I have the R, and the RF50 and RF24-105. If you think the RF50 is expensive, you may not understand what you're getting. It is something like 3x sharper linearly, meaning 10x sharper area-wise, than any of the EF50mm lenses, and is potentially the sharpest normal lens ever (a claim also made by the 55mm Otus and 50mm APO-Summicron, which are significantly smaller apertures). I've made my own lens charts that show in practice the RF50 in the corners look nearly ideal black and white stripes at 40lp/mm while the EF50 1.2, 1.4, and 1.8 are simply greyish mush.
The main competition for this lens is any Canon 70-200 f2.8. This lens (the 1.8) is amazing and great and unique, but the 70-200 f2.8 available for as little as $750 used are also pretty damn good. Maybe a little less bokeh, but a little sharper, especially into the VII and III IS models. And 1/3 of the weight.
@@nostalium You're right, there is no comparison done in this video! Those are very pretty photos. here is an actual side by side: ruclips.net/video/qoIBEqBzre4/видео.html You can see it's hard to tell the difference, and I've owned and shot both lenses. The 70-200 F2.8 III I have now is a far better lens, as the 200mm 1.8 is just too large and heavy, and not as sharp, and has no IS. The boke is a little better, but does not overcome the shortcomings.
These guys have a MUCH higher information density than kai, tho. Kai is hilarious and a great entertainer, but the info is sometimes lacking :( love both of them tho
U got that right, I’m a camera technician and have seen this once in the shop, disassembling it without spare parts was nerve wracking to say the least...
Bought one of those a few years back; an early specimen manufactured in May 89. Kept it for almost two years before selling it. Three things to note in this, that were not mentioned in the video: 1- There is an FD version of this lens introduced in 1989, IIRC, though few of those were made. 2- This lens uses focus by wire. Probably the first SLR lens to do so. There is no mechanical link between the focus ring and focus group. When not mounted to a body, or when there is no battery in the body, you can rotate the focus ring as much as you want and the auto focus will not move. 3- Canon stopped repairing this lens in 2009 or so, as they run out of spare parts. So, if anything goes wrong with any element of the autofocus system (USM motor, encoders, electronics, etc), it becomes a very expensive paperweight, as it will be impossible to focus it, even in MF mode. This was the reason why I sold mine.
I rented this lens several times in 2002-2004. I regularly saw it at basketball games back then too. It's great because a 1.4X converter turns it into a lens that is slightly faster than a 300mm f2.8.
I had opportunity to shoot a college hockey game with one of these things. Unreal lens...in hockey arena lighting you can freeze the puck mid air at 400 ISO. Couldn't believe it. Mind blowing glass!
I've owned one since mid 90s. It's heavy for certain but it's every bit the special lens described above. It was primarily used to document kids activities on a dimly lit stage and outdoor soccer field. DOF is spectacular. I don't use it as much anymore but can't part with a legend.
As a lucky owner of the 200 f2 IS I can confirm that it is a better lens than the 1.8 but at the used price the 1.8 is well worth buying if one is available. Talking about the f2 200 - it is as good as an Otus (I own the 55mm Otus and am a past owner of the 85 so can compare) In fact the 200 is very similar to an Otus in that the sharpness extends into the corners and is nearly perfect wide open. It is the sharpest lens Canon makes, with only the 300mm f2.8 coming close to it in terms of sharpness. At 200mm the IS is both brilliant and necessary. The only downside is the razor thin depth of the focus zone. Because of the thinness of the in focus area going to 1.8 from f2 is not really a benefit as it just makes it harder to get the shot in perfect focus. It benefits from good technique and experience to get the most out of it, but it is one of that rare breed of lenses that can give you goosebumps from the results. Cheaper lenses are used by everyone and so it is hard to make your work stand out but shooting the 200 f1.8 or f2 can create images that really stand out. When I die, they can bury me with my 200 in my hands. That way I can go out happy.
With mirrorless camera era there are quite the options to achieve these results with a lenses that are under 200$. There are quite a lot projector lenses which have 150mm focal lengths and bright apertures, currently own 120mm 1.8, 140mm 1.8f and even 180mm 2f each of them cost me less than 150$. Of curse they cant compare to this lens in sharpness, CA and other categories, but they still give good sharpness and beautiful bokeh, good for portraits :)
$3500 seems pretty fair, but as much as I love the nostalgia of the 1.8, the reliability, weight savings, and repairability of the current f2L make it a better investment. Considering you can find good used copies for around $4K, I'd probably do that... But damn, I want one of these!
