# First look: Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM Image Quality



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 13, 2018)

> The-Digital-Picture has done a quick image quality comparison between the brand new Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM and the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM. The image quality of the RF 50mm f/1.2L USM looks astonishing and blows away its EF counterpart.
> The new RF 50mm f/1.2L USM is a big jump in price, but it looks like it may be worth it.
> Check out the image comparison at The-Digital-Picture | Preorder the Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM



Continue reading...


----------



## DJL329 (Sep 13, 2018)

Wow. Now all we need is an RF to EF adapter!


----------



## vjlex (Sep 13, 2018)

DJL329 said:


> Wow. Now all we need is an RF to EF adapter!


A straight EF version would be even better! I know the adapter thing was a joke, but I wonder if Canon is really only going to make an RF version of this lens.


----------



## 6degrees (Sep 13, 2018)

Can anybody compare this Canon RF 50mm F1.2 with Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 ?
I will not be surprised if Canon RF 50mm F1.2 is close to or even beats Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 for overall image quality, because it is 15 Elements in 9 Groups but Otus has 12 Elements in 10 Groups.
Can't wait for such comparison. I really want to see where Canon RF 50mm F1.2 ranks in https://www.dxomark.com/.


----------



## tmroper (Sep 13, 2018)

I went straight to comparing it to the Otus 55mm. The Otus stills beat it as far as sharpness on those test charts goes, but not by much. So, at half the price, the Canon is a steal!


----------



## woodman411 (Sep 13, 2018)

It will be interesting to see if an updated EF 50 1.2L ever comes out, along with the 24-70 f/2.8L IS. If either doesn't show up for EF, it'll be time to switch over.


----------



## tmroper (Sep 13, 2018)

6degrees said:


> Can anybody compare this Canon RF 50mm F1.2 with Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 ?
> 
> Canon RF 50mm F1.2 is more complicated than Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4. Can it beat Otus for image quality?


You can see a comparison on the The-Digital-Picture site. Click on the link toward the bottom of the review, "Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L compared to the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L Lens" and then change the lens on the right to the Otus, or any other from the drop-down list. If you want to change the aperture of the comparison, make sure to change it for both lenses (from the drop-down).


----------



## 6degrees (Sep 13, 2018)

tmroper said:


> You can see a comparison on the The-Digital-Picture site. Click on the link toward the bottom of the review, "Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L compared to the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L Lens" and then change the lens on the right to the Otus, or any other from the drop-down list. If you want to change the aperture of the comparison, make sure to change it for both lenses (from the drop-down).


I would like to see more practical and sophisticated comparison by different ranking companies.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 13, 2018)

DJL329 said:


> Wow. Now all we need is an RF to EF adapter!



Not physically possible. Only EF to RF.

Looking forward to seeing all the new lenses on a better sensor, perhaps on a mirrorless 5DsRII.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 13, 2018)

woodman411 said:


> It will be interesting to see if an updated EF 50 1.2L ever comes out, along with the 24-70 f/2.8L IS. If either doesn't show up for EF, it'll be time to switch over.



EF is either already end of line or so close to being so that further investment should be thoroughly considered.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 13, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> EF is either already end of line or so close to being so that further investment should be thoroughly considered.


Nah. Not even close. 10 years? 15? Not even close.


----------



## AJ (Sep 13, 2018)

With the mirror box gone, is there still clipping of bokeh balls at the edges of the frame?


----------



## dominic_siu (Sep 13, 2018)

DJL329 said:


> Wow. Now all we need is an RF to EF adapter!


There is no way to mount RF lens to EF body[/QUOTE]


----------



## sanj (Sep 13, 2018)

Insane! I wonder where all the people who used to defend the older 50mm will hide now.


----------



## Famateur (Sep 13, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Nah. Not even close. 10 years? 15? Not even close.



Indeed. I think the new EF 400 and 600 L III lenses are a pretty solid statement (at $12 and $13K each, respectively) that EF isn't going to be obsolete any time soon.


----------



## Frodo (Sep 13, 2018)

Famateur said:


> Indeed. I think the new EF 400 and 600 L III lenses are a pretty solid statement (at $12 and $13K each, respectively) that EF isn't going to be obsolete any time soon.


While I hope that the EF mount sticks around, the new EF 400 and 600 lenses don't confirm that. I expect RF lens development will focus on where the mount has an advantage (such as the lenses currently offered). Long RF tele primes and zooms will have little advantage over existing EF lenses with an adapter, especially the new ones where I expect the focusing algorithms and possibly drive mechanisms have been updated.


----------



## Famateur (Sep 13, 2018)

Frodo said:


> While I hope that the EF mount sticks around, the new EF 400 and 600 lenses don't confirm that. I expect RF lens development will focus on where the mount has an advantage (such as the lenses currently offered). Long RF tele primes and zooms will have little advantage over existing EF lenses with an adapter, especially the new ones where I expect the focusing algorithms and possibly drive mechanisms have been updated.



If I understand what you're saying correctly, having an EF super-tele with adapter won't be much different in practical use than having an RF super-tele. Thus, Canon anticipates the full move to RF bodies can happen just as soon as a pro body RF mount body can do what flagship DSLRs can do -- all without upsetting those who invested in EF mount super-teles? That's a fair point, I think.

My point was that whichever way Canon goes, I expect that the needs of EF super-tele owners will factor into how (and how fast) they make the full move to RF mount bodies. Whether it's EF working seamlessly on RF bodies or EF bodies persisting for another decade, EF lenses won't quickly become obsolete (like, say, when the EF mount was introduced). Does that make sense?


----------



## Famateur (Sep 13, 2018)

Back on topic, I just looked at the comparison of the RF and EF 50MM F1.2L lenses. Holy hand grenades. That RF 50 is one sharp lens. My goodness.


----------



## AuroraChaserDoug (Sep 13, 2018)

On the wide end, the RF 50mm 1.2 not only blows away the EF 50mm 1.2L but is impressive against other lenses including the excellent EF 24-70mm 2.8L II (50mm at f/2.8). CA and corner sharpness are amazing on the RF 50mm. I think the only reason the 24-70mm looks as good in the center is that it has that advantage of being tested on the 5DSR.

Since long lenses don't suffer as much with CA, the long EF lenses will be around longer than the normal to wide angle lenses. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon released EF-RF 1.4 and 2.0 xtenders with built in filter holders.


----------



## applecider (Sep 13, 2018)

Famateur said:


> Back on topic, I just looked at the comparison of the RF and EF 50MM F1.2L lenses. Holy hand grenades. That RF 50 is one sharp lens. My goodness.




And/or the EF 50 f1.2 was not a sharp lens especially wide open, much CA is present which the RF seems not to have. Go to wonder about vignetting, the RF should be better there as well.


----------



## scrup (Sep 13, 2018)

Ef version please so I can use it on my dslrs and orphaned M


----------



## Quackator (Sep 13, 2018)

If the back focus distances allows an EF version: Yes please, prefer that.
Why? Simple: Being able to use the rear drop in filter adapter for either C-PL or Vari-ND.

That is the biggest problem I see in using native R glass.
The gave us the brillant rear filter adapter but it isn't in the full R glass.


----------



## Yasko (Sep 13, 2018)

AJ said:


> With the mirror box gone, is there still clipping of bokeh balls at the edges of the frame?



I guess so, yes. There is always an aperture (which is not the sensor) and when you go through a circular aperture with an inclination it should not be circular anymore. But it‘s hard to imagine right now...
I am not sure if the mirrorbox was clipping... I _guess_ it was more so the lens itself.


----------



## Yasko (Sep 13, 2018)

Quackator said:


> If the back focus distances allows an EF version: Yes please, prefer that.
> Why? Simple: Being able to use the rear drop in filter adapter for either C-PL or Vari-ND.
> 
> That is the biggest problem I see in using native R glass.
> The gave us the brillant rear filter adapter but it isn't in the full R glass.



Well... you can use older glass that is inhibited in its own way with a nice rear filter adapter, or you can use newer R glass that is often sharper and even faster with comparable or less weight... so there is a trade off you have to make. Longer lenses don‘t profit so much, perhaps this is why we see these new long tele EF lenses, especially there the filters come in very handy.


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 13, 2018)

After seeing images on dpreview and now the review of TDP I am lusting for this lens and maybe I would buy it for my M50 because it would be a very flexible FL ( 80mm effectively on APS-C ) for me. The only pity: The lens cannot be adapted on the M50 now and an adaptor - if possible - would be very very complicated / expensive if you have only 2mm flange distance.

About some remarks about OTUS - RF 1.2 50 comparison: Not easy if you compare different lenses while having different cameras. The Canon lens seems at least in the same IQ department while having 0.5 f-stops brighter max aperture & AF. Just the AF with DPAF sensors will come in handy @ f/1.2 ... f/2 to nail focus and to use the potential of that lens!


----------



## sanj (Sep 13, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> EF is either already end of line or so close to being so that further investment should be thoroughly considered.


Absolutely!!


----------



## MartinF. (Sep 13, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Nah. Not even close. 10 years? 15? Not even close.


I sure hope you are right, that Canon will maintain the EF line for years to come. The already released EF lenses this fall may show that - but even more interesting will be to follow the 2019 - 2020 releases of new EF lenses and EF mount EOS cameraes. Canon has the power to maintain both RF and EF for years, and at least until the RF line is more "complete" - but when that time comes witin the next 8-10 years - will EF and DSLR then be continued? - I hope so.
After my first disappointment on Canon not bringing native EF mount to the future of mirrorless, I (think) i have deiced that my next buy will be the 24-70 f/2.8 mkII when i can afford it. And in 3 - 5 years from now, another EOS DSLR replacement from my current and beloved 6D. That will keep me going with EF lenses and cameras till I am in my middle or late 60's. That will do... - I think... ;-)


----------



## padam (Sep 13, 2018)

I think the EF 50/1.2 would do a bit better if it was corrected for focus shift, it could be slightly out of focus as it is being stepped down.
Or does he manually re-focus for every shot?

I know that RF lenses always open up to their widest aperture when focusing for stills in AF-S mode.
I guess EF lenses in liveview don't change the aperture to focus so no focus shift?


----------



## fullstop (Sep 13, 2018)

"blows away the EF counterpart". Lol. Not hard at all. EF 50/1.2 is notorious for its subpar performance.


----------



## Liverpool FC (Sep 13, 2018)

Had a look at the comparison between the new RF50 1.2 and the Sigma 50 Art. To my eyes, it seems the Sigma is performing tiny bit better.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 13, 2018)

Famateur said:


> Indeed. I think the new EF 400 and 600 L III lenses are a pretty solid statement (at $12 and $13K each, respectively) that EF isn't going to be obsolete any time soon.


Yes, because Canon sells millions of such lenses. These big whites address a need of a tiny fraction of Canon's top tier customers, namely working sports and wildlife professionals and fit, wealthy retirees. The new versions probably incorporate necessary technology to work optimally with the RF adapter.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 13, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Yes, because Canon sells millions of such lenses. These big whites address a need of a tiny fraction of Canon's top tier customers, namely working sports and wildlife professionals and fit, wealthy retirees. The new versions probably incorporate necessary technology to work optimally with the RF adapter.



exactly. And those 2 were the last big whites for an update. We will not see many new/updated EF lenses for quite a while. Now it's "RF time" at Canon.


----------



## Stuart (Sep 13, 2018)

Compare any old lens to a new one - the new one is better. Not surprised.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Sep 13, 2018)

I think the only thing the RF 50mm F/1.2L USM is lacking at this point is a high resolution EOS R body to equip it with. 30MP on the EOS R is no slouch, but an EOS Rs(R) without the AA filter and a 50-64MP sensor would really allow this lens to show its true colors.


----------



## nitram (Sep 13, 2018)

fullstop said:


> exactly. And those 2 were the last big whites for an update. We will not see many new/updated EF lenses for quite a while. Now it's "RF time" at Canon.



Just to jump in for a moment, I had thought that the other two big whites due for the refresh were the 300 f/2.8 and the 500 f/4. As per the rumors posted here, the 400 and the 600 would come out slightly earlier than the other two. But I believe you are right that there won't be ANY additional EF lenses coming. The existing ones are pretty great. If phototogs want the latest and greatest, they'll have to adopt the new system. Still, the existing lenses should continue to transmit light just as well as they did before the RF release


----------



## nitram (Sep 13, 2018)

padam said:


> I think the EF 50/1.2 would do a bit better if it was corrected for focus shift, it could be slightly out of focus as it is being stepped down.
> Or does he manually re-focus for every shot?
> 
> I know that RF lenses always open up to their widest aperture when focusing for stills in AF-S mode.
> I guess EF lenses in liveview don't change the aperture to focus so no focus shift?



Wait I don't quite understand - are you saying that EF lenses shift focus when at different apertures? That would be the first I have ever heard of that but I am always open to learn something new about lens design...


----------



## tron (Sep 13, 2018)

If they want they can make a new EF50mm 1.2L II with a similar IQ to the RF version. I base that on the excellent EF35mm 1.4L II and on EF85 1.4L IS.


----------



## DJL329 (Sep 13, 2018)

shunsai said:


> A straight EF version would be even better! I know the adapter thing was a joke, but I wonder if Canon is really only going to make an RF version of this lens.



Glad to see at least one person realized I was being facetious!


