A Look at the RF 45mm f/1.2 STM, it seems compact.
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Interesting discussion. I'm curious if any Canon shooters have thought about buying a Sony to experiment with some of these cheap, fast lenses. Not saying to dump Canon, but just for another option to have fun with and check these Chinese lenses out. Go with me on this journey for a couple minutes... you could buy the Canon RF 35mm f/1.4 for $1,550 USD and the RF 85mm f/1.4 for $1,650. These two lenses for $3,200 USD. Or you could buy a new Sirui Aurora 35mm f/1.4 for $550 and a Sirui Aurora 85mm f/1.4 for $440. Two similar lenses on E mount for $990 USD. That gives $2,210 USD to find a Sony camera body to play with these two lenses and who knows, maybe many more like them. One photography option, also fairly economical, would be a used A7III or A7C for about $1,000 USD on MPB. That would save $1,200 USD. But if you want to match the price of the two Canon lenses, let's say we go ahead and upgrade to the A7IV brand new for $2,000 USD, also with better video specs than the A7III (if we're into that because again, we're just playing right?). So the Sony A7IV + Sirui 35 f/1.4 + Sirui 85 f/1.4 is still $200 USD cheaper than the Canon RF 35 f/1.4 and RF 85 f/1.4. Another way to look at it is that I could buy these at the beginning of the summer and probably resell them at the end of the summer for about as much as it will cost to rent the two Canon lenses for a week. You know, I might need that money back to just buy the Canon lenses after all. But I guess the point being, if the opportunity cost to stay exclusively in Canon is so high, why not just shoot both and have some more tools in the toolbox? We are not talking about a 20% Canon premium anymore. For these two lenses alone we're talking about a 282% & 375% Canon premium.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That's what I did and I am very happy with my choices. I am not switching systems off Canon wholesale to another brand so much as just supplementing my existing system.
Would definitely recommend if people have the financial means.
Upvote
0
That's exactly what I did. I bought an A1 II and now I enjoy a new whole world of lenses.
Upvote
0
Yep I think this is the more sound prediction. Anyone expecting corner to corner sharpness at F/1.2 for $600 is................................ optimistic is the most kind way I can put it. Look at this more like a 45/1.8 with an extra stop "in case of emergencies". Id wager the transmission wide open won't be much better than like T1.5 anyway.
Upvote
0
Late in this conversation but still interesting.
I was considering this option with a RED camera; which actually quite expensive, so I was in a very serious state of mind when considering it.
But then, I really looked at what I need, and realized that spending 6 months, just to test if I like another gear or not, is against what who I am.
I value ten times more learning my craft than finding out if a gear is worth buying or not. There is too much time and energy required in buying and selling, and testing, and comparing, and trying to match with what I have, and then .... what else? It simply not worth finding what I can find out from Youtube in a week or two. Youtube is full of lies and marketing, but if you are at that level, you will realize that 4:2:0 will never be the same as 4;2:2 regardless of who says it is not mushy. If you spent more time gaining experience you would have a very good idea.
There is so much to learn and I can't even find enough time to learn them all, why would I waste that time on testing another gear? I would consider that option only if my gear cannot do what i need it to do. That was my problem with R5; timecode and never to overheat while shooting C-log2 on a CF-express were musts for me so I complained.
I like the rectilinearity of wide-angle Viltrox lenses but I cannot have it. Is it a must? No. But i would like very much someday.
Upvote
0
I have been considering shooting on parallel systems where I would keep my Canon to shoot action and get a Sony (A7IV) to shoot everyrhing else that doesn't require high fps.
GM 35mm 1.4 and 200-600 G are also weighing in besides third party lenses because they are better than Canons respective lenses.
The only thing that keeps me from switching is the ergonomy of holding a Sony camera, and having yet another set of batteries to charge.
GM 35mm 1.4 and 200-600 G are also weighing in besides third party lenses because they are better than Canons respective lenses.
The only thing that keeps me from switching is the ergonomy of holding a Sony camera, and having yet another set of batteries to charge.
Upvote
0
I have tried Sony a1 while I was using R6. Yes you get many options of lens selection, but in the end there's no more than five lenses that I love&will use with my Sony all the time. (FE 20mm f1.8G, Tamron 150-500, Sigma 18-50, FE 200-600G, FE 70-200GM2)
And these lenses are not that unique to E mount, there's equivalent in RF/EF. And Sony bodies in general is inferior to Canon (2025 and still no in-body focus stacking for Sony).
