My review of Canon's latest standard prime lens: the RF 50 1.4L! Order the Canon RF 50mm f1.4L from B&H: bhpho.to/3UwO4bg or WEX UK: tidd.ly/3Utg3bK Sell your used gear to MPB at: bit.ly/3ULU9yL Buy used gear from MPB at: prf.hn/l/YLqwRAP Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs Gordon's In Camera book: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ Cameralabs merchandise: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop Gordon’s retro gear channel: th-cam.com/users/dinobytes Gordon's travel tips channel: www.youtube.com/@GordonsTravelTips Equipment used for producing my videos MacBook Air 15in (M3): amzn.to/4cPat9S DJI Osmo Pocket 3: click.dji.com/AIOhqT-LWUFDq-bGk8hD4Q?pm=link Panasonic Lumix S5 II: amzn.to/3Hf5IcI Sony A6400: prf.hn/l/pRO0wp5 Sony e 24mm f1.8: amzn.to/2TqWNzk Rode NT USB mic: amzn.to/3AdHcUp Rode Wireless Go II mic: amzn.to/3xkCvGo Rode Lavalier Go mic: amzn.to/3ygzzKY Godox UL150 light: amzn.to/2VpVbXE Godox QR-P70 softbox: amzn.to/3yQfGdF Music: www.davidcuttermusic.com / @dcuttermusic As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
What we’re seeing from the top camera/lens makers these days is that they’re coming out with the very best they can do. The epitome of the state if the art in lens making. I’ve seen it described in several places as the golden age of lens making. So, they’ve large, heavier and more expensive. Sigma makes some excellent lenses too, and are generally less expensive, though not always. But often, they’re even larger and heavier. That comes from a less expensive bill of materials and simp,er manufacturing. But while they can make excellent lenses, they’re also known for greater variability in output. You have a greater chance of getting a “bad” Sigma than from more premium lens makers. There’s a trade off to everything. Fortunately, for a lot of lens buyers, they can’t tell whether their sample is better or worse.
You must have been very busy with 3 lenses. Thank you for your hard work. With their price tags, the L VCM lenses are hardly mid-range. The EF L lenses are probably the only real mid-range options for the RF mount. I've traded in my RF24-105F4L for used EF24-70F2.8Lii and EF70-200F2.8Lii. I might also acquire the EF35F1.4L ii and the EF85F1.4L IS some time down the line. However, it's all going to be the Sigma DG DN Art lenses when they become available.
After seeing the price I'm sticking with the Sigma Art 50 1.4 on my R6 II. It cost $900 cdn ($700 us) brand new and is just as sharp as the RF 50 1.2 (or 99% as sharp... zoomed in to 100% I couldn't tell which was which even side by side most of the time). And on the R6 II the Sigma focuses twice as fast as the RF lens which is nuts. Also Sigma Art has 7 year warranty on their lenses in Canada vs 1 year on the Canon. And even adapted the setup is still smaller and lighter than the RF. It's just a win win.
It's for rich kids with money to burn. I have the old Canon 1.4 USM which I picked up for about £100 used, and next to the EF flagship at the time it is sometimes sharper in the middle at certain stops. Only difference is the bokeh isn't as nice (looks a bit wiry sometimes), but in post you can edit it to look a little better. I love the look of the L primes but I don't use them enough to warrant the prices.
@@ArcanePath360 Sie gehören nicht zur Zielgruppe! Wer von Anfang an nur den Preis im Blick hat kann sich das Objektiv nicht leisten! Sie reden von reichen Kindern nur weil sie in ihrem Leben nichts gebacken bekommen haben! Das ist auch der Grund warum sie nur den Mindestlohn bekommen oder gar arbeitslos sind! Außerdem sind ihre Ausführungen frei erfunden und absolut falsch!
Sure, these new lenses offer essential features for videographers, the impressive compensation for focus breathing which makes the optical design more challenging also points in that direction. But for photographers, these are usually merely nice to have while adding a substantial contribution to the price tag as well as the weight of the camera bag.
Please make a video on RF 28-70mm F2.8 - as a Canon R8 user we have a scarcity of money and we have to make sure that this lens will serve well for product, wedding and street photography very well with sharp images.
as a long-term canon shooter who has invested a lot in RF glass I can see why people are leaving the system to Sony or Nikon these prices are ridiculous and i'm starting to think I should jump out now too.
I really wanted to get a nice full set covering a wide focal range, but I always have such a hard time justifying buying more lenses, especially because I wont be using that many and because the prices are about 25% more expensive in europe. I always feel it would just be waste if I dont use em enough🫡 I have a 16, 50, and a telephoto zoom, but I could definitly use a zoom for the wider focal range. Or maybe a prime with IS in the 24-35mm range under f1.8, like the new 24 f1.4. I might be better off with a medium format one day to cover the wider area instead of getting a new lens for the canon system. But who knows? Maybe these lenses will fare better and be worth the cost? Every brand has a bad thing about them, canon is not the only one. For example, I did hear some pretty good stuff about the RF 28-70 that got launched recently.
I am the owner of a Canon EOS R. I want to upgrade my camera and need new lenses. I calculated that the required set when purchasing a Sony system would cost me $1,500 less, even though I would buy a higher class Sony camera (A7rV vs R6m2). THIS IS JUST MADNESS
Would love to see a direct comparison with the RF 50mm f1.2. If this can hang with the bigger lens I would gladly trade the extra 1/3 stop for the smaller size and weight.
Gordon! If you get the chance it would be cool to do a rf 24mm shoot out. 24mm F1.8 24mm F1.4 24-70mm F2.8 24-105 F4 With a bonus 24mm F1.4 EF. That’s would be amazing.
Made the decision to part with my Canon gear / R5 a month ago based on the crazy prices of RF lenses. Updating would've been very expensive or required pretty serious downsizing from my old EF lineup. Glad I made that move after seeing this latest bunch of lenses released.
@@salami99 Sigma adapted is great and all, but sigma wasnt exactly known for great autofocus on EF. Comment section anecdotes arent exactly evidence. You gotta rent one and test for yourself. I would test one from lenrentals, they seem to be the only outfit that checks to make sure gear works proper. Oh..and its big an heavy...so more small compact ef 1.4s for canon users.
@@simonmaduxx6777 sigma makes good lenses, sure. But I didn’t like how heavy they are and the non native performance on my 5dsr. On the mirrorless they might be better but I never tested that so I can’t comment
@@brianbeattyphotography same. I've been dying for a new modern 50 mm for so long I don't know what to do. I'm certainly not buying this camera profile mandatory lens. Maybe I'll end up renting a sigma and seeing if I can bear with the weight.+ Canon made sure to make their old EF best lenses still very expensive if not the same price as these new RF versions. The old 35 Mark II cost more than this one. I guess new purchasers are getting a discount on the cheaper glass that doesn't fill the image circle and worst performance for aberrations.
Ich hatte zwanzig Jahre ein EF 50 1.4 USM. Die Schärfe bei Offenblende war gelinde gesagt überschaubar und die CA‘s waren sehr ausgeprägt! Der Randabfall ist extrem!
As long as you stick to 2.8, you'll enjoy razor sharp pictures of your subjects. Below that..forget about if you care about sharpness. Also, with an R5, you will see much more aberrations than you will on a r62. I've shot thousands of frames with both. Since its been my only option for over a decade, i've made the most of it. my old 35 isf2. Takes great sharp pictures, just watch those contrast areas, even if oof.
@@ThtGuyWtThBeard yep, Sigma made some great EF mount lenses, although they can be quite large. I was particularly fond of the 40mm f1.4 ART, although again pretty hefty!
Thank you. Now that Canon has finally offering 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm f/1.4 RF mount L primes how do these lenses compare head to head in quality to Sony’s GM primes? Better, worse, or really just the same? I shoot both Canon RF L and Sony GM | GM II and it looks like I can finally get equivalent primes in both family where the f/1.4 primes are about the same. Which do you prefer? Let us know. Take care.
@@cameralabs thank you for that! Can you also please consider a head-to-head comparison of the RF 50 1.4 vs RF 50 1.8 vs Sigma Art 50 1.4 in your standard testing scenarios? I found my RF 50 1.8 a substantial sharpness improvement from my old EF 50 1.8 STM, and I'm curious to find out if - and by how much of margin - the RF 50 1.4 would be from my RF 50 1.8. Mainly I'm interested in the R5mk2 FF 45MP differentials, but it may also be very interesting to see the same differences on the R7's APS-C 32MP sensor as it would work as an 80mm f/1.4 lens in that case. Aside from sharpness across the frame, my other key area of interest is CA - I find that to be a thorn in my side with the RF 85 2.0 Macro, and is the main reason I'd be stepping up my primes to L level. Thanks again for your time!
This could be interesting, my RF 50mm f1.8 is probably the most needed upgrade, the EF 50mm f1.4 doesn't fair so well on the R5 and, I think optically it has roots in the 1970s FD mount, so it's stood the test of time well! :) I don't think I care for the aperture ring, and would probably remain redundant for me, I would rather not have it, and I think it is probably pointless for photos, just much easier to use the dial. I've noticed that recent L series Canon lens hoods are ribbed inside instead of the cloth, I think the cloth material eliminated stray reflections better, and the 67mm thread, so that's all my 77mm filters unusable with the hood! Other than that it looks like a great option, £1500 ish on WeX, still quite painful! 😄...
How often do you find yourself using 1.2 on that lens? I have been considering an f/1.2 lens and have been questioning myself on how often I would really use it at 1.2 outside of headshots.
I have the Rf 50/1.2 and have for a long time. I prefer the Rf 85/1.2 as it controls fringing better wide open (especially on specular highlights which go purple / magenta) I picked up the rf 24/1.4 VCM and I’m considering the rf 50/1.4 VCM as I’ll be doing more video work. Not having to rebalance or calibrate a gimbal between swaps is very appealing. I hope someone compares the two rf 1.4 and 1.2 soon. It doesn’t make a great deal of sense to have both but I do love the 1.2 at 1.2 for stills. I have the rf 24-105/2.8 z but I’m not thrilled with it at 24mm. I’ll have to do more tests now I have the 1.4.
Gordon - 50 1.2 is $1720 used (mpb) and this is about to be released at $1400 new. What would you choose? The 1.2 is a little loud focusing and a touch slow but very accurate focusing and obviously fantastic optically… Can’t test the 1.4 yet!
It would be nice to make a side by side comparison. I'd say the focusing will probably be quicker on the new one and quieter too, but if they don't bother you - and the bulk isn't a factor, then the 1.2 could be a good choice. Both are a bit too big and heavy for me though
@ Awesome response, thanks Gordon! Maybe I’ll compare both soon. The 1.2 is large and heavy but wow I can’t believe the results wide open, tack sharp for sure with little correction! There’s always a trade off as we said the focus is louder and slower but I’m impressed on the image out of the RF 50 1.2 vs. my old Sony GM 50 1.4. I did not expect such a difference honestly in that testing.
Der Typ weiß alles obwohl er absolut sicher nur geraten hat und von anderen abschreibt! Keines der drei Objektive hat er jemals aus der Nähe betrachtet! Ein Dampfplauderer!😊 Ich erspare es mir hier den Namen zu nennen! Er legt ja besonderen Wert auf seine Meinung!
