# He ain’t lying – THE BEST PRIME LENS. Period. by Peter McKinnon



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 21, 2021)

> Peter McKinnon has released a review of sorts of the Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM. A lens that he claims in the title that it’s “THE BEST PRIME LENS. Period.”. I also completely agree with him. It’s rare that I don’t have the Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM  on my EOS R5.
> Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM Key Features
> 
> Fixed Focal Length Lens with High Image Quality and Bright f/1.2 Aperture for the EOS R System.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


The funny thing is a couple of years ago he swore the only prime lens anybody needs is the EF 24 1.4 L II.

We are all on a creative journey and what suited us a few years ago probably doesn’t suit us now, and almost certainly won’t in a few years time. If the 50mm focal length works for you the RF 50 seems like a very nice lens, if you have RF cameras. If the focal length doesn’t suit you or you don’t have RF bodies don’t sweat it, use what you have.


----------



## Charlie_B (Jul 21, 2021)

More YouTube nonsense


----------



## Floydian (Jul 21, 2021)

The whole video is about Peter McKinnon, the lens comes second....waste of time to watch :-(


----------



## pauloancarvalho (Jul 21, 2021)

I love how people in this forum don't like YouTubers' content.


----------



## SteveOLV (Jul 21, 2021)

Funny how back in the day every camera came with a 50mm lens and everybody couldn't wait to get rid of it and get something better, more useful! I still don't own a 50.. nor anything at F1.2. Huge apertures are quite the fad in the 2000's I wonder how anyone created a nice photo before them!


----------



## frjmacias (Jul 21, 2021)

pauloancarvalho said:


> I love how people in this forum don't like YouTubers' content.


This is not exclusive to this forum. Plenty of photographer forums, including the Sony and Nikon rumor sites have photographers and videographers that shrug off anything most YouTubers publish. I personally do not mind YouTubers as I use them for information and do not take their word as law. Everyone has their personal experiences with equipment, but I feel like I can always learn something from someone.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2021)

pauloancarvalho said:


> I love how people in this forum don't like YouTubers' content.


Bwhatsup with that? 

But seriously, I think given the size of the platform everybody can find people to like and dislike on YouTube, however videos based on comments like "every photographer has to own this" are tiring and don't account for most people let alone everyone, it just preys on the impressionable people who still think they just need one last piece of the puzzle to be the next Peter McKinnon. What use does a 50mm lens have for the largest group of photographers out there, the amateur BIF group that need an R7?


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 21, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Bwhatsup with that?
> 
> But seriously, I think given the size of the platform everybody can find people to like and dislike on YouTube, however videos based on comments like "every photographer has to own this" are tiring and don't account for most people let alone everyone, it just preys on the impressionable people who still think they just need one last piece of the puzzle to be the next Peter McKinnon. What use does a 50mm lens have for the largest group of photographers out there, the amateur BIF group that need an R7?


Take pictures of the bird perching on your 1200mm f/5.6. I'm assuming birds are like jumping spiders and dragonflies, those prefer to sit on your gear


----------



## SteveC (Jul 21, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> What use does a 50mm lens have for the largest group of photographers out there, the amateur BIF group that need an R7?


Ostrich at 2 meters...oh, wait, that won't be flying.

Put it on a 10x crop sensor (for reach) and it will be dandy.


----------



## Fischer (Jul 21, 2021)

The best lens is the one you need for your photography. However, technically the Canon RF 50mm is the best 50mm ever. And its not that expensive imho.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 21, 2021)

Fischer said:


> The best lens is the one you need for your photography. However, technically the Canon RF 50mm is the best 50mm ever. And its not that expensive imho.


Yes, but sometimes people overlook the fact that its the person behind the camera who creates the photo. The finest gear in the world will only turn out mediocre photos in my hands. I'm not artistically inclined. I like fine gear but someone with a cell phone, my wife, for example, takes better photos than I do.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 21, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Bwhatsup with that?
> 
> But seriously, I think given the size of the platform everybody can find people to like and dislike on YouTube, however videos based on comments like "every photographer has to own this" are tiring and don't account for most people let alone everyone, it just preys on the impressionable people who still think they just need one last piece of the puzzle to be the next Peter McKinnon. What use does a 50mm lens have for the largest group of photographers out there, the amateur BIF group that need an R7?


Quite correct: an 800mm f/11 is equivalent to a 50mm f/0.6875, so who wants a drinking-straw lens like 50mm f/1.2.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Quite correct: an 800mm f/11 is equivalent to a 50mm f/0.6875, so who wants a drinking-straw lens like 50mm f/1.2.


