Is There a Pair of New f/1.2L Lenses on the Horizon?

[Walrus]

The ef version isn’t too bad to be ignored. It saved me from taking those 85 1.2s

The EF 50 f1.4 is only good as an ashtray tbh I tested it first hand last year, my RF 50 f1.8 eats it for breakfast, and my Sigma 40 Art...well, see it for yourself, the level of the EF is on pair with the cheapest chinese optics out there... https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...d-party-lens-manufacturers.43295/#post-987288

 

[molagbal]

A 35/1.2 would be nice. Even Nikon has one now. It’s hard to imagine the Rf 85/1.2 being any better with a revision.

The Rf 50/1.2 could do with better colour fringing control when wide open on speculative highlights.

I wouldn't mind that but it already seems reasonable to me. The LoCA doesn't seem any worse than the Sony and Nikon equivalents, even a little better than the Sony I'd say.

In my opinion it needs a diet instead. Almost 1kg for a 50mm is a bit much, even for a complex well corrected design.

 

[sanj]

I love the idea of a 1.2 35mm and 1.2 24mm

 

[Ozarker]

Please, no more f/1.2 lenses. There's absolutely no point in carrying a behemoth that costs a fortune for an aperture you'd hardly use. An 85 f/1.4 IS is what we need now.

"There's absolutely no point in carrying a behemoth that costs a fortune for an aperture you'd hardly use."

What?????? No point for you.

 

[Sporgon]

The vitriol that’s often directed at the EF 50/1.4 here on CR is astonishing; it is actually a superb lens in many ways. Try one on a mirrorless camera so that it’s actually in focus at f/1.4 and see how you get on. My only gripe with the lens is the dreadfully cheap feeling body it’s in.

 

[M1k4]

Was going to buy 24mm f 1.4 VCM and 35mm f 1.4 VCM but I think I will wait for these two f 1.2 lenses. Hopefully 24mm and 35mm f 1.2 L USM

 

[EricN]

The EF 50 f1.4 is only good as an ashtray tbh I tested it first hand last year, my RF 50 f1.8 eats it for breakfast, and my Sigma 40 Art...well, see it for yourself, the level of the EF is on pair with the cheapest chinese optics out there... https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...d-party-lens-manufacturers.43295/#post-987288

I believe @Bonich was mentioning ef 85mm f1.4L, not ef 50mm f1.4

 

[neuroanatomist]

The vitriol that’s often directed at the EF 50/1.4 here on CR is astonishing; it is actually a superb lens in many ways. Try one on a mirrorless camera so that it’s actually in focus at f/1.4 and see how you get on. My only gripe with the lens is the dreadfully cheap feeling body it’s in.

What’s wrong with you, @Sporgon? Have you not seen the test chart shots? The test chart shots, man…the test chart shots!! How dare you have the hubris to suggest a lens that performs so poorly on the test chart shots can actually be used to take a decent picture? I say, how dare you, sir?!?

 

[EricN]

What’s wrong with you, @Sporgon? Have you not seen the test chart shots? The test chart shots, man…the test chart shots!! How dare you have the hubris to suggest a lens that performs so poorly on the test chart shots can actually be used to take a decent picture? I say, how dare you, sir?!?

Rick James - Cocaine Is A Hell Of A Drug

Copyright retained by the original holders."Is A Hell Of A Drug"...(In Loving Memory Of...)

youtu.be

 

[roby17269]

What’s wrong with you, @Sporgon? Have you not seen the test chart shots? The test chart shots, man…the test chart shots!! How dare you have the hubris to suggest a lens that performs so poorly on the test chart shots can actually be used to take a decent picture? I say, how dare you, sir?!?

Or mayyyybe, just maybe... a number of people used the lens and just did not like it. Imagine that
Personally, I have never shot a test chart in my life as photographer...nor changed my mind about a lens because of a review or test chart shot.

I had one and found it simply unusable fully open, way too soft. The EF 85 1.2 had issues nailing the focus at 1.2 with DSLRs (limitations of the AF systems at the time more than the lens'), but when it did, the results looked great. The EF 50 1.4 never made me feel happy I had it. Not every lens in the Canon arsenal has redeeming qualities.

To be fair, I've never liked Canon's 50mm lenses till the great RF 50 1.2. That one and the HC 3.5/50 II rekindled my appreciation for this fl.
The EF 50mm 1.4... I would not take one for free right now. I know it would end up taking space in my camera stuff drawers, even if it was actually to deliver better with the R5 AF

 

[Sporgon]

What’s wrong with you, @Sporgon? Have you not seen the test chart shots? The test chart shots, man…the test chart shots!! How dare you have the hubris to suggest a lens that performs so poorly on the test chart shots can actually be used to take a decent picture? I say, how dare you, sir?!?

I read @Walrus post just before heading off to my grandson's ninth birthday, so dug out the old EF 50 1.4 and gave it a spin.

 

[P-visie]

I read @Walrus post just before heading off to my grandson's ninth birthday, so dug out the old EF 50 1.4 and gave it a spin.

You can see that the dog is clearly unhappy being photographed with the EF 50mm f1.4

 

[Sporgon]

You can see that the dog is clearly unhappy being photographed with the EF 50mm f1.4

No, this had just happened the frame before.......

