Latest activity

fox40phil · Nov 3, 2025

my biggest not answered questions yet:

Shutter Angle for video!?
Sound record on slow mo video?! (C50 hasn't)
Buffer for RAW photos
New AF?

At least it will be again to expensive at the start to fram the early adopters... I don't pay 3k€ if I can have a used R5II for ~3300-3500€!

hamsterdam · Nov 3, 2025

Walrus said:
Juicy, but I'm waiting from Chris Frost's word, if it's any good (aka AT LEAST on par with Sigma 50 Art at 1.4), it's probably instant buy

Why would anyone expect this $500-$600 lens to be AT LEAST as good as a lens that is double its size and price. Canon's budget primes aren't even as good as third-party lenses that are half the price (e.g., canon 24mm vs samyang 24mm for e-mount).

Del Paso · Nov 3, 2025

1ll said:
Any additional murmurs about the RF tilt-shift lens?

riker · Nov 3, 2025

Tom R5R7 said:
Depends on the criteria of judgement. In terms of pure sharpness, it was/is not exceptional, especially at wide apertures. In terms of color fidelity, it's top notch. Build quality, top notch. Quality of bokeh, top notch. A mixed bag of sorts, but form follows function and the function, the design criteria for the EF 50/1.2L did not include absolute sharpness at f/1.2 across the field. The newer RF lens does a lot better in the regard, and is also a much more expensive and complex lens design.

I would say that if overall sharpness across the field is your main criteria, the EF 50/1.2L is not the lens for you.

Important part of my criticism was AF. It was slow asf.
I tend to compare lenses to other lenses. So in a nutshell, the 85/1.4L was a really great, exceptional lens. The 50/1.2L was not.
I can't not see how the 50/1.4L is superior to the 50/1.2L similarly to how the 85/1.4L is superior to the 82/1.2L (IQ and AF as well).

Also, my #1 problem with the 50/1.8 is AF, not IQ. Not that IQ is great, the 2016 Sony 50/1.8 is superior. But I could live with the IQ, the AF is driving me nuts.

1ll · Nov 3, 2025

Any additional murmurs about the RF tilt-shift lens?

Click · Nov 3, 2025

Lovely shot.

candyman · Nov 3, 2025

What's your strategy and what tools do you use to get it completely clean again? Will the dial be particularly affected by sand, or not?

Tom R5R7 · Nov 3, 2025

riker said:
Erm...well...one of Canon's "dark secret" was EF 50/1.2 not being that good at all. With a bit of emotional bias I could say it was crap for an L lens. But for sure it was not a real L lens in terms of optical quality and also AF performance. I have never used the RF version but honestly, since I see lot of ppl changing theirs for the 50/1.4 VCM even tho they primarily shoot photo, I have my guesses.

Anyhow, if the 45/1.2 has considerably better AF than the 50/1.8, I'm in. If not, I don't need the 1.2 nor the extra weight.

Depends on the criteria of judgement. In terms of pure sharpness, it was/is not exceptional, especially at wide apertures. In terms of color fidelity, it's top notch. Build quality, top notch. Quality of bokeh, top notch. A mixed bag of sorts, but form follows function and the function, the design criteria for the EF 50/1.2L did not include absolute sharpness at f/1.2 across the field. The newer RF lens does a lot better in the regard, and is also a much more expensive and complex lens design.

I would say that if overall sharpness across the field is your main criteria, the EF 50/1.2L is not the lens for you.

dpc · Nov 3, 2025

Old Sarge · Nov 3, 2025

I have been a fan of *** devices for many years, long before they were in every vehicle. My first was a Delorme device connected to a laptop. It was followed shortly by a Garmin Street Pilot. Right now I use Canon Connect with the R7. I have the GP-E2 and have never been that fond of it. The best *** device I have used with a camera was an off brand of some kind that I put on my camera strap. The device worked fine and what made it best was the software. When you synced it on your computer it usually gave the exact address of where the picture was taken. I think a good *** would be a plus for the R series cameras, the only downside was the power drain they cause.

riker · Nov 3, 2025

Erm...well...one of Canon's "dark secret" was EF 50/1.2 not being that good at all. With a bit of emotional bias I could say it was crap for an L lens. But for sure it was not a real L lens in terms of optical quality and also AF performance. I have never used the RF version but honestly, since I see lot of ppl changing theirs for the 50/1.4 VCM even tho they primarily shoot photo, I have my guesses.

