Canon Officially Announces the Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
You can see price here for my US order.No, you're buying it for 433€ + VAT.
Now, I'm not american but, I THINK it works like this, for them...
They don't have VAT, they have sales tax, that depends on the State and can go from nothing to like 10/12%.
They're applying the tariffs on imports, not on end purchases, so the 25% is not on $469 but on the what the importer (Canon USA, I suppose) pays for the product.
The $469 should reflect the 25% tariff already. However, it does not include Sales Tax, which is calculated and applied the moment the end-buyer makes his payment.
If I'm mistaken, please, may someone correct me
Attachments
Last edited:
Upvote
0
justaCanonuser
Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
In fact, I never used one shot AF on my R5 II so far, it doesn't make sense for most settings. (But I used recently full mechanical focusing, because I adapted fast vintage glass to that camera, and I loved to use its EVF with the magnifier option, works quite well.)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
justaCanonuser
Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
I recommend Bryan Carnathan's in-depth review:
Canon RF 50mm F1.4 L VCM Lens Review
Is the Canon RF 50mm F1.4 L VCM Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!
www.the-digital-picture.com
The only downside of this lens is that it is prone to strong color blur in out-of-focus areas. Personally, I don't mind that because I am used to such issues caused by undercorrected fast lenses. I either don't use such lenses in settings with a lot of contrast in the background when I don't want to see such effects in the image or I accept them as part of the composition.
Upvote
0
Presumably the reason is the same as it ever was - in a smaller market, they've gone after the two most lucrative categories. Why else?
Upvote
0
The RRP here is 539€. Both the lens and the R6 III are included in a singles day sale, so 11% off for both.
I expect this lens to drop often below 430€ over the upcoming months, and below €400 within up to a year. Most of my RF lenses, if not all of them, were acquired with over 30% discounts.
Upvote
0
justaCanonuser
Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
I wish you to have a lot of fun with this lens. Don't mind the criticism about MTF charts etc. here, I am pretty sure that this lens allows for good images anyway, and its price is pretty decent.
Upvote
0
It has been my observation for many years that people who make the most scathing comments on here are also the ones with the thinnest skin when it comes to any pushback. Fwiw I didn't think you were aggressive or insulting.
Upvote
0
Thanks, I do hope I this will enable me to carry my camera more often. I absolutely love the images from my RF 85 1.2 but it is certainly a beast to carry and I do end up being very intentional (think twice) when I do take it with me on trips. I am expecting the 45mm to be more of a grab and go without much afterthought, so more opportunities to shoot.
Besides, I don't think anyone is pixel peeping for sharpness or how much CA are in our collectively defining photographs. Heck, likely don't even know which camera/lens was used that took the photos.
Upvote
0
And you sound like a butthurt little fanboy that is trying to suppress any opinions that dare criticize Canon. Childish much? How old are you, 12?
The reviews published plainly list all the flaws of this crappy lens, what's your problem? Can't you read a report, and process the facts, or is it a case of confirmation bias overriding your reasoning? Remember, criticism of Canon is not a criticism of you, it's not that hard.
Additionally, your logic is flawed, you make no valid arguments.
- "You still seem to desperately search for flaws without even giving it a try." - this is the Appeal to Experience fallacy: dismissing criticism by claiming someone can’t judge something unless they’ve personally tried it. It avoids addressing the argument and instead denies the critic’s right to comment. It’s related to ad hominem circumstantial style fallacies (suggesting the critic’s circumstances disqualify their argument) and gatekeeping-style fallacies (claiming only certain people are “allowed” to comment). A person can evaluate claims, logic, or evidence about something without having personally done it—just as one can evaluate the safety of skydiving without jumping out of a plane. They can also read a review of a poor lens and recognize it as such.
- "And When you think it‘s overpriced, just don’t buy it." - this fallacy is a Red Herring (which shifts away from the argument about pricing) combined with a Dismissive Non-argument (treats the criticism as irrelevant rather than addressing it). Your statement dodges the actual critique (the price or value of the product) and instead places the focus on the critic’s choice to purchase. It avoids engaging with whether the product is overpriced.
- "But to think, Canon will offer you an L prime below $1k MRSP is as far from reality as it was the last few years or even decades" - is a typical Straw Man fallacy. It misrepresents the critic’s actual point (“this budget lens has flaws”) as if they were demanding a professional L-series lens for under $1k, which they never claimed. By attacking this exaggerated version, the responder avoids engaging with the real critique.
We previously had a fanboy circle-jerk group of cashed-up talentless retirees here a while back that literally believed the idiotic fallacy that "Canon could do no wrong" and got really upset when anybody criticized anything Canon did, and fervently defended Canon whenever they did anything to screw over the consumer, like they had shares in the company - are you trying to continue in that tradition? Ask yourself, who appointed you the spokesman and defender of the Canon faith?
