Canon Mirrorless Users Have a Wonderful 50mm Option Available Now

Canon Mirrorless Users Have a Wonderful 50mm Option Available Now

One of the features about Canon that I've always liked is that they offer f/1.2 lenses where most everyone else offers f/1.4. I am a bokeh junkie, so that extra little bit really does offer a different look to the background.

For most all my primary people work, I use a 50mm lens, as I like the balance of the field of view with the subtle compression while still having the background be a part of the entire scene.

Canon's new offering, the RF 50mm f/1.2L USM, looks to be an absolute dream. Canon users should rejoice in this updated lens, as the old 50mm f/1.2 was nice, but had some optical errors like fringing, and this lens is expected to perform much better. I feel the release of this lens is a bigger deal than some are realizing simply by the fact that it isn't entirely sold out everywhere.

A few examples of some of my recent 50mm focal length work:

50mm Sigma Art lens. I love the focal length of the 50mm prime.

Another of my 50mm shots, this one was an old vintage Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4. Having a modern optics 50mm f/1.2 would be a dream.

The RF 50mm f/1.2L USM is in stock and ready to ship at B&H today for $2,299, and while that is a pricey lens for sure, I feel it's worth it based on your shooting style, and my 50mm is my everyday workhorse.
Log in or register to post comments

48 Comments

People say Sony lenses are expensive, Jesus $2300.

Sony lenses are expensive. How much is that Sony 35mm f/2.8?

That lens is crazy money, no way I would ever buy it new lol.

Consider this:
Canon RF 50mm 1.2 $2300
Canon EF 50mm 1.2 $1350
Sigma ART 50mm 1.4 $950
Sony Zeiss 50mm 1.4 $1500

I originally thought the Sony Zeiss was crazy money for a 50mm but it has been totally eclipsed, in terms of price, by the $2300 Canon.

Well for $4652 you can buy a used Canon 50mm F1.0 L from KEH.

Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 $3990 (with no autofocus) makes the new Canon RF 50mm f/1.2 look like a bargain. :-p

Tamas Nemeth's picture

And the Noctilux makes that a bargain ($11295).

and without speaking about the weight!
yet one of the main criticizes in the time on the series A7 (credit note of the objectives also, see heavier than on a DSLR)...

Kenneth O. Soto's picture

The 35mm f/2.8 is a Zeiss lens FOR Sony, NOT a Sony lens.

Joel Cleare's picture

Your comparing a prime 2.8 with a prime 1.2 ? Come on now.

Canon glass has never been cheap. If you want the best then you have to pay for it. The lens should last you your career.

Philipp Pley's picture

I challenged the salesman in my local camera shop on the obscene price tag and he said, "look it's as good as the Zeiss 55mm Otus, but $1000 cheaper". I was like "look, nice try, but I'm gonna have to stop you right there, that's clown talk."

If you get i with a cleaning kit you can save $5 though...

Philipp Pley's picture

Now that would have been a far better sales pitch! I'd have been sold for sure. Or imagine a free UV filter, that would be like Christmas and Easter fell on the same day.

Mr Hogwallop's picture

"clown talk" I just added that to my lexicon...

Better autofocus than Otus for sure. And a wider max aperture.

Philipp Pley's picture

There's undeniably a lot benefits to both of those for sure.
On the contrary AF is merely an aid (amongst others ways) to finding focus; the Otus is capable of being in focus too and then the rendering is phenomenal.

Phillip in what ways is the Otus better? Im curious. Can you provide some side by side comparisons? Cheers.

Philipp Pley's picture

I wasn't gonna get super scientific with it. If that's something you so desire, I'm sure some website will have all kinds of charts and corner sharpness of some checkboard stuff you can pixel peep over. Look at DxO mark where they haven't tested the Canon yet to be fair (!) but it would have to kick the Otus off the top spots. Zeiss dominates the top 10 lenses in there and Canon doesn't have a single one.

Beyond the scientific, if you've ever used an Otus it'll make everything else feel inferior. I was sceptical of Zeiss, tried it, bought more, and now would never buy any other brand.

I have an 85 Otus and it is sharp and clinical, very little CA. It still doesn’t render like my 85 1.2. Or autofocus.

Not interested in the charts or any kind of pixel peeping. Simply an image comparison. I'd bet any client wouldn't be able to differentiate between the two but until we can actually view some side by side images then we can't really draw conclusions properly.

David Stephen Kalonick's picture

Clown talk because it doesn't autofocus​? 😉

Philipp Pley's picture

haha no, because it's just ultra lush despite not having a red ring for decorations.

Jonathon Rusnak's picture

That's cheap compared to more expensive glass.

Jonathon Rusnak's picture

I'm not 100% sure. But it would seem that way.

Technically speaking, no. "More expensive glass" might only cost a dollar more, which isn't enough to make a $3000 lens seemed cheap.

But your version was funny, and the Grammar Nazi version isn't...

Han Seoul-Oh's picture

clearly the "R" in EOS R is pronounced "AAARRR!!" as in pirates plundering your wallet.

Han Seoul-Oh's picture

let's be honest though, a 50mm ƒ/1.2 is not a need. it's a want. so Canon isn't really plundering their customers; anyone who wants it can pay for it but it's not a 50 1.4 or 50 1.8 for $2300.

Pete Whittaker's picture

That's fair but Canon have made no indication (that I can find) of when or if they plan on coming out with those lenses for their new lens mount. Which kind of says, if you plan on being an early adopter, you'd better have deep pockets.

More comments