The only reason to go for Sony is if you desire to purchase many lenses for a small budget.
Upvote
0
What about Tamron 35-150mm F2.0, Sigma 135mm f1.4 or Sony 50-150mm f2.0 ?
Upvote
0
Got the grandfather of the 45 1.2 today.. the 55 1.2 FL. Probably the cheapest first party ultra fast fifty available which adjusted for inflation had a price of close to $1000 back in 1968. Today they are easy to find for less than $200. Having fiddled with a handful of old F1.2s it is rather interesting to see the progression and stagnation with those types of lenses. The FL shows an extreme amount of flaring due to the bad coatings used to the point of it taking over the entire frame whereas the later FD's don't show anywhere near as much. In terms of chromatic aberration they perform similar and from what I have seen even modern lenses with the same optical design costing ten times as much don't really improve upon it.. one example purely subjective of course shows worse chromatic aberration wide open, but has better center sharpness etc. So you gain in one field, lose in another (especially financially).
There is a lot of lore and hype around fast glass. Thankfully a lot of it has cooled down the last couple of years increasing accessibility for those who want to try fast glass on the cheap. Even the EF 50 1.2 when compared to the RF 1.2 makes it seem like a piece of doodoo so this new mirrorless budget 1.2 is a big deal. Anyone know if it will have aspherical elements?
There is a lot of lore and hype around fast glass. Thankfully a lot of it has cooled down the last couple of years increasing accessibility for those who want to try fast glass on the cheap. Even the EF 50 1.2 when compared to the RF 1.2 makes it seem like a piece of doodoo so this new mirrorless budget 1.2 is a big deal. Anyone know if it will have aspherical elements?
Upvote
0
All niche for my use. The Tamron is perfect for wedding photos, other 2 are more of a spec/keyboard warrior's dream.
Upvote
0
Tried to glean this information from the (48mm/1.28) patent - in the description it seems to indicate an aspherical lens (as the first element behind the aperture mechanism). We'll know in 16 hours.
Upvote
0
justaCanonuser
Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
I still use my EF 50mm f/1.2 quite frequently for stills, but for video with external mike the RF 45mm f/1.2 STM would be a nicely silent upgrade. Wide open, I would not expect this lens to be tack sharp in the corners, but hopefully it performs optically a tad better than the old EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, that was quite soft wide open.
Upvote
0
I don't want it tack sharp in the corners. this is (hopefully) going to be a character lens. i want field curvature, i want smearing, i want isolation (wide open and at large apertures) This is for placing subjects in the general central area and not the corners. that's what i want. we've had enough of the clinical robot g master era where everything is perfectly sharp everywhere. time to get back to the roots of art.
Upvote
0
justaCanonuser
Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
That's exactly the reason why I did not yet upgrade my EF 85mm f/1.2, I love its non-perfect slightly vintage character very much (don't use it in settings with a lot of contrast!). But coming from that lens I first was disappointed about the EF 50mm f/1.2 that I got later, because that one doesn't deliver that special, visually "punchy" look wide open with which I fell in love with the 85mm. The tele lens offers wide open a great combination of a visually (not lab wise, in the lab this lens is a mediocre performer) very sharp rendering in the center and a gorgeously soft fall-off into a creamy bokeh in the background, typically in the edges when one shoots portraits. The EF 50mm isn't visually that "crisp" wide open, but that comes basically with the fact that it isn't a tele design lens, and features a relatively simple design (Gauss-like, no floating elements). The advantage of that design is that the 50mm is so beautifully compact for such a superfast lens, and that's the reason why I still like to use it. Plus, its color rendering is superb and the bokeh great. A little bit stopped down, you soon hit a sweet spot with a sufficiently sharp center.
Upvote
0
justaCanonuser
Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Btw one of my next purchases will be a good RF-Leica M39 thread mount adapter. The 20mm flange focal distance of the RF mount allows to adapt M39 lenses and keep infinity focusing, since that classic Leica mount has a flange focal distance of 28.8mm. I'd like to try some of my vintage M39 lenses on my R5 II, like my 1.4/50mm and 1.8/85mm from Canon (late lenses from Canon's rangefinder era). Adds a bit of radioactivity to my images
since the highly refractive lens parts were made of thoriated glass...
Upvote
0
Similar threads