Awesome review. I envy an owner who has 2. I am happy with owing one. The pinnacle of Canon lens technology. What is more scarce is the FD mount version.
Ah, I know a guy with the f/2.0 IS little brother and you could literally take a photo of a model on a beach full of trash, and the lens would turn it into lovely little bokeh.
An almost intimidating lens, very respectable, as so is your presentation too! Excellent presentation and well articulated. Kudos for introducing us to these rare pieces of glass!
i used it for 20year´s in my job as a Pro Photographer ,,sad to say it started to dust up inside the len´s ..the new 200mm f2 is just as good glad to say!
@@eyeeyeoh Yup, in the 1950's lol They also made a super scarce 300mm F1.8 for FD mount cameras in the early 1970's. I was talking about EF mount lenses:) They made some insane TV/Cine lenses in the old days too.
@@NebulousFilms Notably some of the largest focal length mirror lenses such as the 5200mm F14 which was commonly used on cine cameras though also stills, there was a 50mm F0.95 tv lens as well. The vintage TV broadcast box lenses are some of the craziest zooms too (9.3-930mm F1.7 IS in B4 mount for example). I don't have a complete list as there is not a ton of info online about them without a lot of digging. More industrial but I also class the Canon XI lenses under tv/cine in my mind (50mm F0.75, 65mm F0.75, 65mm F1.0, 90mm F1.0 among others in the line)
I've owned and shot with this Lens. Is OK. The main competition for this lens is any Canon 70-200 f2.8. This lens (the 1.8) is amazing and great and unique, but the 70-200 f2.8 available for as little as $750 used are also pretty damn good. Maybe a little less bokeh, but a little sharper, especially into the VII and III IS models. And 1/3 of the weight.
I know that Alexandre Deschaumes has used this for astro-landscapes and tele-panoramas. He actually carried it around in the high mountains of the Alps. :D
I want my hands on a discontinued in 2001 EF 50 f1.0. Even tho it's more expensive than f1.2, It's not the sharpest, has chromatic aberration, and other stuff, but images you can get from f1.0 are just the sickest. Canon's glass is the best.
first i see this video it was surprise, i thought the host is Kai W and review at other country like hong kong or else but actually at my country and has this legend lens!! that dude for making this video..
I'd suggest the RF50mm f/1.2 as a candidate for your show. I'm an owner, and have compared to my EF50s (1.2, 1.4, 1.8) and it's so much sharper that even to compare seems unfair. I think the limit of seeing its sharpness, even wide-open and in the corners, is the sensor, not the lens. That combines with better bokeh than the Leica Noctilux (less of a swirl effect because there's less mechanical vignetting/eclipsing) and extremely fast AF. I hate the size and price but other than that, it's perfect.
Not really. The longer the focal, the more extension you need and more light you loose. And because od it's size it is possibile that the sharpening point will be behind front element (not in front od it) so focusing would not be possibile at all. And theoretically 200mm 1.8 macro 1:1 depth od Field would be non existing ;)
You'd be better off with the 180 f4 macro they make. 200 can be a very useful focal length because of the working distance you get (especially for skittish animals like amphibians and reptiles). The 180 gives you 1:1 without needing extension tubes.
@@LuLeBe oh, I get it, I think, but wouldn't the remaining crop be 1.3? Because, X * 1.5 = x * 3/2 (cropping for apsc) X * 2 = x* 3/2 * 4/3 ( going from APS-C to m4/3). Right?
its a great lens for what it was but now its a collectors item,i can get same of much better results with my sony a1 with 135mm f1.8 lens super fst autofocus ect. nice lens to have in my collection
Hi ZY, probably you can do one for the Loxia since their price is even higher than the Batis although MF and slower aperture :) Available in Lens Library too!
Jake Van Bueren they don’t have it yet at lense library but I’ve try the 400mm canon mounted on the A7riii that is also very impressive (and expensive 😅)
Would love to have this converted to a 4.73 inch f/1.8 Astrograph imaging telescope for asteroid hunting using full frame cooled monochrome cmos imaging system...
I wonder how it compares with its younger cousin, the 200mm F2. I can't imagine theres much difference in the photos at just a 3rd of a stop difference
Fantastic review. I would like to know just what goes into the pricing of lenses, they all seems overpriced. I cant quite understand why a lenses cost more than say modern computers or refrigerators.
Imagine the care it takes to grind a bit of glass to the tolerances required for the subtle curvature of a contact lens. Now scale up the surface area of that glass to the size you see here. Now there are 12 elements, so grind all 24 surfaces to those standards. Okay, now include all the other motors, weather sealing, electronics, and other hardware which will move these elements over the course of decades.
