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

[Askeladden]

A lot of those Canon EF 50 1.4s suffers from problems with the autofocus due to the front being pushed in at some point causing the slot which moves the elements forward to become bent. It is a fairly simple fix, but annoying nonetheless and also risky when buying used as some may not be at the point at being unusable, just at the stage where it hunts a little extra to nail focus. Doesn't take much either to develop the problem from what I understand.
I've had several copies of it, never grew attached to it and would not pay used market price for one if I was in the market for a cheap fast fifty.
If you somewhat unfairly compare it to the RF 50 1.4 you will start to hate it.

 

[Skyfall]

Interesting proposition for filming auroras (even if angle of view is not the classical for wide field astro, the 20mm is 3 times the price). Personally i think it could complement my 14-35mm greatly for campfire photos and portraits. I would be happy if resolution in the corners, or the center for that matter are good enough for 4k at f1.2 or 1.4, and of course coma is not horrible. I expect vinjetting higher than 3 stops but thats somewhat standard nowadays anyways

 

[Walrus]

If you somewhat unfairly compare it to the RF 50 1.4 you will start to hate it.

Comparison in unfair even against the RF 50 1.8 as you can see in the test link I posted some messages ago in this very thread

 

[Tom R5R7]

Comparison in unfair even against the RF 50 1.8 as you can see in the test link I posted some messages ago in this very thread

I think the digital picture site is a good place to compare and it mimics what I recall from my 50/1.4.

The EF 50/1.4 USM, when wide open, a little soft in the middle, very soft out in the corners.
By f/2, the middle was sharp and mid-frame was getting much better. Periphery, the corners, were still pretty murky, but that would generally be part of the blurred background if you were using the lens for portraiture.
By f/2.8, the center and what the site calls mid-frame exceeded the performance of the 50/1.8 RF, though the corners were still softer.
F/4, the RF 50/1.8 was essentially sharp across the field, while the EF 1.4 appeared a bit sharper through mid frame, but again softer in the corners.
F/8, the big equalizer, put them neck and neck in sharpness across the field.

I had my 50/1.4 for the occasional portrait picture - light, easy to pack, and had pretty nice bokeh compared to the EF 1.8 lenses at the time, which seemed to have a pretty hard outline on bright OOF highlights. That was the main reason I kept it. For shooting architecture, you'd really have to be shooting at at least f/5.6 or smaller aperture to bring those corners into acceptable sharpness.

I really hope this new 45/1.4 is comparable to my 50/1.2L. It would possibly get me to buy.

 

[Walrus]

The EF 50/1.4 USM, when wide open, a little soft in the middle, very soft out in the corners.
By f/2, the middle was sharp and mid-frame was getting much better.

Pics are 100% centre crops

"when wide open, a little soft in the middle"...I wouldn’t call this a little soft, probably "festival of spherical aberration" is more appropriate



"By f/2, the middle was sharp and mid-frame was getting much better"...I'd say definitely not sharp by any means (it's at f1.8 but you're not doing magic with 1/3rd stop extra closure), it's still partying at the spherical aberration festival, albeit it's getting close to the end of the festival...probably it doesn't catch up with the RF 50 1.8 until f5.6 or even f8 looking at the progression, shame on me I have deleted the original test pictures with the narrower apertures, so we could also look in the corners, I reckon maybe corner sharpness at f8 can match the RF at f1.8 in the centre...


C'mon, why defend one of the worst lenses that Canon ever made? It's terrible, any of the various old EF 50 1.8 was WAY sharper than this up to f4 and when you get there to match, what's the reason to buy the f1.4 if it's unusable before closing 3 stops?

 

[Tom R5R7]

Pics are 100% centre crops

"when wide open, a little soft in the middle"...I wouldn’t call this a little soft, probably "festival of spherical aberration" is more appropriate
View attachment 226734


"By f/2, the middle was sharp and mid-frame was getting much better"...I'd say definitely not sharp by any means (it's at f1.8 but you're not doing magic with 1/3rd stop extra closure), it's still partying at the spherical aberration festival, albeit it's getting close to the end of the festival...probably it doesn't catch up with the RF 50 1.8 until f5.6 or even f8 looking at the progression, shame on me I have deleted the original test pictures with the narrower apertures, so we could also look in the corners, I reckon maybe corner sharpness at f8 can match the RF at f1.8 in the centre...
View attachment 226735

C'mon, why defend one of the worst lenses that Canon ever made? It's terrible, any of the various old EF 50 1.8 was WAY sharper than this up to f4 and when you get there to match, what's the reason to buy the f1.4 if it's unusable before closing 3 stops?