----------



## David Littleboy (Sep 13, 2018)

tmroper said:


> I went straight to comparing it to the Otus 55mm. The Otus stills beat it as far as sharpness on those test charts goes, but not by much. So, at half the price, the Canon is a steal!



Hmm. The weight and price are seriously not acceptable here. The "modern 50mm" game has gotten completely out of hand.

Meanwhile, at half the weight and half the price of this new Canon, the Voightlander (Cosina) 40/1.2 Nokton is looking very reasonable.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 13, 2018)

Liverpool FC said:


> Had a look at the comparison between the new RF50 1.2 and the Sigma 50 Art. To my eyes, it seems the Sigma is performing tiny bit better.


I thought maybe the RF 50 was a touch in front when you set them both to f/1.4, but either way they definitely seem close. The prices aren't close though.


----------



## freejay (Sep 13, 2018)

scrup said:


> Ef version please so I can use it on my dslrs and orphaned M


That is not possible: This lens design can be done only for RF mount due to its specifications. You can find videos from Canon USA on Youtube about this.


----------



## infared (Sep 13, 2018)

So glad that I have a 50mm Sigma Art!!!!


----------



## 6degrees (Sep 13, 2018)

tron said:


> If they want they can make a new EF50mm 1.2L II with a similar IQ to the RF version. I base that on the excellent EF35mm 1.4L II and on EF85 1.4L IS.



But Canon claims RF Mount, together with the short flange distance due to the mirrorless structure, creates better situations to develop better lenses, the advantages that EF Mount may not have.

Not sure how this compares with Sony E mount.

So I think this is important. We need detail comparison between Canon RF 50mm F1.2 and Zeiss Otus 1.4/55, a superior lens that claims no compromise.


----------



## tron (Sep 13, 2018)

6degrees said:


> But Canon claims RF Mount creates better situations to develop better lenses.


1. They say so but their 35mm 1.4L II and 85mm 1.4L IS proves them wrong. They make great EF lenses already!
2. And if you check Canon's new white paper for EOS R and RF lenses and more specifically the 24-105 comparison you will see that the new RF 24-105 is not a superset of its EF counterpart. In some areas it is better and in some it is worse!

So forgive me if I consider Canon's statement Marketing BS. Because even if partly true the above 2 facts make it hard for me to take them seriously! They can and have many excellent EF lenses who do not need improvement.

P.S Not to even add to the above list the EF16-35mm f/2.8L III and EF16-35 f/4L IS because that would disprove their statement for good!


----------



## vangelismm (Sep 13, 2018)

tron said:


> 1. They say so but their 35mm 1.4L II and 85mm 1.4L IS proves them wrong. They make great EF lenses already!
> 2. And if you check Canon's new white paper for EOS R and RF lenses and more specifically the 24-105 comparison you will see that the new RF 24-105 is not a superset of its EF counterpart. In some areas it is better and in some it is worse!
> 
> So forgive me if I consider Canon's statement Marketing BS. Because even if partly true the above 2 facts make it hard for me to take them seriously! They can and have many excellent EF lenses who do not need improvement.
> ...



We need to wait for those RF lens.


----------



## tron (Sep 13, 2018)

vangelismm said:


> We need to wait for those RF lens.


Even so the lenses I mentioned are so good that even if surpassed a little the difference will be negligible to be seen.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 13, 2018)

vangelismm said:


> We need to wait for those RF lens.


Exactly. Until a comparable RF lens is released you cannot say which would be better. But, I agree that there are many current EF lenses that are excellent.


----------



## Handrews (Sep 13, 2018)

Obviously, Canon marketing is looking to present the new RF mount as attractively as possible in order to convince users into buying RF lenses. That being said, let's not forget that 5D3, for instance, is still on sale 2 years after the introduction of 5D4. Canon's main interest is selling their stuff, and there's no way that they will all of a sudden stop making EF lenses. Canon takes great pride in selling 130+ million EF/EF-S lenses, so in my opinion we're going to see more outstanding EF lenses in the next years, just as we've seen so far, together with a growing number of RF lenses. Canon is just expanding its market share. Just my thought.


----------



## 6degrees (Sep 13, 2018)

tron said:


> 1. They say so but their 35mm 1.4L II and 85mm 1.4L IS proves them wrong. They make great EF lenses already!
> 2. And if you check Canon's new white paper for EOS R and RF lenses and more specifically the 24-105 comparison you will see that the new RF 24-105 is not a superset of its EF counterpart. In some areas it is better and in some it is worse!
> 
> So forgive me if I consider Canon's statement Marketing BS. Because even if partly true the above 2 facts make it hard for me to take them seriously! They can and have many excellent EF lenses who do not need improvement.
> ...



Assume it is true that RF Mount creates better situations.

It does not mean EF will not be able to develop super lenses. For example Otus series. It is just that RF Mount (with short flange distance) may provide better condition to develop better lenses. In other words, to deliver same optical image quality, the lenses can be designed in a simpler layout. Or, same layout may deliver better optical image quality.

It does not mean RF lenses are always better neither, because to cope with size and weight, the design can be compromised for different purposes.

So I think this may make sense. We need to see the reviews and lenses development progress down the road.

But Canon RF 50mm F1.2 is very prominent, not without the sacrifice in structure. It has more complicated structure than Otus 1.4/55. So comparing the two will be very interesting.

Comparing RF 50mm F1.2 with EF 50mm F1.2 does not prove anything, because RF 50mm F1.2 is a lots more complicated than EF 50mm F1.2.


----------



## tron (Sep 13, 2018)

Better condition is nothing if the cost is the same or more or IQ difference is not visible!

The RF 50 1.2 is obviously better than the quite older EF 50 1.2L. It doesn't say much if Canon chooses not to make an EF version II of it so as to make a valid comparison! 

And as I said before since the 24-105 RF and EF versions are comparable (and have a similar price) we - consumers - get no added value from the RF version. It is always better to compare apples to apples and yes we will have wait and see but allow me to repeat that the specific lenses I mentioned cannot be bettered so much so as to see it in practice.


----------



## zim (Sep 13, 2018)

tron said:


> If they want they can make a new EF50mm 1.2L II with a similar IQ to the RF version. I base that on the excellent EF35mm 1.4L II and on EF85 1.4L IS.



Absolutely and then compare that to the 50RF!
How old is the 50EF? What was the design remit for it? not the same as the RF I'd bet.

The 50RF is clearly a superb lens but comparing those two lenses to show how good it is strikes me as ridiculous.


----------



## Talys (Sep 13, 2018)

applecider said:


> And/or the EF 50 f1.2 was not a sharp lens especially wide open, much CA is present which the RF seems not to have. Go to wonder about vignetting, the RF should be better there as well.


On the other hand, owning the sharpest lens was never the reason most folks forked out for a EF50/1.2. Perhaps now there will be cheaper used 50/1.2's on the market


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 13, 2018)

DJL329 said:


> Glad to see at least one person realized I was being facetious!



On these forums, you can never "assume" when it comes to intelligent intent, particularly in the absence of an obvious "I'm joking" emoticon at the end


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 13, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Nah. Not even close. 10 years? 15? Not even close.



You must be joking. The minute the announcement comes out for the R-based 5DsR successor, EF is dead. But don't confuse "dead" in a production sense from "obsolete" in a useful sense. EF will continue to be useful for a very long time.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 13, 2018)

tron said:


> Better condition is nothing if the cost is the same or more or IQ difference is not visible!
> 
> The RF 50 1.2 is obviously better than the quite older EF 50 1.2L. It doesn't say much if Canon chooses not to make an EF version II of it so as to make a valid comparison!
> 
> And as I said before since the 24-105 RF and EF versions are comparable (and have a similar price) we - consumers - get no added value from the RF version. It is always better to compare apples to apples and yes we will have wait and see but allow me to repeat that the specific lenses I mentioned cannot be bettered so much so as to see it in practice.



There will be substantial value in the fact that the RF version will actually hit perfect focus nearly 100% of the time. The sharpness of the EF 24-105 doesn't mean much when back or front-focused.


----------



## tron (Sep 13, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> There will be substantial value in the fact that the RF version will actually hit perfect focus nearly 100% of the time. The sharpness of the EF 24-105 doesn't mean much when back or front-focused.


There is AFMA which takes care of that. Besides my 5D4 works just fine with my 24-105L. It seems to me that for some cases this maybe an issue but for other cases people may try to find excuses. But this is just my opinion. Plus if you have problems with the way your combo focuses or you just like the newest (but allow me to not agree with the greatest) then you should upgrade by all means. We all express opinions which are subjective.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 13, 2018)

tron said:


> There is AFMA which takes care of that. Besides my 5D4 works just fine with my 24-105L. It seems to me that for some cases this maybe an issue but for other cases people may try to find excuses. But this is just my opinion. Plus if you have problems with the way your combo focuses or you just like the newest (but allow me to not agree with the greatest) then you should upgrade by all means. We all express opinions which are subjective.



AFMA is not so great for zooms, but if worked for you, then that's good. Knowing a lens will not require AFMA to be 100% is a nice thing – not a reason to give up or move systems, but still a nice thing. I tried three 5D4 kits with the 24-105 and all three were very poor at nailing focus. The phrase "ain't nobody got time for that" comes to mind  But front/back-focusing aside, focus accuracy should be better on mirrorless/R, all other things being equal. The improvement in nailing focus on my GFX or Leica Q in comparison with the DSLRs I've owned is quite impressive.


----------



## Tom W (Sep 13, 2018)

Now that comparison makes me want an "R"! 
Wow!


----------



## tron (Sep 13, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> AFMA is not so great for zooms, but if worked for you, then that's good. Knowing a lens will not require AFMA to be 100% is a nice thing – not a reason to give up or move systems, but still a nice thing. I tried three 5D4 kits with the 24-105 and all three were very poor at nailing focus. The phrase "ain't nobody got time for that" comes to mind  But front/back-focusing aside, focus accuracy should be better on mirrorless/R, all other things being equal. The improvement in nailing focus on my GFX or Leica Q in comparison with the DSLRs I've owned is quite impressive.


I understand that some combination will have issues. For example, I had issues with my old 85 1.2L II but I part exchanged it with 85 1.4L IS. Suddenly I am satisfied to the point I haven't AFMA'ed yet


----------



## padam (Sep 13, 2018)

nitram said:


> Wait I don't quite understand - are you saying that EF lenses shift focus when at different apertures? That would be the first I have ever heard of that but I am always open to learn something new about lens design...


Yes, they do but to varying degrees, but the 50/1.2 is one of the worst offenders (you can calibrate it only to a specific aperture with a DSLR).

Just scroll down and you can see it demonstrated here: http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d?start=1

I saw one for the 85/1.2 and it didn't seem to have any.
So maybe even the good old EF 50/1.2 may get more consistent focus on a camera like the EOS R.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 13, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> There will be substantial value in the fact that the RF version will actually hit perfect focus nearly 100% of the time. The sharpness of the EF 24-105 doesn't mean much when back or front-focused.



Hmm, not quite my experience based on my use of the M cameras, which use the same DPAF system. It’s possible that part of it has to do with the really large focus box, though. I’d like to see it in practice. In fact I thought I even heard one of the (p)reviewers say that they found the R had occasional issues focusing at 1.2...


----------



## sebasan (Sep 13, 2018)

Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 was released January 2007. I think that it is logical that the new one is better than the old one.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 13, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> You must be joking. The minute the announcement comes out for the R-based 5DsR successor, EF is dead. But don't confuse "dead" in a production sense from "obsolete" in a useful sense. EF will continue to be useful for a very long time.



Not confused at all. Not dead in a production sense for a very long time. Nope.


----------



## nchoh (Sep 13, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Not confused at all. Not dead in a production sense for a very long time. Nope.



There are comments declaring the EF system to be dead. Let's consider for a minute if the EF were indeed dead.

The EOS-M is designed for compact and light. Just looking at the M lenses gives one a sense what small and light means. For example, there is an EF-S 55-250. For the M however, it's shrunk to 55-200mm - compact and light.

Then there is EOS R and obviously future R cameras to come.

1) How will Canon fill the XXD segment? 2) How will Canon fill the SL Segment? 3) How will Canon fill the Cine segment? Will there be no 7DM2 that is such a capable BIF shooter?

There are too many questions out there unanswered to proclaim that the EF lens line is dead.


----------



## tmroper (Sep 13, 2018)

David Littleboy said:


> Hmm. The weight and price are seriously not acceptable here. The "modern 50mm" game has gotten completely out of hand.
> 
> Meanwhile, at half the weight and half the price of this new Canon, the Voightlander (Cosina) 40/1.2 Nokton is looking very reasonable.


I agree about things getting a little out of hand. All I really want is a really good 1.4 (and I don't think I"m the only one). But an AF lens that is lighter than the Otus (which is manual focus), half the price, and almost as good IQ is pretty good. Although, as mentioned above, I guess the Sigma Art is close to all those, and even cheaper. And if I'm paying for a modern digital camera, I do want AF lenses to go along with it. I still shoot film, and love the IQ, size, and weight of my Summicron, but I don't love manual focus. It is maddening, though, that all these modern AF lenses have to be what feels like 10 times the size and weight of a little Summicron (in reality I'm sure it's a little less--I've never run the numbers).


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 13, 2018)

shunsai said:


> A straight EF version would be even better! I know the adapter thing was a joke, but I wonder if Canon is really only going to make an RF version of this lens.