@@ed_halley don't forget the years of r&d money and special expensive elements like ed glass, aspherical design and the more expensive than gold zeiss ones that go into one as well
Unless you compare it side by side with a modern 70-200. when you do such as this video: @zre4 the subtle difference does not seem worth the price, weight, soft image.
Works with the 2x, 1.4x, and even the 2x/1.4x stacked. When using the two teleconveters stacked, I recommend to close down a 1/2 stop to bring the crispness back.
You people are forgetting that nowadays, it's all about money, it's all about NET profit, not about product quality... 1. It's MUCH cheaper to manufacture a 200mm f2 or a 200mm f2.8 lens, than it is a 200mm f1.8, despite there being less than one stop of difference in max aperture. 2. Since it is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper to manufacture an f2.8 or even an f2 lens, that means Canon/Nikon/Sony/Whoever else can make a deal not to manufacture f1.8 lenses, so they can still sell their f2 or f2.8 200mm lenses, at the same price they would sell a 200mm f1.8 lens, while bringing in MUCH higher NET profit... Again, you are forgetting that nowadays, it's all about money... I know about the greedy, business side of these companies first hand, because I am an eTech engineer and a CNC machine operator, having worked as a CNC machine operator on countless projects for Apple, Leica, Samsung, Xiaomi, ASUS, Intel, Biostar, HP and very recently I worked on the plastic framing for the new 135mm Samyang lens in Taiwan - which by the way, yes, Samyang does not manufacture their lenses 100% in South Korea, manufacturing of some lens parts, is in fact, outsourced to China and Taiwan - and let me tell you, they bring in like 1000kg aka. a ton of the cheapest plastic they can find, which costs them like 5,000 TWD which is like around 150 EUR or around 160 USD and with 1000kg of plastic, we can make like 450 lens frames... And with OKUMA CNC machines that we were working with/on, we made one frame in like 40 seconds!! Let that sink in... For only 150 EUR aka. with 1 ton of plastic, approx. 450 plastic lens frames are made!! If you divide 150 EUR by 450 lens frames, you will realize that one lens frame costs 0.33 EUR to manufacture!! Yes, the plastic frame for a lens that is sold for 950 EUR costs 33 cents to manufacture!! And I was told that in Korea, they manufacture the glass elements in much the same way, meaning it probably costs them around 150-200 EUR per lens, to make that 135mm f1.8 lens and that's with all manufacturing costs included, including material, overhead, tooling, labor, etc... Just let that sink in! That means from those 950 EUR that lens is sold in the stores for, Samyang probably has around 400 EUR of pure NET profit! That 950 EUR lens that you buy is actually worth 150-200 EUR!! Now imagine how inflated the price of Canon, Sony and Nikon lenses is! - Which by the way; Leica and Apple are by far the worst, greediest and most shameless of them all, when it comes to this. If you only knew how cheap it is to manufacture your precious, expensive, super premium, 9,000 EUR Leica camera, you would be forming a riot in Wetzlar, Germany right now...
I would like to add some information also to ZY Productions. Canon once made the world's fastest EF limited ATG (3) production lenses. 1. First, on drawing table aka, A.L (ATG's "A"wesome "L"enses with gold trim line), then changed to "L" with red 2. Large diameter with better eltro contacts for AF & Aperture 3. EF50/1.0, EF200/1.8 and 1200/5.6 (the rarest AF monster lenses) Two were discontinued/complied with USA. 1200/5.6 was made only in amount of 69, but less were passed in under 46. For the records based on ATG of the 1200: The first working production was FD mount ATG changed/modified FD to EF to becomes AF (42mm to fused 44mm FFD) ATG has 3 Canon has unknown amount Carl Zeiss has 1 Herman Schreiber had 3 James Jannard has 2 Leica has 1 Sports Illustrated has 2 MPB Photographic had 1 CIA has 1 USA Special Forces have minimum of 2 Ruler in Asia has 1 ZY Productions has zero
I've recently acquired one of these lenses, and after putting the serial number into the date checker, mines from december 1988. Considering it was released the previous month, I was wondering if that adds value?
Great video! I recommend the unique Rubinar 300mm f/4.5 mirror lens w/m42 mount. It’s the sharpest mirror lens I’ve used, has a f/4.5 (not f/8) and is $900+. It’s an Amazing and fun lens 😉
Found my next vlogging lens
nailed it
Where can you buy one if possible @James Erb
With the crop factor on canon cameras nowadays it’s gonna be like 350mm lens, perfect for vlogging
@@sterlingg2454 320mm
Logic 100
Considering the prices of the new Canon RF lenses, it sounds like a good deal.