Great review! This new hybrid video series of lenses is pretty cool! But, no aperture on all canon bodies is a very Canon thing to do. The gold stripe 50mm 1.4 had a blue shift to it and the old 50mm L lens had a problem, unlike the 50mm CNE cine lens. I'm glad Canon is making these lenses the same size, great for follow focus, etc. I guess this is why Canon kept suing everyone who came out with autofocus RF lenses. It seems like there are only a couple of Canon RF lenses that are quality and reasonably priced, the rest are garbage or too expensive. That is impressive that how small they are without focus breathing. Nice review!
I would like to know if it has the same distortion on unedited files like that of the RF 35mm f1.4L, also would like to see a comparison to the RF 50mm f1.2L .. Thank Gordon!
All their new lenses have distortion if you don't apply the profile. They're only designed to be used with it. If you turn it off, it's like removing an element. It won't work.
After using an old 70-200 f4 on my R6II Canon's old lenses work amazingly well especially when I compare it to my Z6 and old Nikon glass. I can't see the point unless you are working with a very high budget. I admit I want it, maybe the 35...
I’m not sure what the terminology is but does the auto focus happen all inside the lens so there are glass in front of it or Can you see the auto focus move in and out kind of similar to the RF 51.2 lens.
I know what you mean. When it al happens inside without anything changing on the outside, that's called internal focusing, and yes, the new 1.4L VCM lenses all do that. They avoid the extending section externally. Note when switched off, their focusing groups can rattle if you shake the lens - not damaging it, but just warning you!
@@cameralabsso would you consider the rf 50 1.2 to not be internal focusing? I see the front glass move forward and backwards. Where’s as my rf 85 1.2 doesn’t do that and neither does my ef 35 Mark II.
@@mattgericke4537 it's a bit of a cheat as the barrel doesn't extend, but some external elements do move, so I'd say it does NOT have internal focusing.
@@cameralabs sorry for the all the questions but I appreciate the answers. So does the new rf 35 1.4 have a front element that moves back and forth like the rf 50 1.2 or does it stay in place like the rf 85 1.2? Also do you think the rf 50 1.4 has a faster and less clunky auto focus compared to the rf 50 1.2? I had the rf 50 1.2 but returned it due to the autofocus being so jerky and clunky when talking photos, not to mention it was even worse during video work.
@@mattgericke4537 all the new 1.4L VCM lenses have internal focusing, no external moving parts, and yes, smoother focusing than the 50 1.2! PS - if you're ordering one online, please do consider going through my links here or at cameralabs.com thanks!
These lenses are $2k in Canada. I think if the IQ is great at 1.4 (and from your review it seems it is), I’d love to put this on my R7 for a variety of purposes (portrait and landscape come to mind)…but I can’t help think that for the price of two of these, I can just get the nearly $4k 28-70 F2 that is fantastic through its zoom range at F2 (though, heavy to carry for a full day!). I really wish Canon could’ve got these prices down at least $500. The aperature ring is mostly a waste for me (just my opinion). Thanks for the review as usual!
Yes I feel you, I wouldn't mind these at all if they fell on my lap, but in the end the logical thing for me was to bite the bullet on the 24-105 f2.8 with the pinky promise this is my last hybrid lens for work stuff and that with the other RF and EF glass I already have, I'm covered for all my commercial/hybrid gigs. From there though, I'm eyeing either vintage primes or cinema style lenses since I'm now really focused on DoP work, but realistically I'm probably going to rent these out on a per-project basis so I can pick and choose the exact flavour each time. Maybe build a set of cheap vintage ones for fun. The point of using primes for me is when you're trying to extract maximum image quality and/or style at the expense of convenience, why go for the Canons that maintain "some" convenience (but not like the zooms) and have a "boring" image when you can get proper cine-style glass like DZO/Nisi Athena/Dulens/etc etc for cheaper. And then zoom as the money-maker lens, IQ is plenty good enough with it for that and it definitely does the job of impressing the clientele.
There's distortion and vignetting on all these lenses when used without the profile. But it's not designed to be used without the profile. That's why it's greyed-out in the menus. It's like asking how it looked if you pull out one of the glass elements! It won't look great. Sure there's pros and cons to profiles in lens design, but this is how most modern lenses are designed, so we either have to be at peace with them, or adapt older optical designs which will be inferior in other aspects.
@ I understand what you’re saying, but it’s obvious if you want to use those lenses on other platforms, that don’t have correction profiles, then obviously there can be big compromises that people should know about.
@@whiterock1865 of course, but again they're not designed for other platforms. Canon designs their lenses for Canon bodies, not for others. If you're using something how it's not intended, then it's not going to work properly. Out of curiosity, which other platforms would you be using an RF lens on? Is it a cinema camera?
@red RF mount. Obviously I’m not a lens designer, but it does seem to me that they should be able to design primes, especially without vignetting and minimal distortion and be sharp at the same time covering a 35mm sensor, but maybe not. It’s not like they don’t charge a premium for their lenses where those goals could be achieved.
@@whiterock1865 I hear you and it is frustrating. Thinking about it, I agree it may be worth mentioning in future reviews, but it could get repetitive since pretty much ALL new mirrorless lenses employ profiles, and there's not a huge number of people with bodies that don't support them. RED should also know this, so it's odd they'd put themselves and customers in this position. Can't they read the profile from the lens or apply it in post?
@@philcupper Tamron 45mm f/1.8 is IS (which I own for that reason) and just because something hasn't been done before doesn't mean OEM charge premium prices for. the EF 24-70 f/2.8 used to be non IS but the RF version is. We were promised that the transition to the RF mount will allow IS to be introduced to more lenses. so why a brand new RF expensive 50 f/1.4 without IS. Not on
For its use case and price point, users of this lens would be relying on external stabilisation such as gimbals, steadicams, dollies, tripods, cranes etc. IS would not be necessary.
I purchases the RF 50 1.2 for €1990 new some years ago. This is the price for a used one these days. And the 1.4 version will ensure high prizing for the 1.2 in the future.
Das Canon RF 50 1.4 VCM ist für mich nicht erstrebenswert! Der Blendenring ist für Fotos mit der R5 Mark I nicht nutzbar! Mit meinem RF 50 1.2 L USM bin ich auch sehr zufrieden! Sicher hat das VCM große Vorteile in Bezug auf Gewicht und Abmessungen aber da muss ich jetzt durch! Ich will auch nicht ständig upgraden!
Unfortunately, Canon is still missing prosumer priced prime lenses in $600-$800 range. I would be happy with an f1.8 with non-STM motor for smoother and more responsive autofocusing.
I don't mind STM actually, and love 35/1.8. The problem of canon 50/1.8 is the poor performance. I own EF II, EF STM, and RF 50mm. All of them have poor resolution and contrast wide open. Would gladly pay $500 for something like Sigma 50/2.
@@palmbregas Do it! That's what I did when I got the R6 II when it was released and it's a match made in heaven. The sharpness is 99% as good as the RF 1.2 version, and it's 3x cheaper brand new. Also, believe it or not the Sigma focuses 2x faster than the native RF 50 lenses (both the 1.8 and 1.2). Even with the adapter the Sigma is more portable than the RF 50 1.2. I paid $900 cdn brand new for the Sigma and Sigma Canada has a 7 year warranty vs only 1 for the Canon. I can't really see any reason to get the RF version. Also for the wide end I got the Sigma Art 14-24 2.8 for less than half the price of the RF 15-35. It's easily just as sharp and AF is accurate and it's just an amazing lens. The only real drawback is no IS (which I don't need since the camera has IS) and inability to use front filters.
I may finally move on from adapting my sigma 50mm art. Mainly for the weight savings in my kit and leaving the adapter behind and mine is starting to show that its been my go to since it came out
I've been shooting with Canon for ages, but their pricing policy is becoming more than ridiculous and questionable, this greed is really starting to piss me off. Sure, Canon is a company and wants to make money, but you can really overdo it. Maybe my next camera will be a different one...
Canon sells fewer units these days because the industry has shifted to camera phones, so they can’t afford to sell these lenses for $799 or $899 which is all they’re worth to us.
I bought the EF 24mm 1.4 II in 2008 for about 1700$ or 2500$ in 2024. 1400$ for this is an excellent price considering it will undoubtedly be a fantastic lens.
@@salami99 Das war doch immer schon so! Wer unbedingt als erstes das Objektiv besitzen will zahlt den höchsten Preis! Ich beobachte immer den Markt bevor ich investiere!
Now I see a lot of price complaints - today in the USA it’s only $200 from the Sony, and the Sony isn’t new, that’s the sale price so they’re very similar and this seems nice and well balanced at least. Shame on the aperture ring admittedly, but I’ve stopped using them as I was constantly bumping them and going to a random aperture.
@@cameralabs I was looking for links in video description and noticed the Air. I remember your MacBook Pro review, it was very helpful. I have Air 13 M3, but my SSD is too small and I plan to replace it. I really like light weight and silence of the Air and I'm curious how does the Air suit you, after moving from Pro.
@@s-trapYT ah, good investigation! Yes, maybe I'll do one once the new gear launches calm down a bit towards Christmas! I got mine for a few reasons: to have a bigger drive, to have a fresh battery, and to enjoy a slightly bigger screen, all for a similar wright. I miss the SD slot, but that's about it. The speed in general use feels roughly similar, and I use it for everything including editing videos. Ultimately no regrets, but I wish they still made an 11in for travel.
Price point is interesting, optically it's really good but contrast is somewhat lacking against de 1.2L. It's certainly good, but it's a tad less wow-y than the 50/85 1.2's which are almost perfect (they better should be at that price). Only "flaws" I found with those is the drop in contrast with a backlit scene.
I am sure it is a great lens but I don't understand the price tag. The EF 50 mm with f1.4 costs only a quarter of the RF version - why this extreme difference?
@@Laurent_aus_Köln The quality of this lens is not even comparable to the old 50mm 1.4. I agree that is a bit overpriced but that's not how pricing works. What does 4 times better mean anyway? The better a lens is, the more expensive it be to make. And an expensive lens will sell in fewer numbers, further rising the cost.
Thank you for the great review and the valuable information. Is there a problem with the noise of the voice coil motor when there is no power flowing? Has Canon changed anything here compared to the 35mm?
@@menand735 lots of lenses have parts that wobble when not powered up - normally it's the IS though, I've not experienced it with AF motors, but I'll recheck next time I have a VCM lens.
Vielleicht ist es technisch schwer umzusetzen! Diese neuartigen Hybridobjektive haben ja zwei verschiedene Motoren. Einen schnellen VCM und einen USM Nanoantrieb! Das könnte der Grund sein! Ist aber nur Spekulation!
Additionally, for videography i use a Canon video camera. Why blow $6000 on an R1 when a very nice Canon pro video camera can be had for half or 2/3 the price?
Love Canon design and ergonomics, but this just seems to be the wrong set of primes at the wrong price… for me as a photographer mostly. I’ve recently sold up and moved to Nikon, whose line does skew more to that midrange photo user. I only wish Nikon sent you review kit, Gordon!!
Dear Gordon, my last comment seems to have been deleted or not posted at all. - First and foremost, a big thanks to your effort to present our reviews in such an organized, easy to understand and well filmed way. - Secondly: I am an actor and photographer and want to cover several requirements. I need a lens to silently film myself on my R6II, to take portraits and videos of others and of course to satisfy my desire for charismatic/characterful pictures when I travel or do street photography. The 50 1.2 was on my list for a long time, but it’s too loud for auditions or interviews if you can’t record external sound. It does also breathe a lot.. On the other hand I’d love to have a Zeiss Otus, which makes it harder to film myself (unless I have a lot of light and stop down to f8, which might not be so nice to watch.. Very thankful for your help, if you find the time. 🙏
@@cameralabsthank you very much for finding the time to answer. Appreciate it! Made my pre-order now. Will report in comments as soon as I have it and have tried it out. Happy weekend!
I wonder how good it is optically and how much is corrected digitally. That was the problem with the 35mm f/1.4. For that price a lens should not rely on digital correction.
@@octaviansfetcu4458 If a lens has heavy distortion, the lens has to be stretched digitally. That means you waste a part of the sensor. It is no longer a full frame photo and you lose a few megapixels. Straightening curved lines leads to artifacts. Vignetting means that you have to amplify the signal in the corners. Three stops of vignetting means that an ISO 1600 image becomes an ISO 12800 in the corners. As a result the image will look noisier in the corners. And why is a lens still so expensive, if it had a lot of defects that have to be corrected digitally? The problem is that those defects are even corrected in the EVF. You can't turn that off. With an optical viewfinder those defects would be visible and photographers would not accept them for that price.
@@ER-gn8io Früher wurde es zumindest einigermaßen korrigiert, denn optische Fehler waren im Sucher sichtbar. Da stört zum Beispiel eine Verzeichnung enorm. Jetzt gibt es digitale Sucher und die erlauben es den Herstellern leider, Objektivfehler schon im Sucherbild herauszurechnen und sie somit vor dem Photographen zu verstecken. Das lässt sich nicht einmal ausschalten. Wer also im Laden ein neues Objektiv ausprobiert, sieht im Sucher ein digital korrigiertes Bild ohne Vignettierungen oder Verzeichnungen. Die Hersteller müssen sich also weniger Mühe beim Design eines Objektives geben. Ich kann ja verstehen, dass es komplex ist, bei einem Zoom Verzeichnungen rauszurechnen, aber bei einer Festbrennweite sollte das doch möglich sein. Heute ist es viel einfacher, ein Objektiv zu designen als noch vor zwanzig Jahren oder so, denn mit schnellen Computern kann man leicht Milliarden von Lichtstrahlen in vielen verschiedenen Wellenlängen simulieren. Objektive werden zwangsweise besser durch die höhere Rechenleistung.
I love your channel, and I have watched a lot of your videos. I have a question, and I hope you can help Dose using crop mode and clear image zoom in sony cameras affects the actual focal length of the lens ( changes the depth of field and specially the lens distortion ) or it is just a cropping in the image like cropping in post ( cropping on the computer ) ? I hope you can give me an answer or test this in a video. because it will help me in decisions buying my upcoming lenses
Clear Image zoom, like other digital zooms, just crops the image. Some of them also try and interpolate / generate more detail or smooth jaggies, or even simulate a zooming process, but they're still ultimately crops.
My favorite set up is old sigma art and new canon R .. but when I shoot rally cars this sistem is very poor becuase of speed of lens focus system .. I hope that this lens are very fast on autofocus for this money
Gordon. That statement of “corrected for full frame sensors” worries me. Is Canon pulling a fast one like they did with the needing hyper correction RF 16mm f2.8?
@@cameralabsoh good. I mean it. The whole video I was waiting to hear some kind of oddity that Canon had to implement to make all of these lenses the same size. Glad to hear it wasn’t code for something bad.
I do 100% agree about Canon doing wrong in blocking 3rd party manufacturers and also their pricing overall. But I dont understand why people are so mad about their pricing in this exactly case. At least here in Austria the pricing seems in line with the competition: Canon RF 50mm 1.4 L - 1.600€ Sony 50mm 1.4 GM - 1.700€ Lumix 50mm 1.4 S Pro 1.800€ Leica 50mm 1.4 Summilux SL 5.900€ Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art DG DN - 970€ but that’s 3rd party Nikon Z 50mm 1.4 - 540€ but not in the same league
I agree, similar ballpark on all these lenses, especially once final pricing is known. My initial UK quote was an early one from Canon and higher than actual.
@@mousbleu I think people view a lot of older gear with rose tinted spectacles. That old lens was great value for a 50 1.4 with AF, especially branded by Canon, but it's not as great as many assume or believe. It is what it is.
@@mousbleu You know nothing, Jon Snow. The EF 50mm 1.4 cost 49,000 yen at the time of release. In today's money that's 300 euros. Even if you calculate inflation, you will not get 1600 euros. Learn the materiel, little one.
@@EdvardKALEN Was it a L lens ? No. Who knows nothing again ? Not all 1.4 lenses are created equal. If Canon were to release a cheap 50mm 1.4 today you would all cry it's not as sharp as the previous 35mm 1.4 RF. If that lens was so good, go get it and mount it on your RF camera. Nobody does that. What a surprise really.
@@Aneliuse In Deutschland wird das RF 50 1.2 gerade mit Sofortrabatt von 150 € zum Preis von 2499 € angeboten! Deutlich teurer wie in USA UK oder Canada!
I'm a full-time professional shooting on 4x RF bodies. I don't own a single RF lens. I'm using all adapted EF glass, and have been waiting for small & compact 1.4 primes to finally update my lens line-up. This is not the lens I was waiting for. I've always found the RF control ring to a terrible feature, and now having a non-clicky aperture dial (i.e. useless for photo) in addition to that control ring just adds insult to injury. The Sony G Master 50 1.4 is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and more functional. I think I'm going to change brands. Ironically, I'd likely stay with Canon if the Sigma lenses (also smaller, lighter, etc.) came in RF mount.
I know what you mean, and it's clear now that this is the formula for their standard RF 1.4 primes going forward. I'd still wait a few months to see if the Sigma situation changes.
I'm not a pro but like you I've been using EF glass since the RF system launched and have been waiting and waiting for a 50mm 1.4 which I expected to come a lot sooner! This really isn't the lens I wanted though, I've never even pressed the video record button on my camera and have no interest in doing so. This lens is bigger and more expensive than I want and the fact that it's the video features that are making it big and expensive is a turn off! It's all very disappointing as 50mm is my go-to focal length and none of the three available options in the RF system are a lens that I really want. So I'm still using the Sigma ART 1.4. I'm generally happy with the performance but don't like the size and weight when combined with the EF-RF adapter.
I am learning that with both Canon and Nikon (and possibly other makers) we amateurs in the UK have zero chance of getting any of these cameras or lenses before they are almost being pensioned off, as other markets (for wjhich read the USA) get priority. I find that frustrating, unacceptable and niot a game I am willing to play any more.
I'm really not sure how I feel about Canon excusing their aperture ring not being in communication on older bodies. I can take the newest fuji or Sony lens with that ring and slap it on the oldest crustiest body and that ring will work. For the money Canon charges, they should be able to keep up with the rest of the pack on something this straightforward
Als Besitzer der Canon R5 Mark I gebe ich die Hoffnung nicht auf das es dann doch noch eine Firmware gibt die diese Manko beseitigt! Mit ihrer Kritik haben sie absolut Recht!
How does this compare to the glass quality in the 50mm CNE 1.3? Are they two completely separate classes? Obviously there is different functionality, I’m just wondering about glass quality.
The cinema lens? I assume they're different optical designs, but check the drawings for each on the Canon websites to see if they share the same elements and groups.
At this price, no IS? That said, Canon clearly sees the future is hybrid shoorers. For working creators and professionals. On the other hand, I’m not quite sure they understand the economic situation around the world. Perhaps they don’t intend to sell that many.
The folks always saying that IS causes higher prices..arent talking about it. They have no position to make for this lens series. Video lenses with no IS- great idea! 🙄🙄🙄
Vielleicht gehen sie Canon davon aus das Nutzer einer R1/R3/R5/R6 diese Objektive hauptsächlich nutzen werden! Der IS ist ja in diesen Kameras implementiert!
What's with the economic situation ? 😅 they kept the price consistent over the years. There's little to no inflation on the lenses. What do you complain about exactly? That you have no money left after paying other stuff ?
@@ER-gn8ioIS +IBIS is always better. I have a 28mm with IBIS only and it sucks. However with these lenses the vibration info of the lens is sent to the camera so the IBIS works better.. but still limited in the degree that it can correct.
Welche Dramaturgie! Ich sehe keinen Untergang! Canon war Marktführer! Canon ist Marktführer! Canon bleibt Marktführer! Diese L Objektive sind für professionelle Anwendungen konzipiert! Die Zielgruppe ist sehr klein!
Den absolut einzigen Fehler den Canon begangen hat war, das sie zu lange an der Spiegelreflexkamera festgehalten haben und den Start für die Spiegellose Systemkamera verschlafen haben! Das ist aber überwunden und sie sind immer noch Marktführer! Anteile im Jahr 2023 (Quelle Google) 48% Canon 26% Sony 12% Nikon Wer Fehler findet kann diese behalten!
Warum sollte Canon ausgerechnet jetzt den Drittanbietern Zugang gewähren? Sie vervollständigen ihre Palette an Objektiven und wollen diese natürlich verkaufen!
Presumably it's what some people need or they wouldn't have made it. I personally feel they should have some more mid-range options though around 800-1000.
By sharing the same barrel size and position of the gear teeth with the 24mm and 35mm, it's perfect for video when you're using it in a rig with a follow focus. It reeks of being a perfect fit for C70, C80 and R5C
Ich hatte es zwanzig Jahre lang und nur mit Sonnenblende benutzt da der Tubus weit ausfährt! Ein sehr empfindliches Objektiv das eigentlich nur abgeblendet auf 5.6 brauchbar war! Aber ich habe es vor zwei Jahren zum sehr guten Kurs verkauft!
The only Canon lenses I insert on my R6 mark2 are my RF 28mm F2.8 pancake and an old 135mm F2, and not because they are cheaper. The lenses only have so few interesting lenses in their RF line-up.
@Zyswest I have quite a few EG tamrons: - Tamron 15-30mm - Tamrom 35mm F1.4 (Best AF 35mm ever imo) - Tamron 85mm F1.8 - Tamron 100-400mm I also used to own the Tamron 45mm F1.8 VC which I sold to get the 35mm, though I would still recommend the 45mm without hesitation for half the price. I now mainly use manual focus lenses such as the new Voigtlander 40mm F1.2 Nokton and Voigtlander 75mm F1.5 Nokton. I know manual focus can look scary but it's easy with Canon's focus aids and the lenses just produce magic images.
I love how people vote for more inflation and then cry when some good remains consistently priced over years 😂 But they are okay paying a smartphone 1000$.
Wenn ich mir das neue Sony Xperia 1VI anschaue wird ihre Argumentation noch drastischer! Es kostet bei Einführung in Deutschland 1399€ ! Jedes Jahr kommt dann ein neues Flaggschiff raus!
3 x 50mm lenses! I have an idea, how about some quality wide primes. The 16mm is pretty ordinary and a nicer lense would be appreciated. Come on Canon?
Canon is very, very shrewd. The minimum for a canon 1.4 lens of any quality on RF is1400.00! Ok, take another route...blocked! The old Ef 85 1.4...is 1450.00! The old ef 35mkii..is 1800(!!!!). That's prices right now at BH. Holy mutha. They are lucky i love my old gear and my r5. I hated the r6ii, and i hate their lens prices. And i hate thier lazy crop strategy. Sony gobbled up a ton of marketshare but canon is staying the course...flooding each price point with 'almost there' lenses. Something is ALWAYS missing or off. Yes the bodies are good or great even...but bodies need sensible lenses that dont start at 1400 to be decent quality. MY beautiful old gear notwithstanding - I cant wait to start using the s5ii and have access to other lenses. This is absolute nonsense.
