It's gotten to a point where I really despise all these online reviews. Pixel peeping and looking at 300% views... nobody ever does that in the real world... so why the heck base a lens purchase on that review? Not the mention the "so, the lens has two switches, an aperture ring..." bullshit nobody needs. Optical limits only tells me if a lens is "clinical sharp" or not, it doesn't tell me anything about how usable the images actually are.

Given that most images are viewed on smaller screens and most prints are smaller as well, the lenses should be evaluated in that regard. I recently made Christmas pics of my students (4th grade) in challenging lighting conditions with the 85mm F2. In Lightroom, some images looked "slightly blurry" or not perfectly sharp at 100-300%. The prints (20cm x 30cm which is 8x12 inches) turned out perfectly. One couldn't tell if anything wasn't sharp or "the edges fell apart". Good lenses don´t necessarily have to be super sharp and great at 300% crop.

I just wished lenses reviewers would acknowledge that fact. But I'm ultimately guessing, not clinging to test-charts and actually reviewing the lenses for the purposes they are made for and forming a judgment without intensive chart-testing would require a skill most reviewers don't have: knowing how to shoot and what to shoot.

Funnily, some of favorite lenses have gotten bad reviews such as the 85mm F2, 100-400mm F5.6-8 and RF 16mm F2.8. The 85mm was recommended to me by a people photographer on a German camera website and it is a bargain. The 100-400mm was recommended to me by AlanF (among others) here at CR and it is great. It even produces great images with the TC attached. The 16mm was praised by photographer who hikes in the alps and so far, almost every time I used it delivered. All recommendations came from photographers who actually used the lenses, know their value despite their caveats. But the caveats don´t really matter if know how to work around them or know how theses lenses were intended to be used.

David_B said:

If I was to believe that digital correction was the equivalent to or better than optical correction then that too would be akin to faith because I have no evidence to support it.

Click to expand...

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.

I'm always fascinated by the hate for the EF 1.2. What do people use it for and on which body that it becomes unfit for purpose? I use the EF 50 1.2 for portraits of people and animals. I have always loved the outcome. On an R6 it's great, and with DLO it's amazing. In my humble opinion and for my purpose, of course.

To the article's point, I love the fact that both types of reviews are available. I feel strongly that hardware should first be evaluated on the merit of the hardware, and then next on the merit of the purpose with the vendor's pipeline considered.

Why? Because it's nice to know a) what the software is doing for me, so that I can plan for it; and b) so that I know what I can expect in a nominal situation with all of the pipeline included. The fact that Canon's software portion of the pipeline might need to correct for a) 5 (!) stops of darkness on the edge (noise bump?) and potentially multiple planes of sharp focus (wavy field) is really important to know. But, just like the EF 1.2, at the end of the day a killer shot is a killer shot. If the 45mm gets me there...

roby17269 said:

I have had the EF 50 1.2 and I would agree it was legendary... in a bad way.
I did not like it at all.
If this lens is similar, then it is a no-go, regardless of the price. If I wanted something soft and quirky I'd buy a lens baby...
The RF 50 1.2 (which I have) may be much more expensive and heavier, but it delivers with almost no compromises.

Click to expand...

The 45mm is a little closer to 35 by 5mm. It's not much, but at least it wasn't 55mm, right?

I wanted to buy 3 Cfexpress cards. I decided to wait for Black Friday and no reduction. Then I decided to wait for the January sales
…… a bad idea !
These are screen saves from Amazon in France

"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.

An 80mm f/1.2 STM will be released within 2027.

Tom R5R7 said:

I think 2 versions, with 2 different lens options are in order. The "24-70 f/2" equivalent would be well liked by many, but for me, I'd want a larger zoom range, say, 24-240 or something of that nature. Which would necessitate a variable aperture, say f/2 to f/4.5 or something like that. Of course, that would be a different market, but a reasonably fast 10X zoom with a decent aperture would really be nice for a vacation camera.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm with you on the 10x option... my G3X is limping on, but desperately in need of retiring and replacing.

roby17269 said:

I have had the EF 50 1.2 and I would agree it was legendary... in a bad way.
I did not like it at all.
If this lens is similar, then it is a no-go, regardless of the price. If I wanted something soft and quirky I'd buy a lens baby...
The RF 50 1.2 (which I have) may be much more expensive and heavier, but it delivers with almost no compromises.

