# Review: Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 6, 2018)

> The-Digital-Picture has completed their review of the brand new Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM. The first L prime for the Canon EOS R system. It’s big, it’s expensive and it’s pretty, but does it perform?
> *Bryan seems to think so:*
> A great 50mm prime lens has been high on the want list for many photographers and with the RF 50mm f/1.2L USM Lens, Canon has delivered big. While the price may keep such a lens on the want list for those with a tighter budget, many serious amateurs and professionals are going to find this lens to be an essential part of their kit.
> The 50mm focal length has great general purpose utility and the ultra-wide aperture extends this lens’ versatility to ultra-low light levels. Just having an ultra-wide aperture does not mean that the wide-open image quality will be adequate for your needs, but there is no worry when using this lens at f/1.2. The resolution and contrast are great, far better than any...



Continue reading...


----------



## padam (Nov 6, 2018)

Great lens. Although some may get disappointed, that with the release of this lens, Canon is basically skipping answering people's enquiries about a new 50mm EF lens.


----------



## mirage (Nov 6, 2018)

hehe. I wait until Canon [ or Samyang  ] launch an RF 50/1.8 IS STM at 149 grams and 149 Euro.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 6, 2018)

Whatever happened to ahsanford?


----------



## mirage (Nov 6, 2018)

yep, strange. Ahsanford went AWOL ... last activity Sep. 12 ???

also, what about Neuro ... last activity Oct. 10 ? Too busy, on vacation, temporarily banned or left?


----------



## magarity (Nov 6, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Whatever happened to ahsanford?


Too busy working to save up for an R system to read forums perhaps. In any case, wasn't one of his main things a 50 with IS? Which this does not have, so probably still grumpy.


----------



## BeenThere (Nov 6, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Whatever happened to ahsanford?


Maybe out shooting with a new 50mm.


----------



## michi (Nov 6, 2018)

I wish Canon would share their future intentions. Will any EF lenses still be made? Should one even bother investing in the EF system any more? All the lenses I would have wanted for my EF system are becoming available for the RF mount. I understand that every now and then things will change, but a road map would be nice. I just bought a 5DIV and a EF 85 1.4. Was waiting for a EF 24-70L 2.8 IS to replace the 24-70 2.8 L Mark I. But at this point, I will hold off on any further purchases and wait and see.


----------



## Pooshoes (Nov 6, 2018)

michi said:


> I wish Canon would share their future intentions. Will any EF lenses still be made? Should one even bother investing in the EF system any more? All the lenses I would have wanted for my EF system are becoming available for the RF mount. I understand that every now and then things will change, but a road map would be nice. I just bought a 5DIV and a EF 85 1.4. Was waiting for a EF 24-70L 2.8 IS to replace the 24-70 2.8 L Mark I. But at this point, I will hold off on any further purchases and wait and see.


The EF 85mm 1.4 L IS is unbelievable on the Eos R too, you'll do well if you stick to that one!


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 6, 2018)

Great review, Bryan. Thank you! 
It would be nice see more and somewhat larger sample images.


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 6, 2018)

Great review as usual. The lens looks very big but maybe that's because the camera is small. Bryan needs to spell check the article though. I see some typo's which is unusual of him. I think the lens will drive the EOS-R


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 6, 2018)

magarity said:


> In any case, wasn't one of his main things a 50 with IS? Which this does not have, so probably still grumpy.



Anyone who wants a 50 IS should look at the Tamron 45 f/1.8 VC. Sharp to the corners wide open, weather sealed, good VC implementation, quick and accurate AF, and good bokeh. It does have some CA wide open (easily fixed in post) and only goes to f/1.8 (a bit less background blur), but is excellent in every other respect.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 6, 2018)

michi said:


> I wish Canon would share their future intentions. Will any EF lenses still be made?



We will see new EF lenses. That said, I expect most new lenses will be RF because the EF mount is filled out while the RF mount is brand new and in need of native glass if it's going to succeed.

I also expect Canon will play up the "RF mount advantage" with lenses that have some edge over their EF counterparts, the 28-70 f/2L being the perfect example of that.



> Should one even bother investing in the EF system any more?