Best decision i made was switching to Sony because of their pricing & third party support. Sony knows Sigma and Tamron are on their tail both in terms of price and optical performance so they deliver 😅what they charge. Canon and Nikon still playing monopoly on lenses. Free market is your friend. More competition, more options and always better bang for your buck whether you buy that shiny Sony GM or that Sigma art or that AF Samyang.
Dennoch denke ich das die Mehrheit auf native Objektive besonderen Wert legt! Diese sind, weil aus gleichem Hause, optimal mit der entsprechenden Kamera abgestimmt und liefern dem zu Folge optimale Ergebnisse! Wäre das nicht der Fall, hätte Canon doch nicht mit Abstand den besten Marktanteil aller Hersteller!
I just got the consumer version of the RF 50mm f/1.4 L Lens and did a review of it on my channel, comparing it to the f/1.2 L. If anyone's interested, you can check it out my channel :)
Thank you for the review Gordon $1,399!!!!!!!!!! More over priced garbage 🗑 😂stupid ass company they are utterly ridiculous. This is just insulting no reason why this shouldn't be under 1k and like $799.99 for Christmas time. Sigma 50mm 1.4 Tokina opera 50mm 1.4 under $600 adapt them Tamron 45mm 1.8 vc for like $400 used I shoot Canon and Sony got zero rf lenses besides the rfs 18mm 150mm got my R7 which is also over priced junk. I will continue too adapt. They are so delusional like crapple being slaughtered by Hawueii in China lmao 🤣. I wanna get the R5 or R6.
All three lenses almost identical in size/weight? Can't help but speculate that rather arbitrary design constraint (in my view) needlessly causes performance compromises across the different focal lengths. Other than my 100-300 RF 2.8, I've not been impressed at all with RF glass. There seems to be an obsession with sharpness and little else. Returned my RF 50 1.2 and RF 85 1.2 for the equivalent EF versions-due to preference, not cost. I intentionally purchased the EF versions new concerned I may be forced to buy RF versions one day before I died-that's how much I dislike RF glass. The RF 85 1.2 is the worst rending lens I've ever used-by far-and that's across Sony, Nikon and Canon. Given my history with RF glass don't think I'll give these new RF lenses a try. But I must admit, the 100-300 2.8 RF is absolutely the best rendering lens I've ever owned; was totally blown away by the images it produces.
for that kind of money, poor sharpness at the edges and medium sharpness in the center in the open. Canon, are you crazy or something? I understand that fans will spend their money buying up these crafts in boxes, but it's just garbage, given such a high price. I will continue to stay on my Canon RF 50 1.2 there, I understand what I paid for - for impeccable quality on an open diafragm
I own both the 1.2 and the new 1.4. In my opinion, correct, the new 1.4 is better is no many ways. It's smaller, lighter, has a dedicated aperature ring, the autofocus speed in photos is much faster and percise (not clunky and slow like the 1.2), the autofocus doesn't hunt in low light or close up, and of course its, and in video the focus breathing is almost not existent. You can tell what 6 years of R&D did when comparing the 1.2 and the 1.4. Optically the 1.2 is fantastic corrected and uncorrected. The 1.4 is better in all those ways I listed plus just as good as the 1.2 optically corrected. Also the best part at least for me because I shoot in sandy and dirty locations, the front element doesn't move back and forth. I've had to send my 1.2 in for service twice now because debri got stuck in the front element chamber and caused the front element to bind up.
@mattgericke4537 I've had rf 50 1.2 for 2 years now. I'm not going to change it for any plastic rattle with blurry edges, which is rf 50 1.4. As for the weight and size, large dimensions are normal for a portrait lens.
@@manukello for your use the 50mm is a portrait lens it sounds like. The edges aren't even in focus ever. No one would also shoot a daylight landscape shot at F1.2 or F1.4 so that test was kind of silly to me. So your argument doesn't make any sense for picking the 1.2 over the 1.4. The only negative I had about the 1.4 on paper is the level of correction. it causes more noise in the corners. In practicality I need to test it more to see what the difference is. Also if I shoot portraits I primarily use my 85 1.2, unless it's groups of 3 or more, then I'll use the 50 or maybe my 35.
I’ve got the ultimate burn on Canon. The direction they’re taking with their lenses makes me happy I didn’t buy into RF mount in 2020 but instead went with Pentax. PENTAX. Thought a lot about getting an RP, but passed in favor of the rugged bodies of Pentax DSLRs. Not that Pentax is doing anything particularly special with their lenses (they could do much more… even just doing AW rehousing of the FA limited line would be stellar), but the huge gap at the midrange in Canon is painful. Nikon and Panasonic have f1.8 primes which are near perfect, for the other newer FF mounts, with respectable midrange prices. A low-budget APS-C shooter is probably happier with Canon than a serious amateur with a FF.
At $1500 and change why would I give up my EF lenses that are compatible with mirrorless Canon bodies via a $100 adapter? There is a reason that Canon included adapters so that we can continue to use the hundreds if not thousands of dollars worth of EF lenses, they knew in advance how much more expensive the RF lenses would be. Better to sell more expensive bodies and provide a way for customers to use their EF lenses than to sell nothing at all.
@@cameralabs Canon users waited ages for a competitive mirrorless camera, and now they finally seem excited about features other brands have offered for years - often at a lower price and with a working aperture ring. I reckon many Sony users, including myself, originally started with Canon. Today, Sony has a top-selling camera in every category, leaving Canon focused on budget options for high-volume retail stores.
@@ER-gn8io Wrong of course, B & H top 10 selling cameras 2024 Fujifilm X100VI. Sony A7 IV Nikon Zf Sony A7C Sony A7R V Fujifilm X-T5 Sony ZV-E10 Canon EOS R6 Mark II. Nikon Z8
My review of Canon's latest standard prime lens: the RF 50 1.4L!
Order the Canon RF 50mm f1.4L from B&H: bhpho.to/3UwO4bg or WEX UK: tidd.ly/3Utg3bK
Sell your used gear to MPB at: bit.ly/3ULU9yL
Buy used gear from MPB at: prf.hn/l/YLqwRAP
Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs
Gordon's In Camera book: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ
Cameralabs merchandise: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop
Gordon’s retro gear channel: th-cam.com/users/dinobytes
Gordon's travel tips channel: www.youtube.com/@GordonsTravelTips
Equipment used for producing my videos
MacBook Air 15in (M3): amzn.to/4cPat9S
DJI Osmo Pocket 3: click.dji.com/AIOhqT-LWUFDq-bGk8hD4Q?pm=link
Panasonic Lumix S5 II: amzn.to/3Hf5IcI
Sony A6400: prf.hn/l/pRO0wp5
Sony e 24mm f1.8: amzn.to/2TqWNzk
Rode NT USB mic: amzn.to/3AdHcUp
Rode Wireless Go II mic: amzn.to/3xkCvGo
Rode Lavalier Go mic: amzn.to/3ygzzKY
Godox UL150 light: amzn.to/2VpVbXE
Godox QR-P70 softbox: amzn.to/3yQfGdF
Music: www.davidcuttermusic.com / @dcuttermusic
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Question for Halloween: what is the scariest lens/camera you know? 😀
What we’re seeing from the top camera/lens makers these days is that they’re coming out with the very best they can do. The epitome of the state if the art in lens making. I’ve seen it described in several places as the golden age of lens making. So, they’ve large, heavier and more expensive. Sigma makes some excellent lenses too, and are generally less expensive, though not always. But often, they’re even larger and heavier. That comes from a less expensive bill of materials and simp,er manufacturing. But while they can make excellent lenses, they’re also known for greater variability in output. You have a greater chance of getting a “bad” Sigma than from more premium lens makers. There’s a trade off to everything. Fortunately, for a lot of lens buyers, they can’t tell whether their sample is better or worse.
You must have been very busy with 3 lenses. Thank you for your hard work.
With their price tags, the L VCM lenses are hardly mid-range. The EF L lenses are probably the only real mid-range options for the RF mount. I've traded in my RF24-105F4L for used EF24-70F2.8Lii and EF70-200F2.8Lii.
I might also acquire the EF35F1.4L ii and the EF85F1.4L IS some time down the line. However, it's all going to be the Sigma DG DN Art lenses when they become available.
After seeing the price I'm sticking with the Sigma Art 50 1.4 on my R6 II. It cost $900 cdn ($700 us) brand new and is just as sharp as the RF 50 1.2 (or 99% as sharp... zoomed in to 100% I couldn't tell which was which even side by side most of the time). And on the R6 II the Sigma focuses twice as fast as the RF lens which is nuts. Also Sigma Art has 7 year warranty on their lenses in Canada vs 1 year on the Canon. And even adapted the setup is still smaller and lighter than the RF. It's just a win win.
Does it require a converter?
It's for rich kids with money to burn. I have the old Canon 1.4 USM which I picked up for about £100 used, and next to the EF flagship at the time it is sometimes sharper in the middle at certain stops. Only difference is the bokeh isn't as nice (looks a bit wiry sometimes), but in post you can edit it to look a little better. I love the look of the L primes but I don't use them enough to warrant the prices.
@@ArcanePath360 Sie gehören nicht zur Zielgruppe! Wer von Anfang an nur den Preis im Blick hat kann sich das Objektiv nicht leisten! Sie reden von reichen Kindern nur weil sie in ihrem Leben nichts gebacken bekommen haben! Das ist auch der Grund warum sie nur den Mindestlohn bekommen oder gar arbeitslos sind! Außerdem sind ihre Ausführungen frei erfunden und absolut falsch!
@@ArcanePath360 Diagnose Hirnfurz!
Diagnose Hirnfurz!
for gimbal and focus pulling the same weight and size is awesome
Sure, these new lenses offer essential features for videographers, the impressive compensation for focus breathing which makes the optical design more challenging also points in that direction. But for photographers, these are usually merely nice to have while adding a substantial contribution to the price tag as well as the weight of the camera bag.
This took sooooooo many years 😭I soooo need this!!!
I love the form factor of these new lenses! I bought the 50mm rf 1.2 the day before these were announced haha.
Could / would you return it?
And you did everything right.
Does this lens also rely heavily on digital lens corrections like the 35mm VCM did?
Please make a video on RF 28-70mm F2.8 - as a Canon R8 user we have a scarcity of money and we have to make sure that this lens will serve well for product, wedding and street photography very well with sharp images.
These lenses rely on digital corrections, yes. Both CanonUSA and B&H mention that in their respective videos about these new lenses.
Considering no reviewers are mentioning distortion, expect it to be just as bad. Especially on the 24.
@@AnthonyGugliotta No Sir, I am asking about the new RF 28-70mm F2.8. F2.8
I expect it to be but as a nature of 50mm focal length, it might not be that bad.
as a long-term canon shooter who has invested a lot in RF glass I can see why people are leaving the system to Sony or Nikon these prices are ridiculous and i'm starting to think I should jump out now too.
Saw another review and damn, those CA are horrible! FFS Canon.
I really wanted to get a nice full set covering a wide focal range, but I always have such a hard time justifying buying more lenses, especially because I wont be using that many and because the prices are about 25% more expensive in europe. I always feel it would just be waste if I dont use em enough🫡
I have a 16, 50, and a telephoto zoom, but I could definitly use a zoom for the wider focal range. Or maybe a prime with IS in the 24-35mm range under f1.8, like the new 24 f1.4.
