. if using strobes, you have to walk back and forth a lot to move the strobes if there is no assistant wasting a lot of time.

I'm waiting on Canon to release the RF 135mm 1.4. Great video as always Pye!!!

as I understand it, the DS versions of the rf85mm 1.2 shoots like a 1.8 or f2 due to the coating and canons admitted 1.3 stops of light loss. Ive seen a few videos where people say the NON DS version is blurrier than the DS version. I want to know your thoughts. I am presented with an opportunity to purchase BOTH 70-200 and the 85 1.2 but wanted to know mores pecifically your response to the DS version.

I have the Samyang 85 1.4 RF and for the price it’s great. However it is slower AF and I miss 10% of the shots. However it’s quite a difference in price.

Thank you for this video Pye! Always enjoy your content! I have the 28-70mm f2 and love it. I really like shooting with zoom lenses as the flexibility, for me, is super important! The 85 1.2 is a fantastic lens, but a bit more specialized than the 70-200. I can see the 70-200 being great for so many things and at this price point makes more sense to me personally. I dont like switching lenses from both a time, photo opportunity timing and dust hazard angle. Thanks again and take care!

Lol, I literally just expected to see a video comparing two beautiful lenses. I didn’t expect to be so impressed with the photography too! 👏🏼

I will own both of these in time but not sure which to get first so this was helpful. I really want the 85 first but due to the price point and not being able to buy both right away then maybe the 70-200 makes sense for a little more versatility until I can get the 85 as well.

I own the 70-200 F2.8 and it's honestly my favorite lens that I've ever owned. It's stunning!

i do portraits and i am currently happy with my Rf24-70 and Ef70-200 and i want to go for the Rf100mm for more details on Beauty tight closups, i am wondering if i am making a mistake buy ignoring the 85mm 1.2 ... but after watching this video i realised wont miss a thing since i have the 70-200mm f2.8 so thanks for your valuable review and advice \

It's when you can't stand back far enough for 200mm or when it's too dark to shoot at f2.8. those are your 2 biggest separation factors.

I have a super old EF 70-200 F4L that I should probably replace first prior to buying the 85 1.2 but I can't help myself! I love that focal length and just want the best prime I can get at that length. When I need the reach of the 70-200 I'll just cross my fingers that the F4 will be good enough for the situation that I'm in. You've made a compelling argument here though and I can see that a smarter person would probably choose the 70-200 2.8.

Pye, have any suggestions for portrait poses for retired/older couples? Many of my go to posing techniques were not the best fit for the session.

Thank you. Very interesting. I just today bought a used RF 85/1.2L to add to my kit but I do already own the RF 70-200/2.8L Is. I guess I will have to do your test to see if I end up keeping it. Wish I had seen your video a week ago. Take care.

Hi! Between two, for a dog photography in forest or similar places, what do u advise?

I have both they are both fantastic

Very informative comparison for those considering the RF 85mm and RF 70-200mm, but can only afford or want to spend money on one lens.

A video that I didn't know I needed! Great comparison, thanks for that. I have the 70-200 f 2.8 and recently thought of buying the 85 1.2 (DS-Version). I already noticed, that the 70-200 is a great portrait lens at 200 mm, but your comparison really shows the verry little difference to a f 1.2 prime. I am still thinking of buying the 85 mm because of its low-light capabilities. Two things that should be mentioned here: The DS version of the 85 mm 1.2 lens blocks a little of the light compared to the NON-DS version. Not sure the amount but there are videos on youtube about that topic. This can be an issue if you shoot in darker environments or even be an advantage if you shoot outside in bright daylight and you want to shoot at f1.2. Normally you would need a neutral density filter but maybe it works without one with the DS version. The second thing that I want to mention is, that there indeed is a difference in the look of the bokeh between the DS and NON-DS version. While the NON-DS version gives you the round bokeh balls (e.g. when you have city lights in the background or sun shining through trees), the DS version smoothens them significantly. There are comparisons on youtube and you see it on the official website of canon. So in situations without certain lights in the background, you might not always see a difference between DS and NON-DS. But in many situations you do and if you want a calmer background then the DS-version is the way to go.