Keep in mind that Canon's Engineers, due to differences with creating lenses for Mirrorless (vs. SLR) can employ different techniques now. For one, by Canon maintaining the larger diameter mount can make lenses that have less diameter changes in the barrels from front-to-back - the glass elements now can be more of a similar size so less bending of the incoming light rays. (part of this is also accomplished or enhanced by, the shorter flange distance to the sensor surface: 22mm in the new R vs. 44mm in your DSLR.) These physical changes help the Engineers overcome or mitigate some of the physics-related challenges of DSLR Optics.

Everything is always a balance (compromises) between size, weight, cost of materials and development, and ultimately cost to the user/customer (what will the market bear for this product? can we recoup development costs in 2 years? 3 years? etc.)


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 13, 2018)

sanj said:


> Insane! I wonder where all the people who used to defend the older 50mm will hide now.


To be fair to those who "defended" the current 50mm f1.2L, most were aware and did/do not shy away from it's shortcomings. With this group, it was more about the overall "look" that can/could be achieved with the lens. Just like any tool we have, you know the tool in your hand, what it's good for and what it's not so good for. You understand the weaknesses and the strengths and so use it in situations that utilize it's strengths. Similar to the 85mm f1.2L...


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 13, 2018)

These lenses look pretty amazing. I highly recommend finding the B&H 'first-look' video session round-table discussion that ran live yesterday afternoon on the new R system: including discussion of mainly the 28-70mm, 24-105mm, and the 50mm... 2 working Professionals were part of the panel - a fashion and product pro and a mainly portrait and event (weddings, theater, etc.) pro. They had some very interesting insights to share.


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 13, 2018)

Of course, at their respective price-points, they better be THE BEST...


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 13, 2018)

Quackator said:


> If the back focus distances allows an EF version: Yes please, prefer that.
> Why? Simple: Being able to use the rear drop in filter adapter for either C-PL or Vari-ND.
> 
> That is the biggest problem I see in using native R glass.
> The gave us the brillant rear filter adapter but it isn't in the full R glass.



But the new lenses, so far, don't have that super-wide diameters (in excess of 90mm or more) nor the bulbous front elements...


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 13, 2018)

tron said:


> 1. They say so but their 35mm 1.4L II and 85mm 1.4L IS proves them wrong. They make great EF lenses already!
> 2. And if you check Canon's new white paper for EOS R and RF lenses and more specifically the 24-105 comparison you will see that the new RF 24-105 is not a superset of its EF counterpart. In some areas it is better and in some it is worse!
> 
> So forgive me if I consider Canon's statement Marketing BS. Because even if partly true the above 2 facts make it hard for me to take them seriously! They can and have many excellent EF lenses who do not need improvement.
> ...



The new mount and physics of the new set up allow the Canon Engineers to "think outside the box" when it comes to lens design. (The box being the design parameters and constraints of designing lenses of a certain body diameter and where the rear element is a "fixed" minimum of 44mm (due to the mirror) from the sensor. You'll notice that while Canon changed/introduced a new mount, it is still the same basic diameter of the EF mount. Maintaining this "large" diameter of mount coupled with the shorter flange distance (22mm vs. 44mm) provides more leeway in mitigating/overcoming physics challenges of the bending of light rays onto the sensor at the same place and time...


----------



## gmon750 (Sep 13, 2018)

I own the EF 50mm f/1.2. The RF-version certainly seems to get all the attention. The reality is that in the end, photo output from either of these lenses will be indistinguishable for the majority of the users. Besides, having the flexibility of that RF adapter and the ability to insert filters has me wanting to keep mine.

They're both phenomenal lenses. Any perceivable differences between the two does not have me wanting to upgrade to it, especially at that price.


----------



## tron (Sep 13, 2018)

FramerMCB said:


> The new mount and physics of the new set up allow the Canon Engineers to "think outside the box" when it comes to lens design. (The box being the design parameters and constraints of designing lenses of a certain body diameter and where the rear element is a "fixed" minimum of 44mm (due to the mirror) from the sensor. You'll notice that while Canon changed/introduced a new mount, it is still the same basic diameter of the EF mount. Maintaining this "large" diameter of mount coupled with the shorter flange distance (22mm vs. 44mm) provides more leeway in mitigating/overcoming physics challenges of the bending of light rays onto the sensor at the same place and time...


This theory does not negate what I wrote in my post...


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 13, 2018)

gmon750 said:


> I own the EF 50mm f/1.2. The RF-version certainly seems to get all the attention. The reality is that in the end, photo output from either of these lenses will be indistinguishable for the majority of the users. Besides, having the flexibility of that RF adapter and the ability to insert filters has me wanting to keep mine.
> 
> They're both phenomenal lenses. Any perceivable differences between the two does not have me wanting to upgrade to it, especially at that price.


You clearly are using the old 50mm 1.2 in a way that works around the significant focusing and sharpness problems. Good for you! I like using 50mm closer than six feet, and I like to be able to stop down fractions of a stop from wide open. Also, focusing speed at events makes it second choice to even the clunky little 50mm f/1.4. Not in my kit.

When the true RF successor to the 5DIV comes out, with some of the current EOS R's shortcomings addressed, I'll get one and the new 50mm 1.2. On the other hand, if Canon surprises its EF customers with a working version of the 1.2, why should I be in a hurry to go with RF? Hmmm?

R&D for EF is officially in the rear viewer. Sure, a few more updates might dribble out to make older favorites work better on EF; otherwise, Canon is done with EF lens development. If an EF body is in the pipeline ready for release, yawn, why bother with it?

But this kind of talk scares the fish who want to swim in the EF tank forever more. Don't tap the glass!


----------



## Canedo (Sep 13, 2018)

may be a silly question but can I mount this lens to an M body?


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 13, 2018)

tron said:


> This theory does not negate what I wrote in my post...



What he wrote about it being easier to design a better lens for mirrorless is not a theory, it is a fact. Whether one specific model EF or RF is better than another is irrelevant. There are and will be good and bad lenses made for both.


----------



## Yasko (Sep 13, 2018)

EF obsolete? How so? I heard the adapter works flawlessly


----------



## tron (Sep 13, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> What he wrote about it being easier to design a better lens for mirrorless is not a theory, it is a fact. Whether one specific model EF or RF is better than another is irrelevant. There are and will be good and bad lenses made for both.


How is it irrelevant? If we have/there are very good EF lenses we gain nothing by replacing them with their RF counterpart (assuming we are satisfied by our DSLRs) They will not even be cheaper!


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 13, 2018)

Act444 said:


> Hmm, not quite my experience based on my use of the M cameras, which use the same DPAF system. It’s possible that part of it has to do with the really large focus box, though. I’d like to see it in practice. In fact I thought I even heard one of the (p)reviewers say that they found the R had occasional issues focusing at 1.2...



I overstated and then under-qualified. Not 100%, and not all mirrorless models. Better said, "Higher-end, full-frame mirrorless cameras are more capable of achieving accurate focus due to the way they focus off the sensor versus a camera with a mirror." Some mirrorless cameras will not measure up, of course, but not because they are mirrorless. And focus shift can still happen with mirrorless lens designs, too (diglloyd's reviews of the GF line), but in practice, I've never notice it being a problem for what I shoot, which is most often wide open or stopped down significantly.


----------



## tron (Sep 13, 2018)

Canedo said:


> may be a silly question but can I mount this lens to an M body?


Unfortunately not due to the flange distance there is no adapter.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 13, 2018)

tron said:


> How is it irrelevant? If we have/there are very good EF lenses we gain nothing by replacing them with their RF counterpart (assuming we are satisfied by our DSLRs) They will not even be cheaper!



It's irrelevant to proving or disproving the fact that it's easier to design a higher-performing lens for mirrorless than mirrored, which you called a "theory".


----------



## Yasko (Sep 13, 2018)

Quackator said:


> If the back focus distances allows an EF version: Yes please, prefer that.
> Why? Simple: Being able to use the rear drop in filter adapter for either C-PL or Vari-ND.
> 
> That is the biggest problem I see in using native R glass.
> The gave us the brillant rear filter adapter but it isn't in the full R glass.



Where is the sense in that? I don‘t expect the back focal length to be anywhere near the flange distance of EF... as you said, an adapter would be better than an RF version due to the newly introduced features.
The purpose of RF lenses is to make use of the greater diameter and make more compact lens design (or better performing lenses with similar footprint) feasible. Building them with an empty back would be stupid .


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 13, 2018)

tron said:


> This theory does not negate what I wrote in my post...


 No it does not.
I wasn't trying to negate but rather add/clarify that from an Engineering standpoint the new Mirrorless system w/RF mount allow for changes in how the lenses are designed from an internal and glass element perspective. The physics principles still apply when it comes to transference of light rays, etcetera. There is no question whatsoever that Canon's EF L lenses are top-of-the-line. What's interesting to me (and perhaps a few others) is why Canon put the "BLUE-GOO" in the 35mm f1.4L II but not in the newer 85mm f1.4L IS... I wonder if it was just because wide-angle lenses are more prone/susceptible to Flare than mid-to-longer telephoto lenses? That said, the 85mm f1.4L IS seems to be/do fine without it.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 13, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> You clearly are using the old 50mm 1.2 in a way that works around the significant focusing and sharpness problems. Good for you! I like using 50mm closer than six feet, and I like to be able to stop down fractions of a stop from wide open. Also, focusing speed at events makes it second choice to even the clunky little 50mm f/1.4. Not in my kit.
> 
> When the true RF successor to the 5DIV comes out, with some of the current EOS R's shortcomings addressed, I'll get one and the new 50mm 1.2. On the other hand, if Canon surprises its EF customers with a working version of the 1.2, why should I be in a hurry to go with RF? Hmmm?
> 
> ...


Even if mirrorless does end up dominating over DSLRs, it will be a long time before there are as many RF owners out there as there are EF owners at this point, so you'd think there will be a potential market for EF lenses for quite a while yet. It will be interesting to see how much effort Canon puts into further development of the EF system - lenses but bodies too. I'm hoping for plenty of EF development yet.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 13, 2018)

FramerMCB said:


> No it does not.
> I wasn't trying to negate but rather add/clarify that from an Engineering standpoint the new Mirrorless system w/RF mount allow for changes in how the lenses are designed from an internal and glass element perspective. The physics principles still apply when it comes to transference of light rays, etcetera. There is no question whatsoever that Canon's EF L lenses are top-of-the-line. What's interesting to me (and perhaps a few others) is why Canon put the "BLUE-GOO" in the 35mm f1.4L II but not in the newer 85mm f1.4L IS... I wonder if it was just because wide-angle lenses are more prone/susceptible to Flare than mid-to-longer telephoto lenses? That said, the 85mm f1.4L IS seems to be/do fine without it.


Having looked at the RF 50L versus Zeiss Otus 55 and Sigma 50 Art comparisons, I'm feeling less persuaded about the idea that RF lenses will allow significant improvements over EF lenses. Early days yet I know, but it's seeming the RF 50 will be similar to the EF Otus and Art lenses, and i believe its size and weight is between the two EF lenses. In other words, the RF 50 might turn out to be nothing more than a similar lens to what already exists for EF albeit made by third parties rather than Canon.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 13, 2018)

I'll say this again another way – if you need an EF lens to get work done or don't expect to buy an R body for a while, then of course, the the fate of the EF line means less to you. But if you shoot for personal pleasure or are a pro and don't necessarily need an EF lens right away, waiting would be the prudent thing to do. The resale value of used EF lenses is going to be on a downward curve effective immediately. And if you're even remotely thinking of going all-R, then dump your EF while the resale is still decent (or don't care and keep it forever).

Keep in mind that one thing hurting the EF mount is Canon has yet to release an EF-mount body with a stellar full frame sensor. Sure, the 5D4 hangs on to the edge of acceptable, but we all know where it stands in relation to some of the competition. If the 5DsR II or 5D5 is an EF camera, then we can all put down our umbrellas because the sky won't be falling. But I don't think that will happen.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 13, 2018)

tron said:


> 1. They say so but their 35mm 1.4L II and 85mm 1.4L IS proves them wrong. They make great EF lenses already!
> 2. And if you check Canon's new white paper for EOS R and RF lenses and more specifically the 24-105 comparison you will see that the new RF 24-105 is not a superset of its EF counterpart. In some areas it is better and in some it is worse!
> 
> So forgive me if I consider Canon's statement Marketing BS. Because even if partly true the above 2 facts make it hard for me to take them seriously! They can and have many excellent EF lenses who do not need improvement.
> ...



Of course, it may be that the new mount only helps certain lenses, but they had to release at least one basic standard zoom as the market demands it, but I tend to agree - they clearly want us to believe the new mount is intrinsically better, but some of that is surely marketing hype. However, I think that putting the emphasis on quality optics, which is a Canon strength, is the right way for them to go.


----------



## tron (Sep 13, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> It's irrelevant to proving or disproving the fact that it's easier to design a higher-performing lens for mirrorless than mirrored, which you called a "theory".


It is a theory for us that simply enjoy the end result without having to create them. I did not call it a lie simply theoretical. And the initial quote was off topic regarding my post. I simply said we have so many good EF lenses that it will be difficult and/or more expensive to be surpassed but even in this case the end result will not be obvious: How much better than 35mm 1.4L II ,etc....
The easy or difficult part is invisible to us if we get similar lenses (IQ and cost-wise).

To sum it up: As an end user I care for IQ and cost. Easy or difficult is on Canon's part and I didn't see it reflect on prices. Allow me to care for IQ and cost only!