I might be better off with a medium format one day to cover the wider area instead of getting a new lens for the canon system. But who knows? Maybe these lenses will fare better and be worth the cost? Every brand has a bad thing about them, canon is not the only one. For example, I did hear some pretty good stuff about the RF 28-70 that got launched recently.
No kidding, same thought here.
Grass is always greener on the other side..Sony user here and it’s not that nice here either 😂
I am the owner of a Canon EOS R. I want to upgrade my camera and need new lenses. I calculated that the required set when purchasing a Sony system would cost me $1,500 less, even though I would buy a higher class Sony camera (A7rV vs R6m2). THIS IS JUST MADNESS
Would love to see a direct comparison with the RF 50mm f1.2. If this can hang with the bigger lens I would gladly trade the extra 1/3 stop for the smaller size and weight.
Wait few days and the TDP site will have the IQ comparison available. Light and DoF wise 1/3 of a stop makes zero difference.
@@petrpohnan875 Im surprised his iq tests isnt up yet. He removed the unused comments from the site so cant ask.
I reckon a 2nd hand RF 1.2 from, say, MPB, is the way to go if you’re a photographer.
Gordon! If you get the chance it would be cool to do a rf 24mm shoot out.
24mm F1.8
24mm F1.4
24-70mm F2.8
24-105 F4
With a bonus 24mm F1.4 EF.
That’s would be amazing.
That would be amazing - and incredibly laborious!
Made the decision to part with my Canon gear / R5 a month ago based on the crazy prices of RF lenses. Updating would've been very expensive or required pretty serious downsizing from my old EF lineup. Glad I made that move after seeing this latest bunch of lenses released.
What system did you move to?
@@brianbeattyphotography was Sigma with and EF to rf not worth it? i find the used sigma lens to be very appealing even if i have to use an adapter.
@@salami99 Sigma adapted is great and all, but sigma wasnt exactly known for great autofocus on EF. Comment section anecdotes arent exactly evidence. You gotta rent one and test for yourself. I would test one from lenrentals, they seem to be the only outfit that checks to make sure gear works proper. Oh..and its big an heavy...so more small compact ef 1.4s for canon users.
@@simonmaduxx6777 sigma makes good lenses, sure. But I didn’t like how heavy they are and the non native performance on my 5dsr. On the mirrorless they might be better but I never tested that so I can’t comment
@@brianbeattyphotography same. I've been dying for a new modern 50 mm for so long I don't know what to do. I'm certainly not buying this camera profile mandatory lens.
Maybe I'll end up renting a sigma and seeing if I can bear with the weight.+ Canon made sure to make their old EF best lenses still very expensive if not the same price as these new RF versions. The old 35 Mark II cost more than this one. I guess new purchasers are getting a discount on the cheaper glass that doesn't fill the image circle and worst performance for aberrations.
im glad i waited for this to come out, it confirmed that ill be getting an EF 50mm 1.4 and adapting it.
Depends what you want or need, the old 1.4 isn't a great quality lens
@@cameralabs looking at sigma potentially, I have some of their EF glass and its always done great by me.
Ich hatte zwanzig Jahre ein EF 50 1.4 USM. Die Schärfe bei Offenblende war gelinde gesagt überschaubar und die CA‘s waren sehr ausgeprägt! Der Randabfall ist extrem!
As long as you stick to 2.8, you'll enjoy razor sharp pictures of your subjects. Below that..forget about if you care about sharpness. Also, with an R5, you will see much more aberrations than you will on a r62. I've shot thousands of frames with both. Since its been my only option for over a decade, i've made the most of it. my old 35 isf2. Takes great sharp pictures, just watch those contrast areas, even if oof.
@@ThtGuyWtThBeard yep, Sigma made some great EF mount lenses, although they can be quite large. I was particularly fond of the 40mm f1.4 ART, although again pretty hefty!
Thank you. Now that Canon has finally offering 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm f/1.4 RF mount L primes how do these lenses compare head to head in quality to Sony’s GM primes? Better, worse, or really just the same? I shoot both Canon RF L and Sony GM | GM II and it looks like I can finally get equivalent primes in both family where the f/1.4 primes are about the same. Which do you prefer? Let us know. Take care.
I may do some comparisons
@@cameralabs thank you for that! Can you also please consider a head-to-head comparison of the RF 50 1.4 vs RF 50 1.8 vs Sigma Art 50 1.4 in your standard testing scenarios? I found my RF 50 1.8 a substantial sharpness improvement from my old EF 50 1.8 STM, and I'm curious to find out if - and by how much of margin - the RF 50 1.4 would be from my RF 50 1.8. Mainly I'm interested in the R5mk2 FF 45MP differentials, but it may also be very interesting to see the same differences on the R7's APS-C 32MP sensor as it would work as an 80mm f/1.4 lens in that case. Aside from sharpness across the frame, my other key area of interest is CA - I find that to be a thorn in my side with the RF 85 2.0 Macro, and is the main reason I'd be stepping up my primes to L level. Thanks again for your time!
I’m really not interested in the vcm line that much. Hope they’ll add a normal 35 and 50 1.4.😢
Das kann ich mir beim besten Willen nicht vorstellen! Ein RF 35 1.2 USM würde ich aber gerne noch mitnehmen!
This could be interesting, my RF 50mm f1.8 is probably the most needed upgrade, the EF 50mm f1.4 doesn't fair so well on the R5 and, I think optically it has roots in the 1970s FD mount, so it's stood the test of time well! :)
I don't think I care for the aperture ring, and would probably remain redundant for me, I would rather not have it, and I think it is probably pointless for photos, just much easier to use the dial.
I've noticed that recent L series Canon lens hoods are ribbed inside instead of the cloth, I think the cloth material eliminated stray reflections better, and the 67mm thread, so that's all my 77mm filters unusable with the hood! Other than that it looks like a great option, £1500 ish on WeX, still quite painful! 😄...
Have the RF 50 1.2, considering this just because of the smaller size and weight and walk-aroundability
How often do you find yourself using 1.2 on that lens? I have been considering an f/1.2 lens and have been questioning myself on how often I would really use it at 1.2 outside of headshots.
@@falxonPSN weddings for sure. I shoot a lot of 1.2 on the 50mm and the 85mm
@@falxonPSN Night time shots, 1.2 can't beat that handheld
Don’t forget Tamron lenses are very good too with the canon adapter
I’m hoping someone will compare this to the ef 501.2. I bought the 35 of this and it’s ok not breathtaking but not sure 50 would be a big upgrade
35 is not easy to brreatgaking, Canon's 35 is already very famous than Sony Nikon
@ I think if it had IS I would have been a little happier for video
I have the Rf 50/1.2 and have for a long time. I prefer the Rf 85/1.2 as it controls fringing better wide open (especially on specular highlights which go purple / magenta)
I picked up the rf 24/1.4 VCM and I’m considering the rf 50/1.4 VCM as I’ll be doing more video work. Not having to rebalance or calibrate a gimbal between swaps is very appealing.
I hope someone compares the two rf 1.4 and 1.2 soon. It doesn’t make a great deal of sense to have both but I do love the 1.2 at 1.2 for stills.
I have the rf 24-105/2.8 z but I’m not thrilled with it at 24mm. I’ll have to do more tests now I have the 1.4.
Gordon - 50 1.2 is $1720 used (mpb) and this is about to be released at $1400 new. What would you choose? The 1.2 is a little loud focusing and a touch slow but very accurate focusing and obviously fantastic optically… Can’t test the 1.4 yet!
It would be nice to make a side by side comparison. I'd say the focusing will probably be quicker on the new one and quieter too, but if they don't bother you - and the bulk isn't a factor, then the 1.2 could be a good choice. Both are a bit too big and heavy for me though
@ Awesome response, thanks Gordon! Maybe I’ll compare both soon.
The 1.2 is large and heavy but wow I can’t believe the results wide open, tack sharp for sure with little correction! There’s always a trade off as we said the focus is louder and slower but I’m impressed on the image out of the RF 50 1.2 vs. my old Sony GM 50 1.4. I did not expect such a difference honestly in that testing.
Wonder if the distortion is as bad as the 35 VCM
50 is better, 24 is worse than the 35...
@ Jesus
the beauty of film lens, they never allowed distortion from the start
@@salami99 And had a resolution of 2 megapixels. Distortion can be corrected. The corrected image is still much better than the old film lens.
Der Typ weiß alles obwohl er absolut sicher nur geraten hat und von anderen abschreibt! Keines der drei Objektive hat er jemals aus der Nähe betrachtet! Ein Dampfplauderer!😊 Ich erspare es mir hier den Namen zu nennen! Er legt ja besonderen Wert auf seine Meinung!
Great review! This new hybrid video series of lenses is pretty cool! But, no aperture on all canon bodies is a very Canon thing to do. The gold stripe 50mm 1.4 had a blue shift to it and the old 50mm L lens had a problem, unlike the 50mm CNE cine lens. I'm glad Canon is making these lenses the same size, great for follow focus, etc. I guess this is why Canon kept suing everyone who came out with autofocus RF lenses. It seems like there are only a couple of Canon RF lenses that are quality and reasonably priced, the rest are garbage or too expensive. That is impressive that how small they are without focus breathing. Nice review!
I would like to know if it has the same distortion on unedited files like that of the RF 35mm f1.4L, also would like to see a comparison to the RF 50mm f1.2L .. Thank Gordon!
All their new lenses have distortion if you don't apply the profile. They're only designed to be used with it. If you turn it off, it's like removing an element. It won't work.
After using an old 70-200 f4 on my R6II Canon's old lenses work amazingly well especially when I compare it to my Z6 and old Nikon glass. I can't see the point unless you are working with a very high budget. I admit I want it, maybe the 35...
I’m not sure what the terminology is but does the auto focus happen all inside the lens so there are glass in front of it or Can you see the auto focus move in and out kind of similar to the RF 51.2 lens.
I know what you mean. When it al happens inside without anything changing on the outside, that's called internal focusing, and yes, the new 1.4L VCM lenses all do that. They avoid the extending section externally. Note when switched off, their focusing groups can rattle if you shake the lens - not damaging it, but just warning you!
@@cameralabsso would you consider the rf 50 1.2 to not be internal focusing? I see the front glass move forward and backwards. Where’s as my rf 85 1.2 doesn’t do that and neither does my ef 35 Mark II.
@@mattgericke4537 it's a bit of a cheat as the barrel doesn't extend, but some external elements do move, so I'd say it does NOT have internal focusing.
@@cameralabs sorry for the all the questions but I appreciate the answers. So does the new rf 35 1.4 have a front element that moves back and forth like the rf 50 1.2 or does it stay in place like the rf 85 1.2? Also do you think the rf 50 1.4 has a faster and less clunky auto focus compared to the rf 50 1.2? I had the rf 50 1.2 but returned it due to the autofocus being so jerky and clunky when talking photos, not to mention it was even worse during video work.
@@mattgericke4537 all the new 1.4L VCM lenses have internal focusing, no external moving parts, and yes, smoother focusing than the 50 1.2! PS - if you're ordering one online, please do consider going through my links here or at cameralabs.com thanks!
