A Look at the RF 45mm f/1.2 STM, it seems compact.

[Maximilian]

One can only hope...
My interest is pure sharpness, ...
Bokeh quality, frankly I couldn't care less...

Then I guess the RF45 is far from becoming your tool. This has a different purpose.
Still I hope that the center sharpness is high, even wide open.

 

[blackcoffee17]

I don't care that much about wide-open corner sharpness - it's enough if it's sharp when stopped down to maybe F2. I just hope it has nice contrast and rendering and some decent MFD. No need for 0.5 macro but 0.25X would be nice.

 

[Askeladden]

I'll keep my fingers crossed.
If there aren't any big mechanical or optical flaws and it delivers decently I am sure it'll find its way in my bag.
Not as a first adopter and not at MRSP, but pretty soon when first discounts are given.

The last f/1.2 lens in my families possession was my fathers FD 55mm f/1.2 S.S.C. (not the ASPHERICAL)

I have one in my collection. Fun lens to use with obvious vintage characteristics. Would not mind getting the aspherical if I see one pop up for a good price.. interestingly they have halved in price in a couple of years. There was a lot of hype around especially FD lenses that use same glass as the K35 cinema lenses.. the 24mm f1.4, 85mm f1.2 and the 55mm f1.2, but also many others unicorns. I think the market became saturated after a while and those that lusted after them got their fill. The whole slowdown in Hollywood situation might have had something to do with it as well.

 

[Walrus]

Then I guess the RF45 is far from becoming your tool. This has a different purpose.
Still I hope that the center sharpness is high, even wide open.

We'll know it when we see it, it's just 5 days now, and I'm sure the usual reviewers already had tested it and are just waiting for the ban to be lifted for publish their findings.

I guess if we see reviews immediately, for me it's a sign that the lens is good, and Canon isn't scared of showing them so they can boost immediate sales...but if we don't see reviews for days or weeks, then it probably means that the lens sucks, and Canon wanted to get at least some early orders before people discover how bad the lens is

I didn't follow the 16-28 STM release, so I don't know how it went with reviews, but having bought it I remember fewer reviews then normal about 28-70 STM, which I felt wasn't really "pushed" by Canon, maybe to somewhat protect the 24-70 L
Also, just by my super domestic and UNSCIENTIFIC test on that lens, I felt my copy is way sharper in the corners, especially at 70mm, then what most of the reviews showed; is there a case where Canon may choose to send reviewers slightly less then perfect copies of such lenses, 45 STM included, just to have them being still very good, but not so good that may impact on their L counterparts sales?

 

[m4ndr4ke]

Guys, please don't expect wonders from this old and simple optical design basis. Canon hasn't found the philosopher's stone in optical designs.
But they could have found some tweaks to make it better than in the past.

Agree. I imagine this lens may deliver slightly more center sharpness at 1.2, being "slightly" the keyword here. Many basic mirrorless designs have been giving us that.

And from what I've heard the Sigmas has a busy and not so creamy bokeh.

Not in my experience. It's not as smooth than the 1.2, naturally, but I always found it to be smoother than the other options below.
One of the things that made me switch to the Sigma was the much higher resistance to specular highlights in the background. The EF 50 1.8 annoyed me with so much bubbles.


I imagine this lens to be a decent match to the RF 35mm f/1.8, with similar robustness, size, weight, perhaps general rendering and colors...and maybe as sharp at f/1.8 as the 35mm is at f/1.8, meaning I'm imagining it to be softer at wider apertures.

 

[Snapster]

IQ should at least be on par with 50mm Sigma Art. And much better than the RF 50mm 1.8. Otherwise, whats the point?

 

[Walrus]

IQ should at least be on par with 50mm Sigma Art. And much better than the RF 50mm 1.8. Otherwise, whats the point?

That's what I'm thinking; otherwise why people should spend 600€ on this vs 300€ for an used 50 Art? Yes, weight, size, extra bright kick, no adapter, I get it, but double the price for less sharpness at comparable apertures? I'd say nah.

 

[Tom R5R7]

I'd like to see it sitting next to the old EF 50/1.4 USM to see just how compact it really is. I suspect that it's about 1.5 times as long as the old EF lens.

And probably 1.5 times sharper too.

 

[Walrus]

I'd like to see it sitting next to the old EF 50/1.4 USM to see just how compact it really is. I suspect that it's about 1.5 times as long as the old EF lens.

And probably 1.5 times sharper too.

This is what EF 50 1.4 look on Canon R against RF 50 1.8 and Sigma 40 1.4 Art

Post in thread 'Canon is in deep talks with third-party lens manufacturers'

Feb 25, 2024

My hope is that any 3rd party lenses will fill gaps that canon doesn’t want to release lenses [..] or 50/1.4

Speaking about that, last week I got myself an used Eos R on eBay; it came with some extra stuff, as the EF-RF adapter, an EF-S 24 STM, and especially an EF 50 f1.4 USM which was quite interesting to me, as the last time I got a Canon 50 f1.4 in my hand it was 15 years ago, in 2009 on a 5D classic, as discovered in my archive (and pictures weren't as bad as I remembered, to be fair).

