Old Man FL/FD said:

Thanks for the clarification. I Googled "*** slang" and some obvious offenders showed up. I wasn't aware of the previous controversy on this site.

Click to expand...

Fortunately, as a European, I can state that our system is called Galileo, which is harder to mistreat as an offending acronym (you'd have to invent something with seven words, for G. A. L. I. L. E., and O., so any willing offenders would need quite a bit of imagination)

David_B said:

The evidence of one person that's demonstratably biased towards Canon is not good scientific evidence.

Click to expand...

Did you ever in your life see scientific evidence that was coming from an unbiased person?

I'd prefer a TS-R 12mm f/2.8 over that one (or RF 12mm f/2).

50wyldeman said:

I apologize for three consecutive posts I am very excited for this camera and hope this wasn't all too much

Click to expand...

That's okay, at least for me, because we all are enthusiasts in this forum, and I get sometimes carried away here, too. Have always good light

Richard raises in this very interesting comparison of reviews a question that I ask always myself: do I want perfection or "artistic" imperfection?

Being myself scientifically educated (physics) I always love to check sites like Photozone, now OpticalLimits, with thorough lab reviews - that's the sort of "scientific" Dr. Jekyll in me. But when it gets to real life photography, the "artistic sort" Mr. Hyde could be set free, and then I enjoy shooting with gear that isn't technically, in particular optically, perfect - depending on the subject, of course. Its the street & people side of photography in which I often love to get an imperfect, vintage look (not quite Lomography, that's too crappy for my taste). By contrast, when I shoot wildlife or macro, I want technical perfection. Getting to the 45/1.2 here, this would be a nice candidate for the first approach to real life photography, so I can understand well why some reviewers are more enthusiastic than others.

The 20/1.4 VCM is a great lens and I’d almost certainly buy a 14/1.4 or 14/1.8 VCM, should one come along. But personally, I’d take a TS-R 14 over the faster VCM prime, in a heartbeat.

Also, with a TS-R the purists won’t be able to complain about cutting the corners off the FF image circle.

Tom R5R7 said:

I happen to have both this new 45/1.2 STM and the old EF 50/1.2L. I haven't run a full battery of tests, but what I can say from my limited comparisons is that the RF 45 is the sharper of the two, especially at wider apertures. Just a sharper lens.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Tom, that really helps me to get a bit of a clearer picture. I have the EF 50/1.2 L, and when I bought it years ago, I was first disappointed that it gets so soft wide open, compared to my beloved EF 85/1.2 L II. On the positive side, it was much better than the EF 50/1.4 I had before. Over the years I learned how to use the EF 50/1.2 even wide open and get nice results, because in the center it is acceptable. The creamy, dream-like bokeh is definitely the strength of this old lens design. Now, I decided to keep my old EF 50/1.2 for a while, because it is also such a nicely compact lens, given that it is so fast and made for SLRs with a deep flange focal distance. So, if I would upgrade, I'd more likely invest more and get me the RF 50/1.2, I guess.

Currently, if there is enough light and I need more sharpness, I use my RF 24-70/2.8 anyway, a very good allrounder zoom that is also capable of producing a nice bokeh, if the background isn't filled with busy highlights. But that's a quite big and very different lens, of course.

rives305 said:

The v1 is a fun camera. The wide lens is great for filming yourself for content. 16-50 is great. Even a 20-70 would be great for the use of selfies or filming yourself.

My biggest gripe was the flash situation. If it was to appease the demand of the g7x there was a clear miscommunication.

The influencer world was using it for photos. The fill flash was their favorite feature.

Click to expand...

The V1 is a vlogging camera, it does not seem intended to replace the G series.

rives305 said:

The v1 lacked a flash and the only real option was the el flashes that are bigger than the camera. And the adapter to use older hot shoe model flashes again make it impractical and cumbersome.

The godox it30 wouldve solved this issue but was released almost a year after the v1 was.

Click to expand...

Does the Godox flash use the multifunction shoe? I’m guessing yes from your statement, if so I may pick one up. I have the (long discontinued) 270EX II that I use directly with the R8 and M-series bodies, but the adapter is needed on the V1.

Snapster said:

Assuming the photographer actually knows the lens has focus shift in the first place and is aware of the setting you have to change. And still it's not ideal that the camera won't be allowed to AF at the widest aperture in low light.

Click to expand...

Agree that it’s not ideal, but because the magnitude of focus shift varies inversely with subject distance, those not shooting subjects near the MFD will likely not notice it.