If you hate the idea of an adapter and plan on going mirrorless as soon as possible, then no, you shouldn't buy any more EF glass. If the adapter doesn't bother you and/or you're not buying an R anytime soon then buy EF lenses.

I'm not thrilled with an adapter. I would have preferred an EF mount FF mirrorless that accepted retro focus mirrorless only lenses. Which probably would have let Canon do everything they're claiming they can do with the R mount. But that's not the way it went and I can live with an adapter when I add an R series body. 

Having said that, I won't be adding an R body any time soon. I spent a good amount of money building my 'dream FF kit' this past year and am back at a point where my equipment exceeds what I'm producing. I can do anything photographically that I want right now at an IQ level far beyond what was available to me when I started in film nearly two decades ago. For me personally it's time to shoot more and stop worrying about what Canon or anyone else may/may not do.

I _may_ add an M5 to upgrade my lightweight kit though. Other than that....


----------



## Viggo (Nov 6, 2018)

I still can’t believe that 4 stop vignetting... and the weird part is that I don’t see anywhere near four stops in the images I shot either...


----------



## SeanS (Nov 6, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> Great review as usual. The lens looks very big but maybe that's because the camera is small. Bryan needs to spell check the article though. I see some typo's which is unusual of him. I think the lens will drive the EOS-R



If you still see spelling errors in the article, please let us know. Bryan inadvertently loaded a version of the review just before announcing its publication that was authored prior to proofreading. We've since replaced that version with a more polished review (unfortunately, the updated comparison photos that corrected the Sigma 35mm Art being shown still haven't propagated through the servers).


----------



## MayaTlab (Nov 6, 2018)

Viggo said:


> I still can’t believe that 4 stop vignetting... and the weird part is that I don’t see anywhere near four stops in the images I shot either...



I don't know exactly how Bryan measures vignetting, but I would suspect that his process, at some point, applies a tone curve profile to the resulting file. So the results could be inconsistent between cameras. It would interesting to see the 50mm EF tested on the R vs. the RF version.

Another explanation is that vignetting can vary with focusing distance (just like the real focal length - you can see in this test that the RF has quite a lot of focus breathing, ie the focal length changes with focusing distance). I'm not sure but I believe that this is particularly the case with lens designs which focus by moving the entire lens, like the 50mm RF I think. In general it's stronger at longer focusing distances. 

I wouldn't bother exactly about the number of "stops" as lots of variables can affect that. What I would worry about is the effect on blur quantity and quality. Vignetting causes, in effect, the effective aperture of a lens to be smaller off-centre. 

The problem with the RF's vignetting is that it's sufficiently strong to make the design of the lens partially pointless. You're paying for f1.2 worth of engineering, manufacturing costs, etc. but at some focusing distances you're not getting anything any better than a well corrected f1.4 lens throughout most of the frame, for example, as the Aspen trees series demonstrate (when vignetting is corrected, the f1.2 and f1.4 shots are nearly identical) :


----------



## melgross (Nov 6, 2018)

Loyd Chambers (digiloyd) also thinks this is a great lens. Considering his long term annoyance with Canon, that’s a very big endorsement.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 6, 2018)

MayaTlab said:


> I don't know exactly how Bryan measures vignetting, but I would suspect that his process, at some point, applies a tone curve profile to the resulting file. So the results could be inconsistent between cameras. It would interesting to see the 50mm EF tested on the R vs. the RF version.
> 
> Another explanation is that vignetting can vary with focusing distance (just like the real focal length - you can see in this test that the RF has quite a lot of focus breathing, ie the focal length changes with focusing distance). I'm not sure but I believe that this is particularly the case with lens designs which focus by moving the entire lens, like the 50mm RF I think. In general it's stronger at longer focusing distances.
> 
> ...


The thing is; I don’t see 4 stops in my shots, it’s more like the 85 L IS. 

I want to know why. And I tried both long and short focus distances, and I tried to get the same result because I knew Bryan showed the 4 stops, and four stops is a crazy amount ....


----------



## MayaTlab (Nov 6, 2018)

Viggo said:


> The thing is; I don’t see 4 stops in my shots, it’s more like the 85 L IS.
> 
> I want to know why. And I tried both long and short focus distances, and I tried to get the same result because I knew Bryan showed the 4 stops, and four stops is a crazy amount ....



