Canon Officially Announces the Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM

[Exploreshootshare]

It's Forty-Fine?

Love that one. It should stick

 

[Richard CR]

The king of bang-for-the-buck today is Chinese glass. Have you considered picking up a used E or Z mount camera to try some of this out? It almost boggles the mind how good some of this glass is for the price. (And if you work out how to order directly from the Chinese sites, prices get even lower. Sometimes a LOT lower.)

I think if I were going to go that route, it would be to Nikon, Sony - I can't see it, I never really felt comfortable with their cameras. Nikon's I have used in the past, and even though they were heathens for their lens turning the wrong way, there's a DNA there that's appreciable.

Fuji as well - especially because their APS-C Camera bodies are excellent.

 

[Richard CR]

The truth is, @Richard CR thinks the 45 1.2 is too big for his R100.

 

[blackcoffee17]

I think if I were going to go that route, it would be to Nikon, Sony - I can't see it, I never really felt comfortable with their cameras. Nikon's I have used in the past, and even though they were heathens for their lens turning the wrong way, there's a DNA there that's appreciable.

Fuji as well - especially because their APS-C Camera bodies are excellent.

I like Nikon's attitude the most, seems to be the most consumer friendly company, at least as far their product design goes.

 

[Canon Rumors]

I like Nikon's attitude the most, seems to be the most consumer friendly company, at least as far their product design goes.

I love what they're doing. I hope they nail the z92 and z82. Great lenses.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I gave my thoughts on this lens.

A Closer Look into the Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM - Canon Rumors

A review of the Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM as compared to other Canon RF 50mm and Canon's legacy 50mm EF lenses.

www.canonrumors.com

some of you may like my thoughts, some of you may hate them. don't come after me for T* though

I had several copies of the EF 50mm f1.2 L and I found it to be a frustrating lens to use. It was built like a tank and handled lfare really well. It had great colours and a lot of charector. BUT in low light (exactly when you want to use a f1.2 lens) it's AF was ponderous, hessitant and often would not lock on. I'm talking single point One shot mode. I would have to use one of the the verticle centre points on my 5DIII to have any hope. And yet my EF 24-70 L would nail AF effortlessly at 50mm and that was a lens far less bright in terms of light transmission. Which goes to show that wide open contrast was more importaint to the AF system than brightness or light level.
The other issue with the EF 50mm f1.2 L was the well documented aperture dependent focus shift. At close focus distances, if you stopped down to f2.8 (where this lens actually became quite sharp) the point of focus was fine in the view finder, but in the final shot, it would jump significantly.
I've not tried the EF 50mm f1.2 L on a modern mirroless camera body. but under the older DSLR AF system...it was too erratic and unreliable for my professional needs at the time.

 

[Traveler]

It's partially a surprise with the price, but also a let down as it is not using the patent that was previously published. From gordon's video that is just posted, it is fake internal focusing with all groups moving inside the barrel, and not a true internal focusing design like the patent. Also the CA and corner image quality is pretty bad. The MTF is also rather "vintage" for lack of a better word. They might be making some changes but it's canon after all.

And what exactly are you asking for a f/1.2 for $500?

 

[Traveler]

This seems like a great addition to the RF lens lineup on paper but I'm also a bit disappointed.

If you want the vintage 1.2 look, you can already buy a used EF 50mm 1.2 L for a similar price. You get better build quality, weather sealing and USM on top. In that sense, this new lens doesn't really add much to the table. I would rather get the EF lens, personally.

On the other hand, the RF 35mm 1.8 STM has superior IQ at 1.8 for the same price + IS + semi-macro. It still seems like the better lens overall, unless you only want the extreme soft look and don't want to use an adapter.

Spot on, that's exactly the market. People who wan't the extreme soft look and don't want to use the adapter.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I had several copies of the EF 50mm f1.2 L and I found it to be a frustrating lens to use. It was built like a tank and handled lfare really well. It had great colours and a lot of charector. BUT in low light (exactly when you want to use a f1.2 lens) it's AF was ponderous, hessitant and often would not lock on. I'm talking single point One shot mode. I would have to use one of the the verticle centre points on my 5DIII to have any hope. And yet my EF 24-70 L would nail AF effortlessly at 50mm and that was a lens far less bright in terms of light transmission. Which goes to show that wide open contrast was more importaint to the AF system than brightness or light level.
The other issue with the EF 50mm f1.2 L was the well documented aperture dependent focus shift. At close focus distances, if you stopped down to f2.8 (where this lens actually became quite sharp) the point of focus was fine in the view finder, but in the final shot, it would jump significantly.
I've not tried the EF 50mm f1.2 L on a modern mirroless camera body. but under the older DSLR AF system...it was too erratic and unreliable for my professional needs at the time.