Snapster said:

R5 and R6 not getting a firmware update for ExpSim + DoF Preview is also questionable. There are probably lots and lots of hobbyists with an R6 who this new lens is actually meant for.

Click to expand...

Firmware updates for cameras that have been replaced in the lineup are rare events, and I don’t recall one that added any significant features to the superseded model. Such updates are typically to fix problems identified later. I certainly wouldn’t hold my breath for features being added to cameras that are no longer current in the lineup. That will be even more true for the R6 that is now two versions out of date.

The v1 is a fun camera. The wide lens is great for filming yourself for content. 16-50 is great. Even a 20-70 would be great for the use of selfies or filming yourself.

My biggest gripe was the flash situation. If it was to appease the demand of the g7x there was a clear miscommunication.

The influencer world was using it for photos. The fill flash was their favorite feature.

The v1 lacked a flash and the only real option was the el flashes that are bigger than the camera. And the adapter to use older hot shoe model flashes again make it impractical and cumbersome.

The godox it30 wouldve solved this issue but was released almost a year after the v1 was.

The g7x hype is a small form factor with a decent sensor and fast aperture. People want a fun camera to carry around that isn't bulky for their everyday lives

I think it has to be 24-75, so that it can be sold as a 3x zoom (at least.) I don't see why constant aperature would be a big deal for this crowd but what would I know? I'm not going to buy it.

reefroamer said:

The shutter lag is pretty noticeable on my G7xiii. An update, with a modern sensor and DIGIC chip should improve this along with shutter rate and auto focus. I’d keep the form factor/size unchanged. Still a great little pocket camera.

Click to expand...

This. I think shutter lag on pocket cameras is one of the most important things for Canon to fix/eliminate in this part of the market.

A 14/1.4 would be nice but looks to be heavy and expensive with all those elements. I wouldn’t need close minimum focus distance or IS for Astro.

Having a similar lens in price to the Sony 14/1.8 would suit everything I would need and some of the physical features of the sigma 14/1.4 (dew heater placement, focus lock etc) would round out the perfect lens

I am yet again see any discounts on the RF20/1.4 so I haven’t pulled the trigger for it although it would have better coma than the sigma EF20/1.4 that I currently use

HMC11 said:

I once had a colleague who, when confronted with scientific evidence from a wide range of disciplines about human's impact on global warming, simply stated that he wouldn't believe any of these results until he had personally conducted the experiments. All around the table simply disengaged from the debate.

Click to expand...

I hear you. The evidence of one person that's demonstratably biased towards Canon is not good scientific evidence. It might be good evidence for him, but nobody else, it would be good if we had scientific evidence, but we don't. Even the description of the test does not fill me with joy over its rigour. I'd wager that Canon does have that evidence. (and possibly Adobe, et al.) Consider Canon witholding that evidence akin to oil companies witholding evidence from decades ago about their predictions of global warming.

David_B said:

The problem is the lack of evidence or more importantly, Canon's internal testing where they decided that 19.96 was acceptable. I mean it's great that you did something that you consider to be worthwhile evidence but your test bed isn't Canon's test bed and your image analysis isn't Canon's image analysis.

Click to expand...

I once had a colleague who, when confronted with scientific evidence from a wide range of disciplines about human's impact on global warming, simply stated that he wouldn't believe any of these results until he had personally conducted the experiments. All around the table simply disengaged from the debate.

neuroanatomist said:

I suppose the only reasonable cutoff point is, are you happy with the resulting images. Since you don't use distortion correction and most lenses have at least some, I suspect you have a low bar for image quality by my standards. I know that straight lines are just that, and I want them to appear that way in my images.

Click to expand...

Find a scraggly old tree and take a photo of it. How many straight lines are in that? Put it in your raw image editor of choice, apply a lens profile and compare the before and after. Sure they're different but does one or the other make or break the image?

neuroanatomist said:

Eschewing distortion correction means straight lines in your images are curved, to me that is highly undesirable (and I only tolerate when it's necessary for correction of volume anamorphosis, because I prioritize the appearance of faces at the edge of the frame over lines being straight).

Click to expand...

You're assuming I shoot straight lines. Sounds like a boring photo to me. I also don't put faces at the edge of the frame if I can help it.

neuroanatomist said:

Only 19.96 mm 'high', as opposed to 21.64 mm. 8% shorter on the half-diagonal. With the 24-105/2.8 at 24mm, the black corners are less than 0.05% of the image that need to be 'filled in' by 'stretching'. On my R1, that's 11,400 pixels out of the 24,000,000. If you want to lose sleep over that, be my guest.