But 'pixel density' I need pixel density...  

Or, you could go for a 2.25mm x 1.5mm (which is close to the old 1/6" size) 45mp sensor with that 50mm f/0.6875 to get your R5 and RF 800mm equivalent....


----------



## ijohnsson (Jul 22, 2021)

Just utter nonsense from a narcissist


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 22, 2021)

SteveOLV said:


> Funny how back in the day every camera came with a 50mm lens and everybody couldn't wait to get rid of it and get something better, more useful! I still don't own a 50.. nor anything at F1.2. Huge apertures are quite the fad in the 2000's I wonder how anyone created a nice photo before them!


What are you talking about? Nearly all vintage lenses from Canon/Nikon/Leica/Pentax etc were extremely fast. My vintage lens collection alone is stacked with f/1.4 to f/2 lenses as well as a couple of f/1.2 primes…that happen to be 50mm and 55mm. Wide apertures were significantly more important in the film era as you were typically stuck to 400 and 800 film speeds. More sensitive film stocks like 1600 and 3200 were seldom used because of their grain density, so fast lenses were the ticket. Additionally, during the day, you would find yourself with 400 or 800 in the camera and be limited by shutter speeds values of 1/1000 or 1/2000 on most camera bodies…sometimes 1/500, so it was often that you would stop these old lenses down to achieve proper exposure. So huge apertures have been important for decades. We’re just lucky cameras shoot at 1/8000 now with digitally controlled ISO.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 22, 2021)

I rented this lens last month to shoot what I believe may be our final wedding…getting out of that business as the industry continues to tip in the unrealistic expectations direction. Haha I was really amazed by its performance in all aspects except for manual focus….good LORD is this a terrible lens to manually focus with! I’m borderline ready to sell all three of my Sigma Art series primes to just buy this 50mm, but that’s a tough pill to swallow. The flexibility of being able to shoot at f/1.4-f/2 at 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm has been really nice to have…but I’m sure I can live without it now that I have the 35mm f/1.8 from Canon that isn’t “magical” like the Art, but has its own set of tricks up its sleeve.


----------



## Kiton (Jul 22, 2021)

That video is a meaningless series of commercials.


----------



## angelisland (Jul 22, 2021)

Dude always seems arrogant to me ‍‍


----------



## SonicStudios (Jul 22, 2021)

Have this lens and love it as much as my 85DS, both primes are really good lenses. My 50 gives off an interesting blue tint when viewing subjects through the finder, none of my other lenses do that, pretty cool and unique, not having any manual focus issues with my primes, BUT with all that said, the 28-70 is still super glued to my R5


----------



## SteveOLV (Jul 22, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> What are you talking about? Nearly all vintage lenses from Canon/Nikon/Leica/Pentax etc were extremely fast. My vintage lens collection alone is stacked with f/1.4 to f/2 lenses as well as a couple of f/1.2 primes…that happen to be 50mm and 55mm. Wide apertures were significantly more important in the film era as you were typically stuck to 400 and 800 film speeds. More sensitive film stocks like 1600 and 3200 were seldom used because of their grain density, so fast lenses were the ticket. Additionally, during the day, you would find yourself with 400 or 800 in the camera and be limited by shutter speeds values of 1/1000 or 1/2000 on most camera bodies…sometimes 1/500, so it was often that you would stop these old lenses down to achieve proper exposure. So huge apertures have been important for decades. We’re just lucky cameras shoot at 1/8000 now with digitally controlled ISO.


We would do other things to compensate... Pushing film to shoot sports where a 50mm was not a good length. F 1.2 lenses weren't readily available til the late 70's and they could be stupid expensive.. Yes it's amazing how anyone took a good photo until digital and 100,000 iso and 1.2 or faster lenses.. I'm just saying that 50mm lenses were not popular.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 22, 2021)

pauloancarvalho said:


> I love how people in this forum don't like YouTubers' content.


there is a lot of butthurt and bitterness these days. you cant have an opinion without tons of people reacting negatively towards you.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 22, 2021)

angelisland said:


> Dude always seems arrogant to me ‍‍


Explain?


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jul 22, 2021)

Just the Canon equivalent of the Sony schill Patrick Murphy Racey.


----------



## Fischer (Jul 22, 2021)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Yes, but sometimes people overlook the fact that its the person behind the camera who creates the photo. The finest gear in the world will only turn out mediocre photos in my hands. I'm not artistically inclined. I like fine gear but someone with a cell phone, my wife, for example, takes better photos than I do.


