First look: Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM Image Quality

[Deleted member 7828]

There will be substantial value in the fact that the RF version will actually hit perfect focus nearly 100% of the time. The sharpness of the EF 24-105 doesn't mean much when back or front-focused.

Hmm, not quite my experience based on my use of the M cameras, which use the same DPAF system. It’s possible that part of it has to do with the really large focus box, though. I’d like to see it in practice. In fact I thought I even heard one of the (p)reviewers say that they found the R had occasional issues focusing at 1.2...

 

[sebasan]

Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 was released January 2007. I think that it is logical that the new one is better than the old one.

 

[Ozarker]

You must be joking. The minute the announcement comes out for the R-based 5DsR successor, EF is dead. But don't confuse "dead" in a production sense from "obsolete" in a useful sense. EF will continue to be useful for a very long time.

Not confused at all. Not dead in a production sense for a very long time. Nope.

 

[nchoh]

Not confused at all. Not dead in a production sense for a very long time. Nope.

There are comments declaring the EF system to be dead. Let's consider for a minute if the EF were indeed dead.

The EOS-M is designed for compact and light. Just looking at the M lenses gives one a sense what small and light means. For example, there is an EF-S 55-250. For the M however, it's shrunk to 55-200mm - compact and light.

Then there is EOS R and obviously future R cameras to come.

1) How will Canon fill the XXD segment? 2) How will Canon fill the SL Segment? 3) How will Canon fill the Cine segment? Will there be no 7DM2 that is such a capable BIF shooter?

There are too many questions out there unanswered to proclaim that the EF lens line is dead.

 

[tmroper]

Hmm. The weight and price are seriously not acceptable here. The "modern 50mm" game has gotten completely out of hand.

Meanwhile, at half the weight and half the price of this new Canon, the Voightlander (Cosina) 40/1.2 Nokton is looking very reasonable.

I agree about things getting a little out of hand. All I really want is a really good 1.4 (and I don't think I"m the only one). But an AF lens that is lighter than the Otus (which is manual focus), half the price, and almost as good IQ is pretty good. Although, as mentioned above, I guess the Sigma Art is close to all those, and even cheaper. And if I'm paying for a modern digital camera, I do want AF lenses to go along with it. I still shoot film, and love the IQ, size, and weight of my Summicron, but I don't love manual focus. It is maddening, though, that all these modern AF lenses have to be what feels like 10 times the size and weight of a little Summicron (in reality I'm sure it's a little less--I've never run the numbers).

 

[FramerMCB]

A straight EF version would be even better! I know the adapter thing was a joke, but I wonder if Canon is really only going to make an RF version of this lens.

Keep in mind that Canon's Engineers, due to differences with creating lenses for Mirrorless (vs. SLR) can employ different techniques now. For one, by Canon maintaining the larger diameter mount can make lenses that have less diameter changes in the barrels from front-to-back - the glass elements now can be more of a similar size so less bending of the incoming light rays. (part of this is also accomplished or enhanced by, the shorter flange distance to the sensor surface: 22mm in the new R vs. 44mm in your DSLR.) These physical changes help the Engineers overcome or mitigate some of the physics-related challenges of DSLR Optics.

Everything is always a balance (compromises) between size, weight, cost of materials and development, and ultimately cost to the user/customer (what will the market bear for this product? can we recoup development costs in 2 years? 3 years? etc.)

 

[FramerMCB]

Insane! I wonder where all the people who used to defend the older 50mm will hide now.

To be fair to those who "defended" the current 50mm f1.2L, most were aware and did/do not shy away from it's shortcomings. With this group, it was more about the overall "look" that can/could be achieved with the lens. Just like any tool we have, you know the tool in your hand, what it's good for and what it's not so good for. You understand the weaknesses and the strengths and so use it in situations that utilize it's strengths. Similar to the 85mm f1.2L...

 

[FramerMCB]

These lenses look pretty amazing. I highly recommend finding the B&H 'first-look' video session round-table discussion that ran live yesterday afternoon on the new R system: including discussion of mainly the 28-70mm, 24-105mm, and the 50mm... 2 working Professionals were part of the panel - a fashion and product pro and a mainly portrait and event (weddings, theater, etc.) pro. They had some very interesting insights to share.

 

[FramerMCB]

Of course, at their respective price-points, they better be THE BEST...

 

[FramerMCB]

If the back focus distances allows an EF version: Yes please, prefer that.
Why? Simple: Being able to use the rear drop in filter adapter for either C-PL or Vari-ND.

That is the biggest problem I see in using native R glass.
The gave us the brillant rear filter adapter but it isn't in the full R glass.

But the new lenses, so far, don't have that super-wide diameters (in excess of 90mm or more) nor the bulbous front elements...

 

[FramerMCB]

1. They say so but their 35mm 1.4L II and 85mm 1.4L IS proves them wrong. They make great EF lenses already!
2. And if you check Canon's new white paper for EOS R and RF lenses and more specifically the 24-105 comparison you will see that the new RF 24-105 is not a superset of its EF counterpart. In some areas it is better and in some it is worse!

So forgive me if I consider Canon's statement Marketing BS. Because even if partly true the above 2 facts make it hard for me to take them seriously! They can and have many excellent EF lenses who do not need improvement.

P.S Not to even add to the above list the EF16-35mm f/2.8L III and EF16-35 f/4L IS because that would disprove their statement for good!

The new mount and physics of the new set up allow the Canon Engineers to "think outside the box" when it comes to lens design. (The box being the design parameters and constraints of designing lenses of a certain body diameter and where the rear element is a "fixed" minimum of 44mm (due to the mirror) from the sensor. You'll notice that while Canon changed/introduced a new mount, it is still the same basic diameter of the EF mount. Maintaining this "large" diameter of mount coupled with the shorter flange distance (22mm vs. 44mm) provides more leeway in mitigating/overcoming physics challenges of the bending of light rays onto the sensor at the same place and time...

 

[gmon750]

I own the EF 50mm f/1.2. The RF-version certainly seems to get all the attention. The reality is that in the end, photo output from either of these lenses will be indistinguishable for the majority of the users. Besides, having the flexibility of that RF adapter and the ability to insert filters has me wanting to keep mine.

They're both phenomenal lenses. Any perceivable differences between the two does not have me wanting to upgrade to it, especially at that price.

 

[tron]

The new mount and physics of the new set up allow the Canon Engineers to "think outside the box" when it comes to lens design. (The box being the design parameters and constraints of designing lenses of a certain body diameter and where the rear element is a "fixed" minimum of 44mm (due to the mirror) from the sensor. You'll notice that while Canon changed/introduced a new mount, it is still the same basic diameter of the EF mount. Maintaining this "large" diameter of mount coupled with the shorter flange distance (22mm vs. 44mm) provides more leeway in mitigating/overcoming physics challenges of the bending of light rays onto the sensor at the same place and time...

This theory does not negate what I wrote in my post...

 

[YuengLinger]

I own the EF 50mm f/1.2. The RF-version certainly seems to get all the attention. The reality is that in the end, photo output from either of these lenses will be indistinguishable for the majority of the users. Besides, having the flexibility of that RF adapter and the ability to insert filters has me wanting to keep mine.

They're both phenomenal lenses. Any perceivable differences between the two does not have me wanting to upgrade to it, especially at that price.

You clearly are using the old 50mm 1.2 in a way that works around the significant focusing and sharpness problems. Good for you! I like using 50mm closer than six feet, and I like to be able to stop down fractions of a stop from wide open. Also, focusing speed at events makes it second choice to even the clunky little 50mm f/1.4. Not in my kit.

When the true RF successor to the 5DIV comes out, with some of the current EOS R's shortcomings addressed, I'll get one and the new 50mm 1.2. On the other hand, if Canon surprises its EF customers with a working version of the 1.2, why should I be in a hurry to go with RF? Hmmm?

R&D for EF is officially in the rear viewer. Sure, a few more updates might dribble out to make older favorites work better on EF; otherwise, Canon is done with EF lens development. If an EF body is in the pipeline ready for release, yawn, why bother with it?

But this kind of talk scares the fish who want to swim in the EF tank forever more. Don't tap the glass!

 

[Canedo]

may be a silly question but can I mount this lens to an M body?

 

[highdesertmesa]

This theory does not negate what I wrote in my post...

What he wrote about it being easier to design a better lens for mirrorless is not a theory, it is a fact. Whether one specific model EF or RF is better than another is irrelevant. There are and will be good and bad lenses made for both.

 

[Yasko]

EF obsolete? How so? I heard the adapter works flawlessly

 

[tron]

What he wrote about it being easier to design a better lens for mirrorless is not a theory, it is a fact. Whether one specific model EF or RF is better than another is irrelevant. There are and will be good and bad lenses made for both.

How is it irrelevant? If we have/there are very good EF lenses we gain nothing by replacing them with their RF counterpart (assuming we are satisfied by our DSLRs) They will not even be cheaper!

 

[highdesertmesa]

Hmm, not quite my experience based on my use of the M cameras, which use the same DPAF system. It’s possible that part of it has to do with the really large focus box, though. I’d like to see it in practice. In fact I thought I even heard one of the (p)reviewers say that they found the R had occasional issues focusing at 1.2...

I overstated and then under-qualified. Not 100%, and not all mirrorless models. Better said, "Higher-end, full-frame mirrorless cameras are more capable of achieving accurate focus due to the way they focus off the sensor versus a camera with a mirror." Some mirrorless cameras will not measure up, of course, but not because they are mirrorless. And focus shift can still happen with mirrorless lens designs, too (diglloyd's reviews of the GF line), but in practice, I've never notice it being a problem for what I shoot, which is most often wide open or stopped down significantly.

 

[tron]

may be a silly question but can I mount this lens to an M body?

Unfortunately not due to the flange distance there is no adapter.