Click to expand...

Back in this post:
I presented some calculations from gemini about image coverage of the smaller circle on the sensor and its answer was 98.5%. On a 45MP that's ~675,000 pixels (1.5%) that aren't usable. For the R1, 1.5% is 360,000. How'd you come up with 11,400 out of 24,000,000? Did Gemini get it wrong? It's not a trivial calculation to work out the area lit by the smaller image circle

neuroanatomist said:

I have shown evidence to support that they can give equivalent results. I have seen no evidence to the contrary, nor have I seen evidence that digital correction provides superior results.

Click to expand...

The problem is the lack of evidence or more importantly, Canon's internal testing where they decided that 19.96 was acceptable. I mean it's great that you did something that you consider to be worthwhile evidence but your test bed isn't Canon's test bed and your image analysis isn't Canon's image analysis.

EOS 4 Life said:

Most reviewers tested the lens on the R6 III.
New cameras do not have a focus shift.

Click to expand...

Assuming the photographer actually knows the lens has focus shift in the first place and is aware of the setting you have to change. And still it's not ideal that the camera won't be allowed to AF at the widest aperture in low light.

R5 and R6 not getting a firmware update for ExpSim + DoF Preview is also questionable. There are probably lots and lots of hobbyists with an R6 who this new lens is actually meant for.

gbasilemc said:

"There will be at least one “crazy” lens. I have no idea what that could be, but Canon does need to release some things that fit under the “halo product” banner."

Like what ? any exemple of any "halo" product that already exists ?

Click to expand...

Nikon's 58mm f0.95

LHN said:

Has anyone compared the optical quality of the 45mm f/1.2 to the assorted inexpensive Chinese fast fifties? Aside from autofocus, is it clearly better than, e.g., the TTArtisan 50mm f/1.2, or others of that ilk?

(If nothing else, presumably having available digital lens corrections is an advantage.)

Click to expand...

you mean the cheap manual focus ones? alot of those chinese primes you can get for a dime a dozen, from a fun factor, they are great. I found some of the manual focus ones (7artisans in particular) to have odd lens layouts that would trip me up (aperture and focus dials switched from what we'd traditionally expect).

Has anyone compared the optical quality of the 45mm f/1.2 to the assorted inexpensive Chinese fast fifties? Aside from autofocus, is it clearly better than, e.g., the TTArtisan 50mm f/1.2, or others of that ilk?

(If nothing else, presumably having available digital lens corrections is an advantage.)

Michael Clark said:

Yeah, that jump from 21.0 for the 5D Mark II to 22.3 for the 5D Mark III was so huge.

It wasn't at all about the Mark III getting a pro grade 61 point AF system that used the same part number for the PDAF array as the 1D X instead of the 9 point consumer grade system of the 5D Mark II, the better weather and dust resistance, or a sturdier body compared to the Mark II.

I used the 5D Mark II as my primary body for over three years, then used the 5D Mark III body for over four years. Other than the sensors, which were pretty close in performance, the Mark III was an entirely different class of camera than the Mark II.

Roger Cicala said the same thing regarding both it's construction and AF performance.



Roger also said here:

Click to expand...

FYI, I own both R5 and R5mk2. There's really not much difference between the two. Yes, the AF is somewhat better in mk2, but s not by a huge margin. Unless you're a sports / wildlife shooter, I really doubt most would profit from the improvement, considering the AF was pretty good in R5. It's certainly nowhere near the difference with 5Dmk2 which had abysmal AF compared to 5Dmk3 which had a decent AF system.

And, ironically, if you're a sports / wildlife shooter, you're probably better off with R3 or R1, even further confirming my earlier assessment that Canon is mainly catering to the speed-focused market while ignoring those that need high resolution.

This has led me down the path to purchasing a GFX100II, along with a full set of 8 lenses. For the first time in my career I'm running 2 systems, simply because I got tired of waiting for Canon. I do all of my architecture / product / landscape / cityscape work with the Fuji and use Canon almost exclusively for occasional sport gig, a low light handheld shoots or taking photos of my dog.

And I have to say, being fully aware of the Fujifilm user tropes, I'm really enjoying what that camera produces, both in terms of resolution as well as the colors. And at 8 fps, it's no slouch either. I'll be getting some fast primes soon and I have a feeling Fuji will take over that part of my work from Canon as well.