So I gave the 50 f1.4 a special treatment, and brought to "the wall of shame", as in the...

• Walrus

• 

And no, it's not sharp

 

[m4ndr4ke]

IQ should at least be on par with 50mm Sigma Art. And much better than the RF 50mm 1.8. Otherwise, whats the point?

To be better than the RF 50mm f/1.8, it just needs to be as good at the same aperture and have the ability to go wider
Jokes apart, I imagine this lens at 1.4 could be similar to the Sigma at 1.4, yes.
And then there's rendering, colors, bokeh, coatings, build quality, autofocus (with the new STM)...there's a lot of aspects where this lens could easily be an improvement compared to the RF 50mm f/1.8.

That's what I'm thinking; otherwise why people should spend 600€ on this vs 300€ for an used 50 Art? Yes, weight, size, extra bright kick, no adapter, I get it, but double the price for less sharpness at comparable apertures? I'd say nah.

If this is released at 600€, I expect being able to buy it at 450€ or less, brand new, just with the usual weekend discounts.
The Sigma, with the adapter, weights about as much as three of these. You know I had it, and I'm not going back.

I still have the adapter, but I sold all my EF glass a year ago. I only keep the adapter for the case someday I need a specific lens, like a super telephoto, and I can't afford a RF, or if I want to adapt a completely different lens. Earlier this year I used a mirror lens, for instance.

 

[Maximilian]

That's what I'm thinking; otherwise why people should spend 600€ on this vs 300€ for an used 50 Art? Yes, weight, size, extra bright kick, no adapter, I get it, but double the price for less sharpness at comparable apertures? I'd say nah.

I think you've already made your decision, showing here to compare apples with oranges because of MRSP vs. used street price.
And that's okay in choosing the Sigma 50 Art for sharpness corner to corner.
But choosing a smaller, lighter lens with potentially dreamy look as the EF 50/1.2 L had for a fraction of its MRSP, is also a choice.

 

[Walrus]

I think you've already made your decision

Well, definitely not, how can I decide until lens is out and we know for sure all its qualities, and if the incredibly low price is confirmed? Maybe is super sharp, but AF sucks like the 85 STM and flare is a disaster. I value sharpness, but something else should be there, too.

 

[Maximilian]

Well, definitely not, how can I decide until lens is out and we know for sure all its qualities, and if the incredibly low price is confirmed? Maybe is super sharp, but AF sucks like the 85 STM and flare is a disaster. I value sharpness, but something else should be there, too.

I still think you've already made your decision when you told us what’s important to you, and what are no-goes to you concerning lenses.
Of course, the RF45 could be a wonder lens with Image quality out of a classical old optical formula that in the past never performed like you desire.
But hey, there could be a unicorn around the corner.
IMO, being a little bit more realistic could help many from getting disappointed.

 

[STN12]

On par with the EF 50mm f/1.2L USM, huh? So sharp in the middle, not so much in the corners. Too bad, was hoping to replace my hefty Sigma 50mm 1.4, which is sharp corner to corner but heavy enough on its own, let alone with the mount adapter.

I've had a hefty sigma 50 1.4 ART for a few years, worked with it on 5D3 and 4, then R6 and R6II, I've never been happier trading a lens than this one: it never matched the image quality of my L lenses fleet, you could easily tell which photos were shot with it, and not in a pleasant way. Finally found a EF 50 1.2 at an irresistible price, it's easily the best 50mm i've ever used: it is plenty sharp at any aperture above 1.6, in any part of the image, it's very three-dimensional even at f4 or 5.6 when shooting group photos. unbelievable. the only downside is, it's an old lens with an old focus motor, it does not support the full burst capabilities of the EOS-R cameras, it's blackout time between shots is a little bit more noticeable than more recent lenses, but that is it. it's half the size of the 50ART, which, I almost forgot, happened to fail me twice, on paid jobs: once, the lens mount screws got loose, luckily I found a hardware store halfway between the wedding ceremony and reception, and fixed it while my assistant covered the aperitivo (hello from italy!). another time, again working at a wedding, one screw got loose and the whole lens group moved inside the barrel. luckily, everything worked anyway, it did focus (thanks mirrorless system!), so I could keep on working. I was checking focus a lot more often than i normally do.

if this 45 is real, its image quality matches the EF 50 1.2, has good 2026 focusing capability, and it's not going to break the bank, i think i'm going to have one permanently mounted to my R6.