Understand your point. But not all equipment is equally suited for all situations. Case in point: We would have a lot less interesting and spectacular wildlife shots if we only had iphones to work with. Gear also matters because it outlines the range of our creative options. That's why I always highly recommend people to get at least one fast prime in addition to the usual standard zoom.


----------



## navastronia (Jul 22, 2021)

pauloancarvalho said:


> I love how people in this forum don't like YouTubers' content.



People on this forum love _good_ YouTube content, including Gordon Laing, Christopher Frost, and Dustin Abbott.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 22, 2021)

For me, there is no "one prime" lens. If I only rocked a 50mm, then at some point in a photographic day I would need something either a bit longer or a bit wider. If I was going to pop for a single "one size fits none" approach then I'd choose a 35mm any day. My typical UK wedding kit is a 85 f1.2, 35 f1.4 and a 16-35 f2.8. I can cover 99% of my clients needs with those three lenses. My backup bag of lenses holds all the other stuff, like 24-70/ 70-200/ fisheye/ macro etc. 
I tend to find a 50mm a bit mehh, the working distance isn't great and it just doesn't float my boat. Buy hey....your EV range / mileage might vary.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 22, 2021)

I don't have much use for 50mm though. For most of my uses it is either too wide or too narrow. For people 50mm would work well.

PS: He really ADDS grain to his images? I would not use an image with such a alot of grain. It is like blurring a photo in Photoshop.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 22, 2021)

I'd have gone with a 600mm f/4 but each to their own.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jul 22, 2021)

I get the simplicity of saying "just use a 50mm for everything", and it's a good way to get people to start thinking about compositional elements other than their equipment, but for me personally I frigging LOVE 28mm and 85mm so much that I'd go that direction. 

But more realistically, the 14/15 - 35mm's and 100 - 500mm with either a 50mm, a 50mm + 85mm, or a 24 - 105mm covers everything you could come across minus macro (and if that's important, skip the 85mm and go for the new 100mm macro). 

And a 50mm f/1.2 is not a smart way to go with "one lens" because it's so expensive and big. For the same cost (and maybe weight?) you could go with f/1.8 / f/2 35mm + 50mm + 85mm (24mm would be better here but doesn't exist RF yet, could do EF + adapter I suppose). 

The only reason I could see going for the 50mm f/1.2 alone is if I was ONLY interested in capturing a unique image to sell in a situation where carrying a bag would be a hindrance and I will be amongst other photographers with high-end setups. But even then, in my experience it's the 85mm f/1.4 or ultrawide that does things in talented hands which snapshotters don't generally do. 

Re: McKinnon - Never watched one of his videos before. He definitely has an "aesthetic" and it is not my cup of tea. But hey, he's successful with it, so whatever.


----------



## OscarRook (Jul 22, 2021)

What a total waste of time! Come on, Canon Rumors, you can promote much better material than this.


----------



## Ruined (Jul 22, 2021)

Yay another "omg sharpness" video *puke*


----------



## Stanly (Jul 22, 2021)

To be fair, Peter talks about a fast 50mm. Also one of the downsides he mentions, loud motor, was the reason why we ultimately didn't switch to Canon. All our Zeiss Batis lenses and Sony GM are silent. May be if it was possible to properly test the system we would've made the jump because I wanted to switch quite a lot, but ... loud focusing was it (=


----------



## AlanF (Jul 22, 2021)

navastronia said:


> People on this forum love _good_ YouTube content, including Gordon Laing, Christopher Frost, and Dustin Abbott.


Chacun à son goût. We have a complete spectrum of opinions here: some like even TN.


----------



## fotoviva.ro (Jul 22, 2021)

That P McK guy has contagious energy. Unfortunately, he is not very good at photography or technique. He is just lucky to be the owner of a popular youtube channel (his merit) and the fact that Canon uses it as a trumpet.


----------



## LeeBabySimms (Jul 22, 2021)

Meh — the images are lovely, but the handling's all weird, compared to a 50Art + EF adaptor. With fat primes like the RF50L, my right-hand fingers get claustrophobic between body grip and the lens barrel. 

I'll wait for Sigma to develop for RF.


----------



## Berowne (Jul 22, 2021)

I like the man and his hat.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Jul 22, 2021)

Color me skeptical about prime lenses, when you can pick up a 24-70mm f2.8L zoom for the same price. If you look at the lens resolution charts on Canon's website, it appears that the 24-70 is a much better performing lens. I'm certainly not an expert but below is the 50 mm and the 24-70 at 70mm MTF chart. From what I can see, the zoom blows the prime away. Since switching to primarily zooms, the versatility of a variable focal length lens works for me.


