shawnphoto wrote:
Even at $450 the complaints go on and on for Canon.
Well, I think the RF 45mm is fine on current camera bodies, which have the Exposure+DOF simulation mode allowing for stopped-down focus acquisition. It's just the older bodies that lack this (which of course doesn't help if that's what you still own).
The more problematic case is the EF 50 1.2L, which doesn't support this feature on any camera body. But then, it's not a current product, either.
I guess what I find curious is that Canon does not tweak its AF algorithms to account for a known lens characteristic like this. It *seems* like this would be easy enough to do (to may lay person self, anyway). You would just need to apply a dynamic offset calculated from subject distance, shooting aperture, and lens behavior, I think.
garyvot wrote:
Well, I think the RF 45mm is fine on current camera bodies, which have the Exposure+DOF simulation mode allowing for stopped-down focus acquisition. It's just the older bodies that lack this (which of course doesn't help if that's what you still own).
The more problematic case is the EF 50 1.2L, which doesn't support this feature on any camera body. But then, it's not a current product, either.
I guess what I find curious is that Canon does not tweak its AF algorithms to account for a known lens characteristic like this. It *seems* like this would be easy enough to do (to may lay person self, anyway). You would just need to apply a dynamic offset calculated from subject distance, shooting aperture, and lens behavior, I think. ...Show more →
Yeah, that is very curious. Perhaps Canon is playing games with you. They want you to suffer is what it is. And they want to take all your money and use it for some purpose that is probably evil. Hmm. How'd you figure this out?
shawnphoto wrote:
Complaining about a $450 f/1.2 lens... priceless.
I think you are mainly making this statement to be provocative, but I'll respond anyway and say it's not so much complaining about a $470 f/1.2 lens, but lamenting that a camera body that was $3900 at introduction isn't programmed to elegantly handle one of the shortcomings of the lens, when it would be (relatively) easy for Canon to update the firmware to do so.
paulfeng wrote:
I think you are mainly making this statement to be provocative, but I'll respond anyway and say it's not so much complaining about a $470 f/1.2 lens, but lamenting that a camera body that was $3900 at introduction isn't programmed to elegantly handle one of the shortcomings of the lens, when it would be (relatively) easy for Canon to update the firmware to do so.
When the shortcoming affects test charts but not portraits... perhaps we can understand why Canon hasn't prioritized a 'fix'.
In 6 or 8 months from now if there aren't many on the fs board we'll know it's a good lens for the money. I think the RF 35 f1.8 is probably one of those lenses since you don't see too many on fs board. I still think Canon is coming out with these lenses so Sigma and Tamron will have no interest is selling a better product for less money than what these lenses sell for.
shawnphoto wrote:
Complaining about a $450 f/1.2 lens... priceless.
If lets say any 3rd party made this lens at this price. It sure would have given a Gold award. It's comical to see and read the comments from some about the shortcomings of this glass. I personally think Canon hit it out the park but then you can't please all. Is this a perfect lens? NO, but its a best bang for your hard earned franklins
cs3is wrote:
If lets say any 3rd party made this lens at this price. It sure would have given a Gold award. It's comical to see and read the comments from some about the shortcomings of this glass. I personally think Canon hit it out the park but then you can't please all. Is this a perfect lens? NO, but its a best bang for your hard earned franklins
Well... Viltrox has made the actual high performing 50mm f/1.4 lens that costs $549 (so just a little more), and it's getting its due praise. It's just not available for Canon RF mount.
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
Well... Viltrox has made the actual high performing 50mm f/1.4 lens that costs $549 (so just a little more), and it's getting its due praise. It's just not available for Canon RF mount.
Quite a bit larger and heavier; really a different lens for a different target market IMO.
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
Well... Viltrox has made the actual high performing 50mm f/1.4 lens that costs $549 (so just a little more), and it's getting its due praise. It's just not available for Canon RF mount.
Canon has killed the 3rd party variants with this glass. I can get much faster glass from the first party. I wish they open it to Tammy/Sammy/Villy but I highly doubt it.
paulfeng wrote:
... but I'll respond anyway and say it's not so much complaining about a $470 f/1.2 lens, but lamenting that a camera body that was $3900 at introduction isn't programmed to elegantly handle one of the shortcomings of the lens, when it would be (relatively) easy for Canon to update the firmware to do so.
Perhaps Canon thought someone splurting 3900 on a body would use more expensive lenses?
I once had the EF 50/1.2L. Pretty wild lens, could bring magic on occation, but... Big fat but! As the cheap 45/1.2 seems better than the at the time and for what it was expensive L, I will try the 45 for sure when Black F does it trick, perhaps 2026 or 27.
cs3is wrote:
If lets say any 3rd party made this lens at this price. It sure would have given a Gold award. It's comical to see and read the comments from some about the shortcomings of this glass. I personally think Canon hit it out the park but then you can't please all. Is this a perfect lens? NO, but its a best bang for your hard earned franklins
In a way this lens is like a warning shot from Canon to the world. "You sure you want to play this game?"
They used the old 50/1.4 USM as the 'model' lens for the 1D series...
Probably because that lens was relatively small and didn't block body features. This was true for all 1D manuals up to the 1DXII. Interestingly, the 50/1.8 STM was pictured on the 1DXIII manual! Haha...
cs3is wrote:
Canon has killed the 3rd party variants with this glass. I can get much faster glass from the first party. I wish they open it to Tammy/Sammy/Villy but I highly doubt it.
Well, there were actually no third party options to kill.
And I got a feeling that if any third party maker had released a lens like this, people (inc. here) would have been splitting their sides launching at "the sh***te these lousy third party companies are putting on the market". But since this lens is from Canon, it gets a free pass (as does Nikon who has released the 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 that are well below the contemporary standards for prime lens quality).
They used the old 50/1.4 USM as the 'model' lens for the 1D series...
That lens (a copy of which I still own) was once considered an exemplary standard prime. Sure, wide open it has weak corners, color smearing, and lots of coma, but it is actually razor sharp when stopped down, and rendering is a considerable step up from the nifty fifties. It also has little of the wild astigmatism and field curvature of the EF 50mm 1.2L.
Before the Sigma Art and Zeiss Otus, we really didn't have better 50mm lenses for DSLRs.
I recall that lenses used to be forgiven for not performing at their best wide open, haha. I personally am still a fan. Even today, I would confidently shoot this lens at f/1.8 all day long.
to see and read the comments from some about the shortcomings of this glass. I personally think Canon hit it out the park but then you can't please all. Is this a perfect lens? NO, but its a best bang for your hard earned franklins
But since this lens is from Canon, it gets a free pass (as does Nikon who has released the 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 that are well below the contemporary standards for prime lens quality). 