Anyhow, if the 45/1.2 has considerably better AF than the 50/1.8, I'm in. If not, I don't need the 1.2 nor the extra weight.

m4ndr4ke · Nov 3, 2025

Walrus said:
Pics are 100% centre crops

"when wide open, a little soft in the middle"...I wouldn’t call this a little soft, probably "festival of spherical aberration" is more appropriate
View attachment 226734

"By f/2, the middle was sharp and mid-frame was getting much better"...I'd say definitely not sharp by any means (it's at f1.8 but you're not doing magic with 1/3rd stop extra closure), it's still partying at the spherical aberration festival, albeit it's getting close to the end of the festival...probably it doesn't catch up with the RF 50 1.8 until f5.6 or even f8 looking at the progression, shame on me I have deleted the original test pictures with the narrower apertures, so we could also look in the corners, I reckon maybe corner sharpness at f8 can match the RF at f1.8 in the centre...
View attachment 226735

C'mon, why defend one of the worst lenses that Canon ever made? It's terrible, any of the various old EF 50 1.8 was WAY sharper than this up to f4 and when you get there to match, what's the reason to buy the f1.4 if it's unusable before closing 3 stops?

Hmm I also think my 50mm f/1.4 was slightly better, I'd say at f/1.4 it was similar to what you got at f/1.8, BUT I never tried the lens at 30MP, and I'm speaking entirely from memory of something I sold over four years ago so, I could be wrong. Still crap though. The RF nifty fifty wipes the floor with it.

By the way, that result at f/1.4 is very similar to my old 70-200mm f/2.8 at 200mm f/2.8, so now you know

Tom R5R7 · Nov 2, 2025

Walrus said:
Pics are 100% centre crops

"when wide open, a little soft in the middle"...I wouldn’t call this a little soft, probably "festival of spherical aberration" is more appropriate
View attachment 226734

"By f/2, the middle was sharp and mid-frame was getting much better"...I'd say definitely not sharp by any means (it's at f1.8 but you're not doing magic with 1/3rd stop extra closure), it's still partying at the spherical aberration festival, albeit it's getting close to the end of the festival...probably it doesn't catch up with the RF 50 1.8 until f5.6 or even f8 looking at the progression, shame on me I have deleted the original test pictures with the narrower apertures, so we could also look in the corners, I reckon maybe corner sharpness at f8 can match the RF at f1.8 in the centre...
View attachment 226735

C'mon, why defend one of the worst lenses that Canon ever made? It's terrible, any of the various old EF 50 1.8 was WAY sharper than this up to f4 and when you get there to match, what's the reason to buy the f1.4 if it's unusable before closing 3 stops?

My copy was much better than that.

Click · Nov 2, 2025

Beautiful series. Well done,ISv.

ISv · Nov 2, 2025

Yesterday sunny and hot, today gloomy with some light rain (which I avoided). The goal yesterday was the Red Avadavat. Didn't see it and in my frustration took a close portrait of Muscovy Duck at the parking lot.

Walrus · Nov 2, 2025

Tom R5R7 said:
The EF 50/1.4 USM, when wide open, a little soft in the middle, very soft out in the corners.
By f/2, the middle was sharp and mid-frame was getting much better.

Pics are 100% centre crops

"when wide open, a little soft in the middle"...I wouldn’t call this a little soft, probably "festival of spherical aberration" is more appropriate

"By f/2, the middle was sharp and mid-frame was getting much better"...I'd say definitely not sharp by any means (it's at f1.8 but you're not doing magic with 1/3rd stop extra closure), it's still partying at the spherical aberration festival, albeit it's getting close to the end of the festival...probably it doesn't catch up with the RF 50 1.8 until f5.6 or even f8 looking at the progression, shame on me I have deleted the original test pictures with the narrower apertures, so we could also look in the corners, I reckon maybe corner sharpness at f8 can match the RF at f1.8 in the centre...

C'mon, why defend one of the worst lenses that Canon ever made? It's terrible, any of the various old EF 50 1.8 was WAY sharper than this up to f4 and when you get there to match, what's the reason to buy the f1.4 if it's unusable before closing 3 stops?

colinrb · Nov 2, 2025

Does anybody know if we are likely to get a *** device any time soon for the R series cameras.
I am using the GP-E2 on an R5.
The GP-E2 has been out of stock at Canon UK for at least 3 years.

rombe3jr · Nov 2, 2025

Over 600 comments on the Canon R6 III. Astonishing attention while the R6 II still remains one of its best sellers. Canon's strategy is brilliant. They keep moving forward with hybrid features, which means adding video specs in addition to photography features like more megapixels, while keeping the sensor fast and still maintaining image quality. Sony has segmented itself out, only delivering high megapixels in the A7iv and even higher in the A7RV, while letting those sensors get way too slow in 2025. Canon has delivered, honestly 3 years ago with the R6 iii, not getting too ambitious with megapixel count, only now in the R6 iii will they deliver 34 MP but they waited until they could get a fast enough sensor to avoid the rolling shutter, cropped 4K 60 fps and low burst rate for photography that Sony is now crippled with in quite a wide price range. Kudos to Canon. Nikon has been playing the game well too though with the Z6 III, Zf and ZR. Lumix with the S1ii, although that is a bit expensive over $3,000 USD. If Canon holds the price of the R6 III under $2,700 USD they will have a huge hit on their hands.