----------



## kaihp (Jul 22, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> Color me skeptical about prime lenses, when you can pick up a 24-70mm f2.8L zoom for the same price. If you look at the lens resolution charts on Canon's website, it appears that the 24-70 is a much better performing lens. I'm certainly not an expert but below is the 50 mm and the 24-70 at 70mm MTF chart. From what I can see, the zoom blows the prime away. Since switching to primarily zooms, the versatility of a variable focal length lens works for me.


Be careful with that sharpness comparison: the zoom is at f/2.8 and the 50mm is at f/1.2. You should really compare the 50mm stopped down f/2.8 to compare the sharpness


----------



## mangobutter (Jul 22, 2021)

Yeah not really interested in generic vanilla people/youtubers opinions, particularly those with vanilla followers/fans. He's obviously clickbait/amazon link farming so take it with a grain of salt. No doubt it's a good lens for sure, but there's other considerations like size and weight. I'm no stranger to buying expensive big prime lenses and I'll tell you that lens will just collect dust because you'd never want to take it out for fear of damaging it, being a target, or just being big/heavy. The best lens is a combination of good optics + a lens you'll actually use.


----------



## mangobutter (Jul 22, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> Color me skeptical about prime lenses, when you can pick up a 24-70mm f2.8L zoom for the same price. If you look at the lens resolution charts on Canon's website, it appears that the 24-70 is a much better performing lens. I'm certainly not an expert but below is the 50 mm and the 24-70 at 70mm MTF chart. From what I can see, the zoom blows the prime away. Since switching to primarily zooms, the versatility of a variable focal length lens works for me.



Eh I'm guessing you don't know how these tests work, but they're often low-moderate frequency tests as well as these #s are wide open. It's a bit misleading to compare a super fast prime vs. a zoom.

When it comes to high-frequency resolution such as MTF50, especially periphery at optimum aperture, zooms are absolute garbage compared to primes.

In this case you're looking at 2.8 vs 1.2 at mid frequency. So yeah the zoom will show higher numbers.

But for ultimate detail in an absolute sense, particularly towards the mid/edges/corners, a decent prime will trash a good zoom in fine details. Go read Roger Cicala's blog at lensrentals on this.


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 22, 2021)

Charlie_B said:


> More YouTube nonsense





Floydian said:


> The whole video is about Peter McKinnon, the lens comes second....waste of time to watch :-(





ijohnsson said:


> Just utter nonsense from a narcissist





Kiton said:


> That video is a meaningless series of commercials.





angelisland said:


> Dude always seems arrogant to me ‍‍



This sounds like those girls who insist that the prettiest girl is a b**** and stuck up.

Guy none of us have ever met shows a lot of personality, confidence, and presumably is very successful at what he does. That can really make some people feel insecure.

I thought the perspective on the versatility of the lens was useful, and how it can create isolated images that can make a big 70-200 unnecessary. I like mine for indoor family/kids shooting.


----------



## lloyd709 (Jul 22, 2021)

I don't get all the hype over this lens - a few guys that I have a lot of repsect for say the same thing. It's just no one mentions size, weight, cost and the legendery levels of vignetting wide open (you are looking at more than 3 stops - I know vignetting can be nice sometimes but it's a lot easier to add than take away)! ... and please don't say 'you just need to stop down a bit'!!! Now give me a 1.4 verson with close to the level of sharpness but at half the weight, size, price and vigneting and I'd then probably say 'best prime ever'!!!

Forgot to beat my drum - if a manufacure wants to make the 'best prime ever' they just need to make a 65 1.4 - because for some reason only known to the lens gods no one makes one. Give me any one of these over Canon's 50 1.2 any day - whoever made it!!!


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Jul 22, 2021)

kaihp said:


> Be careful with that sharpness comparison: the zoom is at f/2.8 and the 50mm is at f/1.2. You should really compare the 50mm stopped down f/2.8 to compare the sharpness


Unfortunately, that's how the charts are published. While I don't know how much sharper 1-1/2 stops would add. My point is simply that with modern optics why tie yourself to a fixed focal length (prime) when a zoom gives you more possibilities for the same price. Heavier I grant you but having the ability to go from a moderately wide-angle to a short tele allows shots that you can't get with a 50mm. I don't miss the 1-1/2 stops as I like to shoot at f8 when possible and let IS and IBIS help with the slower shutter speeds. The link below illustrates using the 24-70 for a full-length shot of a model and then cropping the image down to her eye to show how sharp the lens is.




