I haven't seen a thread about this new lens yet. Is anyone interested in this lens for photography at all? I have the RF 50 1.2L and am considering switching to the lighter 1.4L version. With two young kids the 1.2L hardly leaves the house with me/us, which is a shame. The 1.4L is both lighter and smaller and hopefully handles flares better than the 1.2L when shooting into the sun.
RF 50 1.4L VCM
76,5 x 99,37 and 580g
vs
RF 50 1.2L USM
89,8 x 108mm and 950g
what are your thoughts on this new lens? Do you consider switching (downgrading?)?
I went with the 35 f/1.4 VCM and the 50mm f/1.2 for the best of both worlds. The 35 for a smaller/lighter/wider lens and the 50mm f/1.2 for when I want the more shallow depth of field and a bit more compression. The rendering of the 50 f/1.2 is really nice, so I think I am sticking with it.
jrscls wrote:
(...) for the best of both worlds. (...)
Best of both worlds to me would've been a 50 1.8L IS USM and the 50 1.2L USM. Although I'm sure the huge glass chunk would've only collected dust on the shelf...
@jedibrain: thank you for the suggestion. I prefer shooting with primes and I have the wide angle covered with a fast 28. I'm shooting the R5, so cropping from 50 to 70 leaves me with enough pixels for casual family pictures.
Have the new VCM primes pre-orders been fulfilled? I can't find a store having it in stock where I live and not many reviews so far online.
I ordered the RF50L VCM even though I have the f1.2 already. For the weight of the big one I can carry the 24 and 50. I'm not that young anymore and I have been carrying the 50 with me all week here in Japan (along with the 135 and 35) and I can tell you that reducing it to the 24 and 50 at the price of the 50 would be nice (I never cared for the 35 focal length, or 135 for that matter). I think the 1.4 will be just fine for street work.
jj1804 wrote:
I haven't seen a thread about this new lens yet. Is anyone interested in this lens for photography at all? I have the RF 50 1.2L and am considering switching to the lighter 1.4L version. With two young kids the 1.2L hardly leaves the house with me/us, which is a shame. The 1.4L is both lighter and smaller and hopefully handles flares better than the 1.2L when shooting into the sun.
RF 50 1.4L VCM
76,5 x 99,37 and 580g
vs
RF 50 1.2L USM
89,8 x 108mm and 950g
what are your thoughts on this new lens? Do you consider switching (downgrading?)?
I have two young kids, and when I want to keep things light, I usually stick with the 35mm f/1.8.. I do occasionally use the 50mm f/1.2, but the 35mm is so easy to pack and shoot that I pretty much have it on me whenever we leave the house for the playground, a walk, or ice cream and such. I find the 50mm to be a bit too tight to chase the kids with, unless I’m looking for more of a special portrait moment, in which case I don’t mind the extra size of the 1.2. If you love the 50mm focal length, this isn’t much help, sorry, just speaking about my experience since we’re both chasing similar-aged subjects.
I’m not wild about the images I’m seeing from the 35 VCM, so I’m a little cautious about the new 50mm, and I really dislike the 50 1.8… so it’s the rf 1.2 or sigma art for me. Good luck!
They get released on the 7th or 14th of December so no one has them yet
I love that they are identical size as the 35- Lighting fast VCM motors and really great colors. This is going to be a really nice addition to the RF lineup for sure.
The compact size of the 70-200 f2.8 (original)- Now a 24/35/50 combo - Just need an 85 1.4 and we are set
jj1804 wrote:
Best of both worlds to me would've been a 50 1.8L IS USM and the 50 1.2L USM. Although I'm sure the huge glass chunk would've only collected dust on the shelf...
I agree I would have much preferred an L set of f/1.8 or f/2 lenses with good build, fast AF and a focus on smooth bokeh and focus transition zones.