Click to expand...

I wasn't too impressed by the EF 50mm F1.2 either. I got it just a bit before the RF 45mm F1.2 came out.

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.

On the other hand, the old 50/1.2L produces a creamier, smoother bokeh regardless of the harshness of the background. It is essentially a portrait lens. So 2 different animals with a similar purpose, perhaps, but one is considerably less expensive than the other is (or rather, was).

If I wanted ultimate sharpness, I'd get either the RF 50/1.4 or RF 50/1.2L lens - both appear to be spectacularly sharp and very well designed. But for my purposes, what I have now (along with the inexpensive 50/1.8 RF) will do the trick. I lean in favor of the RF 45 because of its size and weight, but I can't really say that I don't like what the EF 50/1.2L does for me either.

On focus shift, I hadn't paid a lot of attention to this issue, but I will be. Since I have the older R5, I don't have the ability to use "Display simulation" or whatever setting it is that people use to force the lens to autofocus with a smaller aperture than f/1.2. Whether this is a problem or not will be the subject of future testing and comparison to manual focusing.

Click to expand...

I ended up with both lenses as well. I did a quick comparison (not very scientific) using an R5 II with a link to the CRAW files for those interested:

P-visie said:

No, the working distance from the front of the lens to the subject would be way too short for skittish insects like dragonflies and butterflies. Cropping is no substitue for a long RF macrolens.

Click to expand...

For butterflies and dragonflies you don't need/want a macro lens. I have used the R7 with the RF 100-400 mm lens for that and it works great.

David - Sydney said:

Does a r7ii with this resolution and the rf100 macro negate the need for a long macro lens (working distance)? AF and fps would support handheld usage

Click to expand...

The R7 with the RF100 already works very well in that way. I have used it the past three years for handheld macro photography of insects and flowers, using autofocus most of the time. So the mark ii will be even better in this respect and I am look forward to it.

My fast 50mm Prime for a very affordable price (600€), excellent optical performance but quite slow AF is a second hand Zeiss Milvus 50mm/ f1.4. Only downside is the weight ...

"I expect to see an EVF..."

I don't, because the G7 X doesn't have one.

But if it's a replacement for the PowerShot SX70 HS an EVF would make sense. Of course the zoom range would be shorter.

I think 2 versions, with 2 different lens options are in order. The "24-70 f/2" equivalent would be well liked by many, but for me, I'd want a larger zoom range, say, 24-240 or something of that nature. Which would necessitate a variable aperture, say f/2 to f/4.5 or something like that. Of course, that would be a different market, but a reasonably fast 10X zoom with a decent aperture would really be nice for a vacation camera.

I love my Powershot V1 and I use it for almost all of my travel videos and social media as a primary or secondary camera. Even if it is a sales flop, the focal length is perfect and the compromises don’t bother me too much. It pretty much replaced my R6 for travel videos and social media.

However, it would really be complemented by a photo focused compact, such as a follow up to the G7 X III. I hope they retain the 100mm F/2.8 reach or bring it further to 120mm at F/2.8. With the larger sensor it seems hard to do that without a size compromise, but the wide aperture and long reach make it suitable for concert photos where larger cameras are not allowed.

I do wonder, however, why Canon didn't just take the optical formula for the EF 50/1.2L and transform it to the RF mount, kind of like what some third party lenses have done. It would have been easy and the development costs are minimal - basically make the adapter part of the lens. Optical formula unchanged.

But then they'd have 2 50/1.2 lenses.

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.

On the other hand, the old 50/1.2L produces a creamier, smoother bokeh regardless of the harshness of the background. It is essentially a portrait lens. So 2 different animals with a similar purpose, perhaps, but one is considerably less expensive than the other is (or rather, was).