I have the R, and the RF50 and RF24-105. If you think the RF50 is expensive, you may not understand what you're getting. It is something like 3x sharper linearly, meaning 10x sharper area-wise, than any of the EF50mm lenses, and is potentially the sharpest normal lens ever (a claim also made by the 55mm Otus and 50mm APO-Summicron, which are significantly smaller apertures). I've made my own lens charts that show in practice the RF50 in the corners look nearly ideal black and white stripes at 40lp/mm while the EF50 1.2, 1.4, and 1.8 are simply greyish mush.
Michael Ma Absolutely! Especially after you realize the 85mm f1.2 costs 2600 dollars.
The main competition for this lens is any Canon 70-200 f2.8. This lens (the 1.8) is amazing and great and unique, but the 70-200 f2.8 available for as little as $750 used are also pretty damn good. Maybe a little less bokeh, but a little sharper, especially into the VII and III IS models. And 1/3 of the weight.
TexMex Look at the examples from 2:46 on. 70-200 f/2.8 is no competition for this. It would be interesting to see how the Nikon 200mm f/2 compares.
@@nostalium You're right, there is no comparison done in this video! Those are very pretty photos. here is an actual side by side: ruclips.net/video/qoIBEqBzre4/видео.html You can see it's hard to tell the difference, and I've owned and shot both lenses. The 70-200 F2.8 III I have now is a far better lens, as the 200mm 1.8 is just too large and heavy, and not as sharp, and has no IS. The boke is a little better, but does not overcome the shortcomings.
Kai Wong lite
Diet Kai!
A bigger smile and less sarcasm. Works for me.
These guys have a MUCH higher information density than kai, tho. Kai is hilarious and a great entertainer, but the info is sometimes lacking :( love both of them tho
Hahaha this what I thought .
William Pichardo lmaoooo
I've literally never heard of or seen this lens before! What a monstrosity.
Legend has it that there's a specialty 300mm F1.8 lens as well.
If you ever get your chance to use one, do so .... It is as good as they say. I used one on my EOS1, and it was a joy to use.
@@melvinch 7 kg😂😂
@@ceeveebee5095 With great focal length and aperture comes great weight. There's no going around the law of optics.
@@TexMex421 Yeah, I am aware. It was used for horse races.
U got that right, I’m a camera technician and have seen this once in the shop, disassembling it without spare parts was nerve wracking to say the least...
Do it with Interstellar docking scene bgm playing in the background!
Classic «red wire-blue wire» situation 😆 it can not be recreated with to many dramatic effects📸
Reasons why it is expensive: it's a 200mm lens with an aperture of f/1.8. Case closed.
What MIKI said.
What Adam said.
Very well done, you have great presentation skills. I especially like the good mood you seem to be in when you create your content.
Indeed! Nice point you called attention to.
Bought one of those a few years back; an early specimen manufactured in May 89. Kept it for almost two years before selling it.
Three things to note in this, that were not mentioned in the video:
1- There is an FD version of this lens introduced in 1989, IIRC, though few of those were made.
2- This lens uses focus by wire. Probably the first SLR lens to do so. There is no mechanical link between the focus ring and focus group. When not mounted to a body, or when there is no battery in the body, you can rotate the focus ring as much as you want and the auto focus will not move.
3- Canon stopped repairing this lens in 2009 or so, as they run out of spare parts.
So, if anything goes wrong with any element of the autofocus system (USM motor, encoders, electronics, etc), it becomes a very expensive paperweight, as it will be impossible to focus it, even in MF mode. This was the reason why I sold mine.
If it's set to mf would it still work?
@@ComingSoonOnVHS Sadly, no. This was the first focus by wire lens Canon made.
I rented this lens several times in 2002-2004. I regularly saw it at basketball games back then too. It's great because a 1.4X converter turns it into a lens that is slightly faster than a 300mm f2.8.
I had opportunity to shoot a college hockey game with one of these things. Unreal lens...in hockey arena lighting you can freeze the puck mid air at 400 ISO. Couldn't believe it. Mind blowing glass!
Hello random recommended video at 3am. Of course I'll watch you.
Adam Haynes damn, 2:45am here, RUclips is scary. I'll watch it nonetheless
Totally worth it lol
I'm surprised it doesn't cost more. If you said $7k Aud I wouldn't have blinked.
m8 bought one for 3k aud
You should get one
It is 7K AUD though? The range stated was 3.5-5K US which is 5-7.2K AUD so a copy in excellent condition is your 7K AUD (or more)
@@thisisreallyverysilly pfft 😂 I keep forgetting to convert the currency, that price does make sense then.