Of the VCM trio, on paper based on the MTF graphs, I think the 50 will be the most pleasing looking in respect to bokeh character. It might even be smoother in the image periphery area than the 50/1.2. The 24 would be next with the 35 trailing. Unknown at the moment is how the 50 will handle LoCA/color fringing.
comotionfilms wrote:
I have two young kids, and when I want to keep things light, I usually stick with the 35mm f/1.8.. I do occasionally use the 50mm f/1.2, but the 35mm is so easy to pack and shoot that I pretty much have it on me whenever we leave the house for the playground, a walk, or ice cream and such. I find the 50mm to be a bit too tight to chase the kids with, unless I’m looking for more of a special portrait moment, in which case I don’t mind the extra size of the 1.2. If you love the 50mm focal length, this isn’t much help, sorry, just speaking about my experience since we’re both chasing similar-aged subjects.
I’m not wild about the images I’m seeing from the 35 VCM, so I’m a little cautious about the new 50mm, and I really dislike the 50 1.8… so it’s the rf 1.2 or sigma art for me. Good luck!...Show more →
What don't you like about the pictures with the 35 1.4 RF? I think its fantastic!!!
Beautiful colors, very pleasing OOF backgrounds, insanely fast AF, - I can't find a single nit pick with the lens in practical use for video and stills.
Is it just the stigma that a lens correction profile was used on it?
RustyRus wrote:
What don't you like about the pictures with the 35 1.4 RF? I think its fantastic!!!
Beautiful colors, very pleasing OOF backgrounds, insanely fast AF, - I can't find a single nit pick with the lens in practical use for video and stills.
Is it just the stigma that a lens correction profile was used on it?
I know everyone is bummed on the 35 VCM distortion with it being a $1500 lens, I get that. I would have liked to pay less for it but it's a focal length I use all the time and it was worth it for me to pay the early adopter premium.
Regarding the distortion - I'm finding I often like the uncorrected images better than the corrected images, and the people I shoot prefer it too unless there's a ton of straight lines or something that looks wanky in the uncorrected version. It's nice to have two versions to choose from.
They get released on the 7th or 14th of December so no one has them yet
I love that they are identical size as the 35- Lighting fast VCM motors and really great colors. This is going to be a really nice addition to the RF lineup for sure.
The compact size of the 70-200 f2.8 (original)- Now a 24/35/50 combo - Just need an 85 1.4 and we are set
I would love an 85 1.4 VCM to finish off the collection but I'm not sure if they can fit it in the same shell? That would be great if that's Canon's goal or if it's even possible, I wouldn't know. But it's definitely a videographers dream to have an identically sized 24/35/50/85 f/1.4. I sure would be stoked to get rid of everything else as well and just use the f/1.4 VCM collection.
I have it on order, and my primary use will be photography. For me, it's 50mm F1.4 that is light and fast. If it's anything like the 35mm, it will be sharp as well.
artsupreme wrote:
I would love an 85 1.4 VCM to finish off the collection but I'm not sure if they can fit it in the same shell? That would be great if that's Canon's goal or if it's even possible, I wouldn't know. But it's definitely a videographers dream to have an identically sized 24/35/50/85 f/1.4. I sure would be stoked to get rid of everything else as well and just use the f/1.4 VCM collection.
The minimum required amount of glass fits in the exterior housing, but it will be cramped 85/1.4 design.
I'd rather see a quality 100/2, and since I don't do video I don't care whether it is the same size.
RustyRus wrote:
What don't you like about the pictures with the 35 1.4 RF? I think its fantastic!!!
Beautiful colors, very pleasing OOF backgrounds, insanely fast AF, - I can't find a single nit pick with the lens in practical use for video and stills.
Is it just the stigma that a lens correction profile was used on it?
I was one of the few who were hoping for more of a statement 35mm, not a hybrid lens that seems like a nice lens, but one full of compromises. I own a lot of 35mm lenses, as it’s what I most often shoot, and I’m just not that excited about this one, honestly. Everytime I think I’ll warm up to it, I see an image like this that gives me pause.