My copy was much better than that.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

Pics are 100% centre crops

"when wide open, a little soft in the middle"...I wouldn’t call this a little soft, probably "festival of spherical aberration" is more appropriate
View attachment 226734


"By f/2, the middle was sharp and mid-frame was getting much better"...I'd say definitely not sharp by any means (it's at f1.8 but you're not doing magic with 1/3rd stop extra closure), it's still partying at the spherical aberration festival, albeit it's getting close to the end of the festival...probably it doesn't catch up with the RF 50 1.8 until f5.6 or even f8 looking at the progression, shame on me I have deleted the original test pictures with the narrower apertures, so we could also look in the corners, I reckon maybe corner sharpness at f8 can match the RF at f1.8 in the centre...
View attachment 226735

C'mon, why defend one of the worst lenses that Canon ever made? It's terrible, any of the various old EF 50 1.8 was WAY sharper than this up to f4 and when you get there to match, what's the reason to buy the f1.4 if it's unusable before closing 3 stops?

Hmm I also think my 50mm f/1.4 was slightly better, I'd say at f/1.4 it was similar to what you got at f/1.8, BUT I never tried the lens at 30MP, and I'm speaking entirely from memory of something I sold over four years ago so, I could be wrong. Still crap though. The RF nifty fifty wipes the floor with it.

By the way, that result at f/1.4 is very similar to my old 70-200mm f/2.8 at 200mm f/2.8, so now you know

 

[riker]

Erm...well...one of Canon's "dark secret" was EF 50/1.2 not being that good at all. With a bit of emotional bias I could say it was crap for an L lens. But for sure it was not a real L lens in terms of optical quality and also AF performance. I have never used the RF version but honestly, since I see lot of ppl changing theirs for the 50/1.4 VCM even tho they primarily shoot photo, I have my guesses.

Anyhow, if the 45/1.2 has considerably better AF than the 50/1.8, I'm in. If not, I don't need the 1.2 nor the extra weight.

 

[Tom R5R7]

Erm...well...one of Canon's "dark secret" was EF 50/1.2 not being that good at all. With a bit of emotional bias I could say it was crap for an L lens. But for sure it was not a real L lens in terms of optical quality and also AF performance. I have never used the RF version but honestly, since I see lot of ppl changing theirs for the 50/1.4 VCM even tho they primarily shoot photo, I have my guesses.

Anyhow, if the 45/1.2 has considerably better AF than the 50/1.8, I'm in. If not, I don't need the 1.2 nor the extra weight.

Depends on the criteria of judgement. In terms of pure sharpness, it was/is not exceptional, especially at wide apertures. In terms of color fidelity, it's top notch. Build quality, top notch. Quality of bokeh, top notch. A mixed bag of sorts, but form follows function and the function, the design criteria for the EF 50/1.2L did not include absolute sharpness at f/1.2 across the field. The newer RF lens does a lot better in the regard, and is also a much more expensive and complex lens design.

I would say that if overall sharpness across the field is your main criteria, the EF 50/1.2L is not the lens for you.

 

[riker]

Depends on the criteria of judgement. In terms of pure sharpness, it was/is not exceptional, especially at wide apertures. In terms of color fidelity, it's top notch. Build quality, top notch. Quality of bokeh, top notch. A mixed bag of sorts, but form follows function and the function, the design criteria for the EF 50/1.2L did not include absolute sharpness at f/1.2 across the field. The newer RF lens does a lot better in the regard, and is also a much more expensive and complex lens design.

I would say that if overall sharpness across the field is your main criteria, the EF 50/1.2L is not the lens for you.

Important part of my criticism was AF. It was slow asf.
I tend to compare lenses to other lenses. So in a nutshell, the 85/1.4L was a really great, exceptional lens. The 50/1.2L was not.
I can't not see how the 50/1.4L is superior to the 50/1.2L similarly to how the 85/1.4L is superior to the 82/1.2L (IQ and AF as well).

Also, my #1 problem with the 50/1.8 is AF, not IQ. Not that IQ is great, the 2016 Sony 50/1.8 is superior. But I could live with the IQ, the AF is driving me nuts.

 

[hamsterdam]

Juicy, but I'm waiting from Chris Frost's word, if it's any good (aka AT LEAST on par with Sigma 50 Art at 1.4), it's probably instant buy

Why would anyone expect this $500-$600 lens to be AT LEAST as good as a lens that is double its size and price. Canon's budget primes aren't even as good as third-party lenses that are half the price (e.g., canon 24mm vs samyang 24mm for e-mount).

