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

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,360
333
119
may be a silly question but can I mount this lens to an M body?
Not officially, at some point some third party might make them as there is a couple of mm to play with so technically it is possible. But it will never get Canon support or be official and as the lenses are focus by wire I'm thinking it is probably never going to happen even via third party.
 
Reactions: Canedo

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,835
184
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.
Except for the single common lens the 24-105 (according to Canon's own white paper - which can be downloaded in pdf format)
To be specific: They compare the RF with the EF 24-105 II and they find it in some combinations better and in some worse.
The same kind of comparison exists between 24-105 I and 24-105 II.
And the 24-105 I has exactly the same size as the RF (and is cheaper). And the RF costs exactly as the EF 24-105 II.
There is no clear winner between them.
 
Last edited:

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,835
184
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.
DO you have 5D4 and consider it not stellar? Saying "to the edge of acceptable" is funny! (with the same logic EOS R would be below acceptable)
 
Last edited:

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,835
184
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.
It seems I failed to stress enough that the 100-400 f/4 you mentioned is very close to the existing 200-400 f/4 so only 28-70 seems like a good example. And you were right to say "would likely exceed" because you refer to an imaginary product and the EF100-400 II is also another excellent lens...
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,835
184
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.
OK we agree 100% on something :)
 
Reactions: highdesertmesa

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,835
184
Not officially, at some point some third party might make them as there is a couple of mm to play with so technically it is possible. But it will never get Canon support or be official and as the lenses are focus by wire I'm thinking it is probably never going to happen even via third party.
If I recall correctly the difference is 2mm (20 vs 18). But it's a pity that an APS-C mirrorless camera cannot be a backup to a FF mirrorless camera!
 

dadohead

EOS M50
Dec 3, 2011
33
2
I went straight to comparing it to the Otus 55mm. The Otus stills beat it as far as sharpness on those test charts goes, but not by much. So, at half the price, the Canon is a steal!
There's more to the Otus than just overall sharpness. Let's see how the bokeh and the micro contrast look before we get too excited.
 
Reactions: nitram and tmroper

highdesertmesa

EOS T7i
Apr 17, 2017
55
19
DO you have 5D4 and consider it not stellar? Saying "to the edge of acceptable" is funny! (with the same logic EOS R would be below acceptable)
I owned one for about a month or two – the third one of three kits I tried. Maybe it was just the heavy AA filter, but I had difficulty getting sharp results that I could easily achieve with the 5D, 6D, and 5DsR I've had. Beyond that, I didn't like the heavy color noise in pulled shadows. I suppose since I landed on the GFX, I had some high expectations.

And the EOS R is below acceptable, too. I downloaded FROs DNG images and saw banding in the shadows when doing a heavy shadows push in Lightroom. What I did like about the R images was the sharpness. They looked so much sharper than the 5D4 with the 24-70 2.8 II. I'm not sure if that's due to the RF 28-70 f2 or if the R has a weaker AA filter. I have no reason to know either way, but I felt like what I was noticing was a weaker AA filter.
 

highdesertmesa

EOS T7i
Apr 17, 2017
55
19
It seems I failed to stress enough that the 100-400 f/4 you mentioned is very close to the existing 200-400 f/4 so only 28-70 seems like a good example. And you were right to say "would likely exceed" because you refer to an imaginary product and the EF100-400 II is also another excellent lens...
Let's revisit this when they release the RF whites and see :)
 

highdesertmesa

EOS T7i
Apr 17, 2017
55
19
Except for the single common lens the 24-105 (according to Canon's own white paper - which can be downloaded in pdf format)
To be specific: They compare the RF with the EF 24-105 II and they find it in some combinations better and in some worse.
The same kind of comparison exists between 24-105 I and 24-105 II.
And the 24-105 I has exactly the same size as the RF (and is cheaper). And the RF costs exactly as the EF 24-105 II.
There is no clear winner between them.
Likely they set a more realistic goal for the RF 24-105 to at least match the EF performance in order to concentrate on the RF 28-70 f2 and RF 50 1.2, which needed to exceed expectations.
 
Reactions: nitram

Normalnorm

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 25, 2012
461
69
Except for the single common lens the 24-105 (according to Canon's own white paper - which can be downloaded in pdf format)
To be specific: They compare the RF with the EF 24-105 II and they find it in some combinations better and in some worse.
The same kind of comparison exists between 24-105 I and 24-105 II.
And the 24-105 I has exactly the same size as the RF (and is cheaper). And the RF costs exactly as the EF 24-105 II.
There is no clear winner between them.
IMO the inability of any maker to meaningfully improve on the 24-105 zoom probably means we are bumping up against some hard limits in lens design irrespective of flange distance, mount size or overall dimension.
That is most likely why the 24-70 designs yield better results.
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
291
134
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
I owned one for about a month or two – the third one of three kits I tried. Maybe it was just the heavy AA filter, but I had difficulty getting sharp results that I could easily achieve with the 5D, 6D, and 5DsR I've had. Beyond that, I didn't like the heavy color noise in pulled shadows.
Are you sure you owned 5D Mk IV? It's especially good in terms of colour noise, including the shadows. At ISO 100 it's virtually non-existent and still pretty good at high ISOs. You need to really push the sensor to its limits in order to get the colour noise.
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,835
184
I owned one for about a month or two – the third one of three kits I tried. Maybe it was just the heavy AA filter, but I had difficulty getting sharp results that I could easily achieve with the 5D, 6D, and 5DsR I've had. Beyond that, I didn't like the heavy color noise in pulled shadows. I suppose since I landed on the GFX, I had some high expectations.

And the EOS R is below acceptable, too. I downloaded FROs DNG images and saw banding in the shadows when doing a heavy shadows push in Lightroom. What I did like about the R images was the sharpness. They looked so much sharper than the 5D4 with the 24-70 2.8 II. I'm not sure if that's due to the RF 28-70 f2 or if the R has a weaker AA filter. I have no reason to know either way, but I felt like what I was noticing was a weaker AA filter.
There is a limit to where you can push shadows but this has been seriously improved from the 5D3. Even DPReview acknowledged that. If I recall correctly it had put the 5D4 just one stop below the sonikons in the shadow raising. But how many stops do you need to raise the shadows?

EDIT: If you went for GFX then I cannot comment on it - I do not know anything about it. Since its sensor is huge you must enjoy and/or need some very serious performance there.
 
Last edited:

Act444

EOS 6D MK II
May 4, 2011
951
67
I owned one for about a month or two – the third one of three kits I tried. Maybe it was just the heavy AA filter, but I had difficulty getting sharp results that I could easily achieve with the 5D, 6D, and 5DsR I've had. Beyond that, I didn't like the heavy color noise in pulled shadows. I suppose since I landed on the GFX, I had some high expectations.

And the EOS R is below acceptable, too. I downloaded FROs DNG images and saw banding in the shadows when doing a heavy shadows push in Lightroom. What I did like about the R images was the sharpness. They looked so much sharper than the 5D4 with the 24-70 2.8 II. I'm not sure if that's due to the RF 28-70 f2 or if the R has a weaker AA filter. I have no reason to know either way, but I felt like what I was noticing was a weaker AA filter.
I think we should be comparing the two cameras with the same lens attached. So far, such a comparison does not exist.

But yes, I’m almost never happy with the 5D4 sharpness at the default 3/4/4 DPP setting. I usually end up using 4/3/3 or 4/3/2. With the 5D3 I had before I could typically leave it at 3/4/4, or bump up slightly to 4/4/4.

I like the R’s implementation of C-RAW. Anyone try this format out yet? With a 50MP body this could be useful...
 
Last edited:
Reactions: highdesertmesa

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
880
109
Likely they set a more realistic goal for the RF 24-105 to at least match the EF performance in order to concentrate on the RF 28-70 f2 and RF 50 1.2, which needed to exceed expectations.
They also designed the RF 24-105 to similar weight and cost constraints as the EF equivalents, something that cannot be said for the RF 50 or the RF 28-70.
 

YuengLinger

EOR R
Dec 20, 2012
2,234
252
Southeastern USA
They also designed the RF 24-105 to similar weight and cost constraints as the EF equivalents, something that cannot be said for the RF 50 or the RF 28-70.
So is the 24-105mm the kit lens for the EOS R? And why do we automatically consider a "kit" lens as an acceptably lower IQ compromise just because it is bundled with a $2000 or even $3500 or higher camera? (Alright, I shouldn't get started on kit lenses. I generally hate them. You get a good lens, problem body, or a great body and a soft copy of the lens, then what?)
 

Act444

EOS 6D MK II
May 4, 2011
951
67
I believe the 24-105 is being bundled with the R in certain kits, so yes. However, it appears that at the time of availability of the R body, only one RF lens - the 50 1.2 - will also be available. Still think they should have thrown in a basic adapter in the box by default.
 
Reactions: tron