Then the EF 50mm f/1.2 L is not a lens for you. But just because it does not meet your needs doesn't mean it is not an excellent lens for other use cases.
Upvote
0
Canon EOS R6 Mark III & RF 45 F1.2 STM November 6
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Then the EF 50mm f/1.2 L is not a lens for you. But just because it does not meet your needs doesn't mean it is not an excellent lens for other use cases.
What I hope for and expect with any lens, especially L lenses, is for the actual images they produce, using whatever corrections they are designed for (optical, digital, or both) to be really good. Since the images from the VCM lenses are not just really good, but actually outstanding, I also think they are a remarkable accomplishment. I own and use four of them (24, 35, 50, 85), so I actually know what I'm talking about (unlike people who tiresomely scream "but digital corrections, but digital corrections" over and over and over, without actually owning and using the lenses). When I bought my 50 F1.4, I thought I might hang onto my RF 50 F1.2, which is a truly wonderful lens. However, I just didn't find myself using it. The results from the VCM version are just as good, no-one notices the 1/3 stop difference between F1.2 and F1.4, and the VCM version is so much smaller and lighter. So I've just sold my F1.2. The latest, which is the 85 F1.4, is my favorite 85 ever. It's just superb. You can, of course, stick your head in the mud, ignore the fact that designing lenses for digital corrections (which the VCM lenses employ to a greater or lesser extent, depending on which lens we're talking about--the 85 probably the least) makes possible not just particular body designs but also the kinds of optical performance that would be hard, if not impossible, to achieve with optical corrections only, and thereby miss out on some fabulous lenses. Your choice.
Upvote
0
My experience with an EF 135mm f/2 L + EF1.4X III was rather disappointing. The images were well below the quality of the bare lens or even my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II at 135mm.
I did AFMA with the Camera + 1.4X + 135/2 before the shoot for which I used it while my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II was off to CPS for a new IS unit (at age 9 years and a LOT of heavy use with plenty of hard bumps and bangs along the way).
I've never noticed any offensive colors of specular highlights with the EF 135mm f/2 L. But then I usually shoot with it in darker environments where there aren't a lot of bright points in the out of focus areas.
Upvote
0
I still want the trend to be for corrections in-lens as able, but the reality is I turned on the digital optimizer in my R6 and the rest is history. I'm even seeing some relatively fantastic 70-200 + EX2 photos that simply would have been trash in my DSLR days with the same combo. So, I'd have to agree at the end of the day...
Upvote
0
Compare the spec sheets of the 2012 5D Mark III to the 2017 6D Mark II. They're practically identical, other than 1/3 stop difference in X-sync and 1/4000 vs 1/8000. On the other hand, the 6D Mark II had higher resolution (26MP) than the 5D Mark III (22MP), though not as high as the 2016 5D Mark IV (30.4). The 6D II had an articulated touch screen, WiFi and *** built in, DiG!C 7 vs DiG!C 5+, slightly more cross-type AF points, slightly higher burst rate, and flicker reduction (which all Canon bodies with less than 4 digits in the model name (xD, X0D, xx0D) beginning with the 7D Mark II in 2014 got).
DR at all ISOs was practically identical. SNR was also nearly identical.
Upvote
0
But really it's the 5D.4 / R vs the 6D.2 / RP we're talking about for the advent of the R5 and R6. The former was noticeably better at the bottom end. Things didn't fully sync up until ~ 3200 -- and that's with fewer pixels on the 6D II. The R6 tracks much more like the 5D.4.
Canon could have just moved the R (~5D.4) chip into the R6. It would have tracked with the 6D II vs 5D.4 gap, but now vs. the R5 in terms of further line differentiation. They went better, thankfully. As pointed out earlier, the R5 and R6 perform virtually the same along the numeric options, and thus for lower values likely to be used no quality difference.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The EOS R and EOS RP were one-off models to get Canon into the FF MILC at a time when lower end camera sales (i.e. APS-C) were drying up and FF was becoming a larger and larger part of the overall market. Introduced in 2018, they had to have been on the planning board since at least 2015 considering how long Canon takes to get a product to market.
In the entire history of the R5 and R6 series, the chief differentiator has been Resolution.
If "the R6 tracks more like the 5D Mark IV", that just proves the point.
The 6D Mark II came along 5 years after the 5D Mark III. The R6 came along 4 years after the 5D Mark IV. Other than resolution, the 6-Series trails the 5-Series by one model cycle (4-5 years) in terms of many features and spec sheet numbers.
Again, compare the EOS R5 to the next generation EOS R6 Mark II:
Upvote
0
I did have a spreadsheet for my migration to r mount. The R5 had been teased for at least 3 months by that time and- of course- the R5 is smaller and lighter than my 5Div
Upvote
0
The RP is a mirrorless 6Dii and still being sold.
The EOS R was selling for a long time after the R6/R5 were released.
The R5 is still a great camera and 45mp is a lot more than 24 (or 32) at least in some minds. The R6iii will never be able shoot 8k
Upvote
0
I agree. It comes down to that in terms of the sensor. In the history of the 6D vs 5D it was also body, shutter, lifetime of flaps, sealing, etc.
I disagree. Moving from the 6D -> 6D II was meh, but from the 6D II to (spiritually, at least) the R6 it was wow. There are far fewer differences between the R6 and R5 when you take a photo or dunk the body in animal snot than what were with the 6D series vs 5D series. Similarly, the RP vs R or 5D.4 was meh. Canon could have kept with meh, but it ran strong. More my point about the 5D.4 comparison and use of the 1D III -ish chip. Canon didn't just hand the masses a road apple. They handed them a quality product by which only resolution and mode selection were the big differentiators.
Put this way:
For CAD $2k in moving from the R6 to R5 you get double the pixels and an LCD display. I guess more EVF pixels.
For CAD $2k in moving from the 6D II to 5D.4 you got double the pixels, better snot resistance, better daylight tolerance, better low end detail preservation, more flaps before failure, etc.
So in moderns times resolution. In the before times pretty much well the whole pie. Steering this back to my original moaning, I'm just hoping the R6.3, despite apparent advancement, isn't inching us back to the whole pie scenario.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I absolutely love the RF 100-500mm! It really is my favorite lens
and it is so helpful for landscapes, details and of course wildlife.
Upvote
0
Yep, lots of fun for whale breaches and tail slaps even mounted on a RP! My R5 was in my underwater housingI absolutely love the RF 100-500mm! It really is my favorite lens
Upvote
0
I did some interesting close up stuff with 135 L + EF2.0 II back in the days, thanks to its already short MFD plus the extender, and I can tell you it was pretty sharp when stopped down
Upvote
0
Well, I guess if you consider those shots to be sharp... (maybe it's the resizing?)
EF 135mm f/2 L, 5D Mark III, ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/200 (handheld). You can see the windings on the lower strings at 100%.
EF 135mm f/2 L, 5D Mark III, ISO 3200, f/2.2, 1/100 (handheld). Look at the string windings at the tailpiece, as well as the stitching on the shirt at 100%.
EF 135mm f/2 L, 7D Mark II, ISO 100, f/2.8, 1/320 (handheld). Textile weaves and whiskers everywhere.
EF 135mm f/2 L, 5D Mark III, ISO 400, f/2.2, 1/250 (handheld).
EF 135mm f/2 L, 5D Mark IV, ISO 1600, f/2.5, 1/160 (handheld).
EF 135mm f/2 L, 5D Mark IV, ISO 3200, f/2.2, 1/500 (handheld). Look at the detail on Jerry Phillips' jacket at 100%.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The RP is a mirrorless 6Dii and still being sold.
The EOS R was selling for a long time after the R6/R5 were released.
The R5 is still a great camera and 45mp is a lot more than 24 (or 32) at least in some minds. The R6iii will never be able shoot 8k
What cheaper model has been released since the RP with the RP's spec sheet?
The EOS R was cheaper than the R6 and R5 by the time the R6 & R5 came out, not more expensive.
The R5 is still a great camera. But if the R6 comes with a 30+ MP sensor for around the same price as the R5 is currently commanding on the NEW market, the R5 will disappear from authorized Canon dealers' shelves.
If an older, higher end model is selling new for less than the newer mid-tier product with the same basic capabilities, then dealers will continue to stock the older model as long as Canon will let them because it's easier to sell an older model with the same capabilities if it's cheaper than the newer model.
