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.
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
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)...
Yongnuo 50mm f/1.4 $176 :-D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgzrGWBPVdU
The 35mm f/2.8 is a Zeiss lens FOR Sony, NOT a Sony lens.
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.
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...
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.
"clown talk" I just added that to my lexicon...
Better autofocus than Otus for sure. And a wider max aperture.
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.
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.
Clown talk because it doesn't autofocus? 😉
haha no, because it's just ultra lush despite not having a red ring for decorations.
Ya think!
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...
clearly the "R" in EOS R is pronounced "AAARRR!!" as in pirates plundering your wallet.
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.
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.
I'm sure it's a great lens, but I feel like it would have behooved Canon to release a 1.4 or 1.8 50mm first, as one of the original 4. As it stands now, two of their four lenses are insanely expensive (the 50 1.2 and the 28-70) - two lenses that most people won't ever buy.
I think Nikon did a much better job by releasing f/1.8 primes at a decent price and introducing the more exotic, faster glass just a bit down the road.
But, I'm sure most people will be using adapters for a while, whether it's the Canon R or Nikon Z.
If Nikon only introduced the Z6 and the 'pedestrian' glass, I would agree. But they introduced the Z7 which is pro body priced (I say it falls short of pro status, but that's for another thread) with the pedestrian glass.
Canon has chosen to get the Canon faithful where they are best known and that's terrific lenses. When their pro R body hits the market, there will be pro caliber native glass to use right out of the box.
Is it better than the Zeiss equivalent? Maybe, maybe not, but I'll bet for 99% of shots taken, it would be very hard to tell the difference, AND it has auto focus.
If anybody thinks that Canon will have a pile of these new lenses sitting around not being purchased once the pro body hits the market is mistaken. Let's see if Nikon or Sony move to match the 50 f1.2 and the 28-70 f2.
I think we may have different definitions of what "pro" lenses are. 1.8 lenses have historically been viewed as the beginner lenses or whatever, but I think that is changing now as people come around to the fact that 1) bokeh is overrated and 2) the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is negligible especially considering how great modern cameras are in low light. 1.8 primes can be extremely well corrected and smaller, which is what Nikon is going for.
And Nikon is releasing a 50 1.2 next year. No idea about Sony. But I think Nikon did it correctly, releasing the cheaper (and more commercially appealing) 50 1.8 first, then a 1.2.
>> 1.8 lenses have historically been viewed as the beginner lenses <<
By loser gear fetishists. Real photographers, no. I'm not disagreeing with you - I just think your point needs making even more violently. Bokeh is a hack's tool - it's most useful exactly to beginners with poor composition skills.
If you look at the shots with the article you have to ask Why? If your blur the background to pudding, why the hell not shoot with a cheap lens in front of a painted cloth? Or shoot in front of a projected slide, or photoshop in a blurred version of anything you like. This sort of photography is an expensive form of occupational therapy, not art.
Absolutely agree.
One of my favorite portrait lenses is my Tamron SP 85mm 1.8. As sharp as any portrait lens out there, aside from like an Otus or something. I often stop down to f/2 or lower even anyway. I have no interest in f/1.4 or especially 1.2 lenses most of the time. Though I am absolutely going to get the Nikkor 58 1.4 but that has nothing to do with the 1.4 aperture.
Yes. One of the problems we have is that most photographers are completely ignorant of important lens characteristics that can't be associated with a number, and makers understandably sacrifice these to get those numbers. If you look at lens made for pro film and video, things are very different - just do a search for comparisons between Cooke lenses and others. (That Nikon 58 has something close to the "Cooke Look" imo.)
What the heck? An article about a new Canon lens featuring photos made with OTHER lenses, and none with the Canon lens. Really?!
Not all of us are Tony Northrup. 😂
All about getting those clicks, my dude. They love them some click bait. They also love to rehash ideas like ‘check out the new gear!’ And ‘here’s why it’s not about the gear!’. 90% of the ‘helpful’ articles here are lifted content from youtubers.
I have to remember to clean up my news feed...
Honestly, the difference in bokeh between f/1.2 and f/1.4 seems like pretty much just placebo, and often is just how soft/unsharp the lens is at that aperture.
Has anyone actually compared results? 1/3rd of a stop seems absolutely trivial. I can definitely tell a difference between 1.4 and 1.8, which is 2/3rd of a stop, but even then I had to pixel peep and combare A/B side by side. In real-world usage, not relevant. (And this is coming from someone who chose the Nikon 85mm f1.4 over the f1.8)
I am very much open to change my mind if someone can show me clear evidence that there is a noticeable difference between 1.2 and 1.4, though.
Also, how can you not post sample images of the Canon f1.2 lens...? What was the purpose of this article if we can't see for ourselves?
Edit: After googling the visual differences between 1.2 and 1.4, I'm a little surprised. The difference is much bigger than 1.4 vs 1.8 which seems weird to be, but still, I stand corrected.
It's kind of like focal length, the wider you go, the more 1mm makes a big difference, 14 vs 15mm is a big difference where 85 and 86mm isn't so much. I feel aperture is the same, 1.2 to 0.95 is significant as well. :) now, would a customer ever care? who knows. But for me, I am obsessed with that special rendering. so I like it!
That really isn't a bad analogy actually. Never thought about it that way.
It depends a lot on the effective aperture of the lens, off-centre. Mechanical vignetting on the RF 50mm is sufficiently high that as soon as one leaves the dead centre of the frame, other f1.4 lenses which carry their nominal aperture further across the frame may produce as much if not more blur quantity in the corners.
The quality of the blur is also important, as owners of both, let's say, the Sigma 50mm and the Canon 50mm f1.4 USM already know.
I tested out a 50mm L series FD lens 1.2 a few weeks ago at a vintage camera sale. They wanted $500 Canadian for it, a little pricy for a vintage lens but mounted to sony mirrorless the image quality and picture/video I took with it are outstanding.
For me what I’m more interested in with the mirrorles system is finally canon can adapt its old FD lenses without needing a glass element on the adapter to get proper focus.
If I ever get an R, it will be for vintage lenses hands down. Mirrorles are the best system for that imho because of EVF benefits you can use to help with focus etc.
$2300 USD for hobbiests is relatively inaccessible for a prime. Pros a different story I guess.
as someone who started with canon and moved to nikon
this new canon r and r lenses look so nice, ok the video is shit but for stills, nice.
this lens is super interesting and might be even more interesting when adapted to a fuji gfx.
A lot of lens for a mid rez consumer box? Is a new pro line camera coming soon?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Funny how I price wedding as the same price as new gear . My next wedding will cost $2300 😳. Glad this is just a hobby.