----------



## tron (Sep 13, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Of course, it may be that the new mount only helps certain lenses, but they had to release at least one basic standard zoom as the market demands it, but I tend to agree - they clearly want us to believe the new mount is intrinsically better, but some of that is surely marketing hype. However, I think that putting the emphasis on quality optics, which is a Canon strength, is the right way for them to go.


Of course. And they already have top notch EF lenses some of which I already enjoy using. I wouldn't expect anything less from Canon. I believe their lenses are second to none.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 13, 2018)

tron said:


> It is a theory for us that simply enjoy the end result without having to create them. I did not call it a lie simply theoretical. And the initial quote was off topic regarding my post. I simply said we have so many good EF lenses that it will be difficult and/or more expensive to be surpassed but even in this case the end result will not be obvious: How much better than 35mm 1.4L II ,etc....
> The easy or difficult part is invisible to us if we get similar lenses (IQ and cost-wise).
> 
> To sum it up: As an end user I care for IQ and cost. Easy or difficult is on Canon's part and I didn't see it reflect on prices. Allow me to care for IQ and cost only!



What you wrote read differently to me, but no point in me arguing semantics as I hear what you're saying now.



tron said:


> ...if we get similar lenses (IQ and cost-wise). [for EF]



That IS the million dollar question, isn't it? I'm not so sure you will see an 28-70 f/2 for EF. I'm also going to predict an RF 100-400 f/4 or f/3.5-4.5, which you'll never see for EF. And this is at least in part due to the challenges of designing for the EF mount versus the RF.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 13, 2018)

scyrene said:


> ...they clearly want us to believe the new mount is intrinsically better, but some of that is surely marketing hype...



It's not marketing hype, it's physics.

Nikon didn't retire their Noct in 1997 and wait over 20 years to bring it back because they all of a sudden felt like it – it's because with their new mount, they can (I'm trying really hard to not use all caps). Canon hasn't waited over 20 years since they introduced the first EF 50 1.2L to radically improve its performance because they felt like it. They didn't pass on creating an EF 28-70 f2 all these years because they felt like it.

Nikon and Canon are making more impressive lenses now because of the new mounts and proximity to the sensor. /end of story


----------



## tron (Sep 13, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> What you wrote read differently to me, but no point in me arguing semantics as I hear what you're saying now.
> 
> 
> 
> That IS the million dollar question, isn't it? I'm not so sure you will see an 28-70 f/2 for EF. I'm also going to predict an RF 100-400 f/4 or f/3.5-4.5, which you'll never see for EF. And this is at least in part due to the challenges of designing for the EF mount versus the RF.


If you mean one or two exotic zooms I agree. But to tell the truth I do not consider them very practical. The 24-70 2.8 II is so much lighter and equally good. And EF400 DO II is much smaller and lighter than the existing 200-400 f/4 lens (which by the way indicates how big a 100-400 f/4 would be).


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 13, 2018)

tron said:


> If you mean one or two exotic zooms I agree. But to tell the truth I do not consider them very practical. The 24-70 2.8 II is so much lighter and equally good. And EF400 DO II is much smaller and lighter than the existing 200-400 f/4 lens (which by the way indicates how big a 100-400 f/4 would be).



Let's see how quickly "exotic" becomes "staple"  Agree that the 400 DO II is a great lens, but only if you don't need the 100-350 range. I'll compromise and say an RF version of the EF 100-400 II would likely exceed the performance of the EF version. We can always talk about not "needing" something, but often that has little to do with what people desire and are willing to buy.


----------



## deleteme (Sep 13, 2018)

jd7 said:


> Even if mirrorless does end up dominating over DSLRs, it will be a long time before there are as many RF owners out there as there are EF owners at this point, so you'd think there will be a potential market for EF lenses for quite a while yet. It will be interesting to see how much effort Canon puts into further development of the EF system - lenses but bodies too. I'm hoping for plenty of EF development yet.



Don't ask Sony A99x owners about how likely this might be. They have been left largely high and dry.


----------



## 6degrees (Sep 13, 2018)

Canedo said:


> may be a silly question but can I mount this lens to an M body?



Actually I would like to know if leica m lenses can be 100% effectively used on Canon R through adapters. Sony Alpha sensors’ thick covers cause known issues. I am not sure if same things exist in Canon R.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 13, 2018)

jd7 said:


> Even if mirrorless does end up dominating over DSLRs, it will be a long time before there are as many RF owners out there as there are EF owners



This is very wise and should be borne in mind by people more widely on these forums.


----------



## deleteme (Sep 13, 2018)

This seems to be a brilliant lens. However I note it follows the current fashion of being larger and bulkier than it's predecessor.
Thus is the state of the art of lens design today that ironically defeats the fantasy narrative of smaller, lighter mirrorless land.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 13, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> It's not marketing hype, it's physics.
> 
> Nikon didn't retire their Noct in 1997 and wait over 20 years to bring it back because they all of a sudden felt like it – it's because with their new mount, they can (I'm trying really hard to not use all caps). Canon hasn't waited over 20 years since they introduced the first EF 50 1.2L to radically improve its performance because they felt like it. They didn't pass on creating an EF 28-70 f2 all these years because they felt like it.
> 
> Nikon and Canon are making more impressive lenses now because of the new mounts and proximity to the sensor. /end of story



Um, well okay. I'm not a lens designer and don't know the intricacies of it. But as others have pointed out, excellent EF lenses - some by third parties - exist. And businesses will always seek to sell their new products with the most glowing language possible. Whether it's "physics" is a little more complicated. I've read a lot of debate and discussion on these forums over the past few years, and nobody has explained why mirrorless (closer lens-to-sensor distance or whatever) is better for more than a small range of lens types. If you know better, please enlighten us - I'm open-minded about it.


----------



## 6degrees (Sep 13, 2018)

tron said:


> How is it irrelevant? If we have/there are very good EF lenses we gain nothing by replacing them with their RF counterpart (assuming we are satisfied by our DSLRs) They will not even be cheaper!



I think the mirrorless short flange distance does provide better situations to develop lenses with better optical image quality. I believe it also means the lenses can be developed in simpler structure or smaller size for the same image quality as EF lenses/DSLR. At least for the wide angle lenses, it has been confirmed by lenses provider company. You can google it. I remember at least Sigma CEO mentioned that.


----------



## 6degrees (Sep 13, 2018)

FramerMCB said:


> No it does not.
> I wasn't trying to negate but rather add/clarify that from an Engineering standpoint the new Mirrorless system w/RF mount allow for changes in how the lenses are designed from an internal and glass element perspective. The physics principles still apply when it comes to transference of light rays, etcetera. There is no question whatsoever that Canon's EF L lenses are top-of-the-line. What's interesting to me (and perhaps a few others) is why Canon put the "BLUE-GOO" in the 35mm f1.4L II but not in the newer 85mm f1.4L IS... I wonder if it was just because wide-angle lenses are more prone/susceptible to Flare than mid-to-longer telephoto lenses? That said, the 85mm f1.4L IS seems to be/do fine without it.



You guys are probably wrong. Canon RF lenses will be better than EF lenses. It is for sure. The logic is very simple. The worse case for RF lenses is designed same as EF lenses and then push lenses away from sensor. Basically RF lenses can’t be worse than EF lenses. But the short flange distance may provide chances to improve image quality of the lenses. Make sense?

Three possible cases:

- Similar structure/size/weight, but improved image quality
- Same image quality, similar structure, but smaller size/weight
- Same image quality, similar size/weight, but simpler structure

Anything is a win.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 13, 2018)

Canedo said:


> may be a silly question but can I mount this lens to an M body?


Not officially, at some point some third party might make them as there is a couple of mm to play with so technically it is possible. But it will never get Canon support or be official and as the lenses are focus by wire I'm thinking it is probably never going to happen even via third party.


----------



## tron (Sep 14, 2018)

6degrees said:


> You guys are probably wrong. Canon RF lenses will be better than EF lenses. It is for sure. The logic is very simple. The worse case for RF lenses is designed same as EF lenses and then push lenses away from sensor. Basically RF lenses can’t be worse than EF lenses. But the short flange distance may provide chances to improve image quality of the lenses. Make sense?
> 
> Three possible cases:
> 
> ...


Except for the single common lens the 24-105 (according to Canon's own white paper - which can be downloaded in pdf format)
To be specific: They compare the RF with the EF 24-105 II and they find it in some combinations better and in some worse.
The same kind of comparison exists between 24-105 I and 24-105 II.
And the 24-105 I has exactly the same size as the RF (and is cheaper). And the RF costs exactly as the EF 24-105 II.
There is no clear winner between them.


----------



## tron (Sep 14, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> I'll say this again another way – if you need an EF lens to get work done or don't expect to buy an R body for a while, then of course, the the fate of the EF line means less to you. But if you shoot for personal pleasure or are a pro and don't necessarily need an EF lens right away, waiting would be the prudent thing to do. The resale value of used EF lenses is going to be on a downward curve effective immediately. And if you're even remotely thinking of going all-R, then dump your EF while the resale is still decent (or don't care and keep it forever).
> 
> Keep in mind that one thing hurting the EF mount is Canon has yet to release an EF-mount body with a stellar full frame sensor. Sure, the 5D4 hangs on to the edge of acceptable, but we all know where it stands in relation to some of the competition. If the 5DsR II or 5D5 is an EF camera, then we can all put down our umbrellas because the sky won't be falling. But I don't think that will happen.


DO you have 5D4 and consider it not stellar? Saying "to the edge of acceptable" is funny! (with the same logic EOS R would be below acceptable)


----------



## tron (Sep 14, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> Let's see how quickly "exotic" becomes "staple"  Agree that the 400 DO II is a great lens, but only if you don't need the 100-350 range. I'll compromise and say an RF version of the EF 100-400 II would likely exceed the performance of the EF version. We can always talk about not "needing" something, but often that has little to do with what people desire and are willing to buy.


It seems I failed to stress enough that the 100-400 f/4 you mentioned is very close to the existing 200-400 f/4 so only 28-70 seems like a good example. And you were right to say "would likely exceed" because you refer to an imaginary product and the EF100-400 II is also another excellent lens...


----------



## tron (Sep 14, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> Let's see how quickly "exotic" becomes "staple"  Agree that the 400 DO II is a great lens, but only if you don't need the 100-350 range. I'll compromise and say an RF version of the EF 100-400 II would likely exceed the performance of the EF version. We can always talk about not "needing" something, but often that has little to do with what people desire and are willing to buy.


OK we agree 100% on something


----------



## tron (Sep 14, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Not officially, at some point some third party might make them as there is a couple of mm to play with so technically it is possible. But it will never get Canon support or be official and as the lenses are focus by wire I'm thinking it is probably never going to happen even via third party.


If I recall correctly the difference is 2mm (20 vs 18). But it's a pity that an APS-C mirrorless camera cannot be a backup to a FF mirrorless camera!


----------



## dadohead (Sep 14, 2018)

tmroper said:


> I went straight to comparing it to the Otus 55mm. The Otus stills beat it as far as sharpness on those test charts goes, but not by much. So, at half the price, the Canon is a steal!



There's more to the Otus than just overall sharpness. Let's see how the bokeh and the micro contrast look before we get too excited.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 14, 2018)

tron said:


> DO you have 5D4 and consider it not stellar? Saying "to the edge of acceptable" is funny! (with the same logic EOS R would be below acceptable)



I owned one for about a month or two – the third one of three kits I tried. Maybe it was just the heavy AA filter, but I had difficulty getting sharp results that I could easily achieve with the 5D, 6D, and 5DsR I've had. Beyond that, I didn't like the heavy color noise in pulled shadows. I suppose since I landed on the GFX, I had some high expectations.

And the EOS R is below acceptable, too. I downloaded FROs DNG images and saw banding in the shadows when doing a heavy shadows push in Lightroom. What I did like about the R images was the sharpness. They looked so much sharper than the 5D4 with the 24-70 2.8 II. I'm not sure if that's due to the RF 28-70 f2 or if the R has a weaker AA filter. I have no reason to know either way, but I felt like what I was noticing was a weaker AA filter.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 14, 2018)

tron said:


> It seems I failed to stress enough that the 100-400 f/4 you mentioned is very close to the existing 200-400 f/4 so only 28-70 seems like a good example. And you were right to say "would likely exceed" because you refer to an imaginary product and the EF100-400 II is also another excellent lens...



Let's revisit this when they release the RF whites and see


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 14, 2018)

tron said:


> Except for the single common lens the 24-105 (according to Canon's own white paper - which can be downloaded in pdf format)
> To be specific: They compare the RF with the EF 24-105 II and they find it in some combinations better and in some worse.
> The same kind of comparison exists between 24-105 I and 24-105 II.
> And the 24-105 I has exactly the same size as the RF (and is cheaper). And the RF costs exactly as the EF 24-105 II.
> There is no clear winner between them.



Likely they set a more realistic goal for the RF 24-105 to at least match the EF performance in order to concentrate on the RF 28-70 f2 and RF 50 1.2, which needed to exceed expectations.


----------



## deleteme (Sep 14, 2018)

tron said:


> Except for the single common lens the 24-105 (according to Canon's own white paper - which can be downloaded in pdf format)
> To be specific: They compare the RF with the EF 24-105 II and they find it in some combinations better and in some worse.
> The same kind of comparison exists between 24-105 I and 24-105 II.
> And the 24-105 I has exactly the same size as the RF (and is cheaper). And the RF costs exactly as the EF 24-105 II.
> There is no clear winner between them.