To make it short : stop focusing about how many stops. Too many variables to take into account.


----------



## SeanS (Nov 7, 2018)

Viggo said:


> The thing is; I don’t see 4 stops in my shots, it’s more like the 85 L IS.
> 
> I want to know why. And I tried both long and short focus distances, and I tried to get the same result because I knew Bryan showed the 4 stops, and four stops is a crazy amount ....



Please don't be offended when I ask, but are you certain that Peripheral Illumination Correction (found in the Lens Aberration Correction menu) is turned off in-camera as well as your RAW converter? By default, it's enabled on the EOS R. If it's enabled, you won't be seeing the natural vignetting of the lens.


----------



## rbr (Nov 7, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> Anyone who wants a 50 IS should look at the Tamron 45 f/1.8 VC. Sharp to the corners wide open, weather sealed, good VC implementation, quick and accurate AF, and good bokeh. It does have some CA wide open (easily fixed in post) and only goes to f/1.8 (a bit less background blur), but is excellent in every other respect.



I agree. I just got one a couple of months ago after wanting Canon to come out with something similar for years. I'm sorry that I waited so long to get it. At its current price it's a bargain. It is built like a tank and sharp corner to corner. The CA wide open is most noticeable up close with bright highlights and not really a substitute for a real macro lens, but I'm thrilled with it in every other aspect. I've owned all the current Canon 50's at one time or another as well as others for different camera brands. I wouldn't trade any of them for the Tamron.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 7, 2018)

SeanS said:


> Please don't be offended when I ask, but are you certain that Peripheral Illumination Correction (found in the Lens Aberration Correction menu) is turned off in-camera as well as your RAW converter? By default, it's enabled on the EOS R. If it's enabled, you won't be seeing the natural vignetting of the lens.


No offense taken. But yeah I disabled everything in Lr and had as clean as possible raw file ...


----------



## Viggo (Nov 7, 2018)

MayaTlab said:


> To make it short : stop focusing about how many stops. Too many variables to take into account.



No it isn’t ... I get the same exact results as Bryan regarding every other lens and lens defects, so I’m not prepared to accept “it’s the way it is”. There is and explanation and if I’m paying 2300 dollar for a lens and the vignetting is important to, I’m gonna find out who’s right


----------



## AE-1Burnham (Nov 7, 2018)

Am I being shallow thinking this lens is not very attractive looking? (i.e. "styled" like the EF 100 2.8L IS Macro) I understand function over form here, but the extending (or retracting..?) front element, which is smallish, ugh,-I feel shallow. I want to love it (!),-and my EF 50 1.2L is the definition of a love-hate relationship -- but damn it the new lens just isn't sexy (really nice IQ, but...). What a world, eh?


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 7, 2018)

Looks like this forum is able to turn one of the world's best lenses into a piece of crap.
I wonder why...


----------



## Viggo (Nov 7, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> Looks like this forum is able to turn one of the world's best lenses into a piece of crap.
> I wonder why...


Who said it was no good?

With green banding when using flash is happening at 1.65 stops and the corners are four stops darker, you do the math


----------



## SeanS (Nov 7, 2018)

Viggo said:


> No offense taken. But yeah I disabled everything in Lr and had as clean as possible raw file ...


Have you tried processing the same RAW image in DPP?


----------



## Etienne (Nov 7, 2018)

It's great that this lens is out there, but I'd rather have a smaller, lighter, cheaper 50 f/1.4


----------



## Viggo (Nov 7, 2018)

SeanS said:


> Have you tried processing the same RAW image in DPP?


Yup , basically the same results.


----------



## SeanS (Nov 7, 2018)

Viggo said:


> Yup , basically the same results.


What focus distance are you conducting the vignetting tests at? Ours vignetting tests are performed at infinity focus.
Could you take a picture of a blank (or nearly blank) white wall at f/1.2, infinity focus with the EOS R + RF 50 and share the RAW file with me? I'd be interested in seeing it. You can use https://wetransfer.com/ to email us the RAW image at [email protected].


