Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM Reviewed by Opticallimits

[AlanF]

Optical limits is one of Richard's favourite sites
Summary:
The Good
Very sharp at medium aperture settings
f/1.2 on a budget

The Bad
Blurry corners from f/1.2 to f/2
Excessive axial color fringing at f/1.2
Very pronounced focus shift
Wavy field curvature
Miserable corner bokeh in certain scenes
Overpriced for what it is

1.5/5 stars, Avoid!

Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM Review – OpticalLimits

 

[Sporgon]

If anyone wants to try a beautiful 45mm lens at a budget price try picking up a Tamron 45/1.8 SP VC.
When adapted to RF mount the AF accuracy is flawless.

 

[Tomba]

Optical limits is one of Richard's favourite sites
Summary:
The Good
Very sharp at medium aperture settings
f/1.2 on a budget

The Bad
Blurry corners from f/1.2 to f/2
Excessive axial color fringing at f/1.2
Very pronounced focus shift
Wavy field curvature
Miserable corner bokeh in certain scenes

Anyway, It costs as much as the list price of the EF 50 mm 1.4 used to be and gives us the optical performance of the EF 50 mm 1.2.
I think it’s a fair package. Maybe I'll give it a try.
If you need „more“ there are RF 50mm 1.4 L VCM and RF 50mm 1.2 L.

 

[danfaz]

Christopher Frost on YouTube discovered a pretty significant focus shift when stopping down.
Possibly copy variation, but worth pointing out.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtube.com

 

[neuroanatomist]

Christopher Frost on YouTube discovered a pretty significant focus shift when stopping down.
Possibly copy variation, but worth pointing out.

Bryan (TDP) mentions it in his review, though he suggests it’s mild:

This lens seems to exhibit a slight focus shift (caused by residual spherical aberration, RSA), with the plane of sharp focus moving slightly backward as the aperture is narrowed. The greatest impact is around f/2.8, where the focused-on subject sometimes appears slightly softer.

 

[EricN]

Optical limits is one of Richard's favourite sites
Summary:
The Good
Very sharp at medium aperture settings
f/1.2 on a budget

The Bad
Blurry corners from f/1.2 to f/2
Excessive axial color fringing at f/1.2
Very pronounced focus shift
Wavy field curvature
Miserable corner bokeh in certain scenes
Overpriced for what it is

1.5/5 stars, Avoid!

Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM Review – OpticalLimits

I'll buy 10!~

 

[Tomba]

Focus shift is only close to the minimal focus distance. Like EF 50mm 1.2

 

[Maximilian]

Optical limits is one of Richard's favourite sites ...

Thanks for sharing, Alan! That's one of my favorites, too.

Summary:
...
1.5/5 stars, Avoid!

Pretty much disappointing!
I knew, this would be a budget lens with optical limitations.
But I didn't expect that much for a OEM lens in the 2020ies.
Seems, that my main concern (AF performance) was the least important.

 

[Tomba]

Thanks for sharing, Alan! That's one of my favorites, too.

Pretty much disappointing!
I knew, this would be a budget lens with optical limitations.
But I didn't expect that much for a OEM lens in the 2020ies.
Seems, that my main concern (AF performance) was the least important.

You could check the Flickr group for this lens.

 

[Del Paso]

You could check the Flickr group for this lens.

Thanks for sharing, Alan! That's one of my favorites, too.

Pretty much disappointing!
I knew, this would be a budget lens with optical limitations.
But I didn't expect that much for a OEM lens in the 2020ies.
Seems, that my main concern (AF performance) was the least important.

The Voigtländer 40mm f/1,2 in RF mount is an excellent alternative, with electronic data transmission, yet no AF.
Mechanically and optically a superb lens!
Tack sharp from f/2,8, pretty usable below.

 

[LPSDOTCOM]

This lens is bad in ways that are hard to express. For me the revulsion is nausea inducing. It's just bad in too many ways.

 

[Del Paso]

This lens is bad in ways that are hard to express. For me the revulsion is nausea inducing. It's just bad in too many ways.

And yet, the PhotoTrend review speaks a fully different language, despite their strong Sony bias.
To be clear, it's not my dreamlens either!

 

[Tomba]

This lens is bad in ways that are hard to express. For me the revulsion is nausea inducing. It's just bad in too many ways.

Yes, it's not at RF-L level. Only EF 50mm 1.2 L level. Just give it a try. I'm sure your conclusion will be much better than at Opticallimits. Even if you don't want it in the end.

 

[AlanF]

You could check the Flickr group for this lens.

I did. Not inspiring. But, if they had fun, good luck to them.

 

[AlanF]

And yet, the PhotoTrend review speaks a fully different language, despite their strong Sony bias.
To be clear, it's not my dreamlens either!

I hadn't heard of Phototrend before so I checked it out. Very strange choices for Best Lenses for Canon Full Frame. For supertelephoto zooms, they have the RF 100-400mm and RF 100-300mm. Canon doesn't even classify the RF 100-300mm as a supertelephoto zoom, and the 100-400 is a value king but it's hard to consider it better than the RF 100-500mm or RF 200-800mm.

 

[Del Paso]

Optical limits is one of Richard's favourite sites
Summary:
The Good
Very sharp at medium aperture settings
f/1.2 on a budget

The Bad
Blurry corners from f/1.2 to f/2
Excessive axial color fringing at f/1.2
Very pronounced focus shift
Wavy field curvature
Miserable corner bokeh in certain scenes
Overpriced for what it is

1.5/5 stars, Avoid!

Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM Review – OpticalLimits

I know, I know!
I wanted to point out that some other reviews are quite positive, I guess it depends on what you're looking for.
This lens is definitely not for me, but others will certainly enjoy using it. Sharpness seekers pass your way. It may not be a lens for MTF or chart photography , but rather for "vintage look" lovers. Bad can sometimes be good, just like my beloved M Summilux 1,4/75 is objectively horrible at f/1,4, yet this is the aperture I most often use...

 

[EricN]

I know, I know!
I wanted to point out that some other reviews are quite positive, I guess it depends on what you're looking for.
This lens is definitely not for me, but others will certainly enjoy using it. Sharpness seekers pass your way. It may not be a lens for MTF or chart photography , but rather for "vintage look" lovers. Bad can sometimes be good, just like my beloved M Summilux 1,4/75 is objectively horrible at f/1,4, yet this is the aperture I most often use...

At least, it's 10mm closer to 35 f/1.2

 

[Del Paso]

I fully agree, but the worst was the choice of 2025's best photo gear.
Sony, Fuji, Nikon, OM, Sigma, Tamron. Canon??? Not one single product chosen...
Very Sony biased, they even warmly praise Sony MILCs (I've learned my lesson ) for their"great ergonomics".
They make me think of the German car magazines, guess which brands win the comparative tests...

 

[Sporgon]

You could check the Flickr group for this lens.

I checked it out; some terribly nervous bokeh at f/1.2, the boy on the green slide for instance, looks like the RF 50/1.8 !
The planar optical formula does tend to do this; adding an aspherical element makes it even worse. Even the EF 50/1.2 could get nasty. Kind of makes me confirm that if you want shallow dof and tasty bokeh with a ‘normal’ lens use an 85 or 100.

 

[Tomba]

I checked it out; some terribly nervous bokeh at f/1.2, the boy on the green slide for instance, looks like the RF 50/1.8 !
The planar optical formula does tend to do this; adding an aspherical element makes it even worse. Even the EF 50/1.2 could get nasty. Kind of makes me confirm that if you want shallow dof and tasty bokeh with a ‘normal’ lens use an 85 or 100.

As I said, it's not at RF-L level. Only EF 50mm 1.2 L level. If you know the EF 50 L and like the look you will like the the RF 45. If not then RF 50 1.4 L VCM or RF 50 1.2 L will satisfy your needs.