@@SpektrikMusic that sounds like a good deal!
One of my favorite series on youtube. For some reason I love watching someone talking about lenses I’ll never be able to afford.
It’s amazing how it maintains that spectacular performance on digital given that it was released when the film EOS line was just coming out!
It's so flare resistant because the optical glass contains lead. No modern lens contains lead.
If the electronics fail, you have a large door stopper.
yes, lead in the glass was another reason it got discontinued back in 2004.
I had the pleasure of using one on my EOS1 for a day back in 2004. It's as good as the hype.
What a beauty, and the fact that it performs even better than it sounds is incredible!
You're a very good communicator. Your tone, accent, volume, and content. Good job, bro
I've owned one since mid 90s. It's heavy for certain but it's every bit the special lens described above. It was primarily used to document kids activities on a dimly lit stage and outdoor soccer field. DOF is spectacular. I don't use it as much anymore but can't part with a legend.
the cannon 1200mm should be next
Those are fairy tale!
wasnt there only like 8 in existence?
@@pit5000 It is believed there are about 20, so they probably don't have it at the lens library. Still, pretty impressive, f5.6 in 1200mm.
*Canon
Penguin of Death exactly it is,but the 1200mm is a REAL canon‘s cannon……
As a lucky owner of the 200 f2 IS I can confirm that it is a better lens than the 1.8 but at the used price the 1.8 is well worth buying if one is available. Talking about the f2 200 - it is as good as an Otus (I own the 55mm Otus and am a past owner of the 85 so can compare) In fact the 200 is very similar to an Otus in that the sharpness extends into the corners and is nearly perfect wide open. It is the sharpest lens Canon makes, with only the 300mm f2.8 coming close to it in terms of sharpness. At 200mm the IS is both brilliant and necessary. The only downside is the razor thin depth of the focus zone. Because of the thinness of the in focus area going to 1.8 from f2 is not really a benefit as it just makes it harder to get the shot in perfect focus. It benefits from good technique and experience to get the most out of it, but it is one of that rare breed of lenses that can give you goosebumps from the results. Cheaper lenses are used by everyone and so it is hard to make your work stand out but shooting the 200 f1.8 or f2 can create images that really stand out. When I die, they can bury me with my 200 in my hands. That way I can go out happy.
With mirrorless camera era there are quite the options to achieve these results with a lenses that are under 200$. There are quite a lot projector lenses which have 150mm focal lengths and bright apertures, currently own 120mm 1.8, 140mm 1.8f and even 180mm 2f each of them cost me less than 150$. Of curse they cant compare to this lens in sharpness, CA and other categories, but they still give good sharpness and beautiful bokeh, good for portraits :)
Hope one day Canon will come with R 200mm F/1.8 IS lens. By that time their mirrorless camera should be capable of capturing sports and action.
Mirrorless cameras can already capture sports and action but Canon does not have any of such camera in their lineup, check Sony A9
Personally I will wait for the Sigma ART version of such a lens. :)
I’ve just found traces of 300mm /1.8, yes you read it right. Only 4 were released by canon in 80s
Photo finish lenses? Yep they were made extra heavy extra pricey extra everything :))
Great presentation and what a great lens this is!! wow
on my bucket list for over 25 years now...
Glad to have been able to shoot with 1of these legends before!
$3500 seems pretty fair, but as much as I love the nostalgia of the 1.8, the reliability, weight savings, and repairability of the current f2L make it a better investment. Considering you can find good used copies for around $4K, I'd probably do that...
But damn, I want one of these!
IS is way to go... They still make 200mm 2f IS
My uncle has two from ATG's, Canon EF1200/5.6 and EF200/1.8.
And the rarest ATG Gold 200-500/2.0 (ATG's mod from Sigma 200-500/2.8).
Awesome review. I envy an owner who has 2. I am happy with owing one. The pinnacle of Canon lens technology. What is more scarce is the FD mount version.
but if the AF motor breaks its bye bye.. That the real drawback of these lenses.
I'd say a great lens to discuss in this series is the ultimate cinema zoom, the Fujinon 14.5-45mm T2. Almost $100k of super 35 goodness!
A little video on the very rare Canon 5200 mm lens?