----------



## eyeheartny (Nov 7, 2018)

AE-1Burnham said:


> Am I being shallow thinking this lens is not very attractive looking? (i.e. "styled" like the EF 100 2.8L IS Macro) I understand function over form here, but the extending (or retracting..?) front element, which is smallish, ugh,-I feel shallow. I want to love it (!),-and my EF 50 1.2L is the definition of a love-hate relationship -- but damn it the new lens just isn't sexy (really nice IQ, but...). What a world, eh?



You're being shallow. I own the lens. It's a stunningly good performer. It balances well despite its weight. It feels incredibly solidly built, noticeably more so than the 85 1.4 IS. If you're actively and regularly shooting with it rather than looking at it sitting on a shelf, who gives a flying f&ck what the front element looks like? Lens "sexiness" is about how they feel in your hand and how they perform, not about what they look like. It feels great and delivers unbelievably good performance.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 7, 2018)

SeanS said:


> What focus distance are you conducting the vignetting tests at? Ours vignetting tests are performed at infinity focus.
> Could you take a picture of a blank (or nearly blank) white wall at f/1.2, infinity focus with the EOS R + RF 50 and share the RAW file with me? I'd be interested in seeing it. You can use https://wetransfer.com/ to email us the RAW image at [email protected].


I only tried it for a little while on a Canon Roadshow and didn’t do any scientific testing, but don’t think I kept most of the shots after seeing the vignetting wasn’t at all as bad as I feared. For the record, I did use it mostly outside.

But I am getting one in the near future so hopefully it will shoot like the one I tried and not like in your vigneting test.

It may well be that infinity focus and my 20-40m away makes a big difference, I don’t know..

Did you find it to have much less at “normal” distances? I’ll be shooting much more at 2-10 meters than aall the way at infinity so that might work.

I always use TDP as a reference and I’ve always found the same results as you guys do, so that’s why I was so surprised with this. And, kind of surprised a new high end 50 with new mount etc would actually be worse than the EF version...

Thanks for replying


----------



## chrysoberyl (Nov 7, 2018)

I was considering the R + this lens until I saw the coma. The Samyang 50mm 1.2 has almost none. Now I read above that there are four stops of vignetting.

I have indeed benefited from this review.


----------



## lnformant (Nov 7, 2018)

Hi everyone! Does anybody know how this new RF 50mm compares to Samyang XP/Rokinon SP 50mm f1.2?


----------



## Viggo (Nov 7, 2018)

Here's just a screen shot from a non-corrected raw i Lr at f1.2. I just don't see any bad vignetting. It isn't non existent, but much more like the 85 L IS.


----------



## SeanS (Nov 7, 2018)

Viggo said:


> Here's just a screen shot from a non-corrected raw i Lr at f1.2. I just don't see any bad vignetting. It isn't non existent, but much more like the 85 L IS.



My guess is that the different focus distances and detailed frames (not a blank space) have contributed to the discrepancy you're seeing. There's definitely some vignetting visible in your sample pic; it gets pretty dark in the extreme corners. My guess is that if you had photographed the pavement looking straight down, you'd notice a larger difference in brightness between the very center of the frame and the extreme corners. 

Unfortunately, there's no way to truly evaluate vignetting unless you do so under very controlled circumstances. A scene with lots of details and varied lighting can hide the effects of vignetting, especially if there's a pretty gradual transition going toward the darkened corners. Of course, we can spot vignetting when the circumstances make it apparent (clear skies and blank walls are great for that), but otherwise, even significant vignetting can often go unnoticed in a detail-filled composition.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 7, 2018)

SeanS said:


> My guess is that the different focus distances and detailed frames (not a blank space) have contributed to the discrepancy you're seeing. There's definitely some vignetting visible in your sample pic; it gets pretty dark in the extreme corners. My guess is that if you had photographed the pavement looking straight down, you'd notice a larger difference in brightness between the very center of the frame and the extreme corners.
> 
> Unfortunately, there's no way to truly evaluate vignetting unless you do so under very controlled circumstances. A scene with lots of details and varied lighting can hide the effects of vignetting, especially if there's a pretty gradual transition going toward the darkened corners. Of course, we can spot vignetting when the circumstances make it apparent (clear skies and blank walls are great for that), but otherwise, even significant vignetting can often go unnoticed in a detail-filled composition.


Hopefully it won’t bother me too much in actual shots. I’m still getting it, I was just hoping it would be around two stops (very minor). And simply better than the EF50L.

It’s way off topic, but did you guys see banding with flash that you didn’t see without flash? I spoke to Broncolor and they didn’t seem very eager to fix it. I can’t figure out if it’s the camera or flash trigger and it’s driving me mad


----------



## eyeheartny (Nov 7, 2018)

Goodness gracious, this is a silly thread. If @SeanS claims you need controlled conditions to see the "worst" vignetting, isn't this just a lot of hullaballoo about nothing consequential in actual real-world terms?


----------



## Viggo (Nov 7, 2018)

eyeheartny said:


> Goodness gracious, this is a silly thread. If @SeanS claims you need controlled conditions to see the "worst" vignetting, isn't this just a lot of hullaballoo about nothing consequential in actual real-world terms?


Well, it’s only in recent history I learned the conditions for those results and they didn’t match my real world results. I said I would find what the reason was and now I have. Easier to accept.


----------



## Refurb7 (Nov 7, 2018)

melgross said:


> Loyd Chambers (digiloyd) also thinks this is a great lens. Considering his long term annoyance with Canon, that’s a very big endorsement.


That is a surprise. He seems to find complaints and issues with everything.


----------



## Refurb7 (Nov 7, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> Great review as usual. The lens looks very big but maybe that's because the camera is small. Bryan needs to spell check the article though. I see some typo's which is unusual of him. I think the lens will drive the EOS-R


The lens looks very big because it is very big, not just because the camera is small.


----------



## eyeheartny (Nov 7, 2018)

Viggo said:


> Well, it’s only in recent history I learned the conditions for those results and they didn’t match my real world results. I said I would find what the reason was and now I have. Easier to accept.



Oh it's not YOU being silly. I think the people complaining about the vignetting are ridiculous.


----------



## 6degrees (Nov 8, 2018)

Please somebody compare Canon RF 50mm F1.2 vs Zeiss Otus 1.4/55


----------



## eyeheartny (Nov 8, 2018)

6degrees said:


> Please somebody compare Canon RF 50mm F1.2 vs Zeiss Otus 1.4/55



Isn't the Milvus at 50 1.4 the closer comparison?


----------



## eyeheartny (Nov 8, 2018)

6degrees said:


> Please somebody compare Canon RF 50mm F1.2 vs Zeiss Otus 1.4/55



Here's the RF 50 1.2 vs the Milvus 50 1.4 on the 5DSR
RF 50 1.2 vs the Otus 55 1.4 on the 1DS MKIII

To my eye the RF and the Otus are comparable in terms of sharpness and correcting for CA. Worth noting the RF is 40% cheaper and has excellent AF vs the MF of the Otus.

The Milvus has visible CA on the 5DSR and the 1DS MKIII.


----------



## 6degrees (Nov 8, 2018)

eyeheartny said:


> Here's the RF 50 1.2 vs the Milvus 50 1.4 on the 5DSR
> RF 50 1.2 vs the Otus 55 1.4 on the 1DS MKIII
> 
> To my eye the RF and the Otus are comparable in terms of sharpness and correcting for CA. Worth noting the RF is 40% cheaper and has excellent AF vs the MF of the Otus.
> ...



I wish someone can do a detail comparison between Canon RF 50mm F1.2 vs Zeiss Otus 1.4/55.

I do not think it is fair to compare Milvus 1.4/50 with it. Canon RF 50mm F1.2 should be on the same level with Otus 1.4/55.


----------



## eyeheartny (Nov 8, 2018)

6degrees said:


> I wish someone can do a detail comparison between Canon RF 50mm F1.2 vs Zeiss Otus 1.4/55.
> 
> I do not think it is fair to compare Milvus 1.4/50 with it. Canon RF 50mm F1.2 should be on the same level with Otus 1.4/55.



I literally gave you exactly what you asked for. It's a side by side comparison of the RF 50 and the Otus. Is the second link not sufficient for you?


