If I am reading things correctly, B&H lists the EF version of that as discontinued, and they don't list an RF version.
Upvote
0
Canon EOS R6 Mark III & RF 45 F1.2 STM November 6
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Canon in the Netherlands has the EF 50mm f1.2 lens in it’s webstore and in stock, as have other large photoshops (for 1699€, incl. VAT, if you are interested
).
Upvote
0
You state that the expected Max ISO of the R6 Mark III is 64,000. Yet, isn't that a downgrade? The Max native ISO of the Mark II is 102,400.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I can’t speak for B&H, they’re irrelevant on this side of the Atlantic, but the EF 50mm f/1.2 doesn’t attach to a Canon mirrorless camera in any different way than the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art does. For the price the canon EF lens costs, if buying new is impossible, better buy a second hand Sigma and send it in for maintenance. You could probably buy two or three of the Sigma lens for the price of one EF 50mm f/1.2.
JesusCanon in the Netherlands has the EF 50mm f1.2 lens in it’s webstore and in stock, as have other large photoshops (for 1699€, incl. VAT, if you are interested
I’ve passed on the RF 50mm f/1.2 for about the same price twice this year, here in Portugal (not imported). Actually cheaper, once.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I´m sure these people exist, I just haven't met them in photography (yet). Usually, I see a lot of people act like that when they talk about cars.
The used market is a real bargain but also kind of crazy. The R6 hit the price point of about 1.300 - 1.400 € after the first discounts for the mkii came out. It has been sitting at exactly this point for over two years. The camera has really been stable in value although the mkii is better and now the mkiii is about to show. This phenomenon is even more true for lenses as they tend not to get a direct replacement within approximately 10 years.Some thinks buying third party lenses makes them "poor", but it's ok, as they swap lenses very easily at any new release, so in a short time they flood the used market with many pro lenses at bargain prices for people really needing them to buy. I actually appreciate that
This gives me the opportunity to buy and use lenses for a while and resell them later for the same price. One can keep the "cost of ownership" to a minimum if one has the funding to buy and sell. That's the reason why I've never preordered any lens or camera, I usually wait for prices to drop to a point where I can sell my gear (if necessary) for about the same money. Only exception so far: RF 50mm F1.4 VCM, which I bought last month with "only" a discount of 150 $ because I need for family shots. And now comes an affordable 45mm F1.2... grrrr
Upvote
0
That's exactly what I did.People like to brag L lenses, even when the lens sucks...it's just "I have a thicker wallet then yours"; you can afford it, and you want people to know you can. Some thinks buying third party lenses makes them "poor", but it's ok, as they swap lenses very easily at any new release, so in a short time they flood the used market with many pro lenses at bargain prices for people really needing them to buy. I actually appreciate that
After buying the R6 in 2020, I replaced a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art that I used with my 5DIII with a used Canon EF 50mm 1.2 L for 650€.
Yes, the Sigma is sharper, but I liked the pictures I took with the Canon better. That's why I decided to let the Sigma go.
Yes, I wouldn't buy the EF 50mm 1.2 L new for 1.699€ in the Canon online shop. However, if it were defective, I would buy it again at the used price of €650 if I didn't have the money for a RF 50mm 1.4 VCM.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I don´t like the overly sharp Sigmas... sometimes it doesn't look like separation in the image, but like someone photoshopped a person into a landscape pic. I think in Germany they called the "sticker look". That's why I sold my Sigma portrait lens rather quickly.
Nope, I wouldn't either. It is sometimes funny how the canon online stores keep very high prices when one get buy the lens for 50-60% less. I don't really get why they do that and how buys those lenses.
Upvote
0
I'm still used to the optical viewfinder on APSC DSLRs where I couldn't see almost anything so the R was a huge upgrade to me
Yes the EVF on the R8/R6 is one of the little things. Not a deal breaker but it makes the decision (to buy the R6) easier. It was one of the reasons when I was deciding between the 60D and 700D. The 60D had bigger battery, top LCD and bigger viewfinder. It won over the better sensor at the 700D.
Upvote
0
I liked the R´s EVF. Only the blackout in high-speed shooting is/ was a problem. The R5 on paper has a better EVF, but I never really noticed that difference. The R5 also has a blackout phase, but at least it's shorter than the R´s. I really like the EVF of the R5mkii, it is really beautiful. But, the big EVF hump makes the camera even bulkier.
Why is the R8´s EVF "horrible"? I only tested in a camera store, but it seemed fine to me. Is 2.36 m dots such a setback?
Upvote
0
I've once tested a friend's R8's EVF, and didn't like it at all. Honestly, I also hated the EOS R for its 3,7 m. dots. The same for the R6 II, though much better than both R8 and R. High contrast situations aren't welI mastered by low definition EVFs. But this just a matter of very personal preferences!
For me, like in film times, an excellent viewfinder is of the highest importance. The R5 II's EVF mostly meets my demands, the R1 (don't own it!) even more.
Upvote
0
RP has the same 2.36 and it's defenitly easy for to make mistakes with manual focus and exposure that I wouldn't have with R5. It is nice to worry less about theft
Upvote
0
I think it is to be expected with the MP increase.
For comparision, the 45MP EOS R5 Mark II has a maximum native ISO of 51.200.
Upvote
0
Interesting. I chose the R6 MKII over the R5, precisely because of the higher ISO range. Sad if Canon prioritizes MP over high ISO quality on the R6 MKIII...
Upvote
0
Wide open, the Sigma EF 50 Art isn't that sharp, honestly. It's excellent by 10 year old standards (it was released in 2014), but today's lenses are as sharp at 1.2 or 1.4 as the Sigma is stopped down to f/4.
I don’t find it horrible, it's usable. It's lower resolution, but also a slightly smaller display. It's not smaller to the point of having the same pixel density, but being smaller certainly helps reducing pixelation.
I don't use manual focus, and I don't own manual focusing lenses.
I find the image quality on 3,68MP EVFs to be generally good/very good, and excellent on the 5,76MP models. Beyond that resolution, I can't tell the difference.
Something Canon really NEEDS to address are the huge rubbers. I have to use all my cameras with VF Display Format set to 2, because I can't see corner to corner with glasses, if using the entire screen. It's easier on the RP/R8 because they have smaller displays and rubbers, but on the R6 and above it just doesn't work.
Last week I tried the Leica Q3 and the new M EV1. Those cameras barely have any rubber, I could see corner to corner, easily, to the point I'm considering buying a replacement rubber for the R6 just to cut it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Agreed; in this moment I have R6 and RP (and I had R, R10 and R100) and I can't find the difference during shooting, they all look great.
The only advantage of the R6 compared to previous R and RP (and that's something I'm happy to pay for, because it's game changing) is that it doesn't show the captured picture, unless you pull the camera out of your eyes and look at the picture in the rear display, like you would feel when using an OVF., while if you have the review active, R and RP will show picture and/or blackout right in the EVF, so with those I have to keep review off.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
