Canon EOS R6 Mark III & RF 45 F1.2 STM November 6

[Tom R5R7]

What? That’s less than the 35mm!

Okay, I hate to say this, but I think it’s time to start lowering expectations…

I know we’ve had an early price leak, but originally I expected this kind of lens to be priced at something like 799€ to 1099€, which then we’d be able to purchase at 25 to 35% less in a good day, but this is completely different.


Sounds like you’re right.
Not really wider though, if the 48.5mm patent is confirmed, but it's understandable they'll avoid having two lenses named "RF 50mm f/1.2" in the market.

They could call it the 48 f/1.2. I mean, Zeiss had that famous 21 mm prime that was so well liked back in the day.

 

[Uneternal]

i have access to the 4 cameras in my comparison. not sure how to proceed with a color test through. i suppose a picture taken in a clear sky with noonish sun shoot a raw through an ef 70-200 f/2.8 at 100 iso,, some same shutter speed and maybe f/4? may still have differences in exposure?

The exact lighting condition doesn't really matter unless you want to do a scientific comparison; in that case I'd use studio light or a clear day.
Make sure you compare skin tones. The green hue is extremely visible in nature where you often have green bouncing light (like from foliage).

 

[Michael Clark]

What first party $600 lens has a 1.2 aperture and internal focus? Plus you do realize internal focus is just external focus with a bigger shell right lol.

Of course it is, and that's exactly the point: they could have made all these lenses with internal focus.

Not really. Most internally focusing lenses have the focusing elements movement in the rear of the optical train. What you are calling "externally focusing" lenses focus by extending the front group, multiple front groups, or all of the lens groups. While there have been a few cases of placing a stationary flat plate at the front of a barrel in front of extending front groups, those are the extremely rare exceptions to the rule.

Focusing with rear elements can come with its own set of issues. At close focus distances a rear focusing lens often has a much wider angle of view than when focused at infinity. The AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II was notorious for this. When focused at MFD and zoomed to the longest focal length, it gave a barely 140mm angle of view (and magnification), rather than 200mm. Nikon was roundly criticized over this and the next lens in the series, the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR, was designed to breathe much less at MFD. Note that rear focusing lenses do not have to demonstrate this property. Canon's EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II has a slightly narrower angle of view at 200mm and MFD than at 200mm and focused at infinity. It also has a slightly narrower AoV at 70mm and MFD than at 70mm focused at infinity.

 

[Michael Clark]

CVP did some C50 measurements, it's actually the same as before for stills or open gate (18ms) or a little quicker for cinema 4k video (14ms).
In APS-C super 35mm crop mode it uses a different mode that is supposed to have a +1 stop dynamic range, but the same 14ms readout time.
Basically similar to what it was before, but with more resolution and dynamic range with C-Log 2, so a good improvement overall.

The reason it is faster for Cinema 4K is because the full height of the sensor is not used. The 18ms : 14ms ratio is roughly the same as the 24mm: 20mm ratio of the imaging height.

 

[Michael Clark]

The spec for the new R6iii is a bit meh...and underwhelming. I think like everybody esle, I was expecting Canon to push Stacked sensors across the upper range of cameras.
The EVF resolution is a really good thing. However, the increase in sensor resolution really closes the gap between the R5ii and the R6ii. In a side by side comparision between the R5ii files and the R6iii files there will be hardly any noticable real world difference in captured detail. Effectively the R6iii becomes a R5 mki....ie an R5 without a stacked sensor.

I'm also wondering if Canon's game plan here is to sell non R5 users two cameras and not one. The R5ii is effectively Canon's "do it all exceptionally well" camera. Where as the R6iii isn't so sports / high fps orientated, so if you buy this camera then you'll probably need a R7ii as well.
It also makes users of the R5ii think more carefully what camera they choose for their 2nd camera. From Canon's perpective, its a R6iii or a R7ii. However as consumers, we have new/old stock and lightly used S/H R5 mki and R6ii to consider too.

Canon has done this before. Except for a few minor differences (X-sync 1/180 vs 1/200, minimum exposure time of 1/4000 vs 1/8000, 26.2 MP vs 22.3 MP, etc.) the 2017 6D Mark II was the virtual equal of the 2012 5D Mark III on the spec sheet. Of course the 5D Mark III had more robust construction and weather resistance than the 6D Mark II. But in terms of the spec sheet there was very little difference.

