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

[freejay]

Ef version please so I can use it on my dslrs and orphaned M

That is not possible: This lens design can be done only for RF mount due to its specifications. You can find videos from Canon USA on Youtube about this.

 

[infared]

So glad that I have a 50mm Sigma Art!!!!

 

[6degrees]

If they want they can make a new EF50mm 1.2L II with a similar IQ to the RF version. I base that on the excellent EF35mm 1.4L II and on EF85 1.4L IS.

But Canon claims RF Mount, together with the short flange distance due to the mirrorless structure, creates better situations to develop better lenses, the advantages that EF Mount may not have.

Not sure how this compares with Sony E mount.

So I think this is important. We need detail comparison between Canon RF 50mm F1.2 and Zeiss Otus 1.4/55, a superior lens that claims no compromise.

 

[tron]

But Canon claims RF Mount creates better situations to develop better lenses.

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!

 

[vangelismm]

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!

We need to wait for those RF lens.

 

[tron]

We need to wait for those RF lens.

Even so the lenses I mentioned are so good that even if surpassed a little the difference will be negligible to be seen.

 

[BeenThere]

We need to wait for those RF lens.

Exactly. Until a comparable RF lens is released you cannot say which would be better. But, I agree that there are many current EF lenses that are excellent.

 

[Handrews]

Obviously, Canon marketing is looking to present the new RF mount as attractively as possible in order to convince users into buying RF lenses. That being said, let's not forget that 5D3, for instance, is still on sale 2 years after the introduction of 5D4. Canon's main interest is selling their stuff, and there's no way that they will all of a sudden stop making EF lenses. Canon takes great pride in selling 130+ million EF/EF-S lenses, so in my opinion we're going to see more outstanding EF lenses in the next years, just as we've seen so far, together with a growing number of RF lenses. Canon is just expanding its market share. Just my thought.

 

[6degrees]

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!

Assume it is true that RF Mount creates better situations.

It does not mean EF will not be able to develop super lenses. For example Otus series. It is just that RF Mount (with short flange distance) may provide better condition to develop better lenses. In other words, to deliver same optical image quality, the lenses can be designed in a simpler layout. Or, same layout may deliver better optical image quality.

It does not mean RF lenses are always better neither, because to cope with size and weight, the design can be compromised for different purposes.

So I think this may make sense. We need to see the reviews and lenses development progress down the road.

But Canon RF 50mm F1.2 is very prominent, not without the sacrifice in structure. It has more complicated structure than Otus 1.4/55. So comparing the two will be very interesting.

Comparing RF 50mm F1.2 with EF 50mm F1.2 does not prove anything, because RF 50mm F1.2 is a lots more complicated than EF 50mm F1.2.

 

[tron]

Better condition is nothing if the cost is the same or more or IQ difference is not visible!

The RF 50 1.2 is obviously better than the quite older EF 50 1.2L. It doesn't say much if Canon chooses not to make an EF version II of it so as to make a valid comparison!

And as I said before since the 24-105 RF and EF versions are comparable (and have a similar price) we - consumers - get no added value from the RF version. It is always better to compare apples to apples and yes we will have wait and see but allow me to repeat that the specific lenses I mentioned cannot be bettered so much so as to see it in practice.

 

[zim]

If they want they can make a new EF50mm 1.2L II with a similar IQ to the RF version. I base that on the excellent EF35mm 1.4L II and on EF85 1.4L IS.

Absolutely and then compare that to the 50RF!
How old is the 50EF? What was the design remit for it? not the same as the RF I'd bet.

The 50RF is clearly a superb lens but comparing those two lenses to show how good it is strikes me as ridiculous.

 

[Talys]

And/or the EF 50 f1.2 was not a sharp lens especially wide open, much CA is present which the RF seems not to have. Go to wonder about vignetting, the RF should be better there as well.

On the other hand, owning the sharpest lens was never the reason most folks forked out for a EF50/1.2. Perhaps now there will be cheaper used 50/1.2's on the market

 

[highdesertmesa]

Glad to see at least one person realized I was being facetious!

On these forums, you can never "assume" when it comes to intelligent intent, particularly in the absence of an obvious "I'm joking" emoticon at the end

 

[highdesertmesa]

Nah. Not even close. 10 years? 15? Not even close.

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.

 

[highdesertmesa]

Better condition is nothing if the cost is the same or more or IQ difference is not visible!

The RF 50 1.2 is obviously better than the quite older EF 50 1.2L. It doesn't say much if Canon chooses not to make an EF version II of it so as to make a valid comparison!

And as I said before since the 24-105 RF and EF versions are comparable (and have a similar price) we - consumers - get no added value from the RF version. It is always better to compare apples to apples and yes we will have wait and see but allow me to repeat that the specific lenses I mentioned cannot be bettered so much so as to see it in practice.

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.

 

[tron]

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.

There is AFMA which takes care of that. Besides my 5D4 works just fine with my 24-105L. It seems to me that for some cases this maybe an issue but for other cases people may try to find excuses. But this is just my opinion. Plus if you have problems with the way your combo focuses or you just like the newest (but allow me to not agree with the greatest) then you should upgrade by all means. We all express opinions which are subjective.

 

[highdesertmesa]

There is AFMA which takes care of that. Besides my 5D4 works just fine with my 24-105L. It seems to me that for some cases this maybe an issue but for other cases people may try to find excuses. But this is just my opinion. Plus if you have problems with the way your combo focuses or you just like the newest (but allow me to not agree with the greatest) then you should upgrade by all means. We all express opinions which are subjective.

AFMA is not so great for zooms, but if worked for you, then that's good. Knowing a lens will not require AFMA to be 100% is a nice thing – not a reason to give up or move systems, but still a nice thing. I tried three 5D4 kits with the 24-105 and all three were very poor at nailing focus. The phrase "ain't nobody got time for that" comes to mind But front/back-focusing aside, focus accuracy should be better on mirrorless/R, all other things being equal. The improvement in nailing focus on my GFX or Leica Q in comparison with the DSLRs I've owned is quite impressive.

 

[Tom W]

Now that comparison makes me want an "R"!
Wow!

 

[tron]

AFMA is not so great for zooms, but if worked for you, then that's good. Knowing a lens will not require AFMA to be 100% is a nice thing – not a reason to give up or move systems, but still a nice thing. I tried three 5D4 kits with the 24-105 and all three were very poor at nailing focus. The phrase "ain't nobody got time for that" comes to mind But front/back-focusing aside, focus accuracy should be better on mirrorless/R, all other things being equal. The improvement in nailing focus on my GFX or Leica Q in comparison with the DSLRs I've owned is quite impressive.

I understand that some combination will have issues. For example, I had issues with my old 85 1.2L II but I part exchanged it with 85 1.4L IS. Suddenly I am satisfied to the point I haven't AFMA'ed yet

 

[padam]

Wait I don't quite understand - are you saying that EF lenses shift focus when at different apertures? That would be the first I have ever heard of that but I am always open to learn something new about lens design...

Yes, they do but to varying degrees, but the 50/1.2 is one of the worst offenders (you can calibrate it only to a specific aperture with a DSLR).

Just scroll down and you can see it demonstrated here: http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d?start=1

I saw one for the 85/1.2 and it didn't seem to have any.
So maybe even the good old EF 50/1.2 may get more consistent focus on a camera like the EOS R.