__ https://www.facebook.com/SinCityCameraGuy/posts/186774496462109


----------



## SteveC (Jul 22, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Chacun à son goût. We have a complete spectrum of opinions here: some like even TN.


His first initial is S (other letters in that name are the same).


----------



## danfaz (Jul 22, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> Color me skeptical about prime lenses, when you can pick up a 24-70mm f2.8L zoom for the same price. If you look at the lens resolution charts on Canon's website, it appears that the 24-70 is a much better performing lens. I'm certainly not an expert but below is the 50 mm and the 24-70 at 70mm MTF chart. From what I can see, the zoom blows the prime away. Since switching to primarily zooms, the versatility of a variable focal length lens works for me.


I wouldn't take the charts too seriously. I had both lenses and the 50 was the better performer in just about every regard, at least for what I shoot.


----------



## kaihp (Jul 22, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> Unfortunately, that's how the charts are published. While I don't know how much sharper 1-1/2 stops would add. My point is simply that with modern optics why tie yourself to a fixed focal length (prime) when a zoom gives you more possibilities for the same price. Heavier I grant you but having the ability to go from a moderately wide-angle to a short tele allows shots that you can't get with a 50mm. I don't miss the 1-1/2 stops as I like to shoot at f8 when possible and let IS and IBIS help with the slower shutter speeds.


Oh, we're not arguing about the versatility of zoom lenses! I have 4 zooms and 'only' 2 primes, so you're preaching to the choir.

For sharpness vs aperture, look no further than TDP. Bryan publishes test chart results for all aperture values and comments on how the images improves (or not) with aperture. Uncle Rog sometimes measures (and publishes) sharpness across aperture, but only for primes (zooms take too long time), and usually only for a specific educational purpose.

PS: I believe that there are 2.5 stops between f/1.2 and f/2.8, not 1.5 stops


----------



## AlanF (Jul 22, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> Unfortunately, that's how the charts are published. While I don't know how much sharper 1-1/2 stops would add. My point is simply that with modern optics why tie yourself to a fixed focal length (prime) when a zoom gives you more possibilities for the same price. Heavier I grant you but having the ability to go from a moderately wide-angle to a short tele allows shots that you can't get with a 50mm. I don't miss the 1-1/2 stops as I like to shoot at f8 when possible and let IS and IBIS help with the slower shutter speeds. The link below illustrates using the 24-70 for a full-length shot of a model and then cropping the image down to her eye to show how sharp the lens is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The whole point of the f/1.2 is that it has an f/1.2 aperture, and the widest on the 24-70 is f/2.8. If you need f/1.2 for light and bokeh, get the prime. If f/2.8 is enough for you, get the zoom. Both are damn good lenses. Opticallimits, a great site, one of the very best, has mtfs for both lenses as a function of f-number.


----------



## john1970 (Jul 22, 2021)

The most uninformative review I have ever watched.


----------



## john1970 (Jul 22, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Back to the main subject: I haven't tried either but the Leica APO-Summicron 50/2 ASPH and the 50mm Otus are both apparently in the running for sharpest lens ever.
> 
> The Canon 50/1.2 is a steal in comparison. You could buy like 4 or 5 for the price of the Leica. And the Canon goes to f/1.2 so if you had to decide between them that should make it easy.
> 
> But the vignetting is EXTREME. You can correct in-camera but it is sooooooo extreme that the camera may simply not have enough exposure to give great results. Things that should be zone II or even III are literally just 0 values or something. No amount of boosting 0 is going to give you a natural-looking image. I love 50mm but I don't use my 50/1.2 much. OTOH I use my Leica M 35/1.4 all the time on my R, because its so compact, and makes good-looking images.


What adapter are you using for the Leica M to RF mount?


----------



## dwarven (Jul 23, 2021)

*Until the 35mm f/1.2 comes out


----------



## stevelee (Jul 23, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The funny thing is a couple of years ago he swore the only prime lens anybody needs is the EF 24 1.4 L II.
> 
> We are all on a creative journey and what suited us a few years ago probably doesn’t suit us now, and almost certainly won’t in a few years time. If the 50mm focal length works for you the RF 50 seems like a very nice lens, if you have RF cameras. If the focal length doesn’t suit you or you don’t have RF bodies don’t sweat it, use what you have.


I used a 50mm prime yesterday for the first time in years. I bought the EF 50mm f/1.4 years ago to shoot portraits with my T3i. I bought the 6D2 almost four years ago. I put the 50mm on it yesterday to shoot some indoor pictures after a piano recital, one group shot of the teacher and her pupils, and one of her playing a duet with a girl. Using available light in the living room, I figured I needed a relatively fast lens, and the focal length seemed about right. I might have done better stopping down some and using a higher ISO, but I just left everything on auto and made several tries. Some of the shots didn’t have enough depth of field to get everyone sharp, but one picture of each scenario looked really good, and I was quite pleased with the photos. Perhaps the kit lens would have done almost as well at ISO 800 or so. I had it along just in case.