The photographer (96whiteknight) did a nice job, but I don’t like the field curvature, the way the outside edges that approach infinity, seem more sharp than the center (look at the brick wall and the palm trees). I also typically turn off corrections with my lenses, and this one is a bit of a mess without them. To each their own, I’m just not a fan, yet. The closest lens I have to a perfect 35mm is actually the sigma 40mm, but it’s not a 35, so… the next closest is the Tamron 1.4, though I also don’t hate my sigma art 35 (it’s obviously softer, but in a nice way). I occasionally still shoot with the v1 of the L 35 1.4 when I’m interested in a bit of a look. But when it comes to chasing kids, it’s the 1.8 for me, shot at a t2. It’s really nice from about 10 feet in, and it’s very easy to carry without being in the way of all of the dad stuff.
@jj1804 in case you haven't seen it, though there is not much to see, Canon Japan has a couple very low resolution sample photos online at this page, which I've embedded below.
@RustyRus as a fellow Leica shooter, I think you're familiar with the decreased blur towards the image corners that @comotionfilms does not like, given how common it is with wider rangefinder system lenses. I tried to explain it to the best of my layman's abilities in the 35 VCM thread, which you may have seen. Basically, high optical vignetting means that light rays forming the peripheral parts of the image effectively pass through a smaller maximum aperture opening than on-axis light rays. Smaller effective aperture means more depth of field in that portion of the image. The wider the lens, the more a 2-3 stop light transmission difference will affect apparent depth of field across the image in the out of focus background. In the example image in the post above, the cable and palm branch at the top left are sharp, which are probably close to the plane of the subjects, so I don't think it's traditional field curvature causing this (or only traditional FC). That said, the 35's MTFs suggest that the notable divergence of sagittal and tangential planes towards the image periphery might mean one of the two planes does have field curvature and will increase apparent sharpness away from the intended flat plane of focus.
Based on the 50 VCM samples, it does not appear to be noticeably affected by the problem of sharper background corners, though the samples are also not torture tests for revealing this effect.
rscheffler wrote:
@jj1804@ in case you haven't seen it, though there is not much to see, Canon Japan has a couple very low resolution sample photos online at this page, which I've embedded below.
@RustyRus@ as a fellow Leica shooter, I think you're familiar with the decreased blur towards the image corners that @comotionfilms@ does not like. I tried to explain it to the best of my layman's abilities in the 35 VCM thread, which you probably saw. Basically, high optical vignetting means that light rays forming the peripheral parts of the image effectively pass through a smaller maximum aperture opening than on-axis light rays. Smaller effective aperture means more depth of field in that portion of the image. The wider the lens, the more a 2-3 stop light transmission difference will affect apparent depth of field across the image in the out of focus background. In the image above, the cable and palm branch at the top left are sharp, which are probably close to the plane of the subjects, so I don't think it's traditional field curvature causing this. That said, the 35's MTFs suggest that the divergence of the saggital and tangential planes towards the image periphery might mean one of the two planes does have field curvature and will increase apparent sharpness away from the intended flat plane of focus.
Based on the 50 VCM samples, it does not appear to be noticeably affected by this problem, though the samples are also not torture tests for revealing this effect....Show more →
Thanks again for the breakdown explaining all of this!
One lens is ~$1500 and the other is $5100. But both are 67mm filter size and very similar external dimensions. I suspect Canon is 'stretching' this one to be an f/1.4 lens while Leica is 'throttling' it to f/2. The optical block diagram for the two suggests similar size elements.
comotionfilms wrote:
I find the 50mm to be a bit too tight to chase the kids with, unless I’m looking for more of a special portrait moment, in which case I don’t mind the extra size of the 1.2. If you love the 50mm focal length, this isn’t much help, sorry, just speaking about my experience since we’re both chasing similar-aged subjects.
