50mm f1.2 vs f1.8 // Can you tell the difference?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 сен 2023
- 📷 My Presets: bit.ly/3TDLKMx
Previous video: • Canon RF 50mm f1.2 // ...
We're back with the RF 50mm f1.2, but this time we're facing it off against the more budget-friendly RF 50mm f1.8. Can you tell the difference between these two camera lenses, is the $2000+ price tag worth it for the photos?
📷 Beast Prime Lens: geni.us/RF50f1-2
📷 Budget Prime Lens: geni.us/RF50
📷 My Gear Lists: gugliotta.one/gear
📷 MY GEAR and Lenses
My Camera: geni.us/t93yc
B-Camera: geni.us/p5EgX0
My Favorite Lens: geni.us/RF15-35mm
Best Lens for beginners: geni.us/RF3518
Lens 1: geni.us/RF24105mm
Lens 2: geni.us/RF70-200mm
Lens 3: geni.us/RF2470
Drone: geni.us/0NF33v
Stabilizer: geni.us/DL9f8G
Microphone: geni.us/SwPS
My favorite memory cards: geni.us/b2r4ya
My Lights: geni.us/osStP
📷 My Camera Bag:
My Camera Bag: geni.us/Shimoda
Save 10% at checkout with code: "Gugliotta10"
📷 Lightroom Presets: bit.ly/3TDLKMx
🎵 My MUSIC and Sound Effects
Artlist 2 months FREE on an annual plan: bit.ly/3GshKNA
Musicbed (1 Month Free): geni.us/AOL10
Epidemic 30-day FREE Trial: geni.us/AGSFX
✨Best Entry Level Cameras:✨
kit.co/AnthonyGugliotta/entry...
📷 MY GEAR
All of my Gear Recommendations: kit.co/AnthonyGugliotta
Entry Level Cameras: kit.co/AnthonyGugliotta/entry...
*Please note, I may earn a commission on some of the links above.
📸 INSTAGRAM: / gugliotta.one
♪ TIKTOK: / blameanthony
🌐 WEBSITE: gugliotta.one
📧 LET'S CONNECT:
gugliotta.one/about 
Кино
Did you guess correctly?
not even a single one😂
All of them 🙂
50/50 here 😅
I missed the first one of your self portrait. I thought the other one had a cleaner look and better color. But got the other ones right
bokeh tells everything
I split the difference and got the amazing Sigma Art 50 1.4 for 1/3 the price of the Canon RF 1.2 version... and it's just as sharp, focuses faster (on my R6 II) and is smaller even with the adapter. Also the Sigma Arts have 7 year warranties and Canon L/RF only have 1 year!
This is a no brainer Bro I shoot all sigma art lenses. All my primes are sigma art they’re just too amazing.
Honestly I shoot on Sony and I have the same Sigma 50 1.4. I would recommend it to anyone who can't just blow 2K+ on a lens
Big brain move.
I love sigma, I also use Tamron lenses in some cases. But yea, there are some aftermarket companies that have amazing quality and bang for the buck.
Any links where i can find sigma lens for rf mount??😊
It's obvious the 1.2 is better but still, I'm happy with my 1.8 and if I had 2000 bucks to spend on lenses I'd buy a nice varied bag of used ones.
Not sure is slightly more blur is worth $1,800 more
Or even the less noise by stopping down to 1.2 when lightroom's AI denoise is pretty amazing
Yeah. Considering Lightroom already has a blur editing ai, you could shoot it at f4 and still get the DOF that you desire
@@rephaelreyes8552 doesn't look that great, it's good for adding blur to a blurry shot, but not for creating blur that isn't there. And it's very taxing on performance.
@@TrollerzTV AI denoise is amazing, but it's not replacing fast lenses anytime soon unless Adobe drastically improves the efficiency of AI denoise so that it can be rendered in reasonable time. It's ok if you have a few shots, it's not ok if you have dozens and dozens of shots. It also creates duplicate files so it messes up the workflow as well, but I can let that slide if it becomes quicker.
Congrars on 300k Anthony!!! 🎉
Man, you're awesome, always find exactly the video I need in your channel. Keep the amazing job.
greetings from northern ontario!
great video! im in the market for the rf 50 1.2. perfect timming for this video. thank you so much!
This was actually surprising. True the background was blown out more but the color and clarity of the subject was a lot better with the 1.8 in my opinion. Im sure deep pixel peeping would show otherwise but who’s doing that except for the shooter. 😆 I’ve always loved mine. Good to know I’m not missing out on much.
Great video. You’ve highlighted something very important here in that if you know what you are doing in Lightroom, you can emulate the expensive lens by using the less expensive lens. The most important thing for me is weight so my best set up is R8 with the nifty rf 50mm 1.8.
Everyone can gues the 1.2 or 1.8 since the bavkground its more blured in 1.2. … try shooting both in 1.8 to se the difference
I could tell via the chromatic aberration, but that is because I own the RF50 f/1.8 STM and have seen it in my own photos! I looked for that before even considering the bokeh.
I was worried that I'd regret the jump to the 1.2 from the 1.8 due to the price tag, but as a family and portrait photographer, this focal length is my daily carry and the improvement in IQ is very noticeable to me! I still kept the 1.8 in case I ever need a light grab and go lens (the 1.2 isn't light!) but I have been VERY happy with the 1.2. To the point where I am eyeing the 85mm 1.2 (I need Sigma or someone to make me an 85mm 1.4!).
Sigma does a great 85 f1.4 for EF mount, you just need the RF to EF adapter to use it as if it was native. On my R6 I almost exclusively use Sigma dslr lenses and I'm super happy; genuine RF lenses are not worth their price, and they're not superior to Sigma Art glass, either.
@@ritrattoaziendalenew to this. Do you know where I can get an adapter just purchased an r8 camera
@@RamonimalikI bought my adapter at Best Buy
Makes a lot of sense to go with the 1.2 for pro work.
Thank you for the comparison. I shoot a lot of ballroom dancers. They move (sometimes fast) in a ballroom with usually not very good lighting. If the autofocus is fast enough to catch them in the depth of field, that one stop helps a great deal. And the autofocus of the Canon RF lenses is phenomenal. It is a bit of a dilemma to shoot with a light sensitive prime, and maybe have dancers too small in the image, or so close that they do not fit on, or have the 24-70 2.8 where I can adjust focal length to how nearby dancers are, but have more motion blur. To make it even more fun, our standard ballroom has a lot of spot lights hanging on the ceiling, creating uneven lighting of darker and lighter regions on the floor. Sometimes dancers strike an awesome pose, but in a dark spot. The difference with the light spots is about 3 stops. I assume that photographers of concerts have similar issues. I have bought the 50mm 1.2 to help me cope with this lack of light, and because I am shooting more and more portraits that I hope will look better with this lens.
How about a real world test using both lenses at 5.6 or 8.0, focused near infinity on a landscape?
Nice shots mate. Cheers from Frankfurt
9:32-9:52 - thank you for providing a visual for this!!!
You're right about how the nifty fifty compares well to the L version, whether it's RF or EF... but there aren't currently any third party alternatives to the high end or low end RF 50mm primes, only comparisons to adapted EF. The image quality gains from L to non-L are not proportional to price, but they exist.
great video , i guessed correctly but on websites, social media and to my friends, not enough difference to justify the difference in $$$. I've been going back and forth between getting the 1.2 or not, but the 1.8 works perfectly fine for my family photos. i do have the rf85mm 1.2 and that's pretty amazing, first world problems :)
1.8 good for hobbyists, it does a great job, but if you do this for a living you definitely want to go with the 1.2 or st least the sigma 1.4 that someone in the comments already mentioned. Yes, you can apply corrections but first of