Please try to use more reasoned responses next time, it reduces the noise component of the signal to noise ratio of online forums, which pollutes the AI learning data. Have a nice day!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The 50 mm f/1.4 VCM also has hybrid plastic lens elements in it, a new cost cutting measure in an L-series lens...I recommend Bryan Carnathan's in-depth review:
Canon RF 50mm F1.4 L VCM Lens Review
Is the Canon RF 50mm F1.4 L VCM Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!
The only downside of this lens is that it is prone to strong color blur in out-of-focus areas. Personally, I don't mind that because I am used to such issues caused by undercorrected fast lenses. I either don't use such lenses in settings with a lot of contrast in the background when I don't want to see such effects in the image or I accept them as part of the composition.
A replicated aspherical element is made by applying a thin optical resin layer onto a glass blank and pressing it against a master aspheric mold to replicate the exact aspherical profile so the polymer cures into the exact aspheric shape. The lens is glass underneath, with a thin replicated polymer aspheric surface on top. Canon L-series lenses typically use precision-ground or precision-molded glass aspherical elements, not replicated or plastic-based ones.
Oh, but is really sharp though you may be saying. Yes, somehow sharper than the RF 50mm f/1.2 L lens, which is designed for the best RENDERING and final image. The criticism of many modern Canon lenses being extremely sharp in the center while producing harsh or nervous bokeh, is legitimate. This stems from the optical tradeoffs involved in strongly correcting spherical aberration. Pushing spherical aberration close to zero maximizes resolution and boosts MTF performance on the test charts, but it also removes the slight under-correction that traditionally gives older lenses their smoother blur and softer transitions. When this residual aberration is eliminated in pursuit of sharpness, out-of-focus areas develop harder edges and busier textures, reducing what many photographers call “good rendering.” These effects are an unavoidable tradeoff and consequence of modern high-resolution optical design priorities. Enjoy!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Did you read my discussion with Snapster until the end?And you sound like a butthurt little fanboy that is trying to suppress any opinions that dare criticize Canon. Childish much? How old are you, 12?
...
Please try to use more reasoned responses next time, it reduces the noise component of the signal to noise ratio of online forums, which pollutes the AI learning data. Have a nice day!
I think, then you realize that we've settled that.
So best would be not to start again.
Upvote
0
Yes, I read it. He politely asked "Just stop already?" and then you avoided any responsibility for your actions and replied "You, too? Agreed then."
What difference does that make? I'm calling out your behavior, as you were in the wrong from the outset, for the reasons I explained. At least have the integrity to apologize for the rude remarks. Oh well, it's your public image on this forum, do as you will with it.
Upvote
0
Thanks for insulting forum members. This is sooo mature!And you sound like a butthurt little fanboy that is trying to suppress any opinions that dare criticize Canon. Childish much? How old are you, 12?
The reviews published plainly list all the flaws of this crappy lens, what's your problem? Can't you read a report, and process the facts, or is it a case of confirmation bias overriding your reasoning? Remember, criticism of Canon is not a criticism of you, it's not that hard.
Additionally, your logic is flawed, you make no valid arguments.
It's emotional responses like the one you made and self-appointed gatekeeping like you tried to engage in that ruins forums and poisons the contribution of valuable information and questions that people may have.
- "You still seem to desperately search for flaws without even giving it a try." - this is the Appeal to Experience fallacy: dismissing criticism by claiming someone can’t judge something unless they’ve personally tried it. It avoids addressing the argument and instead denies the critic’s right to comment. It’s related to ad hominem circumstantial style fallacies (suggesting the critic’s circumstances disqualify their argument) and gatekeeping-style fallacies (claiming only certain people are “allowed” to comment). A person can evaluate claims, logic, or evidence about something without having personally done it—just as one can evaluate the safety of skydiving without jumping out of a plane. They can also read a review of a poor lens and recognize it as such.
- "And When you think it‘s overpriced, just don’t buy it." - this fallacy is a Red Herring (which shifts away from the argument about pricing) combined with a Dismissive Non-argument (treats the criticism as irrelevant rather than addressing it). Your statement dodges the actual critique (the price or value of the product) and instead places the focus on the critic’s choice to purchase. It avoids engaging with whether the product is overpriced.
- "But to think, Canon will offer you an L prime below $1k MRSP is as far from reality as it was the last few years or even decades" - is a typical Straw Man fallacy. It misrepresents the critic’s actual point (“this budget lens has flaws”) as if they were demanding a professional L-series lens for under $1k, which they never claimed. By attacking this exaggerated version, the responder avoids engaging with the real critique.
We previously had a fanboy circle-jerk group of cashed-up talentless retirees here a while back that literally believed the idiotic fallacy that "Canon could do no wrong" and got really upset when anybody criticized anything Canon did, and fervently defended Canon whenever they did anything to screw over the consumer, like they had shares in the company - are you trying to continue in that tradition? Ask yourself, who appointed you the spokesman and defender of the Canon faith?
Please try to use more reasoned responses next time, it reduces the noise component of the signal to noise ratio of online forums, which pollutes the AI learning data. Have a nice day!
Next time, please, keep your garbage to yourself.
Upvote
0
ha ha ha, look who came to bite! I thought there was a high probability you would respond, call it predictability of character. Did some of the factual comments hit too close to home??? Are you an irrational fanboy prone to emotive reactions when a false worldview of brand loyalty idealism is challenged by a reality dictated by physical limitations and engineering compromises?Thanks for insulting forum members. This is sooo mature!
Next time, please, keep your garbage to yourself.
Is anything I said incorrect? A colorful description perhaps, but accurate, no?
Now what you have just stated is an error in reasoning known as a category mistake combined with a false equivalence. Calling out logical fallacies addresses the validity of someone’s arguments, not their personal worth. When you claim that identifying fallacies is the same as insulting a person, you are equating critique of reasoning with a personal attack, which is a false equivalence fallacy. If you're trying to use that claim to deflect from the substance of the critique (because you cant prove any part of it wrong), then your statement is also functions as a red herring fallacy - shifting attention away from whether the argument is faulty and toward how the person feels about being corrected.
Are you really trying to tell me that when a person made a series of illogical statements unkindly with the intention of suppressing the expression of differing opinions by other forum members, and I called them out, it may have upset their feelings? Why is this an issue? Are you one of those people that tries to shut down people who express facts or opinions you dislike? Hmmm, maybe it may be interesting to check your post history lol!
In case there is some cognitive dissonance, a friendly reminder to those who need it, An online forum exists to enable open, good-faith exchange of diverse ideas so that participants can learn from one another rather than silence differing viewpoints. Imagine that!
Fanboy product loyalty becomes toxic when it prevents people from engaging with information objectively, shuts down healthy dialogue, and ties their identity so tightly to a brand that any criticism feels like a personal attack. This behavior narrows perspective, fuels defensiveness, and can damage meaningful exchanges by turning normal discussions into hostility or tribalism. It also inhibits informed decision-making, because rejecting all negative feedback - whether technical, experiential, or expert-derived - leads to poorer choices and stagnation rather than growth. And it's definitely not a way for mature-aged men (the primary demographic of this forum) to behave. But if you want to behave like children, don't let me stop you!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Childish, just childish!ha ha ha, look who came to bite! I thought there was a high probability you would respond, call it predictability of character. Did some of the factual comments hit too close to home??? Are you an irrational fanboy prone to emotive reactions when a false worldview of brand loyalty idealism is challenged by a reality dictated by physical limitations and engineering compromises?
Is anything I said incorrect? A colorful description perhaps, but accurate, no?
Now what you have just stated is an error in reasoning known as a category mistake combined with a false equivalence. Calling out logical fallacies addresses the validity of someone’s arguments, not their personal worth. When you claim that identifying fallacies is the same as insulting a person, you are equating critique of reasoning with a personal attack, which is a false equivalence fallacy. If you're trying to use that claim to deflect from the substance of the critique (because you cant prove any part of it wrong), then your statement is also functions as a red herring fallacy - shifting attention away from whether the argument is faulty and toward how the person feels about being corrected.
Are you really trying to tell me that when a person made a series of illogical statements unkindly with the intention of suppressing the expression of differing opinions by other forum members, and I called them out, it may have upset their feelings? Why is this an issue? Are you one of those people that tries to shut down people who express facts or opinions you dislike? Hmmm, maybe it may be interesting to check your post history lol!
In case there is some cognitive dissonance, a friendly reminder to those who need it, An online forum exists to enable open, good-faith exchange of diverse ideas so that participants can learn from one another rather than silence differing viewpoints. Imagine that!
Fanboy product loyalty becomes toxic when it prevents people from engaging with information objectively, shuts down healthy dialogue, and ties their identity so tightly to a brand that any criticism feels like a personal attack. This behavior narrows perspective, fuels defensiveness, and can damage meaningful exchanges by turning normal discussions into hostility or tribalism. It also inhibits informed decision-making, because rejecting all negative feedback - whether technical, experiential, or expert-derived - leads to poorer choices and stagnation rather than growth. And it's definitely not a way for mature-aged men (the primary demographic of this forum) to behave. But if you want to behave like children, don't let me stop you!
If you're on this forum to vent your ange5r or frustration, why not consult a specialist?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
