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

[Walrus]

I would consider it if it had hard clicks, hard enough to stay in place on the move, but not like that, neither with gentle clicks, as other manufacturers have been implementing.

I was sure (never getting involved in them, as I said) that the VCM's aperture ring was with hard clicks, but thinking abut it it makes sense it's fluid, as is aimed to video; but then it gets pretty useless for photography, where hard clicks are better.
In fact I'm pretty pissed off that the control rings on ALL the RF lenses I have (16 STM, 28 STM, 50 STM and 28-70 STM) are de-clicked as they doubles-up as manual focus rings; they should have been all clicked, no one is going to manual focus on any of those lenses, certainly not me. Ironically all my EF lenses benefit from the control ring on the adapter, which is clicked.

Premium lens manufacturers have switches for turning aperture rings between clicked and de-clicked, that's unfortunate Canon is not one of those premiums. And pretty sure also Chinese manufacturers have lenses with such system.

 

[Snapster]

The VCM lenses have all been forced into the same form factor for gimbals & video. I cant imagine that comes without any compromise in their design. Or prioritizing features like focus breathing correction which is useless for me. The 35mm VCM distortion is off the scale for instance and is just generally worse lens compared to Sony 35mm GM, yet somehow more expensive. And dont get me started on the rattling focus motors or the aperture ring that doesnt work on an R5. Lol what?

Im not saying theyre bad lenses but at the same time I dont feel like paying for an overpriced hybrid lens when I dont need hybrid functionality. Maybe if theres a mega deal for the 50 or the 85 I could grab them but havent warmed up to them yet.

 

[Maximilian]

The VCM lenses have all been forced into the same form factor for gimbals & video. I cant imagine that comes without any compromise in their design. Or prioritizing features like focus breathing correction which is useless for me. The 35mm VCM distortion is off the scale for instance and is just generally worse lens compared to Sony 35mm GM, yet somehow more expensive. And dont get me started on the rattling focus motors or the aperture ring that doesnt work on an R5. Lol what?

Im not saying theyre bad lenses but at the same time I dont feel like paying for an overpriced hybrid lens when I dont need hybrid functionality. Maybe if theres a mega deal for the 50 or the 85 I could grab them but havent warmed up to them yet.

You still seem to desperately search for flaws without even giving it a try.
And When you think it‘s overpriced, just don’t buy it.
But to think, Canon will offer you an L prime below $1k MRSP is as far from reality as it was the last few years or even decades.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

I was sure (never getting involved in them, as I said) that the VCM's aperture ring was with hard clicks, but thinking abut it it makes sense it's fluid, as is aimed to video; but then it gets pretty useless for photography, where hard clicks are better.

Yes, it's smooth, with low dampening, it runs easier than Canon's smooth control rings.
I'd prefer not having that thing at all, I think the control ring is a smarter choice.

Premium lens manufacturers have switches for turning aperture rings between clicked and de-clicked, that's unfortunate Canon is not one of those premiums. And pretty sure also Chinese manufacturers have lenses with such system.

Most manufacturers are implementing very gentle clicks, unfortunately, that do not prevent accidental changes so, there's no real need to be envious, in my opinion.

In fact I'm pretty pissed off that the control rings on ALL the RF lenses I have (16 STM, 28 STM, 50 STM and 28-70 STM) are de-clicked as they doubles-up as manual focus rings; they should have been all clicked

You know what, It's been years and I still don't have a clear preference because, while I'm not very enthusiastic about the smooth ring, I don't like the way the others click either. I often find myself "between clicks" and it's weird. As it is, the smooth ring gives me more confidence to use, because it's consistent.
The one I like the most is that of the 28, because it's the hardest to turn, but I use them mostly on the 16mm f/2.8 and the 28-70mm f/2 L, because I use those two lenses for work.

The VCM lenses have all been forced into the same form factor for gimbals & video. I cant imagine that comes without any compromise in their design

That doesn't mean they would be bigger if they were made exclusively with photography in mind, perhaps it would be the opposite. If you look at Sony's equivalent options (they just don't have a 20mm f/1.4), only the 85 is slightly bigger. The 24, 35 and 50 1.4 G-Masters are smaller than VCM lenses and use the same filter size.

Or prioritizing features like focus breathing correction which is useless for me.

While it may be useless to you, it doesn't mean it's not useful for photography.

And dont get me started on the rattling focus motors

Just imagine if a lens had loose elements while it's powered off, oh the drama...Wait a minute, we've been like that for decades with IS lenses.

the aperture ring that doesnt work on an R5

It shouldn't exist at all IMO, but I'll let you have that one.

 

[blackcoffee17]

The one I like the most is that of the 28, because it's the hardest to turn, but I use them mostly on the 16mm f/2.8 and the 28-70mm f/2 L, because I use those two lenses for work.

I don't understand why Canon made the ring different on every lens. My 28mm 2.8 is super smooth with nice resistance and same for the 24-50. But the 24-105 is easier to turn, feels not so nice.

 

[Snapster]

And When you think it‘s overpriced, just don’t buy it.

Huh? That was exactly my point. Canon don't make RF primes I want to buy. And the new 45 is yet another hard pass with it's crazy CAs.

But to think, Canon will offer you an L prime below $1k MRSP is as far from reality as it was the last few years or even decades.

Nikon 50mm 1.8S is the reference here. At least they can make acceptable quality for $500, instead of entry level garbage.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Huh? That was exactly my point. Canon don't make RF primes I want to buy. And the new 45 is yet another hard pass with it's crazy CAs.


Nikon 50mm 1.8S is the reference here. At least they can make acceptable quality for $500, instead of entry level garbage.

The Nikon 50 1.8 is more than just acceptable quality. It's a top quality prime lens.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Look also how much better the Nikon 24-50 is compared to Canon's version. Same price, same size, same aperture - much better optically.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

Nikon 50mm 1.8S is the reference here.

I'm not sure any Nikon gear is a reference here. Nikon is so desperate to sell they've been setting lower-than-average prices on some of their gear for years. Even Sigma's 50mm f/2 Contemporary ($719) is more expensive than Nikon's Z 50mm f/1.8S ($669). Nikon has just been doing that.

But if we ignore their strategy, the Z 50mm f/1.4 would be a more interesting comparison, as that is the offering they have that sacrifices something for aperture, for $599. The RF 45mm walks the same path, but it's significantly cheaper ($469) and goes further, to the extreme of f/1.2.

Anyway, if you're using a R5, in case you haven't noticed, there isn't a single R5 on Canon's showcasing of this lens, and that happens because the R5 user is not its target.
This will probably be acceptable on 20/24MP cameras. You paid the extra for the resolution, you better pair that with the best glass there is.

If you’re looking for a character lens, you’ll love this but, if you’re looking for optical performance on a R5, there’s a red ring for you. At 20MP I can get by with pretty much any lens but, at 45MP, you definitely can’t.

EDIT: I just realised that even Sigma’s 45mm f/2.8 costs almost as much ($619) as Nikon’s Z 50mm f/1.8 S ($669).

 

[JohanCruyff]

One off-topic question to the U.S. members of the forum.
Just a curiosity.

Here in Italy we will be able to buy this lens for 529 euro (Amazon.it). That's it.


In the US, I know that VAT has to be added, and it depends on where the lens is purchased.

But this lens is made in Malaysia, and there is a 25% tariff (if I remember well) on Malaysia's export to the US.

So my question is: will the U.S. customer pay 469 USD+ 25% tariff + VAT, or do the 469 USD already include the 25% tariff?

Thanks.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

Here in Italy we will be able to buy this lens for 529 euro (Amazon.it). That's it.

No, you're buying it for 433€ + VAT.


Now, I'm not american but, I THINK it works like this, for them...

So my question is: will the U.S. customer pay 469 USD+ 25% tariff + VAT, or do the 469 USD already include the 25% tariff?

They don't have VAT, they have sales tax, that depends on the State and can go from nothing to like 10/12%.

They're applying the tariffs on imports, not on end purchases, so the 25% is not on $469 but on the what the importer (Canon USA, I suppose) pays for the product.
The $469 should reflect the 25% tariff already. However, it does not include Sales Tax, which is calculated and applied the moment the end-buyer makes his payment.

If I'm mistaken, please, may someone correct me

 

[Maximilian]

Huh? That was exactly my point. Canon don't make RF primes I want to buy. And the new 45 is yet another hard pass with it's crazy CAs.


Nikon 50mm 1.8S is the reference here. At least they can make acceptable quality for $500, instead of entry level garbage.

In first you weren't referring to the NIKKOR Z 50 mm 1:1,8 S. You wanted an RF L lens instead of the RF45.
So I wasn't even able to get your point.
I can understand that the NIKKOR Z 50 mm 1:1,8 S is something you (and maybe I) want for RF mount. But Canon strategy seems different.
But then it seems you need a second set of gear or just jump ship.
If you don't like the Canon product strategy, leave Canon behind.

 

[JohanCruyff]

No, you're buying it for 433€ + VAT.

I know. I meant that consumers think VAT included.
We don't know / care if 529 eur correspond to 433+96 VAT, to 500+29 VAT or to 300+229 VAT.
For us, if Amazon.it asks 529 eur, it's 529 eur.

And I realize I was simplifying, assuming that V.A.T. can be considered similar to the Sales Tax, from the customer's point of view.

They're applying the tariffs on imports, not on end purchases, so the 25% is not on $469 but on the what the importer (Canon USA, I suppose) pays for the product.
The $469 should reflect the 25% tariff already.

If this is true, than 375,2 dollar (i.e. 469 / 1.25) would be a theoretical price that covers all the purchase costs AND the margins expected by every operator from the factory to the final shop. That's amazing.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

I know. I meant that consumers think VAT included.
We don't know / care if 529 eur correspond to 433+96 VAT, to 500+29 VAT or to 300+229 VAT.
For us, if Amazon.it asks 529 eur, it's 529 eur.

Many here will have deductible VAT

If this is true, than 375,2 dollar (i.e. 469 / 1.25) would be a theoretical price that covers all the purchase costs AND the margins expected by every operator from the factory to the final shop. That's amazing.

I think the tariff is applied to the import cost. There's still profit for Canon USA and then profit for the retailer. The real impact of the import tariff should be much smaller.

 

[JohanCruyff]

I think the tariff is applied to the import cost. There's still profit for Canon USA and then profit for the retailer. The real impact of the import tariff should be much smaller.

Correct.
For example it could be 300 USD + 75 Tariff = 375 at the customs, plus 94 USD to cover the costs of shipping the product to the shop / customer, the warranty, the share of common costs, Canon USA and retailers' margins etc.

 

[Snapster]

If you don't like the Canon product strategy, leave Canon behind.

Are you personally insulted I dont like Canons lens strategy? Tone sounds a bit aggressive to me considering these are just opinions on a forum.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

For example it could be 300 USD + 75 Tariff = 375 at the customs, plus 94 USD to cover the costs of shipping the product to the shop / customer, the warranty, the share of common costs, Canon USA and retailers' margins etc.

I doubt it's that much. I expect the retailer to make at least $100 profit when selling at RRP, with Canon making a similar, if not bigger number.
These lenses are probably entering customs at $200 or less, it's Canon Japan to Canon USA.

I remember the RF 16mm f/2.8 was listed with a cost price of around €250 when it was released (I was working at a retailer), but that number still didn't account for quantity discounts, early payments or any other benefits. The lens had a RRP of 359€, here. I would expect a bigger margin for the retailer, on a more expensive lens like the RF 45.

 

[Maximilian]

Are you personally insulted I dont like Canons lens strategy? Tone sounds a bit aggressive to me considering these are just opinions on a forum.

Nope! I am fine. And opinions are also fine.
But thank you for asking. If I sound like that, I'll have to rethink the way I phrase things.
To me, your wording sounded so just as familiar as the whiners who think they have a better product strategy than Canon and that everywhere else the grass is greener.
Maybe I understood you wrong here, but if not then the only way is to go where the grass is greener.
That's all.

 

[Snapster]

Nope! I am fine. And opinions are also fine.
But thank you for asking. If I sound like that, I'll have to rethink the way I phrase things.
To me, your wording sounded so just as familiar as the whiners who think they have a better product strategy than Canon and that everywhere else the grass is greener.
Maybe I understood you wrong here, but if not then the only way is to go where the grass is greener.
That's all.

Such a fast response with haphazardly veiled insults.

Criticism on a companys strategy as a customer who invests thousands of € on their products is valid. But posting about other posters is rarely constructive.

 

[Maximilian]

Such a fast response with haphazardly veiled insults.

I won't apologize here, because this is just your interpretation and not what I said.
When you read my posts as (veiled) insults I could interpret yours as such as well, which I didn't until now.

Criticism on a companys strategy as a customer who invests thousands of € on their products is valid. But posting about other posters is rarely constructive.

I think it is even less constructive to continue with criticism that started pointing into a completely different direction.
And when I tried to explain that I could start to understand your argumentation after some more key points made yours more clearly, you now accuse me about "veiled insults"?
Be careful who seems to be accusing whom.