I think if I was in the market for a sharp and bright 50mm style prime, these days we are spoilt for choice on the RF mount. There's a lens for every budget and use case. For me, I'd only really be happy with the RF 50mm f1.2 L, everything else is a compromise. However, If I was rebuilting my prime lens collectiobn, I would start with a 85m and then choose a 35mm. A 50ish mm, would be my last choice after a 135mm.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Dear Richard, thank you so much for this enlightening article! I did not yet have a chance to take a closer look at the new RF 1.2/45mm but reading your in-depth explanations including the MTF charts (telling the whole story) helped me much and gave me 2 ideas:
(1) For shooting stills with a "dreamy vintage" look, I'll keep my EF 1.2/50mm.
(2) For video with external mike (when one wants a totally silent AF drive) and a more modern look I may take a plunge and get the RF 1.4/50mm VCM lens, but that will also depend on the question whether I need such a super fast lens for video (not yet).
I always strolled around the optically exceptionally well made RF f/1.2 , but its size and weight was the true hurdle for me, for my personal taste it is a too big lens. Basically I do not have a problem with big and heavy lenses, since I also use really big tele lenses. But for typical 50mm lens settings I love to have a compact, handy lens. So, thank you again, you helped my to make my decision.

You may have noticed that I used the old school "f-stop/focal length" notation here, that was intentional and a reference to the old Leica/Zeiss look fan wars. I never understood why people can get so crazy about photo gear that they really start to hate each others, despite being passionate about photography myself. For instance, I still love my wife, despite she is a Nikon user (I changed to Canon when I went digital)

 

[Besisika]

Spot on, that's exactly the market. People who wan't the extreme soft look and don't want to use the adapter.

And I want more like these at different focal lengths.

 

[Canon Rumors]

I'm very interested to see what DPP/DLO are going to do to the 45 files. I have seen some remarkable corrections recently.

 

[Maximilian]

I gave my thoughts on this lens.

A Closer Look into the Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM - Canon Rumors

A review of the Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM as compared to other Canon RF 50mm and Canon's legacy 50mm EF lenses.

www.canonrumors.com

some of you may like my thoughts, some of you may hate them. don't come after me for T* though

Thanks for your thoughts, Richard.
Gave me some useful points to think about it.
While 45/50 mm is not my most loved FL. I see it as a personal challenge to create good photos with it.
The 50 VCM it too expensive for how often I would use it. I have the 50/1.8 STM already.
But the f/1.2 for that price of the 45 is really tempting.
And by the time there are some discounts on the RF45 I'm sure, I'll get one.

By the way:
I think I'll have to dig a bit deeper on T*. You got me hooked there

 

[Maximilian]

The truth is, @Richard CR thinks the 45 1.2 is too big for his R100.

Man, Craig! How can you be so mean to @Richard CR ?

 

[Maximilian]

... I never understood why people can get so crazy about photo gear that they really start to hate each others, despite being passionate about photography myself. For instance, I still love my wife, despite she is a Nikon user (I changed to Canon when I went digital)

So true. Thank you for those words, justaCanonuser

I always loved the phrase "The equipment that matters, is you" used by @ISv.
And my "The dark side - I've been there" for using Nikon in the past as well, was always meant with a

 

[screenshooter]

It's partially a surprise with the price, but also a let down as it is not using the patent that was previously published. From gordon's video that is just posted, it is fake internal focusing with all groups moving inside the barrel, and not a true internal focusing design like the patent. Also the CA and corner image quality is pretty bad. The MTF is also rather "vintage" for lack of a better word. They might be making some changes but it's canon after all.

What is wrong with all groups moving? Sure its more mass so the autofocus *could* be faster if it was true internally focused, but in my reading its generally easier to maintain sharpness and corrections when you move all the groups.

 

[Maximilian]

... However, If I was rebuilting my prime lens collectiobn, I would start with a 85m and then choose a 35mm. A 50ish mm, would be my last choice ...

Interesting thought. Same here. sometimes I think I would prefer a 100 over an 85 as well as a 28 over a 35.
135 would be a bit too long for me. But I should try that out more often.
But the 50 mm range on FF was always challenging for me.

 

[justaCanonuser]

And my "The dark side - I've been there" for using Nikon in the past as well, was always meant with a

I loved my FM-2 and some manual Nikkor lenses, but I am happy that I changed to Canon. My wife's Nikon gear has caused much more trouble than mine, my wife had to send some of their cameras and lenses quite frequently to service (dead buttons, dead AF drives, mirror stuck...). In former decades when they made great cameras like the F-3, FM/E-2 etc., Nikon stood for ruggedness and reliability. But today at least our experience over many years shows that Canon beats Nikon in overall quality. For wildlife/birding it makes the decisive difference if you are far out and suddenly your gear fails to work.

 

[justaCanonuser]

And I want more like these at different focal lengths.

Hm, some decades back it was fashionable to smear fat on a lens for a certain dreamy look - maybe you should try that with a cheap filter? Joking aside I know what you mean, that's why I sometimes love to use vintage lenses.

 

[dominic_siu]

By looking at the MTF and one of the YouTuber’s review, it reminiscent too much EF 50 1.2 which is not my cup of tea and a hard pass