Latest activity

AlanF · Nov 7, 2025

First time we've seen a Great White Egret in the local lake. 800mm is just so useful! (R5ii, 200-800mm).

Exploreshootshare · Nov 7, 2025

I am wondering about Canons prime lens line-up. Obviously, there is the L line-up which could be divided in the L F1.2´s (with that one or two glaring holes) and the VCM line. Then there are the consumer primes such 24/ 35mm F1.8. Is the 45mm F1.2 the start of the new line up or does it belong the 24/35/85 F2 line up? Looking at the price point, it would be the latter. Also, have there any patents been spotted that suggest whether C is planning on more lenses like the 45mm?

Exploreshootshare · Nov 7, 2025

Canon Rumors said:
Richard has said many cruel things about my Cincinnati Bengals. That's what really hurts. It hurts even more than being a Bengals fan.

If he was talking about their (non existent) defense, he wasn't mean. He was just being down-to-earth-realistic

PS: please don't ban me from this forum

Del Paso · Nov 7, 2025

Canon Rumors said:
Richard has said many cruel things about my Cincinnati Bengals. That's what really hurts. It hurts even more than being a Bengals fan.

What are Cincinnati bengals? Birds?

josephandrews222 · Nov 7, 2025

Richard:

Your article here (and the comments that follow) is (are) why I read CR.

Thanks for your contributions (and the occasional levity within them

).

My initial two questions about the lens, a lens that I would find most use for in very low light:

(1) How well does it focus in low light?
(2) I very much rely on IS. How effective will IBIS [EOS R1, R5, R5 Mark II, R6, R6 Mark II, R3, and R7] be for this (non-IS) lens?

Del Paso · Nov 7, 2025

justaCanonuser said:
Btw one of my next purchases will be a good RF-Leica M39 thread mount adapter. The 20mm flange focal distance of the RF mount allows to adapt M39 lenses and keep infinity focusing, since that classic Leica mount has a flange focal distance of 28.8mm. I'd like to try some of my vintage M39 lenses on my R5 II, like my 1.4/50mm and 1.8/85mm from Canon (late lenses from Canon's rangefinder era). Adds a bit of radioactivity to my images since the highly refractive lens parts were made of thoriated glass...

But do not buy any Leica lenses below 35 mm, unless tested. You will normally experience an ugly colour cast on both side of the pictures, and a huge loss of sharpness too. Even some older 35mm summicrons disappoint (around 1968). So, testing is highly recommended.
I'd also warmly recommend the Novoflex adapter.
PS: Some early 50mm summicrons also used thorium in their lens-glass formula...

Richard CR · Nov 7, 2025

Maximilian said:
Man, Craig! How can you be so mean to @Richard CR ?

yeah! exactly!

Richard CR · Nov 7, 2025

Canon Rumors said:
I'm very interested to see what DPP/DLO are going to do to the 45 files. I have seen some remarkable corrections recently.

I've noticed in some images that there's a bunch of purple fringing against highlights, so DLO will certainly clear that out. It WILL help out some of the aberrations and softness in the corners, but I would not expect miracles.

dominic_siu · Nov 7, 2025

By looking at the MTF and one of the YouTuber’s review, it reminiscent too much EF 50 1.2 which is not my cup of tea and a hard pass

justaCanonuser · Nov 7, 2025

Besisika said:
And I want more like these at different focal lengths.

Hm, some decades back it was fashionable to smear fat on a lens for a certain dreamy look - maybe you should try that with a cheap filter?

Joking aside I know what you mean, that's why I sometimes love to use vintage lenses.

grilled_rooster · Nov 7, 2025

I love the RF 45/1.2 will give me a similar look like the EF 50/1.2. Cheaper and lighter. And i love my Zeiss Distagon 28/2 for it's field curvature. It's a character lens. Ans so will be the 45/1.2. With AF. I pre-ordered it 1 hour after the announcement.

justaCanonuser · Nov 7, 2025

Maximilian said:
And my "The dark side - I've been there" for using Nikon in the past as well, was always meant with a

I loved my FM-2 and some manual Nikkor lenses, but I am happy that I changed to Canon. My wife's Nikon gear has caused much more trouble than mine, my wife had to send some of their cameras and lenses quite frequently to service (dead buttons, dead AF drives, mirror stuck...). In former decades when they made great cameras like the F-3, FM/E-2 etc., Nikon stood for ruggedness and reliability. But today at least our experience over many years shows that Canon beats Nikon in overall quality. For wildlife/birding it makes the decisive difference if you are far out and suddenly your gear fails to work.

screenshooter · Nov 7, 2025

Cerulean42 said:
It's partially a surprise with the price, but also a let down as it is not using the patent that was previously published. From gordon's video that is just posted, it is fake internal focusing with all groups moving inside the barrel, and not a true internal focusing design like the patent. Also the CA and corner image quality is pretty bad. The MTF is also rather "vintage" for lack of a better word. They might be making some changes but it's canon after all.

What is wrong with all groups moving? Sure its more mass so the autofocus *could* be faster if it was true internally focused, but in my reading its generally easier to maintain sharpness and corrections when you move all the groups.

Traveler · Nov 7, 2025

Traveler said:
You're just guessing though. Even the tech guys from Canon don't know what exactly does it do. My opinion is similar to yours – it helps the Digic X. And as you said, there used to be dual Digic in some cameras. This is probably something similar but the camera doesn't need double the speed so the accelerator is just a little brother.

My point was that the Digic accelerator probably isn't designed for a specific task like "AI autofocus" so an absence of it may not mean losing features. It may be that 30-ish MP is still fine for the Digic X alone, but for 45Mpix it needs a help. Or for cross-type (as you mentioned).

Or, the accelerator helps with the "basketball autofocus" feature and the R6iii won't have it.

One more point is that Digic X is not the same processor in every camera so the one in the R6iii may be more powerfull.

Anyways, just saying that having no Digic accelerator doesn't mean much.

Looks like a was wrong: the tech guys from Canon now know

And the accelerator helps with the "basketball autofocus" so I was wrong and right

Besisika · Nov 7, 2025

Traveler said:
Spot on, that's exactly the market. People who wan't the extreme soft look and don't want to use the adapter.

And I want more like these at different focal lengths.

justaCanonuser · Nov 7, 2025

Dear Richard, thank you so much for this enlightening article! I did not yet have a chance to take a closer look at the new RF 1.2/45mm but reading your in-depth explanations including the MTF charts (telling the whole story) helped me much and gave me 2 ideas:
(1) For shooting stills with a "dreamy vintage" look, I'll keep my EF 1.2/50mm.
(2) For video with external mike (when one wants a totally silent AF drive) and a more modern look I may take a plunge and get the RF 1.4/50mm VCM lens, but that will also depend on the question whether I need such a super fast lens for video (not yet).
I always strolled around the optically exceptionally well made RF f/1.2 , but its size and weight was the true hurdle for me, for my personal taste it is a too big lens. Basically I do not have a problem with big and heavy lenses, since I also use really big tele lenses. But for typical 50mm lens settings I love to have a compact, handy lens. So, thank you again, you helped my to make my decision.

You may have noticed that I used the old school "f-stop/focal length" notation here, that was intentional and a reference to the old Leica/Zeiss look fan wars. I never understood why people can get so crazy about photo gear that they really start to hate each others, despite being passionate about photography myself. For instance, I still love my wife, despite she is a Nikon user (I changed to Canon when I went digital)

GMCPhotographics · Nov 7, 2025

GMCPhotographics said:
I had several copies of the EF 50mm f1.2 L and I found it to be a frustrating lens to use. It was built like a tank and handled lfare really well. It had great colours and a lot of charector. BUT in low light (exactly when you want to use a f1.2 lens) it's AF was ponderous, hessitant and often would not lock on. I'm talking single point One shot mode. I would have to use one of the the verticle centre points on my 5DIII to have any hope. And yet my EF 24-70 L would nail AF effortlessly at 50mm and that was a lens far less bright in terms of light transmission. Which goes to show that wide open contrast was more importaint to the AF system than brightness or light level.
The other issue with the EF 50mm f1.2 L was the well documented aperture dependent focus shift. At close focus distances, if you stopped down to f2.8 (where this lens actually became quite sharp) the point of focus was fine in the view finder, but in the final shot, it would jump significantly.
I've not tried the EF 50mm f1.2 L on a modern mirroless camera body. but under the older DSLR AF system...it was too erratic and unreliable for my professional needs at the time.

I think if I was in the market for a sharp and bright 50mm style prime, these days we are spoilt for choice on the RF mount. There's a lens for every budget and use case. For me, I'd only really be happy with the RF 50mm f1.2 L, everything else is a compromise. However, If I was rebuilting my prime lens collectiobn, I would start with a 85m and then choose a 35mm. A 50ish mm, would be my last choice after a 135mm.

Traveler · Nov 7, 2025

SnowMiku said:
I'm guessing the R7 II could be the next one.

I was just teasing the CanorRumors guys. One camera released and people want to know what's next

Traveler · Nov 7, 2025

Snapster said:
This seems like a great addition to the RF lens lineup on paper but I'm also a bit disappointed.

If you want the vintage 1.2 look, you can already buy a used EF 50mm 1.2 L for a similar price. You get better build quality, weather sealing and USM on top. In that sense, this new lens doesn't really add much to the table. I would rather get the EF lens, personally.

On the other hand, the RF 35mm 1.8 STM has superior IQ at 1.8 for the same price + IS + semi-macro. It still seems like the better lens overall, unless you only want the extreme soft look and don't want to use an adapter.

Spot on, that's exactly the market. People who wan't the extreme soft look and don't want to use the adapter.

Traveler · Nov 7, 2025

Cerulean42 said:
It's partially a surprise with the price, but also a let down as it is not using the patent that was previously published. From gordon's video that is just posted, it is fake internal focusing with all groups moving inside the barrel, and not a true internal focusing design like the patent. Also the CA and corner image quality is pretty bad. The MTF is also rather "vintage" for lack of a better word. They might be making some changes but it's canon after all.

And what exactly are you asking for a f/1.2 for $500?

Mr_EMan · Nov 7, 2025

yeahright said:
shooting in -40 °C is probably not the typical use case for most people and what's 5 batteries? nothing.

… unless you need six. Underestimating how many batteries I need has been an issue in the past. I really appreciate new batteries with their own USB ports + battery power packs.

I’ve given up waiting for good GPS in an affordable camera for me. For years I’ve just been using GPS loggers. I’ve been using the Columbus P10, which I can leave on for 2 days with 1 sec logging. And it’s the only logger I can find that uses the new L5 GPS signal which significantly improves accuracy and cross path interferences.

However, what I wish Canon would allow in newer cameras is the compass information. From what I can gather, I think only the 5D mkiii had this capability. Both the Canon and Solmeta GPS receivers have this compass information, but can’t write it to the newer Canons.

Edit: maybe the 1D X as well for storing compass information?

GMCPhotographics · Nov 7, 2025

Richard CR said:
I gave my thoughts on this lens.

A Closer Look into the Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM - Canon Rumors

A review of the Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM as compared to other Canon RF 50mm and Canon's legacy 50mm EF lenses.

www.canonrumors.com

some of you may like my thoughts, some of you may hate them. don't come after me for T* though

I had several copies of the EF 50mm f1.2 L and I found it to be a frustrating lens to use. It was built like a tank and handled lfare really well. It had great colours and a lot of charector. BUT in low light (exactly when you want to use a f1.2 lens) it's AF was ponderous, hessitant and often would not lock on. I'm talking single point One shot mode. I would have to use one of the the verticle centre points on my 5DIII to have any hope. And yet my EF 24-70 L would nail AF effortlessly at 50mm and that was a lens far less bright in terms of light transmission. Which goes to show that wide open contrast was more importaint to the AF system than brightness or light level.
The other issue with the EF 50mm f1.2 L was the well documented aperture dependent focus shift. At close focus distances, if you stopped down to f2.8 (where this lens actually became quite sharp) the point of focus was fine in the view finder, but in the final shot, it would jump significantly.
I've not tried the EF 50mm f1.2 L on a modern mirroless camera body. but under the older DSLR AF system...it was too erratic and unreliable for my professional needs at the time.

blackcoffee17 · Nov 7, 2025

Richard CR said:
I think if I were going to go that route, it would be to Nikon, Sony - I can't see it, I never really felt comfortable with their cameras. Nikon's I have used in the past, and even though they were heathens for their lens turning the wrong way, there's a DNA there that's appreciable.

Fuji as well - especially because their APS-C Camera bodies are excellent.

I like Nikon's attitude the most, seems to be the most consumer friendly company, at least as far their product design goes.

Richard CR · Nov 7, 2025

Canon Rumors said:
The truth is, @Richard CR thinks the 45 1.2 is too big for his R100.

Richard CR · Nov 7, 2025

mimbu said:
The king of bang-for-the-buck today is Chinese glass. Have you considered picking up a used E or Z mount camera to try some of this out? It almost boggles the mind how good some of this glass is for the price. (And if you work out how to order directly from the Chinese sites, prices get even lower. Sometimes a LOT lower.)

I think if I were going to go that route, it would be to Nikon, Sony - I can't see it, I never really felt comfortable with their cameras. Nikon's I have used in the past, and even though they were heathens for their lens turning the wrong way, there's a DNA there that's appreciable.

Fuji as well - especially because their APS-C Camera bodies are excellent.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics