Hmm, I've been having a hard time coming up with the nikon z system's major selling point. Seems like their 1.2 focus motors are faster (and a bit less breathing?), so I guess that's something. Thanks for always checking focus shift!
Such a huge price gap between f/1.2-f/1.8 lenses leaves space for modernize f/1.4 optic, just like Canon did with f/1.8 variant, which will be potentially a killer lens in the price-performance ratio.
meh, buy nice or buy twice. If I'm toting around a $4000 USD R5, it's not because I want to stop half way and get a "decent" lens at a "decent" price. I'm going to get the best lens there is.
Excellent review. Is the image quality between the 1.8 and 1.2 version on the r5 that huge? For example, if the rc50 f1.2 is a 10/10, what would you give the rf50 f1.8 ?
Well it depends on your expectations... There is a visible difference, but I'm not sure it is worth of the price gap for general audience. I mean, $2500 for a 50mm lens is really steep, lens prices have become outrageous in the last few years. I would rate it 7 or 8/10.
@@Camerahoarders I’m curious. Have you tested the Tamron 45mm f1.8? I currently have this lens and wondering if the rf50 is the same in terms of image quality. If so, would consider changing due to size. Your thoughts
@@CamerahoardersI think the only lens to contend with canon's RF 50 1.2 is the sigma art 50 1.2. or the 40 1.4, which bests any normal lens but the Otus still. The Tamron 45mm is great, but it's not sigma art 1.4 quality optically, but better build and with image stabilizer. If you can't afford it but want a better lens than the 50 1.8, get the tamron 45 1.8 VC.
this is such a friendly, mellow channel. Thanks for your videos and happy shooting in 2021.
Good review ~
Nice review
Hmm, I've been having a hard time coming up with the nikon z system's major selling point. Seems like their 1.2 focus motors are faster (and a bit less breathing?), so I guess that's something.
Thanks for always checking focus shift!
what a beast
Such a huge price gap between f/1.2-f/1.8 lenses leaves space for modernize f/1.4 optic, just like Canon did with f/1.8 variant, which will be potentially a killer lens in the price-performance ratio.
meh, buy nice or buy twice. If I'm toting around a $4000 USD R5, it's not because I want to stop half way and get a "decent" lens at a "decent" price. I'm going to get the best lens there is.
What did you enjoy the most the rf 50 1.2 or the 28-70 f2. Which one would you keep if you had to choose one and why?
🤩
Excellent review. Is the image quality between the 1.8 and 1.2 version on the r5 that huge? For example, if the rc50 f1.2 is a 10/10, what would you give the rf50 f1.8 ?
Well it depends on your expectations... There is a visible difference, but I'm not sure it is worth of the price gap for general audience. I mean, $2500 for a 50mm lens is really steep, lens prices have become outrageous in the last few years. I would rate it 7 or 8/10.
@@Camerahoarders I’m curious. Have you tested the Tamron 45mm f1.8? I currently have this lens and wondering if the rf50 is the same in terms of image quality. If so, would consider changing due to size. Your thoughts
I don't know, I never tried that Tamron.
@@CamerahoardersI think the only lens to contend with canon's RF 50 1.2 is the sigma art 50 1.2. or the 40 1.4, which bests any normal lens but the Otus still. The Tamron 45mm is great, but it's not sigma art 1.4 quality optically, but better build and with image stabilizer. If you can't afford it but want a better lens than the 50 1.8, get the tamron 45 1.8 VC.