I would appreciate it, if we can see more sample shots from the lens. I often find reviews so so, and FM member shots more informative. Perhaps we can turn this into 50mm F1.2 photo thread...
All the current-generation first-party 50's f/1.2 are amazing performers. I'm partial to the Sony because of its size but I've owned the RF version and loved it too.
CelesteForza wrote:
You're comparing an F4 zoom lens to an F2? When I said stunning it was in the context of real world shooting environment, not pixel peeping to the far corner. Comparing an F4 zoom to an F2 zoom is like comparing a luxury car to a sports car. Makes zero sense. BTW I shot Leica M for most of my journalism career and very familiar with Leica M glass.
Aperture is but one part of image quality and affects out of focus areas and light gathering. Not other aspects of image quality. My comments make all the sense in the world - three things affect out of focus areas; distance, aperture and focal length. 90mm is significant jump over 70. So yes, across the whole range, a 24-90 f2.8-4.0 is comparable to a 24-70 2.8. And as far as optical quality, the 24-90 has great resolving capability, great micro contrast and good colors. You basically said no 24-70 2.8 lenses were noteworthy and you’re wrong. And as far as having used Leica, I’ve been using them 50 years and have or have had virtually all of them. Some are great, some not. Most of the lenses are great and should be. I don’t have the Canon f2 zoom and won’t. It may be good, but it’s too big and heavy for my use. And just because it’s an f2 lens doesn’t make it world-beating. It gives it good light gathering at high cost. There is always a trade.
Given the same distance to the subject, the 90mm @ f/4 will look gorgeous with beautiful OOF areas that are very comparable to a 70mm f/2. Leica's lens coatings and acutance add to this micro contrast with a 3d rendering that is uniquely Leica. I once had the R 100mm APO f/2.8 that was probably the best Leica lens I've used in a prime macro. Canon's colors are imo, rich and alluring, but the 28-70 is kinda heavy. Planned obsolescence is coming and prices should reflect that for RF lenses, but Leica seems to hold better value for almost all camera mounts. It can't just be name recognition either. Weddings are obviously, fast paced and the Canon R6 has been fabulous in that regard, but I'd love to shoot an SL2 with the 50mm APO for comparison.
johnld wrote:
Great input! The Sony's and Nikon Z's certainly are smaller and lighter and the Art series from Sigma are fantastic! I used the the Sigma Art 35mm 1.4 when it first came out for a shoot and it was incredible! I ultimately gravitated to Canon cameras for their f/1.2's drawing and rendering, ergonomics and menu's.
I held another photographers Nikon Z7 at a wedding and it was so much lighter! The RF L primes are surprisingly heavy, but lenses like the F/2 28-70 have a lot of elements to push. As mentioned our favorite lenses are the RF 50mm 1.2, but followed by the EF 35mm f/1.4, EF 85mm f/1.2, EF 135mm f/2, Sony 55mm f/1.8, the Nikon 85mm f/1.4G and the Nikon 105mm f/1.4 and the 105mm DC. All cameras are pretty equal in terms of tech, ...Show more →
I can't compare to more recent Sony bodies, but the A7IV is not as smart as the Canon R5 for auto exposure and auto white balance. From the viewfinder it's harder to judge how much EC would be needed. Probably not a big deal if you edit all the pictures anyway, but if you like great SOOC output the R5 has the edge.
The Sony menus are fine. The handling and ergonomics are fine as well. The R5 might be a bit better, but it's not a dealbreaker for me. johnld wrote:
so I think it's the lenses that set apart the differences and we just love Canon's offerings and colors.
I got the A7IV for
- 50 f/1.2 GM with its fast AF
- crazy compact Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN (625g only)
- compact yet very sharp 28-60mm (do stop down a bit)
- Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8
I got that last lens very recently, and boy, I love to have a large aperture at that range. No switching at 70mm is awesome! f/2.0 up to 39mm is awesome. f/2.2 up to 59mm is great. f/2.5 up to 79mm is a small difference, but still nice to have.