----------



## SeanS (Nov 8, 2018)

Viggo said:


> It’s way off topic, but did you guys see banding with flash that you didn’t see without flash? I spoke to Broncolor and they didn’t seem very eager to fix it. I can’t figure out if it’s the camera or flash trigger and it’s driving me mad



From Bryan this morning when I asked: 

I had not noticed any [banding with flash use], but went looking harder. I can’t see any banding in my butterfly images (Canon flash), even if I push them by 3 stops. I don’t see banding in the +3 noise test results in our tool (hot lights). If I push the image quality test results (lit by Godox AD600Pros) by 3 stops, I see faint noise that perhaps could be considered banding, but that's a stretch.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 8, 2018)

SeanS said:


> From Bryan this morning when I asked:
> 
> I had not noticed any [banding with flash use], but went looking harder. I can’t see any banding in my butterfly images (Canon flash), even if I push them by 3 stops. I don’t see banding in the +3 noise test results in our tool (hot lights). If I push the image quality test results (lit by Godox AD600Pros) by 3 stops, I see faint noise that perhaps could be considered banding, but that's a stretch.


Okay! That’s actually excellent news. That means it probably isn’t the camera Here’s an example of mine. I noticed that it didn’t show as much in this low res version, but still plainly visible... I pushed a bit more than to just show it, but it still is a big issue..


----------



## SeanS (Nov 8, 2018)

eyeheartny said:


> Goodness gracious, this is a silly thread. If @SeanS claims you need controlled conditions to see the "worst" vignetting, isn't this just a lot of hullaballoo about nothing consequential in actual real-world terms?


To be clear, I said you need controlled circumstances to _evaluate _vignetting (from a testing standpoint), not necessarily see it.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 16, 2018)

I was quite bummed last night, shipped off my sold 35 L II....

Today I’m happy again, a brand spanking new RF 50 on it’s way to me


----------



## Viggo (Nov 17, 2018)

I’m not to familiar with the new forum, is there albums of each lens and/or body still? Where are all the pictures? 

Is this the thread to post RF50 images?


----------



## Viggo (Nov 20, 2018)

Just a few minutes I got my RF50, what a lens! I’ve tried it before and loved it so I knew what it was like.

ONe thing I didn’t remember is that there is NO room for my fingers when using it, I usually release my grip a little when double tapping the screen, and my fingers are stuck, hopefully I will just get used to it, but it feels very weird off the bat... not right..

*EDIT* Got used to it. This lens is incredible...


----------



## eyeheartny (Nov 20, 2018)

Viggo said:


> Just a few minutes I got my RF50, what a lens! I’ve tried it before and loved it so I knew what it was like.
> 
> ONe thing I didn’t remember is that there is NO room for my fingers when using it, I usually release my grip a little when double tapping the screen, and my fingers are stuck, hopefully I will just get used to it, but it feels very weird off the bat... not right..
> 
> *EDIT* Got used to it. This lens is incredible...



What did you mean about no room for your fingers? Curious...


----------



## Viggo (Nov 20, 2018)

eyeheartny said:


> What did you mean about no room for your fingers? Curious...


Between the lens and the grip


----------



## Viggo (Nov 20, 2018)

Tried a few shots waiting for my daughter tonight.

Through a fence, f1.2, iso 1250, 1/160s windy and cold. Straight from camera to my iPhone.


----------



## eyeheartny (Nov 20, 2018)

Nice shot!


----------



## Viggo (Nov 21, 2018)

eyeheartny said:


> Nice shot!


Thanks!


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 21, 2018)

rbr said:


> I agree. I just got one a couple of months ago after wanting Canon to come out with something similar for years. I'm sorry that I waited so long to get it. At its current price it's a bargain. It is built like a tank and sharp corner to corner. The CA wide open is most noticeable up close with bright highlights and not really a substitute for a real macro lens, but I'm thrilled with it in every other aspect. I've owned all the current Canon 50's at one time or another as well as others for different camera brands. I wouldn't trade any of them for the Tamron.



Another endorsement for the Tamron 45/1.8 from me. Although very sharp it has the softest bokeh.


----------