 

[Ozarker]

The vitriol that’s often directed at the EF 50/1.4 here on CR is astonishing; it is actually a superb lens in many ways. Try one on a mirrorless camera so that it’s actually in focus at f/1.4 and see how you get on. My only gripe with the lens is the dreadfully cheap feeling body it’s in.

Mirrorless has been a boon for focus. I used to have that lens. At the time, it was on a 70D.

Anyway, mirrorless is great. It certainly helps one figure out, "Is it the lens or the camera missing?" I used to spend so much time doing AFMA.

 

[Del Paso]

Mirrorless has been a boon for focus. I used to have that lens. At the time, it was on a 70D.

Anyway, mirrorless is great. It certainly helps one figure out, "Is it the lens or the camera missing?" I used to spend so much time doing AFMA.

Yes, AFMA was a pain in the a..
Especially if you had many lenses and more than one body. It also had to be repeated every few months since moving mirrors don't exactly retain their position after a long period of use.
I mirrorless also for focusing manual vintage lenses.

 

[Walrus]

Try one on a mirrorless camera so that it’s actually in focus at f/1.4

The test I posted was done on a mirrorless as you could see, and the cheapo RF 50 1.8 wideopen is crisper then the EF 50 1.4 probably even at f8
But as an ashtray is very good looking, that's for sure!

 

[Sporgon]

I mirrorless also for focusing manual vintage lenses.

Me too ! In fact that is why I bought an R6. The combination of IBIS and customising a suitable, easily reached button for magnification has been a eureka moment for myself and old vintage glass. There are some beautiful, mint old lenses out there with fascinating, but relatively simple optical formulas: they are just not fast. This image was shot using a 1971 Takumar 105mm f/2.8 (at about f/8 I guess), an " Ernostar" optical formula, the forerunner to the Sonnar. Some of these old lenses can make modern ones look "muddy" in comparison, but they tend not to be so sharp at the edges of the frame. Maybe it's with there being so few elements in the construction compared with modern glass.

 

[EricN]

The test I posted was done on a mirrorless as you could see, and the cheapo RF 50 1.8 wideopen is crisper then the EF 50 1.4 probably even at f8
But as an ashtray is very good looking, that's for sure!

I thought it looked like you intentionally used bad technique on some of the photos, but I know you would NEVER do that.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I'd like to see a "halo" lens like a 50 0.95 with AF, one can dream. It'd probably cost less than the manual focus Leica though!

Back in the early days of EOS AF, the EF 50mm f1.0 and EF 85mm f1.2 lenses were the big halo lenses. These days we seem to have a re-gurgitation of F1.2 and F1.4 ideas but as far as halo products....these are well served products and are already very common in other brands and even non OEM brands like Sigma. Just becuase Canon pioneered these back in the 1980's doesn't mean thay are still the class leader. Canon have dropped the ball with their fast primes (just look at the IQ and AF fiasco of the EF 50mm f1.2 L) and have been playing catch up with the RF mount.
If Canon really wanted a halo lens category, they could easily look at the nasa f0.95 portfolio of lenses and offer modern interpretations.

Back in the day, canon owned the big whites, like the 400mm f2.8 and 600mm f4. These days the competion has caught up and Canon's responce was to take the EF mk III versions and weld a permanant EF to R adapter to it and call it a "new" RF version. Both Nikon and Sony's wild life lens offerings are far more innovative, interesting and useful than the current Canon RF offerings. Even Sigma have managed to get a 300-600mm f4 OS lens to market before Canon...and we've had rumours of the Canon lens for years.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a canon brand through and through....but Canon have been sitting on their proverbial lens laurals for too long.

A 50mm f1.0 that is actually sharp and has a decent AF would be amazing. However, I can't see much advantage in visual impact or light gathering of a 1/3 stop on a 35mm or even a 24mm. Anything below 40mm....f1.4, 1.2, 1.0 isn't going to deliver much of a difference.
Over 50mm, then yes there is visual and light gathering benefits. I'd love to use a sharp 50mm f1.0 lene. Yes the RF 50mm f1.2 L and RF 85mm f1.2 are amazing lenses and are far superior to anything offered on the EF mount....however the EF 35mm f1.4 II L is still THE standard that all other 35mm lenses are judged by and that includes the new RF VCM offering. Sure a mk II 50L and a mk II 85L would be amazing but there are other lenses that Canon should be considering first.

 

[Sporgon]

The test I posted was done on a mirrorless as you could see, and the cheapo RF 50 1.8 wideopen is crisper then the EF 50 1.4 probably even at f8
But as an ashtray is very good looking, that's for sure!

When shooting close up, on focusing distances of around 4' the spherical aberration of the EF 1.4 is more apparent, but then who wants to shoot at f/1.4 at that distance ?
When shooting at farther distances, where the dof at f/1.4 might become more realistic, the results from the lens at f/1.4 are surprisingly good. Certainly it surprised me !
Below is the full frame at f/1.4, then a 100% crop slightly off centre. The raw file is converted with minimal sharpening and then I have sharpened at 100% of 0.6 pixel in luminance.