p.5 #1 · Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.0 announced for Canon RF mount
They might consider 50/1.0 as a substitute of 50/1.2 since they haven't released 50/1.2 in Nikon Z for example... I would not expect 50/1.2 to be released in the near future at least since it's quite close to what they already released (50/1.0 and 40/1.2), but need to wait and see what they come up with...
serhan_ wrote:
Hopefully CV will continue with 50mm 1.2 next... I have not seen much activity on 40mm 1.2 here.
Canon R5/6 has 1.25mm topping thickness which is close to SL2 1.2mm (if reported right). R5 is very good with CV 21mm f3.5 in my use but then that is similar with Sony sensors... Older R cameras has 1.6mm thickness per Kolari... So I assume CV is optimizing on newer cameras and hopefully color shading should be resolved for the newer models... I didn't see any shading on R5, maybe the anti-aliasing filter difference.
p.5 #2 · Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.0 announced for Canon RF mount
It's been a little over 3 years since this Voigtländer Nokton 50mm f/1.0 Aspherical has been announced for RF mount. Anyone with image samples from it?
If you do, pls share this most desirable 3rs party RF lens!
p.5 #6 · Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.0 announced for Canon RF mount
Bushwacker II wrote:
Fred tested it on M mount and on Sony mount same lens but different results., maybe in RF mount it's different too or better?
The RF mount version of this lens is optimized for Canon's sensor stack thickness, therefore the results should be comparable to the M mount lens on a Leica camera, rather than an M mount lens adapted to Sony. The consequences of sensor stack mismatch tend to be differences in field curvature characteristics and more jittery bokeh towards the image periphery, depending on subject to background distances.
I would use the M lens on Leica images as the reference of what to expect of the RF version on Canon.
Your definition of 'better' bokeh may differ from someone else's. The 50/1 when used for the same scene and same camera to subject distance as the 40, will result in more/stronger bokeh/OOF blur. However, the quality of the bokeh - smoothness - may differ from the 40 and something you'll have to compare images to determine. If you just want bigger bokeh balls for a given camera to subject to background distance, the 50/1 will be better than the 40/1.2.
Sep 27, 2026 at 03:58 PM
franklindelanoj Offline • [X]
p.5 #7 · Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.0 announced for Canon RF mount
p.5 #9 · Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.0 announced for Canon RF mount
Rscheffler and DustinLevine,
I am contemplating whether to buy or not. See if my 40/1.2 is almost the same say approaching or 90% of 50/1.0 especially the bokeh and sharpness, I will stay with my 40/1.2.
but then 50/1.0 got wider opening.
thanks man... I will check more sample images.
Here's a sample from my 40/1.2 ( wide open ), if bokeh smoothness wide open is better on 50/1.0 I will consider it.
p.5 #10 · Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.0 announced for Canon RF mount
Bushwacker II wrote:
Rscheffler and DustinLevine,
I am contemplating whether to buy or not. See if my 40/1.2 is almost the same say approaching or 90% of 50/1.0 especially the bokeh and sharpness, I will stay with my 40/1.2.
but then 50/1.0 got wider opening.
thanks man... I will check more sample images.
Here's a sample from my 40/1.2 ( wide open ), if bokeh smoothness wide open is better on 50/1.0 I will consider it.
Just by reasons of physics, the 50mm both by being a longer focal length and also having a wider aperture, it will inherently have more bokeh and subject separation.