I think it comes down to where you shoot and how old they are. I loved the EF 35 2.0 IS on my 5DII. This was before we had kids. Oddly enough, I didn't quite like focal length for shooting kids. Outside I was cropping it all the time and inside it wasn't wide enough sometimes. So I sold it off together with the EF 35L 1.4 II (which was way too unbalanced on the R5 anyway) and used the EF 40 2.8 extensively outside (still do). But indoors that lens is just not fast enough. I waited for a fast wide angle prime like a 24 1.4 or 28 1.4 from Canon but that never came (in time) and so I got a Leica Q3 instead.
Have been shooting 90% of the outside images with the Q3 now and am looking for something more portable to complement the 28mm focal length for which I think 50 is perfect - or the Sigma 65/2 DG DN if it were to be released for Canon RF...
The RF 50 1.2L is perfect in almost every way, it's just a bit unwieldy one-handed. Enter the RF 50 1.4L that I'm looking forward to seeing reviews and comparisons of. If it's anything like the Sony variant then I'm for sure downgrading just so that it leaves the house more often. What good is the best gear, if you don't use it.
jj1804 wrote:
I think it comes down to where you shoot and how old they are. I loved the EF 35 2.0 IS on my 5DII. This was before we had kids. Oddly enough, I didn't quite like focal length for shooting kids. Outside I was cropping it all the time and inside it wasn't wide enough sometimes. So I sold it off together with the EF 35L 1.4 II (which was way too unbalanced on the R5 anyway) and used the EF 40 2.8 extensively outside (still do). But indoors that lens is just not fast enough. I waited for a fast wide angle prime like a 24 1.4 or 28 1.4 from Canon but that never came (in time) and so I got a Leica Q3 instead.
Have been shooting 90% of the outside images with the Q3 now and am looking for something more portable to complement the 28mm focal length for which I think 50 is perfect - or the Sigma 65/2 DG DN if it were to be released for Canon RF...
The RF 50 1.2L is perfect in almost every way, it's just a bit unwieldy one-handed. Enter the RF 50 1.4L that I'm looking forward to seeing reviews and comparisons of. If it's anything like the Sony variant then I'm for sure downgrading just so that it leaves the house more often. What good is the best gear, if you don't use it....Show more →
That makes sense. I tried to leave the 35 1.8 behind for a “better” lens, but I found myself shooting a lot less (and “dadding” less when shooting since I was more distracted by the larger camera/lens), so I’m back to the 35 1.8. My kids are at the age where they are often on scooters and balance bikes, and with the 35 I can run beside and basically shoot without looking. I’m still getting waist up portraits, I’m just within arms reach of the kids and I’m able to stay engaged in the play. I want to love a 50, I just personally struggle with the whole experience unless I’m really in photographer mode, instead of dad mode. I look forward to seeing the reviews of the new 50 though!
rscheffler wrote:
@jj1804@ in case you haven't seen it, though there is not much to see, Canon Japan has a couple very low resolution sample photos online at this page, which I've embedded below.
@RustyRus@ as a fellow Leica shooter, I think you're familiar with the decreased blur towards the image corners that @comotionfilms@ does not like, given how common it is with wider rangefinder system lenses. I tried to explain it to the best of my layman's abilities in the 35 VCM thread, which you may have seen. Basically, high optical vignetting means that light rays forming the peripheral parts of the image effectively pass through a smaller maximum aperture opening than on-axis light rays. Smaller effective aperture means more depth of field in that portion of the image. The wider the lens, the more a 2-3 stop light transmission difference will affect apparent depth of field across the image in the out of focus background. In the example image in the post above, the cable and palm branch at the top left are sharp, which are probably close to the plane of the subjects, so I don't think it's traditional field curvature causing this (or only traditional FC). That said, the 35's MTFs suggest that the notable divergence of sagittal and tangential planes towards the image periphery might mean one of the two planes does have field curvature and will increase apparent sharpness away from the intended flat plane of focus.
Based on the 50 VCM samples, it does not appear to be noticeably affected by the problem of sharper background corners, though the samples are also not torture tests for revealing this effect....Show more →
I think you explain it well-
I have found the 35 1.4 RF to be a very good performer- I am generally in the minority though when talking about AF 35mm lenses and my favorites.
