Thx. I just looked at the Canon website and you're right. Apparently, it was/ is a mistake on the versus.com (or cameraspex?) website. It stated it had one which sparked my interest and got me by surprise.
Upvote
0
Canon RF 20-50mm F4 PZ & RF 45mm F1.2 STM Appear on Canon Survey Form
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
To be fair, that is a 1993 film era lens (and not a particularly good one), already struggling on a 12mpx 5D classic, ported on an extremely recent 30mpx sensor against a 30yo newer lens, the difference was to be expected in relative terms; then, in absolute terms, I agree that seeing that much of a spherical aberration wide open is simply astonishing (exacerbated by the comparison with the 40 Art which is a razor).
But even at f1.8 against the 50 STM the spherical aberration is still unbearable, while the 50 STM is already very sharp at its widest aperture; a last generation high res demanding sensor like the one in the R5 would have been even worse.
I have tried the "small" STM triad (35, 50 and 85) on my R6, so relatively low pixel count, and that's what I got:
35 STM for me is the "one lens to have" in the system if I had to choose only one prime lens to purchase: it's light, bright, sharp even wide open, IS works wonders, AF is fast enough and precise, half macro is a very welcome bonus. But I was rarely using it, the 50 Art was always in my bag. I ended up selling both 35 STM and 50 Art to get the 40 Art which is the perfect middle ground between the two.
50 STM does its work, period: for the 130€ used I paid is plenty bright, plenty sharp, plenty fast AF, plenty pocketable and always in my bag at every wedding, but it's there as a backup for the 40 Art. It's not a dream lens by any means, but it's cheap enough to sit unused in my bag, and good enough to do the job in an emergency. That's all I can ask it, and it's the only one I still possess today.
85 STM definitely the sharpest, I really really REALLY liked the images that were coming out of it, a razor wide open with a very nice background blur. And the half macro is even more manageable then the 35 STM. So why I sold it after just six months? Well, the AF. The AF is absolutely DREADFUL, it's slow as f*ck, and it's hunting as f*ck in almost any backlight situation, which unfortunately is my preferred way of using a portrait lens in location.
Also, I was coming from the Sigma 135 1.8 Art (a beauty!) and wanted to buy a more manageable lens with indoor distances in smaller venues, but I couldn't "connect" well with the 85mm focal, it was too short for me after more then 10yrs with a 135mm (EF 135 L before, then the Sigma). As the 40 Art was the best middle ground between 35 and 50, here I ended up buying the Sigma 105 1.4 Art (a beauty...and a beast, of size and weight!) which today feels perfect indoor, it's long enough for my tastes without getting so cropped in like the 135mm.
I also have the RF 16 2.8 STM, which has basically the same role of the 50 STM, it sits almost unused in my bag, and gets used only in VERY crammed situations, where I have no other choice. I'm absolutely not not a wideangle guy, my dream wedding lens is the Tamron 35-150, I rarely shoot anything under 35, and that's why I immediately swapped my EF 24-70 2.8 L II with the RF 28-70 2.8 as soon as it was in the shops, I gladly traded the 24mm focal for a lighter lens and no adapter needed. So I'm not spending any real money on a 14-35 or 15-35, or even any old 17-40 or 16-35, I almost never use it (less then 100 pics a year...which is still 100 pics more then what the 50 STM gets!), so cheap yes, but especially super light and compact is the key there.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Ok, I’m gonna share my thoughts as well.
I have or had the 16, 24, 28, 35 and 50mm STM lenses. I never tried the 85.
I own a R6 (Dual Pixel AF II) and a RP (Dual Pixel AF I). I’ve tried these lenses for personal stuff and for work as well. My comments are based on the R6.
85: never tried. Supposedly the smoothest autofocus among all (lead screw STM), but also the slowest. Supposedly brilliantly sharp. I can’t say.
50: due to better and better deals I found along the time, I’m on my fourth or fifth copy of this lens.
Clunky autofocus due to gear type STM, can’t keep up with 12 or 20fps.
Low to no distortion, very dark corners wide open, low contrast corners with some CA. Center sharpness is just enough with good contrast, corners are somewhat soft, but the low contrast in those corners is more noticeable than the softness. Stop it down to f/2.8 or smaller and it gets great.
I don’t like its colour temperature difference, it’s 150 to 200k cooler than other lenses - AWB works around that.
The compact size is amazing. Sony users are calling “pancake” to lenses with the same length as this.
It’s so cheap I can’t complain in a serious way.
35: the most balanced.
Clunky autofocus due to gear type STM, can’t keep up with 12 or 20fps. Very long autofocus range due to its macro capabilities. I don’t find it neither faster or slower than the 50, but it has to travel more, so it takes longer from MFD to infinity.
Low distortion, very dark corners wide open, a decently sharp lens in all situations. CA may show up wide open in the corners.
Weird lens hood design, I bought the JJC instead but it’s still not perfect.
I wish it wasn’t a macro lens, they really messed it up there with such a long extension, the lens keeps creeping all the time inside bags if it's not touching the bottom. It would have been an excellent lens if it had a lead screw STM and internal focusing.
28: the sharpest.
Somewhat clunky autofocus due to gear type STM, can’t keep up with 12 or 20fps. It’s not as noticeable because of the smaller aperture, shorter focal length and absence of macro capabilities — it doesn’t have to move its elements as much as the others above.
Always razor sharp. High distortion but still tolerable. Darker corners wide open, to the point where images will get noisy.
I wish it was a f/1.8 or f/2, even if it wasn’t a pancake lens.
24: Smoothest and quietest autofocus among all, due to lead screw STM, but it’s not much faster than the 35 or 50 from MFD to infinity, the improvement is barely noticeable. Can’t keep up with 12 or 20fps either.
Very dark corners wide open, to the point where images get noisy. Corners are a soft at f/1.8. Extreme distortion.
At least it has a proper lens hood design.
If it delivered the same image quality as the 35, I’d consider it a good deal, as it’s more expensive due to its wide angle nature, but it falls short, the 35 is sharper.
16: fastest autofocus among all due to such small movements it has to make. It’s still a clunky gear type STM, but it’s barely noticeable. Sometimes it keeps up with 12fps.
Very dark corners, to the point where images get noisy. Corners are soft wide open and may have CA, but you’re not really putting subjects there. Extreme distortion with a moustache pattern, Lightroom has two profiles for this lens and none of them corrects it perfectly. Bonus: you can get wider than 16mm with the first profile.
Its vignetting is so significant it affects autofocus performance off-centre in dark environments.
I actually use this lens for work. I don’t shoot very often with ultra wide angle lenses (about 5% of my photographs), so it gets those complementary or tight space shots done.
The compact size is amazing. Sony users are calling “pancake” to lenses with the same length as this.
Slighty cheaper than the 28, it’s a deal at the same level as the 50, considering it’s out of the standard range.
I have or had the 16, 24, 28, 35 and 50mm STM lenses. I never tried the 85.
I own a R6 (Dual Pixel AF II) and a RP (Dual Pixel AF I). I’ve tried these lenses for personal stuff and for work as well. My comments are based on the R6.
85: never tried. Supposedly the smoothest autofocus among all (lead screw STM), but also the slowest. Supposedly brilliantly sharp. I can’t say.
50: due to better and better deals I found along the time, I’m on my fourth or fifth copy of this lens.
Clunky autofocus due to gear type STM, can’t keep up with 12 or 20fps.
Low to no distortion, very dark corners wide open, low contrast corners with some CA. Center sharpness is just enough with good contrast, corners are somewhat soft, but the low contrast in those corners is more noticeable than the softness. Stop it down to f/2.8 or smaller and it gets great.
I don’t like its colour temperature difference, it’s 150 to 200k cooler than other lenses - AWB works around that.
The compact size is amazing. Sony users are calling “pancake” to lenses with the same length as this.
It’s so cheap I can’t complain in a serious way.
35: the most balanced.
Clunky autofocus due to gear type STM, can’t keep up with 12 or 20fps. Very long autofocus range due to its macro capabilities. I don’t find it neither faster or slower than the 50, but it has to travel more, so it takes longer from MFD to infinity.
Low distortion, very dark corners wide open, a decently sharp lens in all situations. CA may show up wide open in the corners.
Weird lens hood design, I bought the JJC instead but it’s still not perfect.
I wish it wasn’t a macro lens, they really messed it up there with such a long extension, the lens keeps creeping all the time inside bags if it's not touching the bottom. It would have been an excellent lens if it had a lead screw STM and internal focusing.
28: the sharpest.
Somewhat clunky autofocus due to gear type STM, can’t keep up with 12 or 20fps. It’s not as noticeable because of the smaller aperture, shorter focal length and absence of macro capabilities — it doesn’t have to move its elements as much as the others above.
Always razor sharp. High distortion but still tolerable. Darker corners wide open, to the point where images will get noisy.
I wish it was a f/1.8 or f/2, even if it wasn’t a pancake lens.
24: Smoothest and quietest autofocus among all, due to lead screw STM, but it’s not much faster than the 35 or 50 from MFD to infinity, the improvement is barely noticeable. Can’t keep up with 12 or 20fps either.
Very dark corners wide open, to the point where images get noisy. Corners are a soft at f/1.8. Extreme distortion.
At least it has a proper lens hood design.
If it delivered the same image quality as the 35, I’d consider it a good deal, as it’s more expensive due to its wide angle nature, but it falls short, the 35 is sharper.
16: fastest autofocus among all due to such small movements it has to make. It’s still a clunky gear type STM, but it’s barely noticeable. Sometimes it keeps up with 12fps.
Very dark corners, to the point where images get noisy. Corners are soft wide open and may have CA, but you’re not really putting subjects there. Extreme distortion with a moustache pattern, Lightroom has two profiles for this lens and none of them corrects it perfectly. Bonus: you can get wider than 16mm with the first profile.
Its vignetting is so significant it affects autofocus performance off-centre in dark environments.
I actually use this lens for work. I don’t shoot very often with ultra wide angle lenses (about 5% of my photographs), so it gets those complementary or tight space shots done.
The compact size is amazing. Sony users are calling “pancake” to lenses with the same length as this.
Slighty cheaper than the 28, it’s a deal at the same level as the 50, considering it’s out of the standard range.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
@m4ndr4ke I noticed that with the newer AF system (R8, R5II, R6II, R1) that the STM lenses perform a lot better, the 28mm works quite well with 40fps on the R8. They are still relatively slow, but faster and more accurate than before. It made me prefer using the R8 over the original R5, the better AF outweighed more pixels and IBIS 
Upvote
0
That is very interesting to hear, specially as I've ordered a R8 about an hour ago@m4ndr4ke I noticed that with the newer AF system (R8, R5II, R6II, R1) that the STM lenses perform a lot better, the 28mm works quite well with 40fps on the R8. They are still relatively slow, but faster and more accurate than before. It made me prefer using the R8 over the original R5, the better AF outweighed more pixels and IBIS
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That is a very interesting observation for me because the R8 will be my next purchase. I was wondering if the AF with those lenses will be faster. Also, I thought about getting the R8, selling the R5 and wait for the R6iii to be available at a reasonable price (30mp-32mp is personal sweet spot + I´d love the screen mechanism). But, since I never base my purchasing decisions on rumors, I´m keeping the R5 anyway. I figure, that by next year the rebels value of R5 will be so low, I´d have to significantly pay a premium for the R6iii. Don't wanna do that.@m4ndr4ke I noticed that with the newer AF system (R8, R5II, R6II, R1) that the STM lenses perform a lot better, the 28mm works quite well with 40fps on the R8. They are still relatively slow, but faster and more accurate than before. It made me prefer using the R8 over the original R5, the better AF outweighed more pixels and IBIS
Upvote
0
I did do that for the R5, sold it for a reasonable price in November and waited for the R5II to come available the summer after that. Switching between the R5 and R8 highlighted how much better the R8 AF was for my usage.
In between I did order a grey market R7 for ‘reach’ and sold that for the same price I bought it for a few months later.
That worked out quite well, but it’s not something I’ll repeat, I don’t want to, or can’t spend R5 series money every 4 years. I really wanted ES+flash, hence the R5II last time
Upvote
0
Similar threads