I conclude from this that the lens is good to have on hand, but I wouldn’t be motivated to spend a lot of money on a 50mm prime that I might use every four years or so, even if I were buying RF lenses.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 23, 2021)

For me the EF 50mm 1.8 is/was the best Canon lens ever. It was cheap and light, reasonably sharp and a multipurpose lens. Good for portraits and street. I used it for shallow depth of field (which was an important creative break through ), and I used it with adapters as a macro lens. It was a great learning tool to get the exposure triangle. It’s been superseded in my collection by far more expensive lens but nothing advanced my photography as much as that lens.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 23, 2021)

lloyd709 said:


> I don't get all the hype over this lens - a few guys that I have a lot of repsect for say the same thing. It's just no one mentions size, weight, cost and the legendery levels of vignetting wide open (you are looking at more than 3 stops - I know vignetting can be nice sometimes but it's a lot easier to add than take away)! ... and please don't say 'you just need to stop down a bit'!!! Now give me a 1.4 verson with close to the level of sharpness but at half the weight, size, price and vigneting and I'd then probably say 'best prime ever'!!!
> 
> Forgot to beat my drum - if a manufacure wants to make the 'best prime ever' they just need to make a 65 1.4 - because for some reason only known to the lens gods no one makes one. Give me any one of these over Canon's 50 1.2 any day - whoever made it!!!


Perhaps if 50mm was one of your favorite focal lengths, if shallow depth of field something you cherished and incorporated often, and if you shot with this lens for a few weeks, you'd understand "the hype." I don't mind the weight, and in real-world use, the vignette is no problem for me. The R6/R5 shadows clean up so nicely that, even when a subject is not centered, everything is fine.

The cost of the lens is tough to swallow, but with inflation, it is negligibly higher than its EF counterpart introduced in 2006. Furthermore it uses more material and has a lot of tech crammed in that wasn't part of the older L-series lens.





__





Calculate the Value of $1,600 in 2006. How much is it worth today?







www.dollartimes.com





As for others comparing to zoom lenses, that's a different conversation.

The Youtuber is just trying to convey some of his excitement about the image quality of a great lens, and also some thoughts on the versatility of the focal length and aperture range. I don't think he was trying to scientifically, once and for all prove that 50mm is the ultimate, best ever focal length. In the online world, we have to put up with clickbait titles. For now. Maybe they'll fade from fashion some day.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 23, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Back in the 90s, when I had at least a dozen EF lenses, I read a guy say you just needed the 17-35, 50/1.4, and 70-200. He wasn't exactly wrong.
> 
> In the 70s, the US Army gave you a 35, 50, and 135 I think.
> 
> ...


Off camera flash cord? Off camera flash cord? They're on sale at the Smithsonian gift shop this week... in the year 2021.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 23, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> Perhaps if 50mm was one of your favorite focal lengths, if shallow depth of field something you cherished and incorporated often, and if you shot with this lens for a few weeks, you'd understand "the hype." I don't mind the weight, and in real-world use, the vignette is no problem for me. The R6/R5 shadows clean up so nicely that, even when a subject is not centered, everything is fine.
> [..]


The amount of vignetting also changes with the focus distance on this lens.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 23, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The amount of vignetting also changes with the focus distance on this lens.


What I should say is that the vignette is a compromise I'm willing to live with, that, for me, is not problematic.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 23, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Just the Canon equivalent of the Sony schill Patrick Murphy Racey.


I checked out that other guy. his channel is way less entertaining.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 23, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> What I should say is that the vignette is a compromise I'm willing to live with, that, for me, is not problematic.


For portraits, a little vignetting can be a feature, not a bug.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jul 23, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Back in the 90s, when I had at least a dozen EF lenses, I read a guy say you just needed the 17-35, 50/1.4, and 70-200. He wasn't exactly wrong.
> 
> In the 70s, the US Army gave you a 35, 50, and 135 I think.
> 
> ...


I have always from day 1 preferred a wide lens and just getting closer to my subject, than having a 50 and not being able to back up far enough.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 23, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> What I should say is that the vignette is a compromise I'm willing to live with, that, for me, is not problematic.


I agree, but my point was that the 3 stops (or whatever was mentioned) isn't the amount of vignetting across the range, it could very well be 1 stop less at portrait distances.