I just feel like Canon has been stagnant for a long time. The releases come and go and it all feels so predictable and incremental. There's nothing to bash, of course. Canon is reliable and proven and performs well. Kinda like a Toyota sedan. But I'm missing something that makes the heart beat faster.

And I feel like this is desperately needed, because with the onslaught of AI, I have zero doubt that all camera makers will start feeling the pain.

Exploreshootshare said:

Did you honestly base your opinion on solely on the MTF chart? I´m asking because it kinda sounds (reads) like it.
To me, that would be like judging a car for an article for a magazine by only looking at a picture of it. Take it out for a spin, would you please?!

Basing an opinion about a camera lens solely on an MTF is fundamentally flawed imo because an MTF chart measures only one narrow aspect of performance under artificial conditions or sometimes - afaik are just simple calculations. (not sure about the calculations part, I've read some contradicting information). Real-world image quality depends on many factors it can’t show—such as color rendering, contrast, bokeh, distortion, autofocus behavior, and practical usability.

Basing a lens purchase on chart testing alone is misguided imo because test charts evaluate lenses in controlled, artificial conditions that rarely reflect how they are actually used. Charts emphasize measurable sharpness and contrast at specific distances, but they ignore critical real-world factors such as rendering style, color and micro-contrast, flare behavior, bokeh, autofocus reliability, handling, and how the lens performs across varied lighting and subject matter. A lens that excels on a chart can still produce uninspiring images in practice, while one that tests “worse” may deliver more pleasing and usable results in real photography.

Click to expand...

1) we literally wrote the article the day after the lens was announced. I didn't realize we were supposed to transport a copy of the lens and physically test it before writing about it
2) the MTF does atypically match on abberations, constrast and resolution - so if you are looking for clinical optical quality, it's a decent judge.
3) what artifical conditions? yes, the MTF is calculated in Canon's case but their elements and most lenses are manufactured by machines, not humans anymore; the odds that the MTF will match reality have a fairly strong correlation.

"color rendering, contrast, bokeh, distortion, autofocus behavior, and practical usability"

color rendering: Canon's coatings are well known at this time. One important point of coatings is to make color rendering consistent.
contrast: is literally exhibited by the 10lp/mm MTF line pairs
bokeh: can be more or less determined by the MTF.
autofocus behaviour: you don't know how STM, USM, or VCM works?

I know the style of shooting that the 45mm was for, and as I said in that article, I just don't it anymore - it's not for me.

I can easily make that determination from an MTF, and as I stated, there are some that will love this lens:

As many of you know, I’m pretty huge on the bang for the buck lenses, but this lens, I think, prioritizes “character” a little too much to make it a general-purpose lens that would have a greater utility. If you are the type of photographer who loves candid portraits, in the studio, or even street shooting, then this may be an incredibly wonderful bargain lens to add to your kit. For me, I don’t shoot those disciplines much anymore, and if I did want to have that option, I’d probably find the RF 50mm F1.8 STM perfectly suitable as a substitute at 50% of the price.

For those seeking to reclaim the magic of the Canon EF 50mm f1.2L USM in a lighter, smaller, and more modern lens, this is a lens absolutely for you.

And we wrote that before the reviewers released their full reviews on the lens, and I'm pretty sure our take was spot on.

Del Paso said:

"If you are looking to purchase a lens and you know you will demand the most out of its optical performance, OpticalLimits is really the place to go to see how it performs."(Quote)
OK, then, according to O.L, the RF 28-70 is absolutely miserable at 70mm (corners). TDP's "Optical Quality" results being also underwhelming at 28mm.
What or who shall I believe now? Meanwhile, many forum members or moderators seem to really like it...
Reliability of reviews, no matter by whom, is very relative.
I'll never base a buying decision on reviews, good or bad, but on my own testing of a rented lens with the option to buy it if satisfied.

Click to expand...

we talked about that one actually. it's one of the few reviews that I think Klaus messed up on and got a bad lens copy. for bad copy / transport damage reasons yes, you should always take results that especially don't make sense against the MTF as suspect.


I'm not sure if we could use that judgment as much in early EF days, especially in film, but certainly in the age of mirrorless and automated manufacturing. IMO, MTF is a good "idiot check" against a lens copy issue.

The shutter lag is pretty noticeable on my G7xiii. An update, with a modern sensor and DIGIC chip should improve this along with shutter rate and auto focus. I’d keep the form factor/size unchanged. Still a great little pocket camera.