 

[Walrus]

I've had a hefty sigma 50 1.4 ART for a few years, worked with it on 5D3 and 4, then R6 and R6II, I've never been happier trading a lens than this one: it never matched the image quality of my L lenses fleet, you could easily tell which photos were shot with it, and not in a pleasant way. Finally found a EF 50 1.2 at an irresistible price, it's easily the best 50mm i've ever used: it is plenty sharp at any aperture above 1.6, in any part of the image, it's very three-dimensional even at f4 or 5.6 when shooting group photos. unbelievable. the only downside is, it's an old lens with an old focus motor, it does not support the full burst capabilities of the EOS-R cameras, it's blackout time between shots is a little bit more noticeable than more recent lenses, but that is it. it's half the size of the 50ART, which, I almost forgot, happened to fail me twice, on paid jobs: once, the lens mount screws got loose, luckily I found a hardware store halfway between the wedding ceremony and reception, and fixed it while my assistant covered the aperitivo (hello from italy!). another time, again working at a wedding, one screw got loose and the whole lens group moved inside the barrel. luckily, everything worked anyway, it did focus (thanks mirrorless system!), so I could keep on working. I was checking focus a lot more often than i normally do.

if this 45 is real, its image quality matches the EF 50 1.2, has good 2026 focusing capability, and it's not going to break the bank, i think i'm going to have one permanently mounted to my R6.

Anche al mio si erano allentate le viti e ballava un po' dopo 6 mesi circa dall'acquisto (nuovo), me l'han sistemato in garanzia anche se era europea e non italiana (per questo motivo non ho potuto portarlo direttamente in assistenza, l'ho dovuto spedire a Galaxiastore, da cui l'avevo comprato, con etichetta prepagata mandata da loro, lo han fatto poi riparare loro e me lo hanno rimandato, turnover totale circa 3 settimane), da lì ha lavorato quasi 10 anni senza mai più un problema. Venduto solo per passare al 40 Art, ma lo ricomprerei domattina, obiettivo splendido.

Evidentemente aveva rogne di progetto il 50mm se ad entrambi si sono mollate le viti, ho tutt'ora altri tre Sigma Art (40 e 105 fissi e 24-105) e non ho mai più avuto mezzo problema.

 

[Tom R5R7]

This is what EF 50 1.4 look on Canon R against RF 50 1.8 and Sigma 40 1.4 Art

Post in thread 'Canon is in deep talks with third-party lens manufacturers'

Feb 25, 2024

My hope is that any 3rd party lenses will fill gaps that canon doesn’t want to release lenses [..] or 50/1.4

Speaking about that, last week I got myself an used Eos R on eBay; it came with some extra stuff, as the EF-RF adapter, an EF-S 24 STM, and especially an EF 50 f1.4 USM which was quite interesting to me, as the last time I got a Canon 50 f1.4 in my hand it was 15 years ago, in 2009 on a 5D classic, as discovered in my archive (and pictures weren't as bad as I remembered, to be fair).

So I gave the 50 f1.4 a special treatment, and brought to "the wall of shame", as in the...

• Walrus

• 

And no, it's not sharp

I was looking at the physical size, but the result is important too. I had a 50/1.4 Canon for several years. It wasn't stellar but it wasn't as soft as the images you've provided. And by f/2, it was very sharp in the middle. 2.8, sharp across the field.

I no longer have the 50/1.4 EF lens, but I do have an EF 50/1.2L. It, too, has its weaknesses, well known as characteristics of the gaussian-derived design. This new one looks like it could be an improvement on the EF 50/1.2L, but the proof is in the actual results.

I don't do a lot of imaging where the 50/1.2 would excel, so I'm not willing to spend huge money on it. But if this 45/1.2 is optically very good, I might give it a go.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Center sharpness, Faster AF, cheap(ish)

That's all I need.

 

[Marximusprime]

A very quick and dirty comparison shows it's roughly the size of the ef 50 1.4 with the RF adapter. The combined weight of the two is 400 g, so approximately 50 g more than the 45.

 

[Tom R5R7]

A very quick and dirty comparison shows it's roughly the size of the ef 50 1.4 with the RF adapter. The combined weight of the two is 400 g, so approximately 50 g more than the 45.View attachment 226733

Thanks. reasonable evidence.

I had forgotten about the adapter - obviously, it's necessary on all my cameras except the old 10D that I have in the display cabinet next to the Elan II, the FT, the A1 and other artifacts from yesteryear.

The 50/1.4 was that one lens that enthusiasts screamed for Canon to update, but they never did. An early, "rough" version of USM, and some variances from copy to copy. I had a fairly good one, but many did not.

 

[Walrus]

A very quick and dirty comparison shows it's roughly the size of the ef 50 1.4 with the RF adapter. The combined weight of the two is 400 g, so approximately 50 g more than the 45.View attachment 226733

Good comparison; rear cap of the RF seems a just little smaller in proportion to the one on the EF, so I guess the 45 STM could be a little bigger then what comparison shows, which is positive, means there's lot of (hopefully good!) glass in there!