A close friend of mine owns this monster and it really is scarily sharp, plus it just doesn't care what's in the background 😂
Ah, I know a guy with the f/2.0 IS little brother and you could literally take a photo of a model on a beach full of trash, and the lens would turn it into lovely little bokeh.
mounting this with a speedbooster on gh5s will get you 400mm equivalent with 1.8 into 1.2 - 2.4 at 400mm sounds like a good deal
I want to go to Malaysia just to see this place.
I used one for gig photography with an Canon EOS 5 film camera. Even with 3200asa film, the images were soooo sharp!
Love this series
The agency I used to work for had one of these bad boys. It was superb for portraits! Weighed a tonne but beautiful to handhold.
Jay and his partner are heroes to me. I've always dreamed of starting a lens library, these guys went out and did it. They rock!
nice videos, cant believe i barely found this channel : )
AMAZING PRODUCTION GREAT INFORMATION KEEEP THIS GOING!!!!!!
An almost intimidating lens, very respectable, as so is your presentation too! Excellent presentation and well articulated. Kudos for introducing us to these rare pieces of glass!
i used it for 20year´s in my job as a Pro Photographer ,,sad to say it started to dust up inside the len´s ..the new 200mm f2 is just as good glad to say!
Canon really made some crazy lenses before the modern set. I've laid hands on the 50mm F1.0 before and that's another beast.
KSCuber they also used to make a 0.95
@@eyeeyeoh Yup, in the 1950's lol They also made a super scarce 300mm F1.8 for FD mount cameras in the early 1970's. I was talking about EF mount lenses:) They made some insane TV/Cine lenses in the old days too.
@@KSCuberOfficial what TV/cine lenses?
@@NebulousFilms Notably some of the largest focal length mirror lenses such as the 5200mm F14 which was commonly used on cine cameras though also stills, there was a 50mm F0.95 tv lens as well. The vintage TV broadcast box lenses are some of the craziest zooms too (9.3-930mm F1.7 IS in B4 mount for example). I don't have a complete list as there is not a ton of info online about them without a lot of digging. More industrial but I also class the Canon XI lenses under tv/cine in my mind (50mm F0.75, 65mm F0.75, 65mm F1.0, 90mm F1.0 among others in the line)
@@KSCuberOfficial Thank you, i will look into them.
The Zeiss 50mm f0.7 Kubrick used during Barry Lyndon
I've owned and shot with this Lens. Is OK. The main competition for this lens is any Canon 70-200 f2.8. This lens (the 1.8) is amazing and great and unique, but the 70-200 f2.8 available for as little as $750 used are also pretty damn good. Maybe a little less bokeh, but a little sharper, especially into the VII and III IS models. And 1/3 of the weight.
My absolute favorite lens by a mile, curious to see if Canon will ever release another F1.8 200mm in RF mount (probably not)
I know that Alexandre Deschaumes has used this for astro-landscapes and tele-panoramas. He actually carried it around in the high mountains of the Alps. :D
This series is so cool!
I want my hands on a discontinued in 2001 EF 50 f1.0. Even tho it's more expensive than f1.2, It's not the sharpest, has chromatic aberration, and other stuff, but images you can get from f1.0 are just the sickest. Canon's glass is the best.
first i see this video it was surprise, i thought the host is Kai W and review at other country like hong kong or else but actually at my country and has this legend lens!! that dude for making this video..
First of your videos I've seen and I'm going to sub now! Nice video!
Wish I understood the numbers(camera talk). Seems cool
I have one in my lens collections, and I use it a lot!... Maybe we should count how many of them are still there out in the world.
i dare say that the updated f2 might actually have the same T stop as the f1.8, meaning that there wouldn't be much by way of difference
Noctilux f0.95 please!
I'm surprised it's not more expensive! Absolutely incredible quality at 200mm!
this lens is a dream, as well as 50 f/1. good old canon days :)
I'd suggest the RF50mm f/1.2 as a candidate for your show. I'm an owner, and have compared to my EF50s (1.2, 1.4, 1.8) and it's so much sharper that even to compare seems unfair. I think the limit of seeing its sharpness, even wide-open and in the corners, is the sensor, not the lens. That combines with better bokeh than the Leica Noctilux (less of a swirl effect because there's less mechanical vignetting/eclipsing) and extremely fast AF. I hate the size and price but other than that, it's perfect.
I've used it with the Sony A7Rii with IBIS and it is amazing
I never knew I needed to visit Malaysia - now I have a reason!
I'm curious if it could be the best macro lens ever if you put a lot of extension tubes on it ;)
Not really. The longer the focal, the more extension you need and more light you loose. And because od it's size it is possibile that the sharpening point will be behind front element (not in front od it) so focusing would not be possibile at all. And theoretically 200mm 1.8 macro 1:1 depth od Field would be non existing ;)
You'd be better off with the 180 f4 macro they make. 200 can be a very useful focal length because of the working distance you get (especially for skittish animals like amphibians and reptiles). The 180 gives you 1:1 without needing extension tubes.
@@LuLeBe actually APS-C gives 1.5x crop. Micro 4/3 gives 2x crop. I get your point, but I just had to do it
@@LuLeBe oh, I get it, I think, but wouldn't the remaining crop be 1.3? Because,
X * 1.5 = x * 3/2 (cropping for apsc)
X * 2 = x* 3/2 * 4/3 ( going from APS-C to m4/3).
Right?
@@LuLeBe I thought so first too. I just asked to make sure I didn't misunderstand you.
Wow legend
its a great lens for what it was but now its a collectors item,i can get same of much better results with my sony a1 with 135mm f1.8 lens super fst autofocus ect. nice lens to have in my collection
Please do the 300mm 1.8.
I think there is only like 4 copies of that in the world. They were a special one off for horse race tracks.
I never heard of EF 300mm f/1.8 !!!
@@joeldoxtator9804 exactly, it must be priceless.
@@joeldoxtator9804 does that even exist? I thought it was just a legend..
@@josephnevin its real, pictures of it can be found online , but I think only 2 or 3 are known to exist
Great content. Subscribed. Keep up the good work.
This lens is eyewatering in quality ... now I need one
Used it quite a lot. A hell to shoot with and all too front heavy. But great quality shots. Lead glass was its doom.
Hi ZY, probably you can do one for the Loxia since their price is even higher than the Batis although MF and slower aperture :) Available in Lens Library too!
You might be glad to find out that an episode on Loxia lenses is already in production! Stay tuned!
Fellow Malaysian here--amazing content! Keep it up!
I have one - it follows me to every rodeo!
I love this lens!
Great content - thank you! Can you do one of these episodes on the Sony FE 400mm f2.8 GM?
Jake Van Bueren they don’t have it yet at lense library but I’ve try the 400mm canon mounted on the A7riii that is also very impressive (and expensive 😅)
How does this compare to the modern equivalent 200mm 2.0? Love to see the numbers.
200mm 2f is better
@@S3l3ct1ve nonsensical comment
Thats why your accent is quite familiar. You're Malaysian! 👍👍
There's the even rarer Canon FD film SLR mount version of this same lens too. The predecessor to this EF version.
Would love to have this converted to a 4.73 inch f/1.8 Astrograph imaging telescope for asteroid hunting using full frame cooled monochrome cmos imaging system...
A Canon 50/1.0 vs 85/1.2 would be cool.
I wonder how it compares with its younger cousin, the 200mm F2. I can't imagine theres much difference in the photos at just a 3rd of a stop difference
great video. thank you
Still one on my dream list, closest thing I have is the 300 2.8L, would love this too :)
Fantastic review. I would like to know just what goes into the pricing of lenses, they all seems overpriced. I cant quite understand why a lenses cost more than say modern computers or refrigerators.
Imagine the care it takes to grind a bit of glass to the tolerances required for the subtle curvature of a contact lens. Now scale up the surface area of that glass to the size you see here. Now there are 12 elements, so grind all 24 surfaces to those standards. Okay, now include all the other motors, weather sealing, electronics, and other hardware which will move these elements over the course of decades.
@@ed_halley Verbose version of @Tadatala's comment lmao
@@ed_halley don't forget the years of r&d money and special expensive elements like ed glass, aspherical design and the more expensive than gold zeiss ones that go into one as well
wow thanks for showing us this monster and also the little brother that i am planning to buy in the near future
This lens and the 50mm f/1.0L lens are the lenses of my dreams.
yes sir !!
abandon those buy a manual focus 200f2 Nikon or Canon and a mitakon 50mm 0.95 and a Sony instead.
This'll be great for my instagram posts
For the images that this lens is capable of producing, it's worth every penny if not more.
Unless you compare it side by side with a modern 70-200. when you do such as this video: @zre4
the subtle difference does not seem worth the price, weight, soft image.
I own this lens, bought it from an old soul who appreciated what I knew about it. Waiting to take photos of my first kid when God blesses me:)
Sounds a bargain. I thought it would be double that price being so rare now.
Awesome, how would that work with a 2 x teleconverter? It would still be F 4 range.
Works with the 2x, 1.4x, and even the 2x/1.4x stacked. When using the two teleconveters stacked, I recommend to close down a 1/2 stop to bring the crispness back.