These lenses are $2k in Canada. I think if the IQ is great at 1.4 (and from your review it seems it is), I’d love to put this on my R7 for a variety of purposes (portrait and landscape come to mind)…but I can’t help think that for the price of two of these, I can just get the nearly $4k 28-70 F2 that is fantastic through its zoom range at F2 (though, heavy to carry for a full day!). I really wish Canon could’ve got these prices down at least $500. The aperature ring is mostly a waste for me (just my opinion). Thanks for the review as usual!
Yes I feel you, I wouldn't mind these at all if they fell on my lap, but in the end the logical thing for me was to bite the bullet on the 24-105 f2.8 with the pinky promise this is my last hybrid lens for work stuff and that with the other RF and EF glass I already have, I'm covered for all my commercial/hybrid gigs. From there though, I'm eyeing either vintage primes or cinema style lenses since I'm now really focused on DoP work, but realistically I'm probably going to rent these out on a per-project basis so I can pick and choose the exact flavour each time. Maybe build a set of cheap vintage ones for fun. The point of using primes for me is when you're trying to extract maximum image quality and/or style at the expense of convenience, why go for the Canons that maintain "some" convenience (but not like the zooms) and have a "boring" image when you can get proper cine-style glass like DZO/Nisi Athena/Dulens/etc etc for cheaper. And then zoom as the money-maker lens, IQ is plenty good enough with it for that and it definitely does the job of impressing the clientele.
Did you check the uncorrected look of the lens? I’m curious if it’s as bad as the 35 and the 24 to 105F 2.8.
There's distortion and vignetting on all these lenses when used without the profile. But it's not designed to be used without the profile. That's why it's greyed-out in the menus. It's like asking how it looked if you pull out one of the glass elements! It won't look great. Sure there's pros and cons to profiles in lens design, but this is how most modern lenses are designed, so we either have to be at peace with them, or adapt older optical designs which will be inferior in other aspects.
@ I understand what you’re saying, but it’s obvious if you want to use those lenses on other platforms, that don’t have correction profiles, then obviously there can be big compromises that people should know about.
@@whiterock1865 of course, but again they're not designed for other platforms. Canon designs their lenses for Canon bodies, not for others. If you're using something how it's not intended, then it's not going to work properly. Out of curiosity, which other platforms would you be using an RF lens on? Is it a cinema camera?
@red RF mount. Obviously I’m not a lens designer, but it does seem to me that they should be able to design primes, especially without vignetting and minimal distortion and be sharp at the same time covering a 35mm sensor, but maybe not. It’s not like they don’t charge a premium for their lenses where those goals could be achieved.
@@whiterock1865 I hear you and it is frustrating. Thinking about it, I agree it may be worth mentioning in future reviews, but it could get repetitive since pretty much ALL new mirrorless lenses employ profiles, and there's not a huge number of people with bodies that don't support them. RED should also know this, so it's odd they'd put themselves and customers in this position. Can't they read the profile from the lens or apply it in post?
It's disappointing that it doesn't come with IS
Notice that 50mm lenses almost never come with IS? 24/35/85, most brands make an IS prime. Not 50.
@@philcupper Tamron 45mm f/1.8 is IS (which I own for that reason) and just because something hasn't been done before doesn't mean OEM charge premium prices for. the EF 24-70 f/2.8 used to be non IS but the RF version is. We were promised that the transition to the RF mount will allow IS to be introduced to more lenses. so why a brand new RF expensive 50 f/1.4 without IS. Not on
For its use case and price point, users of this lens would be relying on external stabilisation such as gimbals, steadicams, dollies, tripods, cranes etc. IS would not be necessary.
@ for its price not having IS is a rip off
@@dimitristsagdis7340 with the new Canon mirrorless cameras there is good IS in them So not needed as much compared to the DSLR ones.
I purchases the RF 50 1.2 for €1990 new some years ago.
This is the price for a used one these days.
And the 1.4 version will ensure high prizing for the 1.2 in the future.
Das Canon RF 50 1.4 VCM ist für mich nicht erstrebenswert! Der Blendenring ist für Fotos mit der R5 Mark I nicht nutzbar! Mit meinem RF 50 1.2 L USM bin ich auch sehr zufrieden! Sicher hat das VCM große Vorteile in Bezug auf Gewicht und Abmessungen aber da muss ich jetzt durch! Ich will auch nicht ständig upgraden!
Unfortunately, Canon is still missing prosumer priced prime lenses in $600-$800 range. I would be happy with an f1.8 with non-STM motor for smoother and more responsive autofocusing.
Nikon has the best 1.8 primes. Canon has better 1.4 primes than Nikon.
Yes, I feel they're lacking at that price point. Sigma would fill that gap
@@cameralabs Very tempted to buy the SIGMA 50mm f1.4 ART adapted to my R6m2 after this announcement...
I don't mind STM actually, and love 35/1.8. The problem of canon 50/1.8 is the poor performance. I own EF II, EF STM, and RF 50mm. All of them have poor resolution and contrast wide open. Would gladly pay $500 for something like Sigma 50/2.
@@palmbregas Do it! That's what I did when I got the R6 II when it was released and it's a match made in heaven. The sharpness is 99% as good as the RF 1.2 version, and it's 3x cheaper brand new. Also, believe it or not the Sigma focuses 2x faster than the native RF 50 lenses (both the 1.8 and 1.2). Even with the adapter the Sigma is more portable than the RF 50 1.2.
I paid $900 cdn brand new for the Sigma and Sigma Canada has a 7 year warranty vs only 1 for the Canon. I can't really see any reason to get the RF version.
Also for the wide end I got the Sigma Art 14-24 2.8 for less than half the price of the RF 15-35. It's easily just as sharp and AF is accurate and it's just an amazing lens. The only real drawback is no IS (which I don't need since the camera has IS) and inability to use front filters.
I may finally move on from adapting my sigma 50mm art. Mainly for the weight savings in my kit and leaving the adapter behind and mine is starting to show that its been my go to since it came out
I've been shooting with Canon for ages, but their pricing policy is becoming more than ridiculous and questionable, this greed is really starting to piss me off.
Sure, Canon is a company and wants to make money, but you can really overdo it. Maybe my next camera will be a different one...
Canon sells fewer units these days because the industry has shifted to camera phones, so they can’t afford to sell these lenses for $799 or $899 which is all they’re worth to us.
@@elliotresnick5433 Die Objektive sind so viel Wert, wie der Kunde bereit ist dafür zu zahlen! Ganz einfach!
I bought the EF 24mm 1.4 II in 2008 for about 1700$ or 2500$ in 2024. 1400$ for this is an excellent price considering it will undoubtedly be a fantastic lens.
@@ER-gn8io that's why they lowered the price after announcement
@@salami99 Das war doch immer schon so! Wer unbedingt als erstes das Objektiv besitzen will zahlt den höchsten Preis! Ich beobachte immer den Markt bevor ich investiere!
Very hard for me to give up the 50mm 1.2 which I personally think is probably the finest lens I have ever used.
No need to!
When they’re making an RF 24-50 2.8 just like Sony?
i think their 27?-70 is it
Yep 28-70 2.8
They already have a 28-70 2.8
I'm wondering if I should upgrade from Sigma ART EF 50mm f/1.4
Now I see a lot of price complaints - today in the USA it’s only $200 from the Sony, and the Sony isn’t new, that’s the sale price so they’re very similar and this seems nice and well balanced at least. Shame on the aperture ring admittedly, but I’ve stopped using them as I was constantly bumping them and going to a random aperture.
Exactly. Also, the Canon version has more features, even if you just take into account the extra control ring on most all L RF lenses.
Hi Gordon, I've noticed you switched from MacBook Pro to Air, what are your impressions? Maybe you could make a video about this change?
It's true, I switched from 14 mbp to 15 air a couple of months ago. Did I mention it somewhere?
@@cameralabs I was looking for links in video description and noticed the Air. I remember your MacBook Pro review, it was very helpful. I have Air 13 M3, but my SSD is too small and I plan to replace it. I really like light weight and silence of the Air and I'm curious how does the Air suit you, after moving from Pro.
@@s-trapYT ah, good investigation! Yes, maybe I'll do one once the new gear launches calm down a bit towards Christmas! I got mine for a few reasons: to have a bigger drive, to have a fresh battery, and to enjoy a slightly bigger screen, all for a similar wright. I miss the SD slot, but that's about it. The speed in general use feels roughly similar, and I use it for everything including editing videos. Ultimately no regrets, but I wish they still made an 11in for travel.
A great lens, a lens Canon loves, priced so that Canon gets to keep most of them.
Es ist immer das gleiche! Ohne Moos nichts los! Deutsches Sprichwort!
I wish you a splendid evening Gordon.
Why, thankyou, and a good evening to you too!
How do its IQ compare to the RF 50 f/1.8 when both are shot wide open?
This is better
@ Tnx
Price point is interesting, optically it's really good but contrast is somewhat lacking against de 1.2L. It's certainly good, but it's a tad less wow-y than the 50/85 1.2's which are almost perfect (they better should be at that price). Only "flaws" I found with those is the drop in contrast with a backlit scene.
I am sure it is a great lens but I don't understand the price tag. The EF 50 mm with f1.4 costs only a quarter of the RF version - why this extreme difference?
I think because this lens has video features they think they can charge a lot more.
Because it is considerably better. The ef 1.4 isn't as good as everyone seems to think
@@cameralabs Better ok but 4x the price?
@@Laurent_aus_Köln The quality of this lens is not even comparable to the old 50mm 1.4. I agree that is a bit overpriced but that's not how pricing works. What does 4 times better mean anyway? The better a lens is, the more expensive it be to make. And an expensive lens will sell in fewer numbers, further rising the cost.
Die letzten Prozent an Leistung herauszuholen erfordert immer mehr technischen Aufwand, bis es dann unwirtschaftlich wird!
Thank you for the great review and the valuable information. Is there a problem with the noise of the voice coil motor when there is no power flowing? Has Canon changed anything here compared to the 35mm?
It's similar to the 35 VCM. I didn't notice any noise problems, have you heard anything?
@@cameralabs th-cam.com/video/ZfNUub0Bh4s/w-d-xo.htmlsi=qhKN89E_Gmj3vDE6&t=54 Vanessa Joy make a sound with the 35er by shaking it
@@cameralabs th-cam.com/video/ZfNUub0Bh4s/w-d-xo.htmlsi=qhKN89E_Gmj3vDE6&t=54 Vanessa Joy shake the Canon RF 35mm F1.4L VCM with noise.
@@menand735 lots of lenses have parts that wobble when not powered up - normally it's the IS though, I've not experienced it with AF motors, but I'll recheck next time I have a VCM lens.
Would it kill them to make a 50mm with IS? This isn't 1986 anymore.
Vielleicht ist es technisch schwer umzusetzen! Diese neuartigen Hybridobjektive haben ja zwei verschiedene Motoren. Einen schnellen VCM und einen USM Nanoantrieb! Das könnte der Grund sein! Ist aber nur Spekulation!
Additionally, for videography i use a Canon video camera. Why blow $6000 on an R1 when a very nice Canon pro video camera can be had for half or 2/3 the price?
Love Canon design and ergonomics, but this just seems to be the wrong set of primes at the wrong price… for me as a photographer mostly.
I’ve recently sold up and moved to Nikon, whose line does skew more to that midrange photo user. I only wish Nikon sent you review kit, Gordon!!
Dear Gordon,
my last comment seems to have been deleted or not posted at all.
