Got the RF 45mm F1.2 last week. I had bought a used EF 50mm F1.2 (on the Buy & Sell) a few weeks before the 45mm was announced (lucky me).
So I decided to do a bit of comparing the two. I used my R5 II (all in electronic shutter) fo comparing. Every time I try to do this, I gain renewed respect for folks who do reviews online. Doing these comparisons is hard and labor intensive!!
My comparison is only loosely controlled and somewhat ad-hoc. However, for what it's worth, my overall feeling is:
- These lenses are much more similar than they are different.
- The RF 45mm F1.2 is sharper
- The EF 50mm F1.2 has smoother bokeh
The AF feels different, with the 50 feeling "EFy" and the 45mm "RFy". That is the EF sometimes feels a bit more jerky and the 45mm a bit smoother. However, in terms of focus speed and accuracy, I couldn't really identify one I'd say is better. I shot mostly static subjects, though.
In case someone is interested, here is a link to some CRAW files (44 images, 22 each lens with same settings, handheld approximate framing).
PinholeR5 wrote:
- These lenses are much more similar than they are different.
- The RF 45mm F1.2 is sharper
- The EF 50mm F1.2 has smoother bokeh
Thanks for this. This is exactly my impression also. (I used to shoot my 50L at 1.6, where clarity improved some but bokeh was still dreamy enough.)
PSA: another way these lenses are similar is that both have significant focus shift when stopped down, which will result in slightly OOF images of closer subjects at f/2-2.8.
The good news is that on most R bodies you can easily work around this by setting Exposure Simulation to Exposure+DOF. This allows the camera to acquire focus at the shooting aperture. (Thanks to Ron Scheffler for this tip.)
After I went mirrorless, I actually sold my EF 50L due to this issue, as I did not know about this fix at the time.
PinholeR5 wrote:
- These lenses are much more similar than they are different.
- The RF 45mm F1.2 is sharper
- The EF 50mm F1.2 has smoother bokeh
Thanks for the comparison!
I haven't looked at the high res files but will add: lenses rarely have the same bokeh smoothness both in front and behind the plane of focus, and that appears to be the case with both of these. However, the smoothest bokeh of each is opposite the other. The EF appears to have smoother background bokeh which generally seems to be more highly prioritized or more likely to be evaluated in reviews and comparisons, while the RF appears to have slightly smoother foreground bokeh. The RF appears to suffer from higher optical vignetting resulting in stronger 'cats eye' bokeh balls in the periphery, which adds slight swirl to the bokeh quality. It also appears to be slightly higher contrast which will also make bokeh slightly harsher.
garyvot wrote:
Thanks for this. This is exactly my impression also. (I used to shoot my 50L at 1.6, where clarity improved some but bokeh was still dreamy enough.)
PSA: another way these lenses are similar is that both have significant focus shift when stopped down, which will result in slightly OOF images of closer subjects at f/2-2.8.
The good news is that on most R bodies you can easily work around this by setting Exposure Simulation to Exposure+DOF. This allows the camera to acquire focus at the shooting aperture. (Thanks to Ron Scheffler for this tip.)
After I went mirrorless, I actually sold my EF 50L due to this issue, as I did not know about this fix at the time. ...Show more →
Thanks for the focus shift tip! Wasn't aware of it.
I wasn't that impressed by the EF 50, even before the RF 45mm came out. I really coveted this lens back around 2010 when I was getting more serious with photograpny and upgraded from my T2i to the 7D. Bought my first L lens (used), the EF 70-200mm F4L (non-IS). I also really wanted the EF 85mm f/1.2L II. At the time, the cost was prohibitive for me and instead I had the Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM and the EF 85mm f/1.8. I later moved on to a 5D III and got the Sigma Art 24, 50 and 85 as a Black Friday package deal. Wow! Never looked back and ended up with all the FF Sigma Art primes.
Recently, just out of curiousity, I got the EF 50mm 1.2 and 85mm 1.2 II to play around with. The 50mm wasn't that impressive, the 85mm I liked much better, but both lenses show their age.
I'm somewhat surprised in that the RF 45/1.2 is indeed sharper, has more contrast, and has smoother bokeh balls (the aspherics in the EF 50/1.2L are showing onion rings), this resulting in overall harsher bokeh rendering - but also, that the RF 45/1.2 has significantly stronger longitudinal chromatic aberration!
Kind of reinforces my understanding that the RF 45/1.2 more resembles a modern, faster EF 50/1.4 USM - especially given how well it cleans up when stopped down like that old lens does.
I haven't looked at the high res files but will add: lenses rarely have the same bokeh smoothness both in front and behind the plane of focus, and that appears to be the case with both of these. However, the smoothest bokeh of each is opposite the other. The EF appears to have smoother background bokeh which generally seems to be more highly prioritized or more likely to be evaluated in reviews and comparisons, while the RF appears to have slightly smoother foreground bokeh. The RF appears to suffer from higher optical vignetting resulting in stronger 'cats eye' bokeh balls in the periphery, which adds slight swirl to the bokeh quality. It also appears to be slightly higher contrast which will also make bokeh slightly harsher. ...Show more →
The RF does have higher vignetting and benefits more from profile correction in Lightroom Classic (LrC). All images I posted have the LrC correction profile, Camera Faithful color and the Auto Audjustment in LrC.