----------



## Kiton (Jul 23, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> This sounds like those girls who insist that the prettiest girl is a b**** and stuck up.
> 
> Guy none of us have ever met shows a lot of personality, confidence, and presumably is very successful at what he does. That can really make some people feel insecure.
> 
> I thought the perspective on the versatility of the lens was useful, and how it can create isolated images that can make a big 70-200 unnecessary. I like mine for indoor family/kids shooting.



 The reality is, alleged insecurities aside, a 50mm will NEVER make a 70-200 unnecessary for most shooters. NEVER!
Take a 50mm in to a riot where protestors are throwing rocks at your head and cops are swinging night sticks and pepper spray at you!!
You will be cleaning your blood off your gear inside of a few minutes! Take a 50 instead of 70-200 to an NHL final game, it will be the last game you are ever assigned to cover!!

So the 50mm may make the 70-200 unnecessary for some hobby shooters, some portrait shooters, and even some studio type guys. But, to claim a 50mm can make the 70-200 redundant for all, is out there.

I am big fan of the 50, and the 40 actually.
But, a 50 is ONE tool and they make a few dozen different tools for a reason.
There are dozens of different needs and no single lens can render the rest unnecessary for all.
Glad you like your 50 for shooting kids/families.
I love my 16-35. And my 400 2.8. And my 300 2.8. And my 70-200. And my 100 macro. And my 135 f2! and so on.

I am sure there are shooters who would buy and love glass I would never even think of buying or using, that is fine, they have their thing and are making pictures and loving the process with whatever it is they have and are doing. Great!

have a good afternoon!


----------



## Finn (Jul 23, 2021)

If I could only bring two lenses it would be RF 24-70 f2.8 and RF 70-200 2.8.

24mm is wide for most things and can become wider if you shoot a quick pano which is easier than ever now with IBIS and Lightroom.

200mm is long enough for most things (besides wildlife). With 45MP sensor you can get up to 300mm range quite easily and still have enough MP.

Both lenses are sharp enough to cut yourself and offer great balance for video even in dawn/dusk conditions.

They will only get more versatile as bodies improve.

Would really love a 18/20mm f1.4 or f1.8 lens from Canon though in case I have room for a third lens.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jul 25, 2021)

Finn said:


> If I could only bring two lenses it would be RF 24-70 f2.8 and RF 70-200 2.8.



I ask this question a lot to myself before going places... and I try to limit the amount of lenses based on where/what I'm doing. However the lens/lenses chosen vary based on what I'm shooting. I have favorites... but to pick any one over another in a general sense (without knowing the where/what)... I just can't do.


----------



## 2Cents (Jul 25, 2021)

50mm is a pretty versatile focal length. I don’t use my 50 very often but I get the argument. He also clearly said that the video was about the focal length and not the RF 1.2 specifically.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 25, 2021)

2Cents said:


> 50mm is a pretty versatile focal length. I don’t use my 50 very often but I get the argument. He also clearly said that the video was about the focal length and not the RF 1.2 specifically.


Back in the film days when zoom lenses were heavy, expensive, and not so great, I had a selection of prime lenses. My “normal” lens was a 58mm (or was it 55?) f/1.2. I used it a lot, but when I was carrying along just 3 lenses, I took 28mm, 85mm, and 200mm lenses. Those covered pretty well everything I wanted to shoot.


----------



## Jerryrigged (Jul 25, 2021)

Finn said:


> If I could only bring two lenses it would be RF 24-70 f2.8 and RF 70-200 2.8.
> 
> 24mm is wide for most things and can become wider if you shoot a quick pano which is easier than ever now with IBIS and Lightroom.
> 
> ...


My first two L lenses were the 24-70 2.8L II and the 70-200 2.8L IS II. And I still think that was the best decision. Both excellent and versatile. But over time I needed other lenses for specific applications: fast primes for low light dance (weddings), macro for ring shots, etc. 85 prime was probably easiest purchase… easy to justify a fast 85 for portraits. The 35 1.4L II was probably the toughest call and least justifies purchase, but is now my absolutely favorite! I own the RF 50 1.2 and I’m still a little torn. Probably my least used prime… it is clearly excellent, but if I’m carrying two cameras with primes attached, they are probably the 84 1.4L and that 35!


----------



## arthurbikemad (Jul 25, 2021)

I was using this yesterday at the beach, its a great lens and like many I love it, but damm, shooting the waves in bright sun this lens can fringe like a bastid, a feature of the old EF 1.2 that I used to hate. Only thing with the fringing of the RF is its so fine, strong but in my images yesterday its a few pixels wide on the R5 and hard to clean up.