-
First and foremost, a big thanks to your effort to present our reviews in such an organized, easy to understand and well filmed way.
-
Secondly:
I am an actor and photographer and want to cover several requirements.
I need a lens to silently film myself on my R6II, to take portraits and videos of others and of course to satisfy my desire for charismatic/characterful pictures when I travel or do street photography.
The 50 1.2 was on my list for a long time, but it’s too loud for auditions or interviews if you can’t record external sound.
It does also breathe a lot..
On the other hand I’d love to have a Zeiss Otus, which makes it harder to film myself (unless I have a lot of light and stop down to f8, which might not be so nice to watch..
Very thankful for your help, if you find the time. 🙏
Thanks! I'd say this is a solid choice and is certainly quiet, if you need the 50mm focal length in a native mount.
@@cameralabsthank you very much for finding the time to answer. Appreciate it!
Made my pre-order now. Will report in comments as soon as I have it and have tried it out.
Happy weekend!
@@ArchibaldBerlin happy to help. PS - bonus points if you pre-ordered via any of my links!
I wonder how good it is optically and how much is corrected digitally. That was the problem with the 35mm f/1.4. For that price a lens should not rely on digital correction.
Why? Seems to be the standard nowadays
@@octaviansfetcu4458 If a lens has heavy distortion, the lens has to be stretched digitally. That means you waste a part of the sensor. It is no longer a full frame photo and you lose a few megapixels. Straightening curved lines leads to artifacts. Vignetting means that you have to amplify the signal in the corners. Three stops of vignetting means that an ISO 1600 image becomes an ISO 12800 in the corners. As a result the image will look noisier in the corners.
And why is a lens still so expensive, if it had a lot of defects that have to be corrected digitally?
The problem is that those defects are even corrected in the EVF. You can't turn that off. With an optical viewfinder those defects would be visible and photographers would not accept them for that price.
Es geht nicht ohne Objektivkorrekturen! Ein Objektiv was sie wollen kostet dann dreimal soviel und ist doppelt so schwer!
@@ER-gn8io Früher wurde es zumindest einigermaßen korrigiert, denn optische Fehler waren im Sucher sichtbar. Da stört zum Beispiel eine Verzeichnung enorm. Jetzt gibt es digitale Sucher und die erlauben es den Herstellern leider, Objektivfehler schon im Sucherbild herauszurechnen und sie somit vor dem Photographen zu verstecken. Das lässt sich nicht einmal ausschalten. Wer also im Laden ein neues Objektiv ausprobiert, sieht im Sucher ein digital korrigiertes Bild ohne Vignettierungen oder Verzeichnungen. Die Hersteller müssen sich also weniger Mühe beim Design eines Objektives geben.
Ich kann ja verstehen, dass es komplex ist, bei einem Zoom Verzeichnungen rauszurechnen, aber bei einer Festbrennweite sollte das doch möglich sein.
Heute ist es viel einfacher, ein Objektiv zu designen als noch vor zwanzig Jahren oder so, denn mit schnellen Computern kann man leicht Milliarden von Lichtstrahlen in vielen verschiedenen Wellenlängen simulieren. Objektive werden zwangsweise besser durch die höhere Rechenleistung.
I love your channel, and I have watched a lot of your videos.
I have a question, and I hope you can help
Dose using crop mode and clear image zoom in sony cameras affects the actual focal length of the lens ( changes the depth of field and specially the lens distortion ) or it is just a cropping in the image like cropping in post ( cropping on the computer ) ?
I hope you can give me an answer or test this in a video. because it will help me in decisions buying my upcoming lenses
Clear Image zoom, like other digital zooms, just crops the image. Some of them also try and interpolate / generate more detail or smooth jaggies, or even simulate a zooming process, but they're still ultimately crops.
At Wex UK there is only a difference of £40 between the Sony 50mm 1.4 Gmaster and this lens.
Yep I was given an early estimated price, glad it's working out cheaper
Another good review ❤.
Thanks!
Waiting for a 85MM f/1.4 like this 50mm. I have the 35mm and it works well on my R5. I don't shoot video so maybe an over kill.
I'm sure a short tele will come in this series
Canon’s RF L lenses lack the aura EF L lenses had
I used those EF lenses but I never suffered under an aura.
My favorite set up is old sigma art and new canon R .. but when I shoot rally cars this sistem is very poor becuase of speed of lens focus system .. I hope that this lens are very fast on autofocus for this money
I wish canon would make 85mm f1.4 and 16mm or 14mm f2.0 same design like that cuz I’m planning to get 35mm f1.4 soon
Surely an 85 and an ultra wide are next...
Any 85 f1.4 ?
Not yet, but surely an 85 and 20 would be next
Does this lense suits Canon R50?
Maybe a bit high end, but go for it if you like
i wait for this lens .... so long
Gordon. That statement of “corrected for full frame sensors” worries me. Is Canon pulling a fast one like they did with the needing hyper correction RF 16mm f2.8?
No I just mean its a full frame lens. Most new lenses use profiles for distortion
@@cameralabsoh good. I mean it. The whole video I was waiting to hear some kind of oddity that Canon had to implement to make all of these lenses the same size. Glad to hear it wasn’t code for something bad.
I do 100% agree about Canon doing wrong in blocking 3rd party manufacturers and also their pricing overall. But I dont understand why people are so mad about their pricing in this exactly case. At least here in Austria the pricing seems in line with the competition:
Canon RF 50mm 1.4 L - 1.600€
Sony 50mm 1.4 GM - 1.700€
Lumix 50mm 1.4 S Pro 1.800€
Leica 50mm 1.4 Summilux SL 5.900€
Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art DG DN - 970€ but that’s 3rd party
Nikon Z 50mm 1.4 - 540€ but not in the same league
I agree, similar ballpark on all these lenses, especially once final pricing is known. My initial UK quote was an early one from Canon and higher than actual.
Thanks for putting this up. Pisses me out when I see old farts saying their EF 1.4 for 200$ is as sharp. They don't know what they talk about 😂
@@mousbleu I think people view a lot of older gear with rose tinted spectacles. That old lens was great value for a 50 1.4 with AF, especially branded by Canon, but it's not as great as many assume or believe. It is what it is.
@@mousbleu You know nothing, Jon Snow. The EF 50mm 1.4 cost 49,000 yen at the time of release. In today's money that's 300 euros. Even if you calculate inflation, you will not get 1600 euros. Learn the materiel, little one.
@@EdvardKALEN Was it a L lens ? No. Who knows nothing again ?
Not all 1.4 lenses are created equal. If Canon were to release a cheap 50mm 1.4 today you would all cry it's not as sharp as the previous 35mm 1.4 RF.
If that lens was so good, go get it and mount it on your RF camera. Nobody does that. What a surprise really.
£1800 is unhinged, the 1.2 is £1500 (equivalent) here in Aus at the moment.
Pricing just released in Australia is equivalent to £1071 plus VAT so about £1285, y’all are getting ripped if it is actually 1800 quid.
@@jamesonau I bet it will be even worse in europe 🙏🫡
@@Aneliuse In Deutschland wird das RF 50 1.2 gerade mit Sofortrabatt von 150 € zum Preis von 2499 € angeboten! Deutlich teurer wie in USA UK oder Canada!
@@ER-gn8io dude i dont know what youre saying
@@ER-gn8iowow that’s 60% more than here in Aus, better to fly here and buy canon lenses.
I'm a full-time professional shooting on 4x RF bodies. I don't own a single RF lens. I'm using all adapted EF glass, and have been waiting for small & compact 1.4 primes to finally update my lens line-up. This is not the lens I was waiting for. I've always found the RF control ring to a terrible feature, and now having a non-clicky aperture dial (i.e. useless for photo) in addition to that control ring just adds insult to injury. The Sony G Master 50 1.4 is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and more functional. I think I'm going to change brands. Ironically, I'd likely stay with Canon if the Sigma lenses (also smaller, lighter, etc.) came in RF mount.
I know what you mean, and it's clear now that this is the formula for their standard RF 1.4 primes going forward. I'd still wait a few months to see if the Sigma situation changes.
I'm not a pro but like you I've been using EF glass since the RF system launched and have been waiting and waiting for a 50mm 1.4 which I expected to come a lot sooner! This really isn't the lens I wanted though, I've never even pressed the video record button on my camera and have no interest in doing so. This lens is bigger and more expensive than I want and the fact that it's the video features that are making it big and expensive is a turn off! It's all very disappointing as 50mm is my go-to focal length and none of the three available options in the RF system are a lens that I really want. So I'm still using the Sigma ART 1.4. I'm generally happy with the performance but don't like the size and weight when combined with the EF-RF adapter.
Good morning Gorgeous Gordon - thanks for another excellent review 😎👍
The price is totally wrong Gordon. It’s £ 1,539.00 I’ve just ordered it from Park Cameras!
I had to base this on what Canon briefed me with last week.
Thanks for the great review. Is the sharpmess, color and clarity much better than the zeiss 55mm 1.8 ?
I am learning that with both Canon and Nikon (and possibly other makers) we amateurs in the UK have zero chance of getting any of these cameras or lenses before they are almost being pensioned off, as other markets (for wjhich read the USA) get priority. I find that frustrating, unacceptable and niot a game I am willing to play any more.
I'm really not sure how I feel about Canon excusing their aperture ring not being in communication on older bodies. I can take the newest fuji or Sony lens with that ring and slap it on the oldest crustiest body and that ring will work. For the money Canon charges, they should be able to keep up with the rest of the pack on something this straightforward
Als Besitzer der Canon R5 Mark I gebe ich die Hoffnung nicht auf das es dann doch noch eine Firmware gibt die diese Manko beseitigt! Mit ihrer Kritik haben sie absolut Recht!
How does this compare to the glass quality in the 50mm CNE 1.3? Are they two completely separate classes?
Obviously there is different functionality, I’m just wondering about glass quality.
The cinema lens? I assume they're different optical designs, but check the drawings for each on the Canon websites to see if they share the same elements and groups.
8:00 They're devoid of outlining and textures.
At this price, no IS?
That said, Canon clearly sees the future is hybrid shoorers. For working creators and professionals. On the other hand, I’m not quite sure they understand the economic situation around the world. Perhaps they don’t intend to sell that many.
The folks always saying that IS causes higher prices..arent talking about it. They have no position to make for this lens series. Video lenses with no IS- great idea! 🙄🙄🙄
Vielleicht gehen sie Canon davon aus das Nutzer einer R1/R3/R5/R6 diese Objektive hauptsächlich nutzen werden! Der IS ist ja in diesen Kameras implementiert!
What's with the economic situation ? 😅 they kept the price consistent over the years. There's little to no inflation on the lenses. What do you complain about exactly? That you have no money left after paying other stuff ?
@@simonmaduxx6777It's the only reason for me not jumping on that VCM series. The lack of IS is really a cold shower. 😊
@@ER-gn8ioIS +IBIS is always better. I have a 28mm with IBIS only and it sucks. However with these lenses the vibration info of the lens is sent to the camera so the IBIS works better.. but still limited in the degree that it can correct.
Glad i bought into Sony and take advantage of the beautiful Sigma 50mm f1.2 for only $1,200.
Bei dem Gewicht haben sie schwer zu tragen!
Canon's decision to lock out third party lens developers on their FF bodies will be their demise. Sony has replaced them as the best value platform.
Welche Dramaturgie! Ich sehe keinen Untergang!
Canon war Marktführer!
Canon ist Marktführer!