Or mounted on a m4/3. As far as light is concerned, it'll still be 1.8. Maybe do both
You people are forgetting that nowadays, it's all about money, it's all about NET profit, not about product quality...
1. It's MUCH cheaper to manufacture a 200mm f2 or a 200mm f2.8 lens, than it is a 200mm f1.8, despite there being less than one stop of difference in max aperture.
2. Since it is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper to manufacture an f2.8 or even an f2 lens, that means Canon/Nikon/Sony/Whoever else can make a deal not to manufacture f1.8 lenses, so they can still sell their f2 or f2.8 200mm lenses, at the same price they would sell a 200mm f1.8 lens, while bringing in MUCH higher NET profit... Again, you are forgetting that nowadays, it's all about money...
I know about the greedy, business side of these companies first hand, because I am an eTech engineer and a CNC machine operator, having worked as a CNC machine operator on countless projects for Apple, Leica, Samsung, Xiaomi, ASUS, Intel, Biostar, HP and very recently I worked on the plastic framing for the new 135mm Samyang lens in Taiwan - which by the way, yes, Samyang does not manufacture their lenses 100% in South Korea, manufacturing of some lens parts, is in fact, outsourced to China and Taiwan - and let me tell you, they bring in like 1000kg aka. a ton of the cheapest plastic they can find, which costs them like 5,000 TWD which is like around 150 EUR or around 160 USD and with 1000kg of plastic, we can make like 450 lens frames... And with OKUMA CNC machines that we were working with/on, we made one frame in like 40 seconds!! Let that sink in... For only 150 EUR aka. with 1 ton of plastic, approx. 450 plastic lens frames are made!! If you divide 150 EUR by 450 lens frames, you will realize that one lens frame costs 0.33 EUR to manufacture!! Yes, the plastic frame for a lens that is sold for 950 EUR costs 33 cents to manufacture!! And I was told that in Korea, they manufacture the glass elements in much the same way, meaning it probably costs them around 150-200 EUR per lens, to make that 135mm f1.8 lens and that's with all manufacturing costs included, including material, overhead, tooling, labor, etc... Just let that sink in! That means from those 950 EUR that lens is sold in the stores for, Samyang probably has around 400 EUR of pure NET profit! That 950 EUR lens that you buy is actually worth 150-200 EUR!!
Now imagine how inflated the price of Canon, Sony and Nikon lenses is! - Which by the way; Leica and Apple are by far the worst, greediest and most shameless of them all, when it comes to this. If you only knew how cheap it is to manufacture your precious, expensive, super premium, 9,000 EUR Leica camera, you would be forming a riot in Wetzlar, Germany right now...
Why the lenses in the room are not infected by fungus despite of not being kept in a drybox?
I would like to add some information also to ZY Productions.
Canon once made the world's fastest EF limited ATG (3) production lenses.
1. First, on drawing table aka, A.L (ATG's "A"wesome "L"enses with gold trim line), then changed to "L" with red
2. Large diameter with better eltro contacts for AF & Aperture
3. EF50/1.0, EF200/1.8 and 1200/5.6 (the rarest AF monster lenses)
Two were discontinued/complied with USA.
1200/5.6 was made only in amount of 69, but less were passed in under 46.
For the records based on ATG of the 1200:
The first working production was FD mount
ATG changed/modified FD to EF to becomes AF (42mm to fused 44mm FFD)
ATG has 3
Canon has unknown amount
Carl Zeiss has 1
Herman Schreiber had 3
James Jannard has 2
Leica has 1
Sports Illustrated has 2
MPB Photographic had 1
CIA has 1
USA Special Forces have minimum of 2
Ruler in Asia has 1
ZY Productions has zero
Idk what any of these words mean but I can see that this is amazing.
I've recently acquired one of these lenses, and after putting the serial number into the date checker, mines from december 1988. Considering it was released the previous month, I was wondering if that adds value?
Please contact me if anyone's interested in finding out more about the lens, as I'm planning on selling it.
We need a Lens Library in the US
Great video! I recommend the unique Rubinar 300mm f/4.5 mirror lens w/m42 mount. It’s the sharpest mirror lens I’ve used, has a f/4.5 (not f/8) and is $900+. It’s an Amazing and fun lens 😉
Would love to shoot some portraits with that thing ! 😱
Really hoping that they release an RF 200mm F/1.8 one day. Probably just be F/2 darn it.
What’s the front ring for? Or is it just a grip
Do the rings work if the electronic break?
thank you for the advice just bought one almost unmarked no fungus, minimal dust for 2050 pounds, happy me