I want to purchase first lens for my R5 ...which one u will suggest ?

Nice one... I only wished that the same scene/subject is shot with those two lenses side by side.

Nice comparison , thanks

The video I've always wanted 🥺

I got the 28-70mm & 70-200mm and this video is a huge help I wont be in any hurry to get the 85mm

Really good video although I would have liked to see the comparison including the 85 1.2 standard instead of the DS version

How about the f4 version of 70-200?

Thank you for this. Very helpful. I own a R6 and I am just now acquiring the lens I will use. I have a RF 100-500 and a RF 15-35. I plan to get at least one, maybe two more lenses. The RF 70-200 2.8 and the RF 24-70 2.8 are on the short list. Which of those two to go for next is the question right now. I'm leaning toward the 70-200. I would love input!

Hello Pye how are you? I have a question about the canon RF 28-70mm. How do you compare them up to the RF85mm and 70-200mm 2.8. Which is the better by in your professional opinion. Weddings , Portraits etc.?

Pi, is the angle of view on the zoom always at 70mm and then moved closer to the sensor or is it always 200 mans then moved further from the sensor. The angle of view of a prime is fixed so it offers some advantage to me in the background.

price is the only problem for rf system

I got the 70-200mm EF version because I can zoom full range with one swipe, one-handed. But I’m curious - have you compared the EF to the RF 70-200? I would love to hear your thoughts (while I’m still in the trial period 😊) thanks!

If you ever compared rf and ef series. What can you say about it?

So is the 28-70 2.0 a lesser choice than the 70-200?

Did you make a comparison review of the ef 70-200 iii and the rf 70-200?

Sorry but it felt like you compared your best pictures using 70-200 against some of your average pictures using 85mm. I am sure that wasn’t your intention, but that’s what it looks like.

I guess you guys never shoot indoors, because it's difficult enough to frame with a 85mm rather than a 50mm, I can't imagine shooting on a longer fl just to emulate an 85mm-kind of background

As an enthusiast, I have the EF 85 f/1.2 L II and like the creamy look and now adapted to my Nikon body. The RF 70-200 f/2.8 is liked my Nikon 50 f/1.2 S that has the sharp and smooth look, different from the 85 f/1.2 L II. Personally, I'm OK with my 50 f/1.2 S because the focal length isn't just for portraits (full length doesn't need to be creamy) but for general purposes and probably the same thought to the lens trinity too. Of course, besides depth, there are the focusing distance (85 mm for 3/4 body shot) and low light considerations. Anyway, it seems the new lenses from both Nikon and Canon are more tailored to the modern looks (sharp & bokeh), while the DSLR lenses are suited for the bygone era. 🙂

I own both, and use the Rf70-200 a lot for weddings, events and sport. I am fortunate enough to have two bodies and pair this with the Rf28-70 f2 and basically these have you covered. However, when I am taking portraits then the 85 is on one camera and the 28-70 on the other. I am not a fan of over compressed backgrounds that 150-200mm gives you to get similar background blur and you are disconnected from you subjects. To be honest, you can work around it but you feel compromised and if you are tight on space this might not be possible. The extra light you gain gives you cleaner images indoors when shooting natural light. I can’t wait for the 135 to come out as this might be f1.4 which if that is the case it will be amazing but I would still like a 70-135 f2 as that would off the scale…..pretty heavy too I should think but worth it!😂

I got both RF lenses. But especialy for indoor portraits the focal lengths needed with the 70-200 to get a good background spearation are often too long. Also outdoors the 85 is easier to use since you can get closer (e.g. street photography) while maintaining an intense background spearation.

Thank you !!!

Did you shoot your baby images with off cam flash/strobe?

I guess I'm trying to understand where the difference between the RF and ef 70-200 is here .... you get alot more out of focus area the longer focal length you choose.

I have to disagree! I think the 85 shines when you fill the frame with your subject. The images you shared from the 85 have smaller subjects, where your 70-200 images fill the frame(except for your baby, but with small subject you can get much closer). Anyway, not really a direct comparison, which defeats the purpose. I have to say the the RF 70-200 bokeh seems smoother.

85 1.2 ds is only for die hard fan , I will go for 70-200 which very impressive love the RF Mount . Why don't you compare with 70-200 f 2.8 L ?

Awesome video. So for me the 70-200 wins. Just because of versatility. Now the real question comes. Should I buy an EF 70-200 (with adapter, which I already own) or an RF 70-200? I also own a Canon 6D. I just can't make up my mind.

You were surprised your backgrounds were out of focus at 150-200mm ? Did you start taking pictures yesterday or what?

Ha, wish I found this video over the 8 months I struggled with this debate when I had both. I eventually settled with the RF85, the 1.2 was too sweet :) - Great vid.

it seems that the author is surprised with the fact that you can get shallow depth of field shooting on 70-200 on the far end. Just use the any DoF calc and you'll find out that you can get a more shallow depth of field with 24-105 F4 then with 28-70 F2.8 The reason to take prime - are: you can shoot in much darker conditions you can shoot at a close distance and there is no need to shout to your model and at you will get sharper images (if you work in ads - you'll notice the difference in sharpness for sure)

What camara do you used

Sir near me canan eos R If you have a camera please tell me its settings wedding photography traditional shoot please sir tell me settings 🙏🙏🙏

Vote for RF 70-200. Thank you for such a detailed and useful comparison!

Can you compare 135 to 70-200?

Nice review and it kept moving, not stuck too long on one thing. With your uses I'm sure the 70-200 suits better as you state. However you were comparing a lot at 200mm focal lengths also full body portraits, less headshots / beauty shots. So you compared a relatively narrow use case but did so very well. I use the EF85mm 1.2 ii a lot, I have the 70-200 2.8, it just doesn't do the job as well. So it's horses for courses, the bokeh quality and extent difference between the two can be huge. My only issue is the focus speed but this is very rarely a make / break, I still stick with the 1.2 99%. Evening and club scene the 85 1.2 is hands down the better. In fact I sometimes regret carting the extra weight of the 70-200 with me for the minimal use it gets. If I was shooting sports or paparazi style, ok, the 70-200 has it, but then I'd probably take the 70-300 4.5L anyway.

Pye, you would certainly see a more drastic difference in the rendition of the background on the NON DS 85 RF 1.2. The bokeh balls on DS are comparable to F2.0 and the light transmission is T2.0 because of the defocus element/second aperture. The bokeh is less nervous with bright spots on the DS, but those spots appear smaller in shape, that's why the difference between 85 DS and 70-200 in your Application is so small.

Couldn’t you go into crop mode with the RF 85mm and get that same look and also have the lowlight capability and focal length. And still have one lense because that’s what I have been doing on my Eos R and that keeps me from having to carry multiple lenses.

Canon 70-200 RF is a zoom with prime quality. Light weight too. Way more versatile. Winner

Separation of subject is comparable but you can’t get such lens compression with the 85mm. But like someone else mentioned already, you need to have that space to increase distance from you and your subject to shoot at 150-200mm. Just depends on your use cases.

What camera body where u using

The zoom really looks terrific. I think the 85/1.2 would make more sense for fashion/beauty in a studio or for tighter portraits and then it would give you image quality that competes with larger format cameras.

I've got a Sony 70-200 mm f/2.8 GM. Should I trade it for a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 instead?