Canon bleibt Marktführer!
Diese L Objektive sind für professionelle Anwendungen konzipiert! Die Zielgruppe ist sehr klein!
still canon retains market share. if it gets close to sony winning canon will open the standard last second. i promise.
Canon's demise is coming every day now for the last 20 years. For some reason they still hold the most market share.
Den absolut einzigen Fehler den Canon begangen hat war, das sie zu lange an der Spiegelreflexkamera festgehalten haben und den Start für die Spiegellose Systemkamera verschlafen haben! Das ist aber überwunden und sie sind immer noch Marktführer!
Anteile im Jahr 2023 (Quelle Google)
48% Canon 26% Sony 12% Nikon
Wer Fehler findet kann diese behalten!
Warum sollte Canon ausgerechnet jetzt den Drittanbietern Zugang gewähren? Sie vervollständigen ihre Palette an Objektiven und wollen diese natürlich verkaufen!
as r8 shooter with 50/1.8, probably gonna wait for sigma rf ff lenses.
I will wrap a red ring over my rf 1.8 primes😂
Let's hope we don't have to wait too long...
good luck with that.... you're more paitent than me. Insiders said it will still be another 3 years.
I think you all panic too much on price. Its already dropped to 1,300 USD.
Yes, and my initial quote from Canon was incorrect and too high.
lowest I've seen it is 1399. where did you see it for 1300?
@@mattgericke4537 My bad. 1399 is the lowest price .
Another excellent review!
You're welcome!
just what we need: another $2000 range Canon lens
Presumably it's what some people need or they wouldn't have made it. I personally feel they should have some more mid-range options though around 800-1000.
Canon pricing is making Leica look affordable
I didn't understand why this lens exists. It's not 'that' cheaper or lighter than f1.2
By sharing the same barrel size and position of the gear teeth with the 24mm and 35mm, it's perfect for video when you're using it in a rig with a follow focus. It reeks of being a perfect fit for C70, C80 and R5C
It's 1100 less than the new pricing on 1.2 in Canada
It's much lighter and more compact. Not sure what you're looking at.
I’d really like to move on from my M43 equipment, but these prices are ridiculous. The canon ergonomics and colors are superior to Sony, but still…
They do more affordable lenses too, like the 50 1.8, but so far nothing in the true middle ground. Sony currently has access to more lenses.
looks like an stm body with L glass
Still too expensive for me.
50 1.8 is all I need.
USD 1399. Not too bad
Yep, it's working out cheaper than first quoted.
don't get the ef 1.4 50mm its af motor is terrible and burns out or gets loud which is bs for a 400 dollar lens/
Ich hatte es zwanzig Jahre lang und nur mit Sonnenblende benutzt da der Tubus weit ausfährt! Ein sehr empfindliches Objektiv das eigentlich nur abgeblendet auf 5.6 brauchbar war! Aber ich habe es vor zwei Jahren zum sehr guten Kurs verkauft!
The only Canon lenses I insert on my R6 mark2 are my RF 28mm F2.8 pancake and an old 135mm F2, and not because they are cheaper. The lenses only have so few interesting lenses in their RF line-up.
what else do you use? (non-Canon)
@Zyswest I have quite a few EG tamrons:
- Tamron 15-30mm
- Tamrom 35mm F1.4 (Best AF 35mm ever imo)
- Tamron 85mm F1.8
- Tamron 100-400mm
I also used to own the Tamron 45mm F1.8 VC which I sold to get the 35mm, though I would still recommend the 45mm without hesitation for half the price.
I now mainly use manual focus lenses such as the new Voigtlander 40mm F1.2 Nokton and Voigtlander 75mm F1.5 Nokton. I know manual focus can look scary but it's easy with Canon's focus aids and the lenses just produce magic images.
Sony’s 50mm f1.4 ftw!
It's a great lens, as is the latest Sigma 50 1.4. Again though, neither available for Canon owners.
I love how people vote for more inflation and then cry when some good remains consistently priced over years 😂 But they are okay paying a smartphone 1000$.
Bonus points for one of the more sensible comments so far!
Wenn ich mir das neue Sony Xperia 1VI anschaue wird ihre Argumentation noch drastischer! Es kostet bei Einführung in Deutschland 1399€ ! Jedes Jahr kommt dann ein neues Flaggschiff raus!
3 x 50mm lenses! I have an idea, how about some quality wide primes. The 16mm is pretty ordinary and a nicer lense would be appreciated. Come on Canon?
Is it April first? Both price and size much worse than the Sony 50mm f1.4 GM. I'm very glad I did not buy into Canon.
Canon wird es verschmerzen!😊
Canon is very, very shrewd. The minimum for a canon 1.4 lens of any quality on RF is1400.00!
Ok, take another route...blocked! The old Ef 85 1.4...is 1450.00! The old ef 35mkii..is 1800(!!!!). That's prices right now at BH. Holy mutha.
They are lucky i love my old gear and my r5. I hated the r6ii, and i hate their lens prices. And i hate thier lazy crop strategy.
Sony gobbled up a ton of marketshare but canon is staying the course...flooding each price point with 'almost there' lenses. Something is ALWAYS missing or off. Yes the bodies are good or great even...but bodies need sensible lenses that dont start at 1400 to be decent quality.
MY beautiful old gear notwithstanding - I cant wait to start using the s5ii and have access to other lenses. This is absolute nonsense.
Early drop
Best decision i made was switching to Sony because of their pricing & third party support. Sony knows Sigma and Tamron are on their tail both in terms of price and optical performance so they deliver 😅what they charge. Canon and Nikon still playing monopoly on lenses. Free market is your friend. More competition, more options and always better bang for your buck whether you buy that shiny Sony GM or that Sigma art or that AF Samyang.
Dennoch denke ich das die Mehrheit auf native Objektive besonderen Wert legt! Diese sind, weil aus gleichem Hause, optimal mit der entsprechenden Kamera abgestimmt und liefern dem zu Folge optimale Ergebnisse! Wäre das nicht der Fall, hätte Canon doch nicht mit Abstand den besten Marktanteil aller Hersteller!
I just got the consumer version of the RF 50mm f/1.4 L Lens and did a review of it on my channel, comparing it to the f/1.2 L. If anyone's interested, you can check it out my channel :)
Thank you for the review Gordon $1,399!!!!!!!!!! More over priced garbage 🗑 😂stupid ass company they are utterly ridiculous. This is just insulting no reason why this shouldn't be under 1k and like $799.99 for Christmas time. Sigma 50mm 1.4 Tokina opera 50mm 1.4 under $600 adapt them Tamron 45mm 1.8 vc for like $400 used I shoot Canon and Sony got zero rf lenses besides the rfs 18mm 150mm got my R7 which is also over priced junk. I will continue too adapt. They are so delusional like crapple being slaughtered by Hawueii in China lmao 🤣. I wanna get the R5 or R6.
All three lenses almost identical in size/weight? Can't help but speculate that rather arbitrary design constraint (in my view) needlessly causes performance compromises across the different focal lengths. Other than my 100-300 RF 2.8, I've not been impressed at all with RF glass. There seems to be an obsession with sharpness and little else. Returned my RF 50 1.2 and RF 85 1.2 for the equivalent EF versions-due to preference, not cost. I intentionally purchased the EF versions new concerned I may be forced to buy RF versions one day before I died-that's how much I dislike RF glass. The RF 85 1.2 is the worst rending lens I've ever used-by far-and that's across Sony, Nikon and Canon. Given my history with RF glass don't think I'll give these new RF lenses a try. But I must admit, the 100-300 2.8 RF is absolutely the best rendering lens I've ever owned; was totally blown away by the images it produces.
Wer es glaubt…
for that kind of money, poor sharpness at the edges and medium sharpness in the center in the open. Canon, are you crazy or something? I understand that fans will spend their money buying up these crafts in boxes, but it's just garbage, given such a high price. I will continue to stay on my Canon RF 50 1.2 there, I understand what I paid for - for impeccable quality on an open diafragm
I own both the 1.2 and the new 1.4. In my opinion, correct, the new 1.4 is better is no many ways. It's smaller, lighter, has a dedicated aperature ring, the autofocus speed in photos is much faster and percise (not clunky and slow like the 1.2), the autofocus doesn't hunt in low light or close up, and of course its, and in video the focus breathing is almost not existent. You can tell what 6 years of R&D did when comparing the 1.2 and the 1.4. Optically the 1.2 is fantastic corrected and uncorrected. The 1.4 is better in all those ways I listed plus just as good as the 1.2 optically corrected. Also the best part at least for me because I shoot in sandy and dirty locations, the front element doesn't move back and forth. I've had to send my 1.2 in for service twice now because debri got stuck in the front element chamber and caused the front element to bind up.
@mattgericke4537 I've had rf 50 1.2 for 2 years now. I'm not going to change it for any plastic rattle with blurry edges, which is rf 50 1.4. As for the weight and size, large dimensions are normal for a portrait lens.
@@manukello for your use the 50mm is a portrait lens it sounds like. The edges aren't even in focus ever. No one would also shoot a daylight landscape shot at F1.2 or F1.4 so that test was kind of silly to me. So your argument doesn't make any sense for picking the 1.2 over the 1.4. The only negative I had about the 1.4 on paper is the level of correction. it causes more noise in the corners. In practicality I need to test it more to see what the difference is. Also if I shoot portraits I primarily use my 85 1.2, unless it's groups of 3 or more, then I'll use the 50 or maybe my 35.
I’ve got the ultimate burn on Canon. The direction they’re taking with their lenses makes me happy I didn’t buy into RF mount in 2020 but instead went with Pentax. PENTAX. Thought a lot about getting an RP, but passed in favor of the rugged bodies of Pentax DSLRs.
Not that Pentax is doing anything particularly special with their lenses (they could do much more… even just doing AW rehousing of the FA limited line would be stellar), but the huge gap at the midrange in Canon is painful. Nikon and Panasonic have f1.8 primes which are near perfect, for the other newer FF mounts, with respectable midrange prices. A low-budget APS-C shooter is probably happier with Canon than a serious amateur with a FF.
At $1500 and change why would I give up my EF lenses that are compatible with mirrorless Canon bodies via a $100 adapter?
There is a reason that Canon included adapters so that we can continue to use the hundreds if not thousands of dollars worth of EF lenses, they knew in advance how much more expensive the RF lenses would be.
Better to sell more expensive bodies and provide a way for customers to use their EF lenses than to sell nothing at all.
It's time to switch to Sony. Or Nikon. Canon has gone crazy due to lack of competition.
At some point Canon owners must say enough is enough and leave for Sony or even Nikon.
And yet they don't!
@@cameralabs Canon users waited ages for a competitive mirrorless camera, and now they finally seem excited about features other brands have offered for years - often at a lower price and with a working aperture ring. I reckon many Sony users, including myself, originally started with Canon. Today, Sony has a top-selling camera in every category, leaving Canon focused on budget options for high-volume retail stores.
Dazu folgende Informationen:
Canon war Marktführer!
Canon ist Marktführer!
Canon bleibt Marktführer! 😊
@@ER-gn8io Wrong of course, B & H top 10 selling cameras 2024 Fujifilm X100VI.
Sony A7 IV
Nikon Zf
Sony A7C
Sony A7R V
Fujifilm X-T5
Sony ZV-E10
Canon EOS R6 Mark II.
Nikon Z8
@@ourtvchannel 😂😂? Träume weiter!