IMO the inability of any maker to meaningfully improve on the 24-105 zoom probably means we are bumping up against some hard limits in lens design irrespective of flange distance, mount size or overall dimension.
That is most likely why the 24-70 designs yield better results.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 14, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> I owned one for about a month or two – the third one of three kits I tried. Maybe it was just the heavy AA filter, but I had difficulty getting sharp results that I could easily achieve with the 5D, 6D, and 5DsR I've had. Beyond that, I didn't like the heavy color noise in pulled shadows.



Are you sure you owned 5D Mk IV? It's especially good in terms of colour noise, including the shadows. At ISO 100 it's virtually non-existent and still pretty good at high ISOs. You need to really push the sensor to its limits in order to get the colour noise.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 14, 2018)

Damn shame I have to get a new type of camera for a good 50mm. I love an hate the 50mm 1.2L.


----------



## freejay (Sep 14, 2018)

tron said:


> Even so the lenses I mentioned are so good that even if surpassed a little the difference will be negligible to be seen.


Yes maybe. But they could be either cheaper or smaller/lighter.


----------



## tron (Sep 14, 2018)

freejay said:


> Yes maybe. But they could be either cheaper or smaller/lighter.


They could but at least price depends on Canon. Check with the RF 24-105. It's the same with EF24-105II


----------



## tron (Sep 14, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> I owned one for about a month or two – the third one of three kits I tried. Maybe it was just the heavy AA filter, but I had difficulty getting sharp results that I could easily achieve with the 5D, 6D, and 5DsR I've had. Beyond that, I didn't like the heavy color noise in pulled shadows. I suppose since I landed on the GFX, I had some high expectations.
> 
> And the EOS R is below acceptable, too. I downloaded FROs DNG images and saw banding in the shadows when doing a heavy shadows push in Lightroom. What I did like about the R images was the sharpness. They looked so much sharper than the 5D4 with the 24-70 2.8 II. I'm not sure if that's due to the RF 28-70 f2 or if the R has a weaker AA filter. I have no reason to know either way, but I felt like what I was noticing was a weaker AA filter.


There is a limit to where you can push shadows but this has been seriously improved from the 5D3. Even DPReview acknowledged that. If I recall correctly it had put the 5D4 just one stop below the sonikons in the shadow raising. But how many stops do you need to raise the shadows?

EDIT: If you went for GFX then I cannot comment on it - I do not know anything about it. Since its sensor is huge you must enjoy and/or need some very serious performance there.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 14, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> I owned one for about a month or two – the third one of three kits I tried. Maybe it was just the heavy AA filter, but I had difficulty getting sharp results that I could easily achieve with the 5D, 6D, and 5DsR I've had. Beyond that, I didn't like the heavy color noise in pulled shadows. I suppose since I landed on the GFX, I had some high expectations.
> 
> And the EOS R is below acceptable, too. I downloaded FROs DNG images and saw banding in the shadows when doing a heavy shadows push in Lightroom. What I did like about the R images was the sharpness. They looked so much sharper than the 5D4 with the 24-70 2.8 II. I'm not sure if that's due to the RF 28-70 f2 or if the R has a weaker AA filter. I have no reason to know either way, but I felt like what I was noticing was a weaker AA filter.



I think we should be comparing the two cameras with the same lens attached. So far, such a comparison does not exist.

But yes, I’m almost never happy with the 5D4 sharpness at the default 3/4/4 DPP setting. I usually end up using 4/3/3 or 4/3/2. With the 5D3 I had before I could typically leave it at 3/4/4, or bump up slightly to 4/4/4.

I like the R’s implementation of C-RAW. Anyone try this format out yet? With a 50MP body this could be useful...


----------



## BillB (Sep 14, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> Likely they set a more realistic goal for the RF 24-105 to at least match the EF performance in order to concentrate on the RF 28-70 f2 and RF 50 1.2, which needed to exceed expectations.


They also designed the RF 24-105 to similar weight and cost constraints as the EF equivalents, something that cannot be said for the RF 50 or the RF 28-70.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 14, 2018)

BillB said:


> They also designed the RF 24-105 to similar weight and cost constraints as the EF equivalents, something that cannot be said for the RF 50 or the RF 28-70.


So is the 24-105mm the kit lens for the EOS R? And why do we automatically consider a "kit" lens as an acceptably lower IQ compromise just because it is bundled with a $2000 or even $3500 or higher camera? (Alright, I shouldn't get started on kit lenses. I generally hate them. You get a good lens, problem body, or a great body and a soft copy of the lens, then what?)


----------



## Act444 (Sep 14, 2018)

I believe the 24-105 is being bundled with the R in certain kits, so yes. However, it appears that at the time of availability of the R body, only *one* RF lens - the 50 1.2 - will also be available. Still think they should have thrown in a basic adapter in the box by default.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 14, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Are you sure you owned 5D Mk IV? It's especially good in terms of colour noise, including the shadows. At ISO 100 it's virtually non-existent and still pretty good at high ISOs. You need to really push the sensor to its limits in order to get the colour noise.



I did. But I eventually landed on the 5DsR/100-400 II for tele shots + GFX for 100mm and below. I shoot lower ISOs, and I preferred the resolution, lack of AA filter, and overall IQ of the 5DsR over the 5D4.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 14, 2018)

tron said:


> There is a limit to where you can push shadows but this has been seriously improved from the 5D3. Even DPReview acknowledged that. If I recall correctly it had put the 5D4 just one stop below the sonikons in the shadow raising. But how many stops do you need to raise the shadows?
> 
> EDIT: If you went for GFX then I cannot comment on it - I do not know anything about it. Since its sensor is huge you must enjoy and/or need some very serious performance there.



I went 5DsR/GFX and couldn't look back to the 5D4. The 5DsR blew my mind – finally I was seeing razor sharp images at 1:1. I don't often make large prints, but I love the on-screen viewing experience of the higher res, no AA filter and being able to crop deeply for additional reach. Also prefer the more film grain-like quality of the 5DsR noise over the 5D4, and since I shoot lower ISOs, it was a good fit for my needs. At higher ISOs, the 5D4 is a more competitive offering, but I was evaluating at 400 and lower. And I'm in the minority with this observation, but I thought the 5DsR autofocus seemed more responsive than the 5D4, at least with the 100-400 II.

And yes, the GFX sensor + GF lenses is amazing. It's not only raising shadows that I need, it's the ability to apply destructive adjustments like Dehaze without the image falling apart (landscape shots), even at ISO 100. The GFX was the first sensor I've used that a liberal Dehaze filter wouldn't introduce too much noise at ISO 100.

I'm holding out hope for the 5DsR followup camera from Canon – recently sold my 5DsR and am waiting on news.


----------



## 6degrees (Sep 14, 2018)

I think Canon deliberately does not put all the important features, like IBIS, dual cards, full 4k video, eye AF, etc. into Canon R. Because Canon doesn’t want to impact its existing DSLR sales, not because Canon can’t do it or not plan to do it in the future.

To lure mirrorless crowd and not to impact its DSLR sales, they decide to put out two stellar lenses, 50RF and 28-70RF, which will be on top of each category to show the superior potentials of Canon R.

The two lenses are the things worth to own at the moment, and if you anticipate Canon R will surprise users down the road.

Do not question the two RF lenses. EF lenses won’t be able to compete with them. If your brain is clear, you will know DSLR/EF may just have a few years to go. It is old technology. It will be ended when Canon is fully ready to jump the ship.

JMTC.


----------



## tron (Sep 14, 2018)

Since 5D MkIV has better shadow behaviour than 5DsR it seems that you contradict yourself somehow. Unless you do not care about this in your telephoto shots. But anyway the 5DsR + 100-400II is a very nice combo.


----------



## adamfilip (Sep 14, 2018)

shunsai said:


> A straight EF version would be even better! I know the adapter thing was a joke, but I wonder if Canon is really only going to make an RF version of this lens.


 This lens is possible because of the RF Mount, they cant make a EF version of this. Lens Elements are specifically made for the RF mount distance. Notice how small the front element is. with RF Lenses the front element is relatively small compared to the rear element. opposite of EF lenses, the RF mount enables Canon to make sharper brighter lenses, checkout the whitepaper on the RF Mount / lenses its very interesting


----------



## gmon750 (Sep 14, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> EF is either already end of line or so close to being so that further investment should be thoroughly considered.


It’s not anywhere near EOL. Did you already forget the new EF lenses Canon introduced alongside their R line? It’ll be years before Canon abandons it’s dSLR market.

Quit making stuff up.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 14, 2018)

tron said:


> IF we accept that the adapter does not degrade IQ then sorry but an EF lens with the same design and 2cm extension would do the job (oversimplifying for fun but you get the point). Unless you are a lens designer you shouln't use the phrase:  "they cant make a EF version of this." when referring to Canon (or any other manufacturer).


No it's true, the reduced flange distance allows the lens designers to put elements further back in the design that completely changes the possibilities with regards the optical path. This is particularly relevant on lens that are close to or lower in focal length than the flange distance, the RF mount will gain very little in lens IQ where the focal length is 60-80mm and above, it has the possibility to improve aberrations in lenses 60-80mm and below in focal length, especially in the 50-20mm range, below 20mm it still has to have a refocus design, though not as extreme as the EF designs. So an RF 11-24 is very unlikely in the foreseeable future and lenses over 100mm will show very little if any IQ improvements over EF lenses used on an adapter.

If you look at the back of the EF 50 f1.2L and the 85 f1.2L you will see the rear element is fixed in the mount, it is fixed as far back as possible, a 'better' design would put it even further back which is possible with the RF mount but not possible with the EF mount.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 14, 2018)

gmon750 said:


> It’s not anywhere near EOL. Did you already forget the new EF lenses Canon introduced alongside their R line? It’ll be years before Canon abandons it’s dSLR market.
> 
> Quit making stuff up.



Like ants still doing their jobs when the queen is dead. EF is EOL, but that doesn't mean the ecosystem is dead. Yet.


----------



## tron (Sep 14, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> No it's true, the reduced flange distance allows the lens designers to put elements further back in the design that completely changes the possibilities with regards the optical path. This is particularly relevant on lens that are close to or lower in focal length than the flange distance, the RF mount will gain very little in lens IQ where the focal length is 60-80mm and above, it has the possibility to improve aberrations in lenses 60-80mm and below in focal length, especially in the 50-20mm range, below 20mm it still has to have a refocus design, though not as extreme as the EF designs. So an RF 11-24 is very unlikely in the foreseeable future and lenses over 100mm will show very little if any IQ improvements over EF lenses used on an adapter.
> 
> If you look at the back of the EF 50 f1.2L and the 85 f1.2L you will see the rear element is fixed in the mount, it is fixed as far back as possible, a 'better' design would put it even further back which is possible with the RF mount but not possible with the EF mount.


You answered too quickly! I have already though I made a mistake and deleted it (although I still believe only Canon employees know what they can and what they cannot). Since there is a super good 35mm 1.4L II and a very good 85mm 1.4L IS I still believe that 50 1.2L can be improved even not to the point of the RF lens but at least somewhere in between.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 14, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> Like ants still doing their jobs when the queen is dead. EF is EOL, but that doesn't mean the ecosystem is dead. Yet.



exactly. They don't want to understand it. Because they bought sh*t expensive EF glass and thought they'd be king with it. Forever!
They were so delusional to seriously believe Canon would bring big fat mirrorfree cameras with native EF mount pig snout. Slap, slap, slap!


----------



## BillB (Sep 14, 2018)

fullstop said:


> exactly. The don't want to understand it. Because they bought sh*t expensive EF glass and thought they'd be king with it. Forever!
> They were so delusional to seriously believe Canon would bring big fat mirrorfree cameras with native EF mount pig snout. Slap, slap, slap!


The bought pretty good EF glass and they still have pretty good EF glass. I don't know about thinking they were king, or whether they are delusional. That seems to be your department.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 14, 2018)

tron said:


> Since 5D MkIV has better shadow behaviour than 5DsR it seems that you contradict yourself somehow. Unless you do not care about this in your telephoto shots. But anyway the 5DsR + 100-400II is a very nice combo.



I qualified that I shoot under ISO 400, and I prefer the film-grain noise of the 5DsR over the chroma storm of the 5D4, so the trade-off was worth it to me. I do think the 5D4 has better overall color IQ, for what it's worth. If the 5D4 didn't have an AA filter or a very weak one like the original 5D, I might have stayed with it.

But back to my original post, I was simply stating the Canon R sensor and Canon's reputation (deserved or not) for lagging behind in DR isn't doing them any favors here. I wanted to see Canon's first mirrorless offering to showcase a new sensor that surpassed the 5D4 either in resolution, dynamic range, or both. We can all go down the "it's good enough" or "do you really need that?" rabbit holes until we end up using iPhones, or we can expect and even demand more in order to get our money.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> We can all go down the "it's good enough" or "do you really need that?" rabbit holes until we end up using iPhones, or we can expect and even demand more in order to get our money.



Or you can point to another manufacturer that is producing noticeably higher quality output, but you can't, because all of them are within a spitting distance.

Canon offer the highest resolution in a 135 format.
Canon offer the highest DR range in a 135 format from a single capture in a dual pixel RAW format, if you don't want the hassle of that then they lag by at most <1 stop of DR.

Demand whatever you want, but don't keep on with the Canon is lagging meme or use that, truth or not, to criticize them for not beating the competition by more.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 15, 2018)

tron said:


> You answered too quickly! I have already though I made a mistake and deleted it (although I still believe only Canon employees know what they can and what they cannot). Since there is a super good 35mm 1.4L II and a very good 85mm 1.4L IS I still believe that 50 1.2L can be improved even not to the point of the RF lens but at least somewhere in between.


And the TDP comparison between the RF 50L and a DSLR with the Otus 55 or Sigma 50 Art also tends to suggest you are right. After seeing that comparison my enthusiasm for the RF 50 disappeared. I want to see more comparisons (including factors other than sharpness) but at this point I do not see the RF 50 being any great step forward.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 15, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> ...because all of them are within a spitting distance.



Denial.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> Denial.


Show me where they aren't.
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 5D Mark IV,Nikon D850,Sony ILCE-7RM3
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 1D X Mark II,Nikon D5,Sony ILCE-9

Oh APS-C?
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 80D,Nikon D500,Sony ILCE-6500

Nobody has more than 1 stop of DR advantage anywhere in the ISO range. Maybe you believe the hype, I don't.


----------



## David Littleboy (Sep 15, 2018)

tmroper said:


> I agree about things getting a little out of hand. All I really want is a really good 1.4 (and I don't think I"m the only one). But an AF lens that is lighter than the Otus (which is manual focus), half the price, and almost as good IQ is pretty good. Although, as mentioned above, I guess the Sigma Art is close to all those, and even cheaper. And if I'm paying for a modern digital camera, I do want AF lenses to go along with it. I still shoot film, and love the IQ, size, and weight of my Summicron, but I don't love manual focus. It is maddening, though, that all these modern AF lenses have to be what feels like 10 times the size and weight of a little Summicron (in reality I'm sure it's a little less--I've never run the numbers).



Manual focus is fine if the lens reports to the camera and the aperture works. I got tired of the weight of the 24-70/2.8 II, and used the Voightlander Ultron 40/2.0 pancake lens for a while. On the 5D2, it's essentially AF, in that you half press, turn the ring until the AF system beeps, and shoot. Unless you are doing sports, it's fine. If you consider the time to frame the shot and select the AF point, it's really not all that slower than full AF. With no lens/camera interface, I'm sure it's a different story.

Size is important, too. The (discontinued) Zeiss 21/2.8 EF is "only" 600 gm, but it feels ridiculously large and heavy. The small lenses are in the 1/3 to 2/3 of that weight range, but you simply don't notice the weight.

I think Canon _was_ listening to us on the maddeningness of the weight business with the 24-105/4.0 RF. It's just that people (like me!) look at the MTF and test charts and complain if it ain't perfect, so most of their new lenses are enormous. Sigh.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 15, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Show me where they aren't.
> http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 5D Mark IV,Nikon D850,Sony ILCE-7RM3
> http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 1D X Mark II,Nikon D5,Sony ILCE-9
> 
> ...



It's ok. Canon will eventually produce a sensor that surpasses the competition. Not sure why only following a step or two behind the competition is acceptable, but likely the stellar glass keeps us holding on. I know it keeps me holding out hope for Canon, because I love the 100-400 II. You and I are not going to agree on this, so I'm putting my side of it to bed. I hope Canon can do better than the 5D4, and when they do – say a 45+mp AA-free body with better dynamic range and an RF 100-400 – I'll be there to buy it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> It's ok. Canon will eventually produce a sensor that surpasses the competition. Not sure why only following a step or two behind the competition is acceptable, but likely the stellar glass keeps us holding on. I know it keeps me holding out hope for Canon, because I love the 100-400 II. You and I are not going to agree on this, so I'm putting my side of it to bed. I hope Canon can do better than the 5D4, and when they do – say a 45+mp AA-free body with better dynamic range and an RF 100-400 – I'll be there to buy it.



I wouldn't know either, ask Nikon, their D5 is far and away the worst performer when compared to the direct competition. Other than that D5 there is never more than a stop difference between the big three anywhere in the iso range on any of their three most comparable cameras. Less than a stop is not the same as _"a step or two". _

If you look at the plots you will see Canon lead at some points of the DR scale, the 1DX MkII is better than the Sony or the Nikon between 160 and 600 iso, guess where I use my 1DX MkII most? So I could get a Nikon or Sony and get less sensor performance at my most used iso? At iso 320 the 5D MkIV outperforms both the Sony and the Nikon.

All nine cameras are within 1 stop of each other at all points on the iso range apart from the Nikon D5 that has comparatively bad performance at low iso, I think it is fair to say they are within spitting distance of each other, nobody has a clear advantage anywhere.

You saying I am in _"denial"_ is delusional, especially as I bring actual independent verifiable and repeatable evidence backing up my opinion. 

Now you have been shown to be 100% wrong we can both put our sides to bed. Wait for whatever you want, I am, just don't come out with crass comments about Canon lagging behind in sensor performance, it isn't true, it isn't accurate, and it can be shown to be untrue.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2018)

It's not about having different opinions, we are all entitled to our opinions and we are the only ones that can determine what equipment will work best for us or wether we need a specific feature set or not, it's about agreeing what the verifiable facts are. 

The verifiable facts do not back up your opinion, they do support my opinion.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 15, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> ...Wait for whatever you want, I am...



Glad we agree on something. Canon can do better.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 15, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> It's not about having different opinions...



My original words that were quoted that started this discussion with Tron were about the 5D4, and I think it's been blown up further than it needed to be.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> Glad we agree on something. Canon can do better.



Yes they can, but until they are pushed to by other manufacturers who actually pull out a noticeable difference they can, and will, spend their R&D budget in other places.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> My original words that were quoted that started this discussion with Tron were about the 5D4, and I think it's been blown up further than it needed to be.


Yes, mainly because you said I was in _"denial" _ I simply provided evidence to back up my comments. I didn't badmouth you, I didn't get aggressive, I just pointed you to verifiable independent repeatable evidence.

To me that is how these forums are supposed to work.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 15, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes they can, but until they are pushed to by other manufacturers who actually pull out a noticeable difference they can, and will, spend their R&D budget in other places.



Well, if it's a choice between having a sensor that's not what I want it to be (charts be damned, I didn't like what I saw coming off the 5D4 from noise to the mushy AA filter) and having the best glass in the industry (which Canon does), I'll take the latter. But I think we can have both. I want both.

Since I ended up with the 5DsR and GFX, you can see how I split the difference and where my priorities were. I have two high-resolution, AA-free cameras with amazing glass. One has the dynamic range I need, the other has the lens selection and performance above 100mm (at the time at least since there is now a GF 250 + 1.4x that I can't yet afford).


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 15, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> I didn't badmouth you...



Pretty sure calling someone "delusional" is a step beyond saying they are in denial, but hey, maybe it's not a full step, maybe it's just a half step difference


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 15, 2018)

nitram said:


> Just to jump in for a moment, I had thought that the other two big whites due for the refresh were the 300 f/2.8 and the 500 f/4. As per the rumors posted here, the 400 and the 600 would come out slightly earlier than the other two. But I believe you are right that there won't be ANY additional EF lenses coming. The existing ones are pretty great. If phototogs want the latest and greatest, they'll have to adopt the new system. Still, the existing lenses should continue to transmit light just as well as they did before the RF release


I wouldn't put too much faith in his prognostication record if I were you. When the new lenses were announced he kinda died inside, just a little.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 15, 2018)

I'm more interested in the 35 1.8m, I'd love to use that instead of the 1.4 (waight reasons).


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 16, 2018)

wockawocka said:


> I'm more interested in the 35 1.8m, I'd love to use that instead of the 1.4 (waight reasons).



Good to see that it is recognized by someone  While I see this lens as a great addition maybe to my 70-200 f/4 zoom I would like to see a big brother or sister: An RF 70mm 1.8 Macro with IS and if IS needs to go down to f/2 for reasonable pricing and size/weight I would take that too!


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 17, 2018)

Of course it does! People stuck in the past still believe that old technology is going to be better or the same as new one. One more reason to get rid of your old EF and DSLR equipment. It will be dead in 2 years.


----------



## BillB (Sep 17, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> Of course it does! People stuck in the past still believe that old technology is going to be better or the same as new one. One more reason to get rid of your old EF and DSLR equipment. It will be dead in 2 years.


I don't know what you mean by dead within 2 years. In two years, today's EF and DSLR equipment will be the same as it is now, and just as usable.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 17, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> Of course it does! People stuck in the past still believe that old technology is going to be better or the same as new one. One more reason to get rid of your old EF and DSLR equipment. It will be dead in 2 years.



If everyone upgrades to RF in the next two years there is one thing you should do.
Buy all the CAJ (Canon stock) you can, the windfall of cash that it will take to replace all those EF bodies and lenses will be massive.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 19, 2018)

sanj said:


> Insane! I wonder where all the people who used to defend the older 50mm will hide now.


Who defended it? In what way? Why would they "hide" now?


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 19, 2018)

BillB said:


> I don't know what you mean by dead within 2 years. In two years, today's EF and DSLR equipment will be the same as it is now, and just as usable.


I've started my stopwatch. Waiting for the death throws of my current obsolete gear that can't take a decent photo since....

Bill, these people are nuts. Betcha 90% don't own a cotton pickin' thing they are declaring dead. If they do, they never could take a decent photo to begin with.


----------



## masterpix (Sep 19, 2018)

it could serve a lot better comparison if they could match the 1.2L's on the same sensor, for example, the R and the 5DVI. Then the comparison would be equivalent. Comparing different lenses on different sensors does not allow real comparison.


----------



## masterpix (Sep 19, 2018)

BillB said:


> I don't know what you mean by dead within 2 years. In two years, today's EF and DSLR equipment will be the same as it is now, and just as usable.


I agree, I had my rebel (6MP) camera working for over 8 years before I replaced it with the 7D which is now almost 8 years old. Some of the EF lenses I used on my Rebel-G are over 20 years old and work like new... to be true, using an adapter I use some of my father FD lenses (manually) still. So I won't be so easy to morn the "death" of my EF lenses as yet.


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 19, 2018)

6degrees said:


> You guys are probably wrong. Canon RF lenses will be better than EF lenses. It is for sure. The logic is very simple. The worse case for RF lenses is designed same as EF lenses and then push lenses away from sensor. Basically RF lenses can’t be worse than EF lenses. But the short flange distance may provide chances to improve image quality of the lenses. Make sense?
> 
> Three possible cases:
> 
> ...


 I don't think either of us were saying that RF lenses won't be better. I believe they will, especially if some of these first offerings are any indication. I think the other point was that the current line-up of EF L-series lenses are mostly stellar lenses. Especially the primes - the 24mm f1.4L II, 35mm f1.4L II(wowsers), and the 85mm f1.4L IS... 

Just because a new tech is better than the older tech doesn't render the older tech "bad"... It's like so many knocking Canon sensor tech from 1 generation to the next... don't forget, Pros were making fine images with the D60, Canon's second foray into Digital cameras. Just as people did with EOS 10D's, 5D "Classics", and so on and so forth. Are these suddenly "shitty" cameras that can't make good/great images? No. There's just better tech now that makes it easier to capture better images...


----------



## Viggo (Sep 22, 2018)

I would hardly call the 24 L II “stellar” it’s one of the worst L’s...

And definitely one of those earliest RF mount lenses that will come out imo. Then they get to show yet another lens, one is being the RF50, for RF that runs circles around the EF counterpart...


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 22, 2018)

FramerMCB said:


> Pros were making fine images with the D60, Canon's second foray into Digital cameras. Just as people did with EOS 10D's, 5D "Classics", and so on and so forth.
> .



TBH I think that when it comes to traditional portrait photography, so head & shoulders and tighter, the original 5D is one of the best cameras around. Also as at that FOV most (sensible) people want to be reasonably well stopped down the lack of AFMA isn't too much of an issue either.


----------



## sdz (Sep 22, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Not confused at all. Not dead in a production sense for a very long time. Nope.



Dead as in, Canon will devote few resources to EF camera development.

That claim may not be accurate, though. My barely educated guess is that an R version of the 5DS R would be an easier camera to produce than an R version of the 1D X II camera. Many more pixels and a card slot would suffice for the R verson of the 5DS R. The R verson of the 1D X series camera would likely need improved sensor and processing tech. It would need a new sensor with the gee gaws Sony has but Canon now lacks. We may see an 1D X III before the mirrorless version of this camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 22, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> TBH I think that when it comes to traditional portrait photography, so head & shoulders and tighter, the original 5D is one of the best cameras around. Also as at that FOV most (sensible) people want to be reasonably well stopped down the lack of AFMA isn't too much of an issue either.


That's because you didn't own the 1DS MkIII  That has an absolutely beautiful low iso output especially for skin tones. At less than $1,000 on the used market they have to be the bargain of secondhand DSLR's.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 22, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> That's because you didn't own the 1DS MkIII  That has an absolutely beautiful low iso output especially for skin tones. At less than $1,000 on the used market they have to be the bargain of secondhand DSLR's.


I'm sure you're right ! I find it interesting that these cameras from a few generations back, 10 years or more so a lifetime in digital, are still so good when compared with the latest gear for portraiture yet when it comes to subtle colour fidelity in a landscape shot for instance, especially differentiating the most subtle tonal differences in greens, they are way behind.


----------



## sdz (Sep 22, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> Keep in mind that one thing hurting the EF mount is Canon has yet to release an EF-mount body with a stellar full frame sensor. Sure, the 5D4 hangs on to the edge of acceptable, but we all know where it stands in relation to some of the competition. If the 5DsR II or 5D5 is an EF camera, then we can all put down our umbrellas because the sky won't be falling. But I don't think that will happen.





tron said:


> DO you have 5D4 and consider it not stellar? Saying "to the edge of acceptable" is funny! (with the same logic EOS R would be below acceptable)



If we replace 'stellar' with 'best in class' then HDM's evaluation would make better sense. But a problem remains with his evaluation. An always relavant question to ask in these instances is: Which camera sold today by a top camera maker produces bad photos when used according to its intended purpose? 'Good photos' here means 'acceptable to a reasonable person' that knows photography. The R, with its banding problems, will likely produce good photos in most instances. The 5D IV produces good photos. Neither camera has a best in class sensor. Reasonable and knowledgeable photographers use the 5D IV.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 24, 2018)

sdz said:


> ...An always relavant question to ask in these instances is: Which camera sold today by a top camera maker produces bad photos when used according to its intended purpose?...



Exactly the wrong question to be asking.

Canon needs a D850-class sensor like the desert needs rain and to try and smooth it over with these kind of "no duh" arguments won't change that fact.


----------



## sdz (Sep 24, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> Exactly the wrong question to be asking.
> 
> Canon needs a D850-class sensor like the desert needs rain and to try and smooth it over with these kind of "no duh" arguments won't change that fact.



Why does Canon need these sensors? To make more money than it makes now? To stand atop the hill?


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 24, 2018)

sdz said:


> Why does Canon need these sensors? To make more money than it makes now? To stand atop the hill?



For the users. Rent a GFX, D850, or A7RIII for a few days and see for yourself.


----------



## sdz (Sep 24, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> For the users. Rent a GFX, D850, or A7RIII for a few days and see for yourself.



See the small difference in image quality between them?


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 24, 2018)

sdz said:


> See the small difference in image quality between them?



I would characterize the differences as significant, at least to the kind of images I produce. Canon still leads on color science, lens design, and user interface, so a class-leading Canon sensor in a 5D5 or 5DsRII (or coming high-res, pro R body) would be the holy grail for me and I think for a lot of other people, too.

The GFX/D850 are right at the point where new sensor improvements will have diminishing returns, but Canon isn't quite there yet. (I'm revisiting your "how good is good enough" statement.) Of course, at some point we will get a generational improvement with global shutters and organic sensor dynamic range, and we can reset expectations accordingly.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 1, 2018)

I learned today the RF50 has 4 stops of vignetting wide open, that’s no good, in fact it might be a deal breaker... especially since AF coverage is one of the big reasons I’m buying the EOS R... was there really no way to keep it around 2,5 stops? Wow... and if the R shows banding when correcting 4 stops that means useless corners , no matter how sharp they are... bah...


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 1, 2018)

Viggo said:


> I learned today the RF50 has 4 stops of vignetting wide open, that’s no good, in fact it might be a deal breaker... especially since AF coverage is one of the big reasons I’m buying the EOS R... was there really no way to keep it around 2,5 stops? Wow... and if the R shows banding when correcting 4 stops that means useless corners , no matter how sharp they are... bah...


This is troubling news.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 3, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> TBH I think that when it comes to traditional portrait photography, so head & shoulders and tighter, the original 5D is one of the best cameras around. Also as at that FOV most (sensible) people want to be reasonably well stopped down the lack of AFMA isn't too much of an issue either.



Never used the original 5D so can’t speak for it, but out of all the cameras I’ve used since 2010 when I got serious, I like the 5DSR rendition the best. Shots taken with the 100 or 85 - when exposed correctly, the images are almost perfect out of camera, very little if any PP needed on my part. The skin tones, OOC colors, and rendering make it my favorite camera for that use. In fact, if it wasn’t for the lack of speed, I’d probably be using it as my main camera...


----------



## Viggo (Oct 3, 2018)

applecider said:


> And/or the EF 50 f1.2 was not a sharp lens especially wide open, much CA is present which the RF seems not to have. Go to wonder about vignetting, the RF should be better there as well.



It’s worse with vignetting, the RF has FOUR stops... I was so disappointed ...


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 3, 2018)

Act444 said:


> Never used the original 5D so can’t speak for it, but out of all the cameras I’ve used since 2010 when I got serious, I like the 5DSR rendition the best. Shots taken with the 100 or 85 - when exposed correctly, the images are almost perfect out of camera, very little if any PP needed on my part. The skin tones, OOC colors, and rendering make it my favorite camera for that use. In fact, if it wasn’t for the lack of speed, I’d probably be using it as my main camera...


Yes, the 5Ds/sr is superb. My main camera now. Finally banished the nostalgic ghostly yearning of MF or even LF film.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 8, 2018)

Why does Rockwell get some vignetting and TDP gets 4(!) stops?

Ken had some uncorrected and some corrected, this is the uncorrected.

Is the TDP shot just severely underexposed?


----------



## Viggo (Oct 8, 2018)

SaP34US said:


> Was supposed have 5 or 6 stops how could Canon claim that if it only has 4 and with Vingetting? What is the truth about the lens?


Not quite sure I got what you meant?


----------



## SaP34US (Oct 9, 2018)

What is the image quality from lens? Does have vingetting and how serious is it? Not very many people have used it yet.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 9, 2018)

SaP34US said:


> What is the image quality from lens? Does have vingetting and how serious is it? Not very many people have used it yet.


TDP has some intiltal tests of performance among others, vignetting and found FOUR stops. Ken Rockwell also has a test of image quality etc. Did I not mention that in the previous post?

It’s REALLY sharp, but what good is f1.2 when the corners are f5.


----------



## MartinF. (Oct 24, 2018)

woodman411 said:


> It will be interesting to see if an updated EF 50 1.2L ever comes out, along with the 24-70 f/2.8L IS. If either doesn't show up for EF, it'll be time to switch over.



That is exactly also my dilemma. I am saving up to a 24-70 f/2.8 mkII, but when will EF mount/ EOS DSLR be a dead end? Probably not the first 5 to 10 years, but I guess it will be sometime in the future, and that is quite frustrating.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 24, 2018)

I had a go with the RF50 yesterday and my god what a lens! I’m buying for sure! The IQ at 1.2 is almost not rivaled by anything larger than f2.0 in any lens ever. It’s amazing. 

And I did not notice a lot of vignetting at all, so I don’t know how TDP got theirs to show four stops. I say it’s very close to the 85 f1.4 L.

And the lack of aberrations even in the extreeeeme cornes is crazy. It’s sharper at 1.2 by quite some bit than my 35 L II... AF is instant and so certain. It made my 85 L IS seem like a toy. Also much lighter than I expected.


----------



## snappy604 (Oct 24, 2018)

Viggo said:


> I had a go with the RF50 yesterday and my god what a lens! I’m buying for sure! The IQ at 1.2 is almost not rivaled by anything larger than f2.0 in any lens ever. It’s amazing.
> 
> And I did not notice a lot of vignetting at all, so I don’t know how TDP got theirs to show four stops. I say it’s very close to the 85 f1.4 L.
> 
> And the lack of aberrations even in the extreeeeme cornes is crazy. It’s sharper at 1.2 by quite some bit than my 35 L II... AF is instant and so certain. It made my 85 L IS seem like a toy. Also much lighter than I expected.



Samples! I'm sure there are cats nearby


----------



## brad-man (Oct 25, 2018)

Viggo said:


> I had a go with the RF50 yesterday and my god what a lens! I’m buying for sure! The IQ at 1.2 is almost not rivaled by anything larger than f2.0 in any lens ever. It’s amazing.
> 
> And I did not notice a lot of vignetting at all, so I don’t know how TDP got theirs to show four stops. I say it’s very close to the 85 f1.4 L.
> 
> And the lack of aberrations even in the extreeeeme cornes is crazy. It’s sharper at 1.2 by quite some bit than my 35 L II... AF is instant and so certain. It made my 85 L IS seem like a toy. Also much lighter than I expected.


And therein lies Canon's marketing prowess. They aren't going to force you to switch over to mirrorless, the're going to make you _want to_...


----------



## Viggo (Oct 25, 2018)

snappy604 said:


> Samples! I'm sure there are cats nearby


I’ll see what I can do today I took some in the store and a couple outside... they needed it back for a presentation, well, I had it first I replied and got a few more, lol


----------



## Viggo (Oct 25, 2018)

brad-man said:


> And therein lies Canon's marketing prowess. They aren't going to force you to switch over to mirrorless, the're going to make you _want to_...


Fine by me


----------



## Talys (Oct 25, 2018)

AuroraChaserDoug said:


> On the wide end, the RF 50mm 1.2 not only blows away the EF 50mm 1.2L but is impressive against other lenses including the excellent EF 24-70mm 2.8L II (50mm at f/2.8).



It had better blow the 24-70 out of the water... that's a prime vs a zoom that's substantially cheaper  

The EF50/1.2 was never a sharp lens (heck, just compare it with a 50/1.8STM), but that's not why anyone bought it. On the other hand, if you compare RF50/1.2L IS with EF 85/1.4L IS, they are both razor sharp.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 25, 2018)

Talys said:


> It had better blow the 24-70 out of the water... that's a prime vs a zoom that's substantially cheaper
> 
> The EF50/1.2 was never a sharp lens (heck, just compare it with a 50/1.8STM), but that's not why anyone bought it. On the other hand, if you compare RF50/1.2L IS with EF 85/1.4L IS, they are both razor sharp.


I think he meant 50 vs 24-70 both wide open. And that’s true the 50 is sharper. The 35 L II matches the 24-70 at 35 both wide open.

I’m sorry to disappoint you, but the 85 f1.4 L IS isn’t even remotely close to the wicked sharpness of the RF50 both wide open...


----------



## Act444 (Oct 25, 2018)

The 85 1.4 is super sharp at apertures f2.8 and narrower. It also produces decent results at f2 - on the 5DSR no less - and if you put your subject in the center, even wide open at 1.4. The fact that this lens is stabilized puts it at a major advantage, IMO. At least until Canon finally comes out with an IBIS R body.

The RF 50 looks like a winner...I have been waiting for a decent 50 from Canon ever since I started shooting their DSLRs. Just hate that I can’t get it for use on my 5D cameras!


----------



## Viggo (Oct 25, 2018)

Couple of sample shots, I didn't want to use center, but see more in high contrast and typical problem areas with corner performance. I love how easy it is to use extreme corner focus.

Nothing special, but I think they show what I wanted to know, CA, sharpness in the extreme corners, vignetting, bokeh and focus etc..

Everything at "0" in Lightroom, except some added sharpness.

f1.2 sample
f1.2 extreme left upper corner focus


----------



## Act444 (Oct 26, 2018)

Nice. One of the issues I have with the EF version - two, actually - is consistency of focus at 1.2 with outer points (i.e., away from the center), and focus shift when stopped down, particularly between 2.8 and 4. Does the RF version suffer from these setbacks? Some reviews mentioned occasional backfocus at 1.2. Honest opinions...


----------



## Viggo (Oct 26, 2018)

Act444 said:


> Nice. One of the issues I have with the EF version - two, actually - is consistency of focus at 1.2 with outer points (i.e., away from the center), and focus shift when stopped down, particularly between 2.8 and 4. Does the RF version suffer from these setbacks? Some reviews mentioned occasional backfocus at 1.2. Honest opinions...


All the shots I took were spot on at least. It wasn’t more than a hundred or so, but 77 of them would have been off with a DSLR and the EF 50

The focus shift was due to lack of a floating element in the EF version, and is almost the only lens in the EF lineup that suffers that bad with it.

I didn’t shoot at any other aperture than 1.2, so I can’t say for certain. But considering all the [email protected] Canon got for the 50 L they surely have corrected it all in RF.


----------



## mangobutter (Mar 5, 2019)

shunsai said:


> A straight EF version would be even better! I know the adapter thing was a joke, but I wonder if Canon is really only going to make an RF version of this lens.




Physically impossible. The whole reason this type of lens with this particular performance exists is due to the reduced flange distance. That's the whole reason behind the new mount. New options for lens designers never before possible. With this new mount, Canon is going to wipe the FF mirrorless floor with everyone. If they can create legends in the past with a huge flange distance/mirror box space, imagine what they can do with the rear element right up against the sensor.


----------



## sfeinsmith (Mar 29, 2019)

shunsai said:


> A straight EF version would be even better! I know the adapter thing was a joke, but I wonder if Canon is really only going to make an RF version of this lens.



Seek to use RF lenses to EF? Unfortunately, it will not work because of the RF lenses' flange focal length was 20mm compared with EF lenses are 44mm. It means the RF lenses must inside the EF camera body by 24mm. If you can recall an incident by Canon changed FD lenses, 42mm to EF caused an incompatible situation. Canon did again twice at this time with flange situation. DO NOT buy any RF lenses or Canon R camera bodies. They are worthless!!! Canon will have to redesign RF lenses to EF in the coming future.


----------



## Jethro (Mar 30, 2019)

sfeinsmith said:


> DO NOT buy any RF lenses or Canon R camera bodies. They are worthless!!! Canon will have to redesign RF lenses to EF in the coming future.