Why dont you set the zoom to 85 then test

Bokeh is just one factor. What about sharpness? Also, you mentioned low light benefits and that is also a big difference as you can work longer into the golden hour with cleaner files. But, yes, good to know the legendary Canon 70-200 is getting more legendary. I love both these lenses.

I have been shooting events for 10 years. The 70-200 is a must have for shooting all types of events. I use my 85 when Im traveling light or need extra light. But the 70-200 is the go to!

Great video. I love the versatility of the 70-200. I have no desire to lug the chubby 85. In my opinion, Canon spends good money on R&D on the 70-200 because it is part of the Holy Trinity. They have to get it right as every Canon pro on earth has the white 70-200 in the bag.

good impression of these two lenses. but totally different photos compared. you took picture of small subject (baby) with a 2.8 lens and big subjects from a distance with 1.2 lens, what is the point of comparing background blur here.

It bugs me seeing the pop-stopper so close to the mic. It's practically useless when that close. OK, sorry if that sounded rude, just had to say it. Seriously though, I noticed in a few of the pictures that you were shooting at ISO 50. I don't know all the details but remember reading that dynamic range suffers when shooting at ISO 50 compared to ISO 100, so I only use it when I have no other choice. Back to the lenses, I've been putting off purchasing the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS because I don't like the design of it compared to my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. The issue that bothers me the most about the new RF 70-200 lens is that it requires you to turn the zoom ring much more (compared to the EF version) in order to get from 70mm to 200mm. For certain types of shooting this is a disadvantage compared to the ability to just use your thumb on the zoom ring and easily get from 70mm to 200mm. After all that complaining, I'm actually going to get the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens because my EF 70-200 is the last EF lens in my bag. I'll have to 'deal with' its design issues in exchange for having all RF lenses. For the 85mm I picked up the RF 85mm f/2 macro and it's actually a really good lens. I plan to get the RF 85mm f/1.2L eventually but the cheaper macro lens is getting me by just fine for now (while I save up for the EOS R3). Thanks for doing this video, it's great to see the comparison between the two lenses. Hard to pick an absolute winner between them so I'll end up owning both I'm afraid!

I'm a little disappointed you didn't do any night or dark comparisons/shots. That's where that f/1.2 is going to pull ahead.

I am lucky to have the RF 50 f/1.2. I like the versatility a 50 mm gives me. However, for portraits its perhaps a little bit too close, especially when starting the shoot. 70-200 f/2.8 would complement that quite well, starting with the zoom and establishing a connection to the persons you are shooting and then perhaps chaning to the 50mm for different kind of shots. That said, I am even no professional photographer, so what do I say here. In the end, I have the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II USM and it is just so heavy and bulky that I rarely take it with me. Thus it sits there in my shelf for already 7 years, and I probably used it 4-5 times for minor things. Bad investement for me. I always took the f/4 with me when I went to vacations or whatever. This could change with the RF version. Still keeping my f/4 glass, but the f/2.8 has to go. Only thing that is sad about it is, that the f/2.8 is a stellar lens. Quiet IS, very accurate and fast AF, very sharp from 2.8 on, look & feel is very reassuring... and I will probably not get more than 900-1000€ for that lens nowadays, even as new condition. :/

This video is completely incorrect on bokeh, the RF 85 1.2 looks far nicer on the same subject, at the same size in frame. Unlike any of your video did with a ton of misrepresentations of the lenses and using them on completely different subject sizes with different background distances. Not to mention the RF 85 1.2 is sharper and far easier to use for portrait sessions due to needing to be less than half the distance to the subject than the RF 70-200 2.8.

on another note, you make that Blue Yeti microphone sound good!

It would have been helpful if you were comparing the lenses having shot the same images with each lens.

The 50mm 1.2 and the 85mm 1.2 are two of the most iconic RF primes on the market. While they share many similarities, there are also some key differences between the two lenses. The 50mm 1.2 is a versatile lens that is perfect for everyday photography, while the 85mm 1.2 is a specialized lens that is ideal for portraiture.