 

[blackcoffee17]

Why would anyone expect this $500-$600 lens to be AT LEAST as good as a lens that is double its size and price. Canon's budget primes aren't even as good as third-party lenses that are half the price (e.g., canon 24mm vs samyang 24mm for e-mount).

Because that Sigma is 10 years old.

 

[Snapster]

Why would anyone expect this $500-$600 lens to be AT LEAST as good as a lens that is double its size and price. Canon's budget primes aren't even as good as third-party lenses that are half the price (e.g., canon 24mm vs samyang 24mm for e-mount).

The standard in the $500-600 range is now set by lenses like Viltrox 50mm 1.4 Pro and Sirui Aurora 35mm 1.4. You get high build and image quality for that price. It's not a good look if Canon make a plastic lens with lower image quality for the same price, and then do everything they can to force you to buy their overpriced offering.

I hope they understand this and the lens will have IQ on par with the above lenses. If not it's a bit embarrassing, honestly.

 

[hamsterdam]

Assumed this was referring to 50mm f/1.4 DG DN. Either way, I would not expect this lens to rival a lens specifically designed for optimal image quality. Many decade-old lenses still hold up very well today for image quality, albeit not as well for size and autofocus performance.

 

[hamsterdam]

The standard in the $500-600 range is now set by lenses like Viltrox 50mm 1.4 Pro and Sirui Aurora 35mm 1.4. You get high build and image quality for that price. It's not a good look if Canon make a plastic lens with lower image quality for the same price, and then do everything they can to force you to buy their overpriced offering.

I hope they understand this and the lens will have IQ on par with the above lenses. If not it's a bit embarrassing, honestly.

but those lenses are much bigger (especially the viltrox) and, crucially, not avaialble for RF mount. Which is why canon can massively overcharge for plasticky lenses with mediocre image quality that don't even have hoods or weather sealing.

 

[mangobutter]

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 feel like there's lenses for that if you want that. Plenty in fact. Go get a G master or any recent RF-L lens if you want perfect robot photos. This isn't that. Also some of my greatest photos of all time were taken with the EF 50 1.4 (@f2) which is even worse than the 50 1.2 in terms of sharpness off-axis. The way it rendered, the way it had field curvature, the way the corners were "soft" was precisely what made it a magical lens. And I think they were doing the best at the time with the double-gauss design, I don't think that was intentional--but the end result was a lens that had character.

I think many experienced photographers have had enough with the "sharp everywhere/perfect everywhere" lens and I think render-lenses are making a come back. Lenses that trade complete perfection-everywhere for some character. That's what I'm hoping this lens brings back. A lens that isn't shy about being imperfect. There's a time and place for everything, including perfect lenses, but I think lenses don't always have to be so serious.

 

[Snapster]

but those lenses are much bigger (especially the viltrox) and, crucially, not avaialble for RF mount. Which is why canon can massively overcharge for plasticky lenses with mediocre image quality that don't even have hoods or weather sealing.

Exactly. But we know those third party value lenses exist and can get annoyed they, or first party lenses matching their quailty, are not available on the RF mount.

I wouldn't mind paying a 20% "Canon tax" on top of third party prices assuming IQ would be as good, but offering an inferior lens for the same price is just annoying.

Maybe we will be pleasantly surprised on Thursday, but somehow a $500 1.2 lens from Canon doesn't convince me

 

[BFG9000]

I think the best thing is to expect nothing.

 

[frankchn]

The standard in the $500-600 range is now set by lenses like Viltrox 50mm 1.4 Pro and Sirui Aurora 35mm 1.4. You get high build and image quality for that price. It's not a good look if Canon make a plastic lens with lower image quality for the same price, and then do everything they can to force you to buy their overpriced offering.

I hope they understand this and the lens will have IQ on par with the above lenses. If not it's a bit embarrassing, honestly.

First party lenses have always commanded a premium across all manufacturers. On top of that you can't get the Viltrox and Sirui for RF because of the closed mount, so it is a moot point anyway. Canon can and will charge a premium because they control the mount and doesn't allow any FF autofocus lenses from third parties.

Looking at the patent of the 45mm f/1.2, it seems like IQ (at least spherical aberrations, chromatic aberrations etc) wide open at f/1.2 will be similar to the RF 50mm f/1.8 wide open.

 

[Snapster]

Comparing to third party lenses is anything but a moot point. Lens selection is more important than camera bodies. Canon is getting more and more behind in lenses.