Even if it did just f/2.8 fixed aperture from 35-135 would be good enough for me, the rest is bonus.
crf59 wrote:
Aperture is but one part of image quality and affects out of focus areas and light gathering. Not other aspects of image quality. My comments make all the sense in the world - three things affect out of focus areas; distance, aperture and focal length. 90mm is significant jump over 70. So yes, across the whole range, a 24-90 f2.8-4.0 is comparable to a 24-70 2.8. And as far as optical quality, the 24-90 has great resolving capability, great micro contrast and good colors. You basically said no 24-70 2.8 lenses were noteworthy and you’re wrong. And as far as having used Leica, I’ve been using them 50 years and have or have had virtually all of them. Some are great, some not. Most of the lenses are great and should be. I don’t have the Canon f2 zoom and won’t. It may be good, but it’s too big and heavy for my use. And just because it’s an f2 lens doesn’t make it world-beating. It gives it good light gathering at high cost. There is always a trade. ...Show more →
Based upon my initial assessment, I would say that the canon RF 24-105mm F2.8 matches the Leica 24-90mm. The Canon has a flatter focus plane as well.
garyvot wrote:
One thing that is not well known is that Canon RF lenses (and some newer EF lenses) can benefit from firmware updates. For example, for the RF 50L:
I don't know if older firmware impacted your rental unit or not, but it is possible.
That's possible. However, I think there were some design choices made on the hardware side of things leaving the software/firmware designers in a situation compromises can't be avoided.
Looking at the description of the firmware you're linked to it states:
"Reduces image noise when performing high sensitivity shooting with the RF 50mm F1.2 L USM lens attached to the EOS C70 camera."
That's not about AF. I don't know if updates before 1-0-5 where trying to improve anything AF related. I fail to find earlier versions. If so, it's not well known, that's for sure.
The link to download the firmware is dead by the way.
The Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM with it's 4x VXD design focuses fast right out the box. That's what I prefer.
The RF 85mm 1.2L is a technically better lens than the RF 50L, less CA
I had the 50L and wasn't too crazy about the drawing of the lens.
My favorite rendering from Canon is the old 200mm2.8LII prime, just gorgeous lens but not the most practical.
The RF 50 1.2 work quite well. I would agree it’s not quite as sharp as the 85 1.2 wide open. AF speed I think both are similar, quick enough, similar to EF. Lenses due to ring usm, a little more noisy. They just are not instant like the dual nano usm lenses. The 28-70 is a conundrum. It’s great being f2, but at f2 it’s not crystal clear compared to the primes especially wide open comparing at 1.2 on the primes. It’s also really heavy compared to the 24-70 2.8 or either prime. I’m trying it out but the bulk and weight is just so much more noticeable then any of the 1kg other lenses. I think it might be better to have the 24-70 2.8 IS and then maybe the 50 or 85 or both for really fast aperture needs. The 28-70 f2 is one stop bright but the 50 gets you much more in a smaller package without zoom of course and comparatively it’s much lighter. The 85 1.2 being a large diameter and 1.2kg still feels much light and easier to hold then the 28-70 which I did not expect based on the specs
The Canon RF 50/1.2 was my favorite lens when I was shooting Canon R5, I really like the way it renders and bokeh, but I wouldn't say it is Canon's best lens ever, or the best they can do. It has some things I would change:
- Make it a true internal focus lens
- Dual focus motors that are more silent
- Smaller, lighter and cheaper. The Sony 50/1.2 GM weighs 172 grams less, is shorter and costs $200 less (and then they have student/teacher discounts as well). It is arguably sharper as well (but perhaps I'd give the rendering to the Canon).
patotts wrote:
The Canon RF 50/1.2 was my favorite lens when I was shooting Canon R5, I really like the way it renders and bokeh, but I wouldn't say it is Canon's best lens ever, or the best they can do. It has some things I would change:
- Make it a true internal focus lens
- Dual focus motors that are more silent
- Smaller, lighter and cheaper. The Sony 50/1.2 GM weighs 172 grams less, is shorter and costs $200 less (and then they have student/teacher discounts as well). It is arguably sharper as well (but perhaps I'd give the rendering to the Canon)....Show more →
Good points! Agreed, the RF 50mm 1.2 is a big lens. I'm not sure why it's designed this way, but the rendering is so sublime!
patotts wrote:
The Canon RF 50/1.2 was my favorite lens when I was shooting Canon R5, I really like the way it renders and bokeh, but I wouldn't say it is Canon's best lens ever, or the best they can do. It has some things I would change:
- Make it a true internal focus lens
- Dual focus motors that are more silent
- Smaller, lighter and cheaper. The Sony 50/1.2 GM weighs 172 grams less, is shorter and costs $200 less (and then they have student/teacher discounts as well). It is arguably sharper as well (but perhaps I'd give the rendering to the Canon)....Show more →
patotts wrote:
The Canon RF 50/1.2 was my favorite lens when I was shooting Canon R5, I really like the way it renders and bokeh, but I wouldn't say it is Canon's best lens ever, or the best they can do. It has some things I would change:
- Make it a true internal focus lens
- Dual focus motors that are more silent
- Smaller, lighter and cheaper. The Sony 50/1.2 GM weighs 172 grams less, is shorter and costs $200 less (and then they have student/teacher discounts as well). It is arguably sharper as well (but perhaps I'd give the rendering to the Canon)....Show more →
Putting it up against the 50 f1.2 GM isn't really apples to apples. Sony had more than 3 full years to dissect and improve on the RF 50L. If they didn't make it better, they would be looked on quite unfavorably. 4 years is a very often a Sony lens' generation span, so improving on it over that time is pretty much a prerequisite.
Personally, I love the RF 50L. It took all of a few seconds to decide to buy after simply picking up a camera with it on it. But if I'm honest, I'm partial to the RF 85L. It has slower AF, weighs a ton and is priced to match its weight, but... its optically perfect (or as near as anyone can expect). Clinical sharpness without being clinical. CA is about as distant a thought as Pluto is to the Sun. I'm not sure you could ask for better colors, bokeh, and acuity. I've heard people say it has no character, but I couldn't disagree more. Its ability to reproduce a scene with almost perfect accuracy is a positive trait not a downside.
Mike Jacks0n wrote:
Putting it up against the 50 f1.2 GM isn't really apples to apples. Sony had more than 3 full years
3 years is nothing. How often did we see updates of Canon EF and FD 50mm f/1.2 lenses?
Mike Jacks0n wrote:
to dissect
The improvement of the Sony GM is definitely not gained by dissecting the RF lens. It's simply due to smarter design choices the GM lens weights less, focuses instantaneously and yet has a beautiful rendering.
Mike Jacks0n wrote:
and improve on the RF 50L. If they didn't make it better, they would be looked on quite unfavorably. 4 years is a very often a Sony lens' generation span, so improving on it over that time is pretty much a prerequisite.
It doesn't take 3 years to at least lower the price. And if 3 years is such a long time, why are Canon users waiting for ages for an updated optical design for a 50mm f/1.4 lens? For Canon it's two mounts ago.
Mike Jacks0n wrote:
Personally, I love the RF 50L. It took all of a few seconds to decide to buy after simply picking up a camera with it on it. But if I'm honest, I'm partial to the RF 85L. It has slower AF, weighs a ton and is priced to match its weight, but... its optically perfect (or as near as anyone can expect). Clinical sharpness without being clinical. CA is about as distant a thought as Pluto is to the Sun. I'm not sure you could ask for better colors, bokeh, and acuity. I've heard people say it has no character, but I couldn't disagree more. Its ability to reproduce a scene with almost perfect accuracy is a positive trait not a downside. ...Show more →
Optically amongst the very best lenses. Character is a matter of taste. I went with the 105mm f/1.4 Art because of the price. I like it's fast AF as well.
It’s tied with the Sony 50/1.2 GM as the best 50 I’ve ever used and I’ve used a lot. When I was shooting Canon it was my favorite lens. Now I’m on Nikon and use the Sony adapted.
Both lenses are spectacular. The Canon is slightly better in some areas and the Sony is slightly better in others, with both being exceptional. Can’t really pick between them.
Canon seems to go with the older ring usm for the fast lenses like the 50/85 1.2 and the 28-70 1.2, they says it’s for the torque needed or maybe it was a decision to use what was available at the time of release because these lenses were relatively early on the timeline. The recent 135 1.8 is different with a fast nano usm design, I think they could make the 50 or others faster, maybe lighter but I doubt it would make sense to do it now, they are not exactly slow just not lightning quick. It’s relative, when you use the 70-200 2.8 which is instant, they feel slightly slow.
Image quality even on the Back screen the 85 1.2 I can see it being tack sharp a bit better then the 50. Canon seems to have decided to allow more vignette and just correct it with profile, I think Sony might do the same or more, there 50 1.2 is only 72mm front thread. Canon being 77 and I think Nikon is at 82mm. All of the Sony GM lenses are extremely light, there must be some compromises they made for that. Canon being 2nd in weights mostly, Nikon almost always heaviest