If an older, higher end model is selling new for more than the newer mid-tier product with the same basic capabilities, then dealers will not continue to stock the older model because it's very hard to sell an older model when there's a newer model on their shelves that can do the same thing and is priced lower. They'll return those units to Canon for credit. Canon will then use them for parts sources for the next seven years or so until they drop that model from official support.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The move from DSLR to the 2020 and later EOS MILCs were all a pretty big jump. It wasn't just the 6-Series. (The R and RP were a bit more hit or miss how much an improvement they were over the 5D Mark IV or 6D Mark II - it all depended upon one's use case. For example, many shooters preferred the optical viewfinders of the DLSRs to the limited resolution and refresh rate EVFs of the R and RP.)
I've never known of anyone who had weather resistance issues with a 6D, 6D Mark II, R6, or R6 Mark II. Are the 6-Series bodies as solid as the 5-Series bodies (DSLR or MILC)? No. But then the 5-Series is not as tough as the 1-Series (or the R3), either. Having said that, way back at the beginning of this discussion I said that the R6 Mark III "matching" the R5 in a way that was reminiscent of the 6D Mark II matching the 5D Mark III was, in both cases, on the spec sheet, but not in terms of build quality.
You got slightly better DR from ISO 400-800. You got moderately better DR at ISO 100-200.
"Double the pixels." What?!?! 30.4MP (5D Mark IV) is not twice 26.2MP (6D Mark II).
"Better low end detail". What is that? Low end of what?
"Better daylight tolerance." Again, what is that? Are you repeating DR that you already brought up above?
"Better snot resistance." See above. No one has had major issues with 6D bodies and weather resistance. Here's a diagram of the sealing points of the 6D Mark II.
In this teardown of the EOS R, Roger Cicala referred to it as "a Canon 6D Mark II quality mirrorless camera." He's talking about the R, not the RP.
The 5D Mark IV and 5D Mark III both had a shutter life rating of 150,000. The 6D Mark II had no publicly released shutter rating from Canon. Website ShutterCheck claims it has a 150,000 actuation rating. Take that however you want. The 6D had a 100,000 shutter life rating. Canon shutters tend to either fail early in their life or go well past the rating number. The 7D Mark II had a shutter rating of 200,000. My copy is well past that mark and the shutter still works flawlessly. I've got photojournalist friends who put over 1,000,000 clicks on original 1D X bodies that were rated for 400,000 actuations.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Depending how the pixel pitch ratios work out, you could theoretically have issues resizing from a higher resolution file to a lower resolution one. But it would likely be more in terms of odd artifacts than increased blur.
Upvote
0
Canon in the Netherlands has the EF 50mm f1.2 lens in it’s webstore and in stock, as have other large photoshops (for 1699€, incl. VAT, if you are interested).
I think he meant the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART, which is listed at B&H as 'Discontinued"?
Upvote
0
I can’t speak for B&H, they’re irrelevant on this side of the Atlantic, but the EF 50mm f/1.2 doesn’t attach to a Canon mirrorless camera in any different way than the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art does. For the price the canon EF lens costs, if buying new is impossible, better buy a second hand Sigma and send it in for maintenance. You could probably buy two or three of the Sigma lens for the price of one EF 50mm f/1.2.
Jesus
I’ve passed on the RF 50mm f/1.2 for about the same price twice this year, here in Portugal (not imported). Actually cheaper, once.
It's the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 in EF mount (also Nikon F mount) that has been discontinued, not the EF 50mm f/1.2 L.
Upvote
0
True! Especially by the time Canon was playing catch-up.
I have. It’s a sad day when that happens. Probably though just a numbers game, and the character of s/he who holds the gear. And the environment is also a factor: wet campsites, animals enclosures, soggy moss, damp gear bags, etc.
Better is better. Enough to notice when photons are scarce. Enough to make someone pay for it.
Okay, okay! I stand humbled. Silly of me. The idea stands, but my statement stinks. Truly, enthusiasm swept me up. But I own this slip in the back and forth.
That DR discussion above…
1/4000 vs 1/8000 might seem like a small detail, but it isn’t for some people. It’s an ND filter, or smaller aperture by a stop. Unlike ISO, this is an easy ceiling to hit.
I’m glad this is your experience! I have my own colleagues. See above.
That is the sales pitch. My Rebel is still going strong, which tickles me pink. But still, they’re making you pay for the sales pitch and not luck.
BTW, really appreciate your thoughts on this. I think my concerns or observations mostly stand within my context, but I’ve read many of your remarks over time and taken away good insights. Ditto for others here. It’s a pleasure to be vocal in the crowd. I’ll try to listen more than rant.
I’m certainly less on the pre-release therapy side and more on the let’s see what reality brings side of the fence now.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