----------



## Ruined (Jul 26, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> Perhaps if 50mm was one of your favorite focal lengths, if shallow depth of field something you cherished and incorporated often, and if you shot with this lens for a few weeks, you'd understand "the hype." I don't mind the weight, and in real-world use, the vignette is no problem for me. The R6/R5 shadows clean up so nicely that, even when a subject is not centered, everything is fine.
> 
> The cost of the lens is tough to swallow, but with inflation, it is negligibly higher than its EF counterpart introduced in 2006. Furthermore it uses more material and has a lot of tech crammed in that wasn't part of the older L-series lens.
> 
> ...


50mm is my favorite focal length. Nearly all of my shots with the 50L I take @ 1.2, because otherwise why bother using such a fast lens?

I don't understand the hype, and from everything I have seen the EF 50mm f/1.2L is overall a better lens with all things considered than the RF 50mm f/1.2L - for me, at least.

Yes, the RF lens is sharper wide open, less fringing, and easier to use - but it's also MUCH larger even compared to the EF 50mm f/1.2L mounted on a 5-series DSLR.

One of the main reasons I like the EF 50mm f/1.2L so much is that it is relatively small and inconspicuous, not much larger than the EF 35mm f/2 IS. The RF version loses this key feature, which makes it a far less attractive lens. I don't think any of the optical characteristics of the RF version make up for the huge size.

On the other hand, if one used exclusively RF bodies I could see putting up with the extra size so that an adapter wasn't needed.

I agree with one of the other posters here that noted that most of the RF lenses that have some improvement also have some big tradeoff that goes with it. There are very few that are improved across the board without a tradeoff, almost like the RF versions were alternate (but not necessarily completely improved) lens designs Canon had saved up for a rainy day.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 28, 2021)

if a newbie were to ask me: 'One 50mm and one 50mm alone, my advice would be. And no other for at least 1 year. It forces you to do everything right or fail or stay mediocre. Get close, get far away...get on your knees, stop and wait. If you have to earn money in the first place, this tip is maybe not worth much.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 28, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> if a newbie were to ask me: 'One 50mm and one 50mm alone, my advice would be. And no other for at least 1 year. It forces you to do everything right or fail or stay mediocre. Get close, get far away...get on your knees, stop and wait. If you have to earn money in the first place, this tip is maybe not worth much.


I shot color slide film in a rangefinder camera with a fixed 45mm lens for years. I could visualize the composition without putting the camera up to my eye. I had to get everything right in the first place. It was a great way to learn. I made many of my best pictures that way. And 45mm is even closer to theoretical “normal” than 50mm.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 29, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> [..]
> I think the 100Mac, with it's spherical aberation control, and 1.4x, may be improvement-only? Or is it a lot bigger than the EF 100Mac?
> [..]


It's slightly taller and a tiny bit wider than the EF100L + EF-RF adapter. Apart from the 1:1.x feature it has much better AF and when using it with an IBIS equipped R camera, much, much better IS. The IS on the EF100L was sometimes fighting the IBIS and making things worse.


----------



## tron (Jul 29, 2021)

Floydian said:


> The whole video is about Peter McKinnon, the lens comes second....waste of time to watch :-(


I didn't watch fully this BS video so I saved some time


----------



## Ruined (Jul 29, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> interesting point you make.
> 
> I agree for instance 70-200/2.8, nice that it's smaller in the camera bag, but can't use TE?!!? I mean, I'm totally going f/4 trinity these days anyway and not even playing with the f/2.8s in stores, but I agree that's a step forward and step back.



Also while it's smaller in the bag, a lot of (most?) people considered the precision of non-telescoping zoom a feature of the EF version that made them prefer that over similar lenses


SwissFrank said:


> 50mm/1.2 is literally 10x sharper. It's 30lp/mm lines are higher contrast than the EF at 10lp/mm, basically meaning you can more than triple the blowup linearly, or 10x by area, and get the same sharpness. It's huge in comparison, but it's not huge in an absolute sense, it's maybe smaller than the EF 24-70/2.8 most people used as their standard lens, no?



Yeh but I don't use the 50mm if I want razor sharpness. I'd just use the 24-70 f/2.8 II if I want that, and it's hard to think of a scenario I'd want razor sharpness plus also need f1/.2. 50mm I use for that magic mostly-sharp/bokeh butter look. So more sharpness isn't something I care about for this lens.

Every lens has a purpose for me, when they all start to look the same they lose their purpose


----------