I didn't pay much attention to the foreground bokeh and only a couple of images would have something. I don't have bokeh balls in the periphery, but the ones I got seemed equally cats eye shapped.
johnctharp wrote:
Thanks for sharing the raw files!
I'm somewhat surprised in that the RF 45/1.2 is indeed sharper, has more contrast, and has smoother bokeh balls (the aspherics in the EF 50/1.2L are showing onion rings), this resulting in overall harsher bokeh rendering - but also, that the RF 45/1.2 has significantly stronger longitudinal chromatic aberration!
I was surprised by the sharpness as well. I actually expected it to be a bit sharper in the center but wasn't expecting it to be that much sharper. When you zoom in with the raw files you can really see it.
Kind of reinforces my understanding that the RF 45/1.2 more resembles a modern, faster EF 50/1.4 USM - especially given how well it cleans up when stopped down like that old lens does.
By this you mean that the RF 45mm will take the same place in the RF lineup that the EF 50/1.4 took in the EF lineup, i.e., the more afordable fast 50ish prime that most people buy. Right?
I'd agree with that. I agree with @stanj, the RF 45mm f/1.2 looks like a total winner . It is much better than what I had expected at f1.2. It makes that f1.2 look available to a lot of people who couldn't afford/justify the RF 50mm f1.2, or even the RF 50mm f1.4 VCM!
PinholeR5 wrote:
By this you mean that the RF 45mm will take the same place in the RF lineup that the EF 50/1.4 took in the EF lineup, i.e., the more afordable fast 50ish prime that most people buy. Right?
More or less yes - especially since the 50/1.4L VCM went upmarket versus where the EF 50/1.4 USM was.
PinholeR5 wrote:
I'd agree with that. I agree with @stanj@, the RF 45mm f/1.2 looks like a total winner . It is much better than what I had expected at f1.2. It makes that f1.2 look available to a lot of people who couldn't afford/justify the RF 50mm f1.2, or even the RF 50mm f1.4 VCM!
It's also that the RF 45/1.2 STM renders similarly to the old EF 50/1.4 USM moreso than the EF 50/1.2L, with the harder-edged bokeh. I won't call it 'better' or 'worse' in terms of rendering, but 'different' and down to personal taste. Personally, I appreciate the rendering of the EF 50/1.4!
Thanks for the test and writeup. I was not considering this lens as reports on youtube were that it is not very sharp wide open, but looking at your results, I am going to re-evaluate this lens.
thedutt wrote:
Thanks for the test and writeup. I was not considering this lens as reports on youtube were that it is not very sharp wide open, but looking at your results, I am going to re-evaluate this lens.
It doesn't match Canon two high-end 50mm lenses, but I think it is "sharp enough" in the center to be credibly usable wide open. Better than the EF 50 1.4 and, as we've seen, even the EF 1.2L.
Contrast is a bit on the low side wide open, and there is some definite green/magenta color fringing (LoCA). But even there, I have seen worse in much more costly lenses (the EF 85L comes to mind).
I think it's pretty terrific given its size, weight and cost.
I feel more inclined to grab the OLD 1.2L even though is not perfect but I like the bokeh a bit better and is not a lens I will use as much my main portrait combo. Otherwise I would have to grab the new 1.2 and I dont want to keep spending more
Thanks for the examples, it was very useful!
Might have luck isolating it in a layer and desaturating it - I find Lightroom's tools (for one example) rather inadequate, something that they could probably fix with more 'AI'.
The jpeg images I posted are "4K", i.e., 3240 x 2160. In general the CA is really painful to deal with. This image wasn't too bad. Here is an updated version just using the tools in LrC.
Planetwide wrote:
The 45mm has lots of CA in this image. Any idea if it can be removed, and how many pixels is it?
Thanks
If you use an Adobe workflow, it is possible to minimize this using the manual color fringing adjustments in the Lens Corrections panel in Lightroom or ACR (use this alongside regular CA removal). You can fine tune how this works for specific images.
If using DPP, you can enable the "Color Blur" filter in the lens adjustments panel. (Use this alongside DLO or, if using a third-party lens, individual CA correction). My experience with this is a bit hit or miss--I recall it doing a good job cleaning up the fringing from my EF 100 f/2--but it has not helped much with the RF 45 for some reason.
PinholeR5 wrote:
The jpeg images I posted are "4K", i.e., 3240 x 2160. In general the CA is really painful to deal with. This image wasn't too bad. Here is an updated version just using the tools in LrC.
Thanks, that's what I needed. It seems manageable.
