Canon EOS R6 Mark III & RF 45 F1.2 STM November 6

Well, Canon's not really going to appease to a camera that is 7 years old.

IS adds size and cost, and that seems to be against the two big things about this design. This is also f/1.2......
I merely established the fact that somehow all 50mm RF lenses are not stabilized, while for example, the 35mm or 85mm STMs are, which are not particularly costly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I will be very, very interested in seeing how this 45mm turns out. I've never felt a strong need for a 50mm beyond the cheap RF F/1.8, since I prefer the combination of 35mm and 85mm F/1.4 together, but if the 45mm turns out to be this affordable and F/1.2, I will probably pick it up.

My hope would be to see a lens in similar size to the EF 50mm f/1.2, which i felt like was the perfect size for a bright prime.
 
Upvote 0
What will be the big difference between the R6m3 and C50, that is 1000eur more?
Why i should pay 1000 more for the C50?

Completely different for photographers, no active cooling, probably different Log availability. Video codecs, record time. The form factor.... Many ways to segment them for their target markets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I will be very, very interested in seeing how this 45mm turns out. I've never felt a strong need for a 50mm beyond the cheap RF F/1.8, since I prefer the combination of 35mm and 85mm F/1.4 together, but if the 45mm turns out to be this affordable and F/1.2, I will probably pick it up.

My hope would be to see a lens in similar size to the EF 50mm f/1.2, which i felt like was the perfect size for a bright prime.
In terms of market and IQ, I think it should be thought of as the successor to the EF 50mm f/1.4.

The charts from the patent showing SA/CA/Astig/Distortion shows it is more in line with the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM than either of the RF 50Ls.

RF 45mm f/1.2
1760115122532.png

RF 50mm f/1.2
1760115142134.png

RF 50mm f/1.8
1760115157944.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0
To be honest I’m not exited for any new body of Canon. The existing ones are really awesome and it’s for everyone a choise possible at the existing ones. If there is not a hughe new technical step I don’t understand why they bring out every 2nd year a new version.
They would do better on working on the lens pool because I’m sure more waiting on specific lenses than a new body.

Sometimes I can’t really understand how Canon acts. Closing the gap at lenses to the competitors would be a smarter move in my opinion.
Camera companies are essentially "forced" to bring out new cameras on a fairly quick schedule because of marketing. Most buyers today are probably making their decisions based on info from the internet, and that means internet influencers who routinely criticize camera brands if they don't come out with new generation cameras as quickly as the competition. Even though camera tech has matured, they have to exaggerate any new features and will destroy brands for being "behind" the competition, and for using "old tech." It's idiotic, of course, but what else would you expect from the internet?

As far as lenses go, I am fairly certain canon is designing and producing lenses as fast as they can. It takes 3 to 4 years minimum (if I remember the Lensrental article on the subject) to design, test and manufacture a new lens, so it's not going to happen overnight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
, the new vari-angle LCD will be a really nice addition and people that shoot with R5 MK2 will eagerly wait for the R5 MK3 to finally have one.
That will definitely be an aspect that’ll make me jealous as an r52 owner.

Well, Canon's not really going to appease to a camera that is 7 years old.

IS adds size and cost, and that seems to be against the two big things about this design. This is also f/1.2......
All of the bodies below the r7 are also lacking IBIS. R8 in particular would probably otherwise pair well with this lens
 
Upvote 0
Got to be honest, I am nervous about the price of the R6 Mark III after seeing that it is rumored to be released for 2,900 euros (current exchange rate would make it $3,300 USD), quite a lot higher than the launch prices of the R6 and R6 II (both $2,500 USD). Its possible they will simply price it lower in the USA as well. But the Nikon Z6iii and ZR are the best value in the game right now for only $2,200 USD. Either of those combined with the holy trinity of zoom lenses now available from Tamron on the Z mount, there is simply no better value period. Canon does have their own RF STM zooms from 17-28 f2.8 and 28-70 f2.8 but not the 70-180 f2.8 yet. I am hoping that will be one of the 4 lenses announced this November. Combining that trio of lenses with an R6 III is close to my ideal setup, and if priced right, just might be the enticement I need to switch to Canon.
 
Upvote 0
That 45mm, if the price stands, and Christopher Frost's test will show it being good enough to fill the shoes of my Sigma 40 Art, well, I really may ditch the SigMonster for it.
I bet center sharpness will be a razor even at f1.2 but the corners will be bad until f2, decent from f2.8 , good at f4 and stellar over f5.6

Let's say, if the thing at f2 can match the 40 Art at f1.4 we have a deal
 
Upvote 0
Nice, looks like the R6 II but with a slicker EVF hump.

Slicker, right? What I can see is extremly boring rounded Canon camera design, we've seen for thousand times already. I like more sharp / boxy designs. Still waiting for some "retro" M6 II / V50 like designs with possibly external EVF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0