If I wanted ultimate sharpness, I'd get either the RF 50/1.4 or RF 50/1.2L lens - both appear to be spectacularly sharp and very well designed. But for my purposes, what I have now (along with the inexpensive 50/1.8 RF) will do the trick. I lean in favor of the RF 45 because of its size and weight, but I can't really say that I don't like what the EF 50/1.2L does for me either.

On focus shift, I hadn't paid a lot of attention to this issue, but I will be. Since I have the older R5, I don't have the ability to use "Display simulation" or whatever setting it is that people use to force the lens to autofocus with a smaller aperture than f/1.2. Whether this is a problem or not will be the subject of future testing and comparison to manual focusing.

hight ISO performance of the sensor please!

The V1 was a total fail and selling poorly. It was one of the few products that didn't even sell out on their Black Friday sales for $650 (almost everything else did). I hope Canon learned from this and doesn't put another poor lens into the upcoming camera. 24-120mm f/2.0-3.9, like the G1X II has, would be something.

We’re certainly in great need of a compact GP-E2 replacement for the new hot shoe. Preferably powered by the camera and the size of the SpeedLite Transmitter ST-E10, which is tiny. Making it compatible with a “G7X Mark IV” would lead to a higher volume of sales, and hopefully a cheaper price.

David_B said:

But the ability to pull apart some of the individual beams is lost.

Click to expand...

I think your conception of optics is a bit idealistic tbh.

David_B said:

To go to an extreme point, why even bother with a full frame lens if all we need to do is put an APS-C lens on the front of a full frame model and then stretch that image such that it "fill the picture".. Afterall, what's a few dark corners/boundary between friends if digital corection is ok? Where's the cutoff point between too much stretching vs acceptable stretching?

Click to expand...

Is your argument here that because an extreme and somewhat contrived situation is unacceptable, that every gradation between that and your ideal setup must also be rejected? If it is a continuum, why is zero the only acceptable position?

David_B said:

Canon's asking people using its equipment to take it on good faiith that the dark corners from various lens is acceptable.

I don't trust humans to be a good judge of the evidence because humans are unreliable and all too frequently plagued by biases.

Faith is an interesting word to being up in the discussion of this topic because there is practically no verifiable analysis done on it but we're alll excepted to accept the new lay of the land as being ok. Summary, Canon's asking us all to take a huge leap of faith in it.

Click to expand...

Canon is producing novel lenses with new compromises that weren't possible before. You don't have to buy them. I suspect the alternative, especially in a much smaller market than 20 years ago is that these lenses simply wouldn't exist. More choice is better, no?

As for faith/evidence, you clearly have an entrenched view but haven't presented anything to support it except high-minded principles (such as your comment on "separating beams of light" above), Neuro has asked for evidence. And somehow you are turning that into, he is blinded by faith in the new optics?

Click said:

Excellent sequence. Beautiful shots.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Click!

ThomasTH said:

A beautiful animal well captured. My favourite is the third.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Thomas!

Etnaphele said:

Ordered a 45mm 1.2 in Europe at the beginning of December, out of stock everywhere and the shop where i ordered said two weeks ago, that Canon delayed shipments and they have no idea when the lenses will arrive. Does anyone know what's the matter? No ETA in sight, I had hoped to receive it for Christmas (perfect family gathering lens), but now I'm worrying I have to wait further months for a this plastic fantastic (outside AND inside )

Click to expand...

Perhaps they misjudged, but demand is outpacing supply. Because Canon has a locked mount, we are beholden to the mother ship for supplying fast, affordable lenses. They finally make one and turns out people want it. Should have been predicable considering how successful 3rd party lenses are on E, Z, X & L mount but some lessons take a while to learn apparently.

I have had the EF 50 1.2 and I would agree it was legendary... in a bad way.
I did not like it at all.
If this lens is similar, then it is a no-go, regardless of the price. If I wanted something soft and quirky I'd buy a lens baby...
The RF 50 1.2 (which I have) may be much more expensive and heavier, but it delivers with almost no compromises.