I won’t deny this 45/1.2 stopped me in my tracks and very briefly did I think hell yeah I’ll have a bash…. Then suddenly remembered I still have the Tamron 45mm 1.8 VC
Suddenly the RF doesn’t seem quite so appealing especially given the Tamron is weather sealed and dare I say maybe better built too…I dunno??
I have since tried the Tamron on the R50… worked flawlessly.
I’m sure the new native 45RF will be better and obviously not needing the RF adapter… but for me I will stay as I am.
I’m quietly waiting/wishing for the RF version of the sublime EF-m 32/1.4…..that would be heaven!!
Pixelpuffin wrote:
I won’t deny this 45/1.2 stopped me in my tracks and very briefly did I think hell yeah I’ll have a bash…. Then suddenly remembered I still have the Tamron 45mm 1.8 VC
Suddenly the RF doesn’t seem quite so appealing especially given the Tamron is weather sealed too and dare I say maybe better built too…I dunno??
I have since tried the Tamron on the R50… worked flawlessly.
I’m sure the new native 45RF will be better and obviously not needing the RF adapter… but for me I will stay as I am.
No, the Tamron is much better optically than the Canon at larger apertures. Maybe by f/5.6 it's less of a difference but the Canon is designed to have the awful IQ at larger apertures.
Pixelpuffin wrote:
I won’t deny this 45/1.2 stopped me in my tracks and very briefly did I think hell yeah I’ll have a bash…. Then suddenly remembered I still have the Tamron 45mm 1.8 VC
With the adapter... it's enormous. One of the attractive features of the 45/1.2 is its size!
johnctharp wrote:
With the adapter... it's enormous. One of the attractive features of the 45/1.2 is its size!
True
I can’t argue with that
I didn’t say there was anything wrong with the new 45mm - I don’t own one nor have I seen one. I just said I saw the release info and thought wow, sounds great…. Then realised I had the Tamron 45/1.8
I tried it again this afternoon on … don’t laugh… my R100 🤣 worked great, the added weight/bulk made the handling better.. both R100 and R50 are now permanently fitted inside the Neewer cage…superb 3 point fixing, way better than smallrig in my view.
So having kept the Tamron and more importantly checked it works… Ive no need to buy the new RF version… saved myself £480 quid 🤣
Just to add
The Tamron feels much nicer than my RF35/1.8is - that really surprised me!!
Mine will arrive on Wednesday, just in time for Thanksgiving photos the extended family always seems to want. It will be a good eye focus tracking test with squirmy kids.
I've been using the R6 III for a few days now. Sure, a stacked sensor would be nice, but this camera has a lot of great features. (note: I've used a variety of different brand's cameras. Recent Canon cameras I've owned: R6, R5, R6 II, R3)
R6 III thoughts:
> Viewfinder is fine (I was used to lower resolution viewfinders with Nikon)
> IQ is excellent - extra resolution is very nice
> Noise - grain is very nice / signal to noise is solid
> AF is quick and snappy (comparable to R5 II / R3)
> Weight is great - my preference for a smaller / lighter camera
> Video quality is outstanding - I mostly use 4k 30 for Youtube stuff
> Addition of CF Express B - I was glad to see this
> Excellent IBIS - worked great
If you have any questions, I can do my best to answer them.
Canon EOS R6 Mark IIIRF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM lens428mmf/6.31/500s3200 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R6 Mark IIIRF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM lens500mmf/7.11/500s2000 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R6 Mark IIIRF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM lens400mmf/6.31/250s800 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R6 Mark IIIRF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM lens167mmf/5.01/250s400 ISO0.0 EV
I was out yesterday for about an hour and a half with the back screen on most of the time. The temperature was around 39 degrees. It still showed full bars after about 500 images.
Since I mostly have tested with 4k 30, I've had no issues with heating issues.
Now that Sony has released the a7V it's interesting to see that it's slightly better in some areas and worse in others, than the R6III, depending on your priorities. IOW, not that surprising and a quite conservative release actually for a company that is supposedly a market disruptor. It really seems that none of the big 3 want to break their version of this camera out of its seemingly mutually agreed upon performance silo.
Got an email from my supplier today, and I'll be able to pick up my pre-ordered 45mm STM tomorrow.
I can understand why Canon did not put a 50mm label on this lens--it would invite certain confusion--but I checked the patent and the focal length is actually 48 mm. (The 50mm f/1.4 VCM is 48.6mm, for reference.)
So pretty much a 50, for all intents and purposes.
A look at the MTF charts and the mechanical design of this lens reminds me greatly of the EF 50L. We'll be interesting to see how close it comes to my memory of that lens, warts and all, haha.
garyvot wrote:
Got an email from my supplier today, and I'll be able to pick up my pre-ordered 45mm STM tomorrow.
I can understand why Canon did not put a 50mm label on this lens--it would invite certain confusion--but I checked the patent and the focal length is actually 48 mm. (The 50mm f/1.4 VCM is 48.6mm, for reference.)
So pretty much a 50, for all intents and purposes.
A look at the MTF charts and the mechanical design of this lens reminds me greatly of the EF 50L. We'll be interesting to see how close it comes to my memory of that lens, warts and all, haha. ...Show more →
B&H have shipped my (alleged) 45mm this evening, arriving tomorrow.
45 shipped from B&H here as well. Will be curious to see how this stacks up against my EF 50 1.2. I'm not hopeful, but would be a nice weight reduction.
garyvot wrote:
I can understand why Canon did not put a 50mm label on this lens--it would invite certain confusion--but I checked the patent and the focal length is actually 48 mm. (The 50mm f/1.4 VCM is 48.6mm, for reference.)
So pretty much a 50, for all intents and purposes.
It probably gets shorter as one focuses closer, being a 'unit focusing' design, or mostly so, I'd imagine.
garyvot wrote:
A look at the MTF charts and the mechanical design of this lens reminds me greatly of the EF 50L. We'll be interesting to see how close it comes to my memory of that lens, warts and all, haha.
I haven't seen any shots that would bring out the LoCA, but from what I have seen it's not terribly objectionable and diminishes quickly when stopped down. Rendering seems to look good too.
Really the only concern is the focus shift on the 50/1.2L not being repeated here!
TDP suggests in his review that there is focus shift evident and most visible around f/2.8.
What's unclear to me is how cameras will handle this lens. Will they focus wide open and stop down, or will they focus stopped down to account for the focus shift? IIRC Canon's mirrorless cameras normally focus wide open, but there are times when they appear to focus stopped down (in high brightness conditions?).
garyvot wrote:
Got an email from my supplier today, and I'll be able to pick up my pre-ordered 45mm STM tomorrow.
I can understand why Canon did not put a 50mm label on this lens--it would invite certain confusion--but I checked the patent and the focal length is actually 48 mm. (The 50mm f/1.4 VCM is 48.6mm, for reference.)
So pretty much a 50, for all intents and purposes.
A look at the MTF charts and the mechanical design of this lens reminds me greatly of the EF 50L. We'll be interesting to see how close it comes to my memory of that lens, warts and all, haha. ...Show more →
Where can we find this patent? A patent mentioned by Canon Rumors two months ago mentioned 48.6 mm for what supposedly was the RF 45 F/1.2. The RF 50/1.4 VCM has a focal length of 48.5 mm. Rounding the former to 45 mm and the latter to 50 mm is madness.