David - Sydney · Nov 2, 2025

roby17269 said:
Feelings and numbering aside, in the DSLR era we had 3 FF bodies families (6D, 5D and 1D), now we seem to have 5 (R8, R6, R5, R3 and R1)
The transition was not 1 to 1 with the R and RP bridging the gap, and based on sensor I think initially Canon was considering replicating the same 3 EF families in the R system.
Also, we don't know if the R3 will be a one-off or not.

We won't know when Canon will sunset the RP. It also may be a one-off or remain the bridge from xxD or even XXXD to RF even though it is full frame vs APS-C for the others.
When the R8 is a 60% premium from B&H and the R10 a 10% premium to the RP's USD900 then it still has a strong presence for the lower end bodies.

Canon will need something to move the remaining DLSR xxxxD and xxxD to RF and the R10 isn't that model at this time.

Tom R5R7 · Nov 2, 2025

Walrus said:
Comparison in unfair even against the RF 50 1.8 as you can see in the test link I posted some messages ago in this very thread

I think the digital picture site is a good place to compare and it mimics what I recall from my 50/1.4.

The EF 50/1.4 USM, when wide open, a little soft in the middle, very soft out in the corners.
By f/2, the middle was sharp and mid-frame was getting much better. Periphery, the corners, were still pretty murky, but that would generally be part of the blurred background if you were using the lens for portraiture.
By f/2.8, the center and what the site calls mid-frame exceeded the performance of the 50/1.8 RF, though the corners were still softer.
F/4, the RF 50/1.8 was essentially sharp across the field, while the EF 1.4 appeared a bit sharper through mid frame, but again softer in the corners.
F/8, the big equalizer, put them neck and neck in sharpness across the field.

I had my 50/1.4 for the occasional portrait picture - light, easy to pack, and had pretty nice bokeh compared to the EF 1.8 lenses at the time, which seemed to have a pretty hard outline on bright OOF highlights. That was the main reason I kept it. For shooting architecture, you'd really have to be shooting at at least f/5.6 or smaller aperture to bring those corners into acceptable sharpness.

I really hope this new 45/1.4 is comparable to my 50/1.2L. It would possibly get me to buy.

Traveler · Nov 2, 2025

Planterz said:
There was the Light L16, a bizarre camera that had 16 lenses (hence its name), although it had multiple lenses of only 3 focal lengths. The concept was that it'd use computational software to make high quality images of your desired focal length. It cost $65 million to develop and was a complete failure. Not because it didn't sell (well, yes actually) but because it didn't even work. It'd crash, fail, freeze, etc. If you happened to actually get photos, they looked lousy.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY7h6Z95syA

There's been a handful of "cameras with phones attached", notably from Samsung and Nokia. The Samsungs were Galaxy Androids. There's also been a number of phones that were designed to have camera modules attached that provide grip, shutter buttons, etc. The Xiaomi 15 Ultra is a current phone that was designed this way (and with Leica branding). There's been some kickstarter doohickeys and other kludged grips for existing phones, but these aren't quite that same idea.

I know about L16 but that's not the product I'd desire. Same as the other options you mention: I just don't want to use my phone as a camera. I want a compact camera that uses the "technology" of phones – multiple fix lenses (from ultra wide to telephoto, doesn't need to be anything crazy. Just 16-24-50 would be enough).

Walrus · Nov 2, 2025

Askeladden said:
If you somewhat unfairly compare it to the RF 50 1.4 you will start to hate it.

Comparison in unfair even against the RF 50 1.8 as you can see in the test link I posted some messages ago in this very thread

Skyfall · Nov 2, 2025

Interesting proposition for filming auroras (even if angle of view is not the classical for wide field astro, the 20mm is 3 times the price). Personally i think it could complement my 14-35mm greatly for campfire photos and portraits. I would be happy if resolution in the corners, or the center for that matter are good enough for 4k at f1.2 or 1.4, and of course coma is not horrible. I expect vinjetting higher than 3 stops but thats somewhat standard nowadays anyways

Askeladden · Nov 2, 2025

A lot of those Canon EF 50 1.4s suffers from problems with the autofocus due to the front being pushed in at some point causing the slot which moves the elements forward to become bent. It is a fairly simple fix, but annoying nonetheless and also risky when buying used as some may not be at the point at being unusable, just at the stage where it hunts a little extra to nail focus. Doesn't take much either to develop the problem from what I understand.
I've had several copies of it, never grew attached to it and would not pay used market price for one if I was in the market for a cheap fast fifty.
If you somewhat unfairly compare it to the RF 50 1.4 you will start to hate it.

Walrus · Nov 2, 2025

Marximusprime said:
A very quick and dirty comparison shows it's roughly the size of the ef 50 1.4 with the RF adapter. The combined weight of the two is 400 g, so approximately 50 g more than the 45.View attachment 226733

Good comparison; rear cap of the RF seems a just little smaller in proportion to the one on the EF, so I guess the 45 STM could be a little bigger then what comparison shows, which is positive, means there's lot of (hopefully good!) glass in there!

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics