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

highdesertmesa

EOS T7i
Apr 17, 2017
74
53
Placitas, NM
www.flickr.com
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!
It's irrelevant to proving or disproving the fact that it's easier to design a higher-performing lens for mirrorless than mirrored, which you called a "theory".
 

Yasko

EOS 80D
Jun 9, 2017
114
18
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.
Where is the sense in that? I don‘t expect the back focal length to be anywhere near the flange distance of EF... as you said, an adapter would be better than an RF version due to the newly introduced features.
The purpose of RF lenses is to make use of the greater diameter and make more compact lens design (or better performing lenses with similar footprint) feasible. Building them with an empty back would be stupid :D.
 

FramerMCB

Canon 40D & 7D
Sep 9, 2014
403
94
52
This theory does not negate what I wrote in my post...
No it does not.
I wasn't trying to negate but rather add/clarify that from an Engineering standpoint the new Mirrorless system w/RF mount allow for changes in how the lenses are designed from an internal and glass element perspective. The physics principles still apply when it comes to transference of light rays, etcetera. There is no question whatsoever that Canon's EF L lenses are top-of-the-line. What's interesting to me (and perhaps a few others) is why Canon put the "BLUE-GOO" in the 35mm f1.4L II but not in the newer 85mm f1.4L IS... I wonder if it was just because wide-angle lenses are more prone/susceptible to Flare than mid-to-longer telephoto lenses? That said, the 85mm f1.4L IS seems to be/do fine without it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Berowne

jd7

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 3, 2013
763
132
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! :eek:
Even if mirrorless does end up dominating over DSLRs, it will be a long time before there are as many RF owners out there as there are EF owners at this point, so you'd think there will be a potential market for EF lenses for quite a while yet. It will be interesting to see how much effort Canon puts into further development of the EF system - lenses but bodies too. I'm hoping for plenty of EF development yet.
 
Last edited:

jd7

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 3, 2013
763
132
No it does not.
I wasn't trying to negate but rather add/clarify that from an Engineering standpoint the new Mirrorless system w/RF mount allow for changes in how the lenses are designed from an internal and glass element perspective. The physics principles still apply when it comes to transference of light rays, etcetera. There is no question whatsoever that Canon's EF L lenses are top-of-the-line. What's interesting to me (and perhaps a few others) is why Canon put the "BLUE-GOO" in the 35mm f1.4L II but not in the newer 85mm f1.4L IS... I wonder if it was just because wide-angle lenses are more prone/susceptible to Flare than mid-to-longer telephoto lenses? That said, the 85mm f1.4L IS seems to be/do fine without it.
Having looked at the RF 50L versus Zeiss Otus 55 and Sigma 50 Art comparisons, I'm feeling less persuaded about the idea that RF lenses will allow significant improvements over EF lenses. Early days yet I know, but it's seeming the RF 50 will be similar to the EF Otus and Art lenses, and i believe its size and weight is between the two EF lenses. In other words, the RF 50 might turn out to be nothing more than a similar lens to what already exists for EF albeit made by third parties rather than Canon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: $winter and Canedo

highdesertmesa

EOS T7i
Apr 17, 2017
74
53
Placitas, NM
www.flickr.com
I'll say this again another way – if you need an EF lens to get work done or don't expect to buy an R body for a while, then of course, the the fate of the EF line means less to you. But if you shoot for personal pleasure or are a pro and don't necessarily need an EF lens right away, waiting would be the prudent thing to do. The resale value of used EF lenses is going to be on a downward curve effective immediately. And if you're even remotely thinking of going all-R, then dump your EF while the resale is still decent (or don't care and keep it forever).

Keep in mind that one thing hurting the EF mount is Canon has yet to release an EF-mount body with a stellar full frame sensor. Sure, the 5D4 hangs on to the edge of acceptable, but we all know where it stands in relation to some of the competition. If the 5DsR II or 5D5 is an EF camera, then we can all put down our umbrellas because the sky won't be falling. But I don't think that will happen.
 

scyrene

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 4, 2013
2,560
495
UK
www.flickr.com
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!
Of course, it may be that the new mount only helps certain lenses, but they had to release at least one basic standard zoom as the market demands it, but I tend to agree - they clearly want us to believe the new mount is intrinsically better, but some of that is surely marketing hype. However, I think that putting the emphasis on quality optics, which is a Canon strength, is the right way for them to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zim

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,199
482
It's irrelevant to proving or disproving the fact that it's easier to design a higher-performing lens for mirrorless than mirrored, which you called a "theory".
It is a theory for us that simply enjoy the end result without having to create them. I did not call it a lie simply theoretical. And the initial quote was off topic regarding my post. I simply said we have so many good EF lenses that it will be difficult and/or more expensive to be surpassed but even in this case the end result will not be obvious: How much better than 35mm 1.4L II ,etc....
The easy or difficult part is invisible to us if we get similar lenses (IQ and cost-wise).

To sum it up: As an end user I care for IQ and cost. Easy or difficult is on Canon's part and I didn't see it reflect on prices. Allow me to care for IQ and cost only!
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,199
482
Of course, it may be that the new mount only helps certain lenses, but they had to release at least one basic standard zoom as the market demands it, but I tend to agree - they clearly want us to believe the new mount is intrinsically better, but some of that is surely marketing hype. However, I think that putting the emphasis on quality optics, which is a Canon strength, is the right way for them to go.
Of course. And they already have top notch EF lenses some of which I already enjoy using. I wouldn't expect anything less from Canon. I believe their lenses are second to none.
 

highdesertmesa

EOS T7i
Apr 17, 2017
74
53
Placitas, NM
www.flickr.com
It is a theory for us that simply enjoy the end result without having to create them. I did not call it a lie simply theoretical. And the initial quote was off topic regarding my post. I simply said we have so many good EF lenses that it will be difficult and/or more expensive to be surpassed but even in this case the end result will not be obvious: How much better than 35mm 1.4L II ,etc....
The easy or difficult part is invisible to us if we get similar lenses (IQ and cost-wise).

To sum it up: As an end user I care for IQ and cost. Easy or difficult is on Canon's part and I didn't see it reflect on prices. Allow me to care for IQ and cost only!
What you wrote read differently to me, but no point in me arguing semantics as I hear what you're saying now.

...if we get similar lenses (IQ and cost-wise). [for EF]
That IS the million dollar question, isn't it? I'm not so sure you will see an 28-70 f/2 for EF. I'm also going to predict an RF 100-400 f/4 or f/3.5-4.5, which you'll never see for EF. And this is at least in part due to the challenges of designing for the EF mount versus the RF.
 

highdesertmesa

EOS T7i
Apr 17, 2017
74
53
Placitas, NM
www.flickr.com
...they clearly want us to believe the new mount is intrinsically better, but some of that is surely marketing hype...
It's not marketing hype, it's physics.

Nikon didn't retire their Noct in 1997 and wait over 20 years to bring it back because they all of a sudden felt like it – it's because with their new mount, they can (I'm trying really hard to not use all caps). Canon hasn't waited over 20 years since they introduced the first EF 50 1.2L to radically improve its performance because they felt like it. They didn't pass on creating an EF 28-70 f2 all these years because they felt like it.

Nikon and Canon are making more impressive lenses now because of the new mounts and proximity to the sensor. /end of story
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,199
482
What you wrote read differently to me, but no point in me arguing semantics as I hear what you're saying now.



That IS the million dollar question, isn't it? I'm not so sure you will see an 28-70 f/2 for EF. I'm also going to predict an RF 100-400 f/4 or f/3.5-4.5, which you'll never see for EF. And this is at least in part due to the challenges of designing for the EF mount versus the RF.
If you mean one or two exotic zooms I agree. But to tell the truth I do not consider them very practical. The 24-70 2.8 II is so much lighter and equally good. And EF400 DO II is much smaller and lighter than the existing 200-400 f/4 lens (which by the way indicates how big a 100-400 f/4 would be).
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd7

highdesertmesa

EOS T7i
Apr 17, 2017
74
53
Placitas, NM
www.flickr.com
If you mean one or two exotic zooms I agree. But to tell the truth I do not consider them very practical. The 24-70 2.8 II is so much lighter and equally good. And EF400 DO II is much smaller and lighter than the existing 200-400 f/4 lens (which by the way indicates how big a 100-400 f/4 would be).
Let's see how quickly "exotic" becomes "staple" ;) Agree that the 400 DO II is a great lens, but only if you don't need the 100-350 range. I'll compromise and say an RF version of the EF 100-400 II would likely exceed the performance of the EF version. We can always talk about not "needing" something, but often that has little to do with what people desire and are willing to buy.
 

Normalnorm

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 25, 2012
546
146
Even if mirrorless does end up dominating over DSLRs, it will be a long time before there are as many RF owners out there as there are EF owners at this point, so you'd think there will be a potential market for EF lenses for quite a while yet. It will be interesting to see how much effort Canon puts into further development of the EF system - lenses but bodies too. I'm hoping for plenty of EF development yet.
Don't ask Sony A99x owners about how likely this might be. They have been left largely high and dry.
 

6degrees

RF 85mm F1.2
Sep 6, 2018
100
69
may be a silly question but can I mount this lens to an M body?
Actually I would like to know if leica m lenses can be 100% effectively used on Canon R through adapters. Sony Alpha sensors’ thick covers cause known issues. I am not sure if same things exist in Canon R.
 

Normalnorm

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 25, 2012
546
146
This seems to be a brilliant lens. However I note it follows the current fashion of being larger and bulkier than it's predecessor.
Thus is the state of the art of lens design today that ironically defeats the fantasy narrative of smaller, lighter mirrorless land.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB and tron

scyrene

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 4, 2013
2,560
495
UK
www.flickr.com
It's not marketing hype, it's physics.

Nikon didn't retire their Noct in 1997 and wait over 20 years to bring it back because they all of a sudden felt like it – it's because with their new mount, they can (I'm trying really hard to not use all caps). Canon hasn't waited over 20 years since they introduced the first EF 50 1.2L to radically improve its performance because they felt like it. They didn't pass on creating an EF 28-70 f2 all these years because they felt like it.

Nikon and Canon are making more impressive lenses now because of the new mounts and proximity to the sensor. /end of story
Um, well okay. I'm not a lens designer and don't know the intricacies of it. But as others have pointed out, excellent EF lenses - some by third parties - exist. And businesses will always seek to sell their new products with the most glowing language possible. Whether it's "physics" is a little more complicated. I've read a lot of debate and discussion on these forums over the past few years, and nobody has explained why mirrorless (closer lens-to-sensor distance or whatever) is better for more than a small range of lens types. If you know better, please enlighten us - I'm open-minded about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron

6degrees

RF 85mm F1.2
Sep 6, 2018
100
69
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!
I think the mirrorless short flange distance does provide better situations to develop lenses with better optical image quality. I believe it also means the lenses can be developed in simpler structure or smaller size for the same image quality as EF lenses/DSLR. At least for the wide angle lenses, it has been confirmed by lenses provider company. You can google it. I remember at least Sigma CEO mentioned that.
 
Last edited:

6degrees

RF 85mm F1.2
Sep 6, 2018
100
69
No it does not.
I wasn't trying to negate but rather add/clarify that from an Engineering standpoint the new Mirrorless system w/RF mount allow for changes in how the lenses are designed from an internal and glass element perspective. The physics principles still apply when it comes to transference of light rays, etcetera. There is no question whatsoever that Canon's EF L lenses are top-of-the-line. What's interesting to me (and perhaps a few others) is why Canon put the "BLUE-GOO" in the 35mm f1.4L II but not in the newer 85mm f1.4L IS... I wonder if it was just because wide-angle lenses are more prone/susceptible to Flare than mid-to-longer telephoto lenses? That said, the 85mm f1.4L IS seems to be/do fine without it.
You guys are probably wrong. Canon RF lenses will be better than EF lenses. It is for sure. The logic is very simple. The worse case for RF lenses is designed same as EF lenses and then push lenses away from sensor. Basically RF lenses can’t be worse than EF lenses. But the short flange distance may provide chances to improve image quality of the lenses. Make sense?

Three possible cases:

- Similar structure/size/weight, but improved image quality
- Same image quality, similar structure, but smaller size/weight
- Same image quality, similar size/weight, but simpler structure

Anything is a win.
 
Last edited: