Canon Officially Announces the Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
Came here to post this, glad someone else already did.Christopher Frost's review is available now
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.www.youtube.com
...well, I have R6 and RP...I guess I was smart and lucky enough not to buy the thing until Chris did his review; I won't comment any further.
What I can comment is that, after seeing this, I'm really REALLY glad I finally pulled the trigger last week on a 620€ used A7III, and 3 days ago on a super Amazon rebate for the Tamron 35-150; they're already in my hands, and Sunday I've a small gig for Christmas pictures for a couple and their newborn son, so I'll shoot R6 + 28-70 STM along with the A7III + 35-150 and see how it feels with the differences.
Then Canon stuff will go on eBay to monetise, and at the end of it I'll buy the A7IV as master camera, keeping the A7III as backup.
Sorry to leave, as I still feel Canon bodies are way better then the competition (I always read about Sony menu sucking; well, now that I have it in my hand, yes, it sucks, and the A7III grip is very small, too), but RF lens policy was not acceptable anymore for me; I'll come back when (if) they'll open the mount. Maybe.
Upvote
0
I don't know, I've downloaded sample photographs from other reviews, at several apertures including f/2.8, and they are properly focused.
Bryan Carnathan reports some minor focus shift as well, though.
What Chris suggests is nothing more than a workaround, as focusing at smaller apertures means poorer autofocus performance.
On the other hand, I imagine most buyers won't purchase the lens to shoot at f/2.8 or smaller. I'd do it for personal stuff, but for work I'd only grab the lens if I needed wider than f/2, since the 28-70 f/2 is my main lens.
To me, this may impact the choice of one secondary lens at best, so it doesn't really make much of a difference. Worst case scenario, I'll just keep what I already have.
When I moved from EF to RF, I decided this time I would try to avoid third party glass. Ironically, I'm not being given much of a choice, which makes it easier to keep up with my commitment.
I have nothing against third party lenses, but over time I got fed up with having so many, and so much different renderings (and colours), and that lead me to decide I'd stick to one brand, and one brand only.
Bryan Carnathan reports some minor focus shift as well, though.
What Chris suggests is nothing more than a workaround, as focusing at smaller apertures means poorer autofocus performance.
On the other hand, I imagine most buyers won't purchase the lens to shoot at f/2.8 or smaller. I'd do it for personal stuff, but for work I'd only grab the lens if I needed wider than f/2, since the 28-70 f/2 is my main lens.
To me, this may impact the choice of one secondary lens at best, so it doesn't really make much of a difference. Worst case scenario, I'll just keep what I already have.
When I moved from EF to RF, I decided this time I would try to avoid third party glass. Ironically, I'm not being given much of a choice, which makes it easier to keep up with my commitment.
I have nothing against third party lenses, but over time I got fed up with having so many, and so much different renderings (and colours), and that lead me to decide I'd stick to one brand, and one brand only.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The issue certainly exists, but it'd be useful to see how many times it is a real problem with R, RP, R6 and R5.
For example: is it only visible when the aperture is stopped down one or more stops AND the camera is focussing close to the minimum focus distance? If so, a full body portrait (from, say, 1.5 / 2 meters) @ F/2.8 should not be affected since there could be like 20 centimeters of depth of field; so, if the focus point shifts 5 or 6 centimeters, the photographer should not see a mis-focused picture.
I own a R6 and a R and, personally, I think I'll skip this lenses (even if I think I would have used it at 1.2 most of the times, like @m4ndr4ke ).
I think I can convince myself that, for me, a RF 50mm 1.2 is the way to go using very solid
arguments like "i only own 77mm filters", "I can't afford to buy a lens hood" etc.
Upvote
0
Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM Review - OpticalLimits
A Canon lens with an aperture of f/1.2 and offered below $500 USD? Can this work out here? Let's check the Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM ...
opticallimits.com
Upvote
0
It’s an issue for all cameras, as we’re not going to set them to perform autofocus at smaller apertures and risk being unable to focus in the dark. Honestly, I think Chris shouldn’t have mentioned that, because he made it sound like the lens “isn’t compatible” with certain cameras.
Low light autofocus is precisely one of the reasons I’m considering buying a fast prime, for instance.
Yes, it should be more noticeable at close focus, your thinking is correct.
For instance, I have the sample files from James Reader’s review and all his photographs are perfectly focused in the eye, including those shot at f/2.8.
I have tried the lens, but I have to be honest: I barely stopped it down, I don’t think I went past f/2, because I was trying to exemplify my use-case scenario, where I’d have the 28-70mm f/2 on the other camera.
I think I can convince myself that, for me, a RF 50mm 1.2 is the way to go using very solid
A lens hood costs 3 bucks and 67mm filters are cheap
(not an issue to me as I have many sizes, I keep my filters when I sell lenses).I have pretty much discarded the RF 50mm f/1.2, at this point. I don’t like its rendering due to that low contrast look it has, its autofocus is a bit slow, and I consider it to be too heavy for a secondary lens (which is what it would be to me).
I’ll have to test the 45mm again, and try to replicate the issue.
Other than that, there’s the 50 VCM, that I also tried and loved.
Oh boy, that’s gonna be harsh for sureCanon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM Review - OpticalLimits
A Canon lens with an aperture of f/1.2 and offered below $500 USD? Can this work out here? Let's check the Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM ...opticallimits.com
EDIT: focus shift detected by Optical Limits as well
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Actually, after reading the review, they were pretty gentle; I thought they would have gone much worse then they didOh boy, that’s gonna be harsh for sure
Last edited:
Upvote
0
On backorder at the places I checked, even Canon. So, it seems pretty popular despite any reviews. It may not be what many on this forum are looking for, but it might be good enough for others like me that primarily shoot for pleasure with some photos appearing in print or online. It should complement the RF 28-70 f2.8 I have. I still use the EF 35 f1.4 L, but the 45 fits the smaller/lighter direction as I get older.
Upvote
0
Owned both Canon (6D to R62) and Sony System (A72 to A7R2 to A7c), and my experience is that the colours of the Sony system is not as good as Canon system, the (I have tried multiple methods and plenty of time to match exactly between the two cameras but it doesnt exactlyget the result of Canon camera). It get close but.never will match as the sensor response of the cameras are diffrent.
Availability of third party lens is not that big of an issue.as i am a street photographer and only uses prime lens, the 28/2.8 and 35/1.8 serve me well and i am interested in getting the 45 as well. The 28/2.8 is the most affordable prime i ever owned (bought used and its very sharp with good colors).
I use the 35/2.8on sony system and the kit lens of 28-60 sony lens.
Right now, I am happy for Canon 's offering of 45/1.2 for users whom do not have much cash like me and have a characteristic of clasic lens wih autofocus. I hope to get the classic lens look through this lensshooting wide open.
Do i wish for third party on Canon, yes the sigma 35/2 for its build quality but.i have to do suffice with current canon offering.
Sometimes i can't understand the hate canon gets from its user and other brands. No matter what they do, even when they litsen to its customer needs by producing cheaper lens. There will always be hate upon.
Availability of third party lens is not that big of an issue.as i am a street photographer and only uses prime lens, the 28/2.8 and 35/1.8 serve me well and i am interested in getting the 45 as well. The 28/2.8 is the most affordable prime i ever owned (bought used and its very sharp with good colors).
I use the 35/2.8on sony system and the kit lens of 28-60 sony lens.
Right now, I am happy for Canon 's offering of 45/1.2 for users whom do not have much cash like me and have a characteristic of clasic lens wih autofocus. I hope to get the classic lens look through this lensshooting wide open.
Do i wish for third party on Canon, yes the sigma 35/2 for its build quality but.i have to do suffice with current canon offering.
Sometimes i can't understand the hate canon gets from its user and other brands. No matter what they do, even when they litsen to its customer needs by producing cheaper lens. There will always be hate upon.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
So, I received my 45 today.
I find it's always better to handle gear in the quietness of my home, at least for first impressions.
Build quality is similar to that of the RF 35mm f/1.8, but this lens feels more robust due to its larger size, it fills the hand nicely - I suppose it's the same build quality.
Yes, I'd prefer a faster autofocus, BUT this is the smoothest gear type STM I've ever seen. It's quiet, smooth, not abrupt, honestly this may be the most enjoyable STM I've ever seen! (I'm yet to try the 28-70 and 16-28 STM zooms). It feels very nice in operation, it's just not that fast.
The "internal" autofocus allows us to put a filter in the front and keep it nice and tight.
Image quality (RAW) wide open seems passable at 20MP on my R6, but I can tell it degrades a little at 26MP on my RP, specially off-centre.
Chromatic aberrations show up on contrasty compositions, wide open, specially in the periphery; by f/2 they're almost gone.
The lens sharpens-up progressively and I think resolution is pretty good by f/1.8, with the exception of extreme corners (at 26MP).
I'm yet to try the lens on a sunny day, where I believe CA will be more present but, considering I may have to stop it down due to the limitation of shutter speed, it may or may not be an issue.
Focal length is very similar to that of the RF 50mm f/1.8, just a hair wider. Considering how much focus breathing both lenses have, I'd say their fields of view may meet at certain focusing distances, they're very close.
I'm not sure I keep my affirmation of the 50mm f/1.8 always being sharper. 45 1.2 vs 50 1.8, yes, the 50 is sharper, but the 45 sharpens-up nicely and progressively as you stop-down.
Now, for the elephant in the room...
I looked a bit for the infamous focus shift. I couldn't see it walking around the house, photographing the pets and the kids, so I put the camera on a tripod, and took a few test shots between f/1.2 and f/5.6.
I'd say the focus plane does move slightly backwards, because I do not see it increasing in the foreground of the subject in the proportion of 1/3, as it should, but the thing is: the subject never seems to be thrown out of focus. Of course, YMMV, and I don't know if this could be dependant on copy-variation, but I think this shift will hardly be an issue with my cameras. Those with higher resolution sensors, being able to magnify further on their subjects when viewing their photographs at 100%, may be able to see it more clearly which, once again, supports the idea of pairing higher end cameras with higher end glass.
It should be reminded that the minimum focus distance of this lens is nothing special, at 45cm, meaning its magnification is not impressive either, at just 0.13x. This lens wouldn't be my first choice for close-up shots, where I think the shift is more likely to be noticeable, if the user stops-down.
YMMV, but I'm not seeing much of a reason to worry, so far. I’m guessing this generally won’t be an issue for handheld photography, and I doubt Canon would put an unusable lens in the market.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I found a very interesting video on YouTube where someone tested this lens and showed how the focus point shifts depending on the aperture used and the distance to the target. He tested this lens at distances of 1.5 ft (46 cm), 3 ft (91 cm) and 6 ft (183 cm). He had this lens mounted on an R5.
Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 Autofocus
Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 Autofocus
Upvote
0
I just watched the video now, his conclusion is similar to mine, even on a R5, which I think is a good sign.
I suppose the R5 will make it easier to see the shift. To me, that supports the idea of pairing higher end cameras with higher end glass. I don't think this will be an issue with the target cameras of this lens (RP/R8/R6).
So far, I only noticed it when I went purposely looking for it with a tripod, but I'm pretty much an exclusively handheld shooter.
I suspect I'm gonna love this lens, in the future.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked