The Story of the Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM: The Tale of Different Reviews

[justaCanonuser]

3) what artifical conditions? yes, the MTF is calculated in Canon's case but their elements and most lenses are manufactured by machines, not humans anymore; the odds that the MTF will match reality have a fairly strong correlation.

That's exactly what I learned in the past, say, 15 years reading lens reviews, e.g. the ones of lensrentals. In particular these showed that the variation of the production quality of lenses gets smaller and smaller over the years. They also showed that Canon is one of the leading manufacturers in terms of stable optical quality, e.g. Nikon struggled much longer with decentered lenses in their production lines (a typical Nikon problem back then in particular with tele lenses, unfortunately):

The Nikon 300mm f/4E PF ED VR Test: Or Why I Don’t Test Just One Copy

As most of you know, we generally test multiple copies of a lens when we evaluate it, simply because we are so aware of copy-to-copy variation. But I got caught between a rock and a hard place this week. We received exactly one copy of the new Nikon 300mm f/4E PF ED VR lens and [...]

www.lensrentals.com

Today, MTF charts aren't just showing the best case - the "lucky copy" - of a lens like in former times, they tell you what you can expect to get.

 

[AlanF]

That's exactly what I learned in the past, say, 15 years reading lens reviews, e.g. the ones of lensrentals. In particular these showed that the variation of the production quality of lenses gets smaller and smaller over the years. They also showed that Canon is one of the leading manufacturers in terms of stable optical quality, e.g. Nikon struggled much longer with decentered lenses in their production lines (a typical Nikon problem back then in particular with tele lenses, unfortunately):

The Nikon 300mm f/4E PF ED VR Test: Or Why I Don’t Test Just One Copy

As most of you know, we generally test multiple copies of a lens when we evaluate it, simply because we are so aware of copy-to-copy variation. But I got caught between a rock and a hard place this week. We received exactly one copy of the new Nikon 300mm f/4E PF ED VR lens and [...]

www.lensrentals.com

Today, MTF charts aren't just showing the best case - the "lucky copy" - of a lens like in former times, they tell you what you can expect to get.

There is still variation, unfortunately. I've tested multiple copies of some lenses that have outstanding reputations for consistency, including the EF 100-400mm ii that Lensrentals claimed to be one of the most consistent they have tested, and have seen differences. Even extenders, like the EF 1.4xIII varied. @neuroanatomist has mentioned occasions where the-digital-picture has had to change their copies because they were poor compared to his.

 

[roby17269]

Richard raises in this very interesting comparison of reviews a question that I ask always myself: do I want perfection or "artistic" imperfection?

Being myself scientifically educated (physics) I always love to check sites like Photozone, now OpticalLimits, with thorough lab reviews - that's the sort of "scientific" Dr. Jekyll in me. But when it gets to real life photography, the "artistic sort" Mr. Hyde could be set free, and then I enjoy shooting with gear that isn't technically, in particular optically, perfect - depending on the subject, of course. Its the street & people side of photography in which I often love to get an imperfect, vintage look (not quite Lomography, that's too crappy for my taste). By contrast, when I shoot wildlife or macro, I want technical perfection. Getting to the 45/1.2 here, this would be a nice candidate for the first approach to real life photography, so I can understand well why some reviewers are more enthusiastic than others.

I like to think that I too have "2 sides of my photographer's soul", so to speak: the more analytical one and the artsier one
But I do not see them in conflict, I see it more as the artsy side leaning on the technical side.

In the specific, I prefer to capture the image in a way that the data is as optimal as possible and I can always tweak the data in an less than optimal ways in post. I have done so with my latest fashion shoot, where a lot of "character" was added afterwards (haven't shared those images here since they were taken with my MF rig). There's plenty of plug-ins to simulate film and lens defects in post (Nik had a great one, not sure it is still there in their latest incarnation).

Having said so, like you I suspect, I've never based my buying decisions on reviews. I treat them as food for thought, not as decision makers.

 

[Old Man FL/FD]

My fast 50mm Prime for a very affordable price (600€), excellent optical performance but quite slow AF is a second hand Zeiss Milvus 50mm/ f1.4. Only downside is the weight ...

Do Zeiss Milvus (and Otus) RF/EF mount lenses have AF?

 

[P-visie]

Do Zeiss Milvus (and Otus) RF/EF mount lenses have AF?

The Otus RF lenses are MF. The Milvus are also MF.

 

[DocInfoSci]

Just to be clear, I absolutely do not mind you liking it, but I reserve my right to loathe it

hahahahaha! Awesome. Yup.

 

[abrama94]

Judging by the commenters this lens is so bad it’s on back order everywhere.
I just got mine.

 

[DocInfoSci]

Judging by the commenters this lens is so bad it’s on back order everywhere.
I just got mine.

Good grief! What are you doing posting here when you could be removing styrofoam and capturing first light?!!!

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Assuming the photographer actually knows the lens has focus shift in the first place and is aware of the setting you have to change.

Granted that Canon sent the R6 III and RF 45 f/1.2 out together, I can only assume the cameras came with the correct setting.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

1) we literally wrote the article the day after the lens was announced. I didn't realize we were supposed to transport a copy of the lens and physically test it before writing about it
2) the MTF does atypically match on abberations, constrast and resolution - so if you are looking for clinical optical quality, it's a decent judge.
3) what artifical conditions? yes, the MTF is calculated in Canon's case but their elements and most lenses are manufactured by machines, not humans anymore; the odds that the MTF will match reality have a fairly strong correlation.

thx for your reply, it was interesting to read. "Artificial conditions" was meant in regard to chart testing from reviews. I know Canon calculates the MFTs, I wasn't clear on that. Still, I don't trust the product evaluations of the company who produces them. You "calculate" them, and you can "calculate" them. They probably always in favor of Canons opinion in this case.

"color rendering, contrast, bokeh, distortion, autofocus behavior, and practical usability"

color rendering: Canon's coatings are well known at this time. One important point of coatings is to make color rendering consistent.
contrast: is literally exhibited by the 10lp/mm MTF line pairs
bokeh: can be more or less determined by the MTF.
autofocus behaviour: you don't know how STM, USM, or VCM works?

The conclusion about the contrast makes sense. With bokeh I´d disagree because there are variables such as how many blades the design features and some lenses have a general nice bokeh, but when shooting at mfd it "falls apart" (or the other way around). I don´t believe one can tell that from a MFT chart. Concerning autofocus: honestly, the type gives you a general idea, but there are still big differences. The STM of the 45mm F1.2 feels definitely quicker than the STM in the 35mm and 85mm. That is only my impression from a one-time hands on. Also, the 35mm and 85mm STM work faster on my R8 than on my R5. So, that is something that really needs real-world testing. The coatings are well-known and I think you wrote an article about it. The combination of different coatings in a design and how they effect one another is maybe understandable for pros and engineers, but I would guess most photographers won´t grasp the affects on IQ just from reading the design of the lens, much lens from looking at the MFT.

I know the style of shooting that the 45mm was for, and as I said in that article, I just don't it anymore - it's not for me.

I can easily make that determination from an MTF, and as I stated, there are some that will love this lens:

As many of you know, I’m pretty huge on the bang for the buck lenses, but this lens, I think, prioritizes “character” a little too much to make it a general-purpose lens that would have a greater utility. If you are the type of photographer who loves candid portraits, in the studio, or even street shooting, then this may be an incredibly wonderful bargain lens to add to your kit. For me, I don’t shoot those disciplines much anymore, and if I did want to have that option, I’d probably find the RF 50mm F1.8 STM perfectly suitable as a substitute at 50% of the price.

For those seeking to reclaim the magic of the Canon EF 50mm f1.2L USM in a lighter, smaller, and more modern lens, this is a lens absolutely for you.

And we wrote that before the reviewers released their full reviews on the lens, and I'm pretty sure our take was spot on.

This statement makes way more sense. I just stumbled over your two lines in the current article and thought it was relatively premature judgement.

 

[mimbu]

You simply are not going to get $2000 worth of optical performance for under $500.

No, but you can get very nearly $3000 worth of optical performance for under $1000 (and sometimes under $900) with a Viltrox 35/1.2 instead of a Nikkor.

If buying directly from China through a buying service, probably about 30% cheaper again, so it could be as low as $600.

 

[Berowne]

Do Zeiss Milvus (and Otus) RF/EF mount lenses have AF?

"quite slow AF" was a joke - there is no AF at all in theses Zeiss-Lenses.