Rivermist
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.9 #4 · The R6M3 and RF 45 1.2 lens. | |
takowasa wrote:
I was quite the fan of the EF 50 / 1.2L back in the day. No, it was not sharp across the frame wide open, but it was considerably better than the EF 50 / 1.4, especially with regards to color and contrast at wider apertures:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=115&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
In other words, of the EF 50mm primes made by Canon, the EF 50 / 1.2L was the best, so, yes, sharpness was relevant, as were other technical qualities. Then came the Sigma 50 / 1.4A, and the debate over sharpness vs "character" became an issue (myself, I chose the Sigma 50 / 1.4A, and my only disappointment with the choice was that the Sigma was significantly larger and heavier).
Now, the RF 45 / 1.2 STM may not be any worse than the EF 50 / 1.2L, but there are *significantly* better options for RF mount with regards to IQ. Of course, they're also significantly larger and more expensive. This doesn't mean that you can't get great photos with the RF 45 / 1.2 STM. But, by the same token, it doesn't mean that you can't get great photos with the RF 50 / 1.8, which is smaller and less expensive still, albeit a stop slower. If background blur is super important, then the RF 85 / 2 IS STM would be the better choice, as it's about the same size and price, way sharper, but more blur and very pleasant bokeh. But it's also twice the focal length, so not the same thing, obviously.
And that's the point -- none of these lenses are the same. They all have their plusses and minuses. For some, the RF 45 / 1.2 hits the nail on the head or, at least, represents the best balance of what people are looking for. But others would have preferred a 45 / 1.2 that was closer (if not equal) to the RF 85 / 2 IS in terms of sharpness, at least stop for stop, accepted that the lens would be softer than the 85 / 2 IS at apertures wider than f/2, in a package not larger than the 85 / 2 IS but for, say, double the price. That would have been a much nicer balance for many (me included).
So, some are getting what they want, others are not getting what they hoped for. In other words, business as usual. : )...Show more →
Canon's product line around the 50mm focal length was already puzzling in the EF range. The f:1.8 model was released 1987, version 2 in 1993 and then an STM version in 2015. There was only one f:1.4, 1993, without any attempt to issue e.g., an IS version with improved optics and AF, a lens which would have been a killer IMHO. The f:1.2 was released in 2007, and like all the maximum aperture lenses in EF without IS, and being an L lens it was quite expensive. It was also heavy and bulky.
In the RF series we got off to a great start with the 50mm f:1.2L, followed by the f:1.8 at bargain price and impressive compactness. But the RF 50mm1.4 slot is populated with a VCM that is impressive for the hybrid user but disappointing for a still photographer by the lack of IS and a relatively bulky and heavy construction.
The RF 45mm 1.2 is therefore an interesting step for Canon by adding to the current choices of aperture, price, bulk and optical excellence a lens that is clearly prioritizing low price, weight and bulk (with computational corrections to make up for a less sophisticated design). This is probably not the lens for photographers who use primes extensively, but for those of us who use zooms as primary glass and primes for less frequent shooting purposes, size, weight and cost matter a lot, as they define whether the lens is in the backpack or not. Having an additional f-stop relative to the f:1.8 is meaningful in this context. I do regret the absence of IS, which makes it advisable to use a camera with IBIS (r6mk2), i.e. a tad heavier than an R8.
|