 

[Michael Clark]

Yeah I think you should really lower your expectations

The new 45mm is a BMW 116 with extras
The 50mm f/1.8 is a Renault Clio, it even has the typical french car build quality

What are cheap chinese lenses then, the bad ones, you’d ask? Well those are just Lada…

Toy lenses like the Oreo lens are two cylinders Aixam

The 50mm f/1.8 is definitely a Peugeot.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

Not really. Most internally focusing lenses have the focusing elements movement in the rear of the optical train. What you are calling "externally focusing" lenses focus by extending the front group, multiple front groups, or all of the lens groups. While there have been a few cases of placing a stationary flat plate at the front of a barrel in front of extending front groups, those are the extremely rare exceptions to the rule.

No, that's not what I'm calling externally focusing lenses. I'm calling externally focusing lenses to those that extend beyond its original dimensions.
There's no need for a stationary element in the front, just look at the RF 50mm f/1.2, for instance. That lens has no protective front element, yet it focuses inside its housing, never extending beyond its length. Canon just needed to add more plastic, enough to cover the movement.

The 50mm f/1.8 is definitely a Peugeot.

If you know, you know, right?

 

[BFG9000]

• Quality on par with the RF 50mm f/1.2L USM (Claimed)
• Digital Focus Breathing Correction
• 67mm Filter Thread
• Weight: 346g
• Price: €499 or €599 (We have been told both price points)

I'm sorry but I am a bit skeptical with the first statement.

 

[Canon Rumors]

I'm sorry but I am a bit skeptical with the first statement.

I share your sentiment. It was claimed by a rep during a presentation.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

Maybe at 20/24MP it’s good enough to be generally similar in terms of sharpness.
I expect the lens to be shown attached to the R8, as it’s aimed at enthusiasts.

I doubt it will perform as well at 45MP though, it just seems too good to be true, BUT…it’s been 7 years since the RF 50mm f/1.2 was released so, who knows…?
It’s quite a claim, though.

I’m expecting low distortion due to the nature of its focal length, tons of vignetting wide open, build quality similar to that of the 35mm f/1.8.

 

[mb66energy]

I think, Canon has released the RF 45 1.2 intentionally after I bought a 2nd hand EF 1.4 50 after waiting 15 years for a replacement (IS would have been welcome) ...
If that thing is really "as good as" the RF 50 1.2 (I do not believe that) I might buy this one - especially if gets closer to subjects and AF is nearly silent. Breathing countermeasures are welcome - maybe a static lens in the back?

 

[Canon Rumors]

Correction (I read the communication incorrectly). Optical quality on par with the EF 50 f/1.2L USM.

 

[Tomba]

Correction (I read the communication incorrectly). Optical quality on par with the EF 50 f/1.2L USM.

Good to know. That means I don't need to worry about replacing my EF 50mm 1.2 L with it

 

[Besisika]

Correction (I read the communication incorrectly). Optical quality on par with the EF 50 f/1.2L USM.

Still good enough for that price. Let's see how it will be reviewed.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

Correction (I read the communication incorrectly). Optical quality on par with the EF 50 f/1.2L USM.

Oh, so my initial suspicions were right. That makes a lot of sense, considering the double gauss design we saw on that patent.

If the double gauss design is confirmed, this could be a successor to the EF50mm f/1.2 L, this time aimed at enthusiasts. A very interesting proposition.

This may be a lens with a lot of character.

 

[Canon Rumors]

Good to know. That means I don't need to worry about replacing my EF 50mm 1.2 L with it

These 2AM baseball games are killing my brain function.

 

[Walrus]

Correction (I read the communication incorrectly). Optical quality on par with the EF 50 f/1.2L USM.

Ok so it's bad wide open; my 40 Art is going to stay, I guess

 

[Walrus]

Yeah I think you should really lower your expectations

I wasn't giving absolutes, I was giving reciprocals, starting from the R8 that someone else mentioned

 

[Quack]

@padam I've always read the original R6 had a 19ms readout for photo, and the Mark II had 14ms.
Anyway, the C50 seems to be in the same ballpark.


That's assuming you're doing any of that in-camera, which most don't. Plus, only Canon DPP can open the grouped photographs, on the computer.

Yes, I'm doing it in-camera- because that is SO MUCH EASIER.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Good to know. That means I don't need to worry about replacing my EF 50mm 1.2 L with it

Even if it's the same optically, the AF might be much more reliable.