----------



## BeenThere (Dec 1, 2019)

Famateur said:


> Indeed. I think the new EF 400 and 600 L III lenses are a pretty solid statement (at $12 and $13K each, respectively) that EF isn't going to be obsolete any time soon.


Like Dracula’s third bite, sucking the final bit of blood from EF customers.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 1, 2019)

People buy an f/1.2 lens for sharpness?


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 1, 2019)

stevelee said:


> People buy an f/1.2 lens for sharpness?


This one, yes!


----------



## Viggo (Dec 1, 2019)

stevelee said:


> People buy an f/1.2 lens for sharpness?


Oh yes! I like to use them at f1.2, but previously the IQ was horrible so I didn’t...


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 1, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Oh yes! I like to use them at f1.2, but previously the IQ was horrible so I didn’t...


Mine will be here Tuesday. Can't wait!


----------



## Viggo (Dec 1, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Mine will be here Tuesday. Can't wait!


Excellent !


----------



## stevelee (Dec 1, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> This one, yes!


For a little slice of the image, mainly. With the background so blurry, that should make the part in focus seem sharper. I have a 55mm f/1.2 for my film camera. I must have got it with the body to start off with. I haven’t used it in so long that I don’t recall any particulars about it or how I used it.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 1, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Mine will be here Tuesday. Can't wait!



I was a little concerned that only 35mm difference between this and the 85mm didn't justify having both. I'm so happy I was wrong! Very different uses and feel, both great, from my experience. Enjoy!


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 3, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> I was a little concerned that only 35mm difference between this and the 85mm didn't justify having both. I'm so happy I was wrong! Very different uses and feel, both great, from my experience. Enjoy!


I'm interested to see how that feels. I never pay attention to what focal length I am at with the zooms. I have some old 50mm - 58mm vintage MF lenses, but rarely have I used them. In fact, there's a friend in Chicago that has about 20 of my old lenses he's trying out. I'm hoping he buys the whole box.


----------



## mkamelg (Dec 6, 2019)

I bought it. I still have also the EF 50mm f/1.2L USM lens so I did a little comparison:

 https://1drv.ms/u/s!Asmd3i9rvqAblxG0b-pMSWuit8wl?e=1xnuhq

These are my first photos taken with this lens:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mkamelg/albums/72157712079654033

Do I have any conclusions?

Stay away from Christmas lighting, where LEDs give cold light. Why? Becaue in this case this lens generates horrible onion bokeh in full de-focus mode. 

Giant onion Christmas tree:

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Asmd3i9rvqAblzEcYx7t8KExcfWS?e=eveYK5

I know, I know, it's a similar story like with Zeiss Otus lenses http://www.verybiglobo.com/zeiss-mi...iss-planar-851-4-comparative-lens-review-2/7/ so we should be happy, right?

In my opinion, the weakest point of this lens is its housing. Why?

Look at your copy of the lens. In my copy you can see the joining of two fragments of the housing (this is probably one of the places where the material is welded, second two are located on both sides of the switches). When you squeeze the casing in a specific way (as shown in one of the pictures posted below), you will hear a click type sound.

I hope this is not a factory defect.  Do you have joining of two fragments of the housing in the same place as me, different place or you don't have it at all?

Generally the part of the housing below the MF ring is very flexible and bends under stronger finger pressure. In the EF 50mm f/1.2L USM lens housing is definitely more solid.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 6, 2019)

mkamelg said:


> I bought it. I still have also the EF 50mm f/1.2L USM lens so I did a little comparison:
> 
> https://1drv.ms/u/s!Asmd3i9rvqAblxG0b-pMSWuit8wl?e=1xnuhq
> 
> ...


The flex behind the focus ring doesn't bother me. I do not have that line on my housing. I would think the part is molded and not joined there.

I see what you are saying about the onion bokeh on the tree, but the telling part for me is that I don't see it in the other lights. I have three models to shoot on Sunday night in Dallas. I will pay close attention to see whether or not I get the onion bokeh, but it really doesn't bother me either. Most of my shooting is during the day.  I am very happy with all three lenses. I'll post photos from Sunday night here. I'll be using the 50mm exclusively.

Still waiting for a 135mm or 70-135mm f/2 zoom. No rush though. I'm all tapped out for the next year or two. I'm 56, so these will be the last lenses I buy in my life should the RF mount survive the next 20+ years.


----------



## mkamelg (Dec 6, 2019)

"I do not have that line on my housing."

Thank you so much for your quick reply. After the weekend I send the lens back to the store where I bought it for refund.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 6, 2019)

mkamelg said:


> I bought it. I still have also the EF 50mm f/1.2L USM lens so I did a little comparison:
> 
> https://1drv.ms/u/s!Asmd3i9rvqAblxG0b-pMSWuit8wl?e=1xnuhq
> 
> ...



Regarding the lens construction, thanks for the heads up. I just checked mine, the issue does not exist at all. Feels like one very solid tube, and it seats firmly in the mount.

Did you get yours new? From an authorized dealer? Was it delivered to you? And have you though of sending it to Canon for inspection? *

As for the onion-ring with certain LED lights in the distance, I haven't tried this lens with such a background, though the RF 85mm is clean and smooth. I might have to cave to family wishes and get a Christmas tree after all--just to try. But I can tell you natural light bokeh is buttery smooth.

I remember past discussions and reading online that onion ring can be caused by a lens, by the light source, and by a combination of both. I'm curious how many other lights catch your attention like these.

Ok, boys, I'll post my own bokeh-balls ASAP!

*Just saw we posted simultaneously. Glad you decided to send yours back. Sounded odd! But I'm still curious about my own bokeh-balls now, and will post 'em soon!


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 6, 2019)

Here's mine. I notice, upon magnification, the onion effect. Does not bother me though. Those are also LED lights.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 6, 2019)

Some here also, but never once thought about it, and a VERY seldom occasion for me so yeah, couldn’t care less


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 6, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Some here also, but never once thought about it, and a VERY seldom occasion for me so yeah, couldn’t care less


It is a rare day when I have lights in the background.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Dec 8, 2019)

stevelee said:


> People buy an f/1.2 lens for sharpness?



It's not the worst thing in the world to shoot sharp portraits at f/1.2 and get to turn around and shoot Otus-class-sharp landscapes at f/2. The EF version is terrible at infinity.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 8, 2019)

highdesertmesa said:


> It's not the worst thing in the world to shoot sharp portraits at f/1.2 and get to turn around and shoot Otus-class-sharp landscapes at f/2. The EF version is terrible at infinity.


It’s terrible . Period .


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 9, 2019)

f/1.2 vs f/4 The black jacket in the second photo was affected by something I did in post. The f/4 image is a massive crop. Incredible detail.

Edit: I did use a preset I created for an earlier shoot so photo #2 might have had some sharpening added, but I am not sure. In any event, this lens is razor sharp.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 14, 2019)

I rarely order onion rings, but I love French fries. Well, not only did I find out that the rf 50mm f/1.2L IS has onion-ring bokeh, but I ended up buying a tree. Here's a shot, hurriedly taken while the kids were climbing shelves at the home-improvement store. Somethings you learn after you've lived with a lens for a while...Otherwise no complaints!

Reminds me of the "Nobody's perfect!" reply at the end of _ Some Like it Hot._


----------



## jd7 (Dec 15, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> I rarely order onion rings, but I love French fries. Well, not only did I find out that the rf 50mm f/1.2L IS has onion-ring bokeh, but I ended up buying a tree. Here's a shot, hurriedly taken while the kids were climbing shelves at the home-improvement store. Somethings you learn after you've lived with a lens for a while...Otherwise no complaints!



FWIW my understanding is onion ring bokeh is at least largely related to aspheric elements and where they sit in the optical path in a lens.

This, from a few years ago now, may be of vague interest





The end of onion-ring bokeh? Panasonic beats the curse of aspheric lenses


No free lunch? Aspheric lenses meant onion-ring bokeh... until now. Aspheric lens technology is part of the reason many modern photographic lenses are better in so many respects to models from 50 years ago. Lenses…



www.imaging-resource.com





I actually prefer the bokeh of the Canon 24-70 f/4L IS over the 24-70 f/2.8L II because of the onion ring bokeh which the 2.8 produces, which I've always put down (correctly or incorrectly) to the fact the f/2.8 has an extra aspheric element and presumably the aspheric elements it has are in different place in the optical path. (Well, in some situations the extra blur the f.2.8 can produce may swing me to favour it. But subject to that I prefer the bokeh from the f/4.)

Of course, aspheric elements have their benefits eg in helping reduce spherical aberrations. However, as usual with photography, there's no free lunch!


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 15, 2019)

jd7 said:


> FWIW my understanding is onion ring bokeh is at least largely related to aspheric elements and where they sit in the optical path in a lens.
> 
> This, from a few years ago now, may be of vague interest
> 
> ...



jd7, you deserve the prize for most informative and on-point link of the year here on CR! Thank you! "Vague interest?" No: INTENSE INTEREST!    
I've started noticing onion-rings in background lights on TV now! Last night it was in an episode of _Jessica Jones_ (season 2). (A lot of tavern settings in this series, so lots of background lights over bars.)

Maybe this could be a new drinking game in our photo club! Spot the rings, have a shot!

Happy holidays!


----------



## jd7 (Dec 15, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> jd7, you deserve the prize for most informative and on-point link of the year here on CR! Thank you! "Vague interest?" No: INTENSE INTEREST!
> I've started noticing onion-rings in background lights on TV now! Last night it was in an episode of _Jessica Jones_ (season 2). (A lot of tavern settings in this series, so lots of background lights over bars.)
> 
> Maybe this could be a new drinking game in our photo club! Spot the rings, have a shot!
> ...


I think onion ring bokeh is one of those things you just can't unsee once you've seen it  I'm always noticing it on TV and in movies these days too!


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 15, 2019)

jd7 said:


> FWIW my understanding is onion ring bokeh is at least largely related to aspheric elements and where they sit in the optical path in a lens.
> 
> This, from a few years ago now, may be of vague interest
> 
> ...



Interesting link: I have always thought that lenses with the expensive ground glass aspherical elements produced an image with more brio. Years ago I used to have the EF 20-35 f/2.8 and that had a massive ground glass aspherical element in it and produced beautiful glassy images - corners notwithstanding. 

Surprised on your comment on the 24-70 f/2.8 L II compared with the 24-70 IS. I suppose the other two aspherical in the f/2.8 are moulded which might dilute the effect of the ground element. Another reason to by the 24-70 f/2.8 mark 1 

Somewhere Canon had stated that moulded could only be produced up to a certain size and beyond that they still had to use the grinding and polishing method.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 15, 2019)

I don’t dislike the onion so much so that I want the 24-70 mk1 over the mk2 even slightly. It’s almost insane to me, lol


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 15, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I don’t dislike the onion so much so that I want the 24-70 mk1 over the mk2 even slightly. It’s almost insane to me, lol


I think the comparison was to the f/4 version, not version 1 of the 2.8. But I will tell you, I shot with version 1 throughout Yunnan province, and up in the northeast of China too. It was great in all kinds of weather. But after my wife knocked over the tripod she had it on, well, there was no reason not to upgrade to version 2.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 15, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> I think the comparison was to the f/4 version, not version 1 of the 2.8. But I will tell you, I shot with version 1 throughout Yunnan province, and up in the northeast of China too. It was great in all kinds of weather. But after my wife knocked over the tripod she had it on, well, there was no reason not to upgrade to version 2.


Think it was Sporgon who commented on the mk1 vs mk2.
I’ve used the mk1 extensively and always found it soft and full of CA and really sloppy AF, so after owning three copies of it and never liked it I’m not a fan of old lenses. The exception is the 70-200 f2.8 non-IS, while the color and contrast leave a lot to be desired I like what it does. And especially for the dirt cheap prices I’ve bought them for.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 15, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Think it was Sporgon who commented on the mk1 vs mk2.
> I’ve used the mk1 extensively and always found it soft and full of CA and really sloppy AF, so after owning three copies of it and never liked it I’m not a fan of old lenses. The exception is the 70-200 f2.8 non-IS, while the color and contrast leave a lot to be desired I like what it does. And especially for the dirt cheap prices I’ve bought them for.


My comment was tongue-in-cheek. Thought the winking emoticon would suffice. Clearly it didn’t 

Actually the problem with the old 24-70 as getting one that was optically set up correctly. That and the field curvature.


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 17, 2019)

Famateur said:


> Indeed. I think the new EF 400 and 600 L III lenses are a pretty solid statement (at $12 and $13K each, respectively) that EF isn't going to be obsolete any time soon.



As a likely imminent owner of the 400 III with only RF, I have a few thoughts and wishes:

The investment in R&D to develop the IIIs can easily be transferred to an RF variant.
They would overcome hesitation of RF owners like me by offering a dedicated adapter styled (colored) to match the lens and the R body (which the current adapters aren't - if should look like the tail end of an RF lens). For $12k I want to look like my lens goes with the camera.
A dedicated adapter line could be expanded to offer dedicated TC/RF adapters. Presently EF/RF TC/adapters would be welcome. 
A new lens (III lightened variant of the 300mm?) could be sold with a removable RF adapter. My patent-pending aspect of this is to make the adapter removable only by an internal switch to prevent demating from the lens when on a camera. Another feature for the adapter would be some special control on the adapter that is useful only to R owners (like viewfinder brightness control, etc.)


----------

