Post your images takes with Canon's RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS. A very close cousin to the RF 85mm f/1.2L USM, this lens differs only by the 'defocus smoothing' moniker indicating the use of apodization coatings on two of the elements. Apodization provides smoother, 'better' bokeh (to some eyes, since of course bokeh is subjective in nature) at the cost of some lost light transmission.
There has been debate here and elsewhere as to whether or not there is an effect of the DS coatings on depth of field. Perhaps I shouldn't open that can of worms, but the short version is that 1) apodization does increase the DoF (that's physics) and 2) the effect on DoF is of far less magnitude than the effect on light transmission. In other words, at f/1.2 the 85L DS loses about 1.4 stops of light (i.e., it exposes like an f/2 lens), but the DoF is only very slightly deeper than f/1.2 on the non-DS lens. However, in some scenes the perceptual effect of the blur circles being smaller with the DS lens gives the subjective impression that DoF is comparatively deeper. Like I said, it's a can of worms.
Probably for many people considering the choice between the 85L and the 85L DS, it comes down to use cases. If the intent is use in low light, the non-DS is the better choice because in low light that ~1.4 stops makes a real difference. If the intent is use as a portrait lens, the DS version may be the better choice since the whole purpose of the DS coatings is to improve the bokeh. That's really at the heart of the DoF debate, too – the smoother blur circles of the DS lens result in better bokeh, but since those blur circles are smaller, the magnitude of out-of-focus blur appears to be less with the DS lens. However, the latter is about quantity, and bokeh is about quality.
For me, the use case will be portraits where I want the highest quality of OOF blur, so the DS lens was the logical choice. It didn't hurt that the CPW price for the DS lens when I bought it was not only lower than the going price (CPW or not) for the non-DS version of the lens, it was lower even than Canon USA's price for the refurbished non-DS lens.
Here's an early shot with the lens to kick off the thread:
"Dove @ Christmas"
EOS R3, RF 85mm f/1.2L DS, 1/100 s, f/1.2, ISO 10000
Just for kicks, I compared bokeh balls on the tree behind our kitty with two other lenses, the RF 24-105/2.8 and the RF 28-70/2. These are 100% crops, the shots were taken from the same distance.
For the more OOF (and dimmer) lights at the top of the frame, you can see that the 85/1.2L DS shows just a soft blur, the 24-105/2.8 shows harder-edged circles with a brighter outer ring, and the 28-70/2 shows harder-edged circles with some onion-ring effects.
There has been debate here and elsewhere as to whether or not there is an effect of the DS coatings on depth of field. Perhaps I shouldn't open that can of worms, but the short version is that 1) apodization does increase the DoF (that's physics) and 2) the effect on DoF is of far less magnitude than the effect on light transmission. In other words, at f/1.2 the 85L DS loses about 1.4 stops of light (i.e., it exposes like an f/2 lens), but the DoF is only very slightly deeper than f/1.2 on the non-DS lens. However, in some scenes the perceptual effect of the blur circles being smaller with the DS lens gives the subjective impression that DoF is comparatively deeper. Like I said, it's a can of worms.
Probably for many people considering the choice between the 85L and the 85L DS, it comes down to use cases. If the intent is use in low light, the non-DS is the better choice because in low light that ~1.4 stops makes a real difference. If the intent is use as a portrait lens, the DS version may be the better choice since the whole purpose of the DS coatings is to improve the bokeh. That's really at the heart of the DoF debate, too – the smoother blur circles of the DS lens result in better bokeh, but since those blur circles are smaller, the magnitude of out-of-focus blur appears to be less with the DS lens. However, the latter is about quantity, and bokeh is about quality.
For me, the use case will be portraits where I want the highest quality of OOF blur, so the DS lens was the logical choice. It didn't hurt that the CPW price for the DS lens when I bought it was not only lower than the going price (CPW or not) for the non-DS version of the lens, it was lower even than Canon USA's price for the refurbished non-DS lens.
Here's an early shot with the lens to kick off the thread:
"Dove @ Christmas"
EOS R3, RF 85mm f/1.2L DS, 1/100 s, f/1.2, ISO 10000
Just for kicks, I compared bokeh balls on the tree behind our kitty with two other lenses, the RF 24-105/2.8 and the RF 28-70/2. These are 100% crops, the shots were taken from the same distance.
For the more OOF (and dimmer) lights at the top of the frame, you can see that the 85/1.2L DS shows just a soft blur, the 24-105/2.8 shows harder-edged circles with a brighter outer ring, and the 28-70/2 shows harder-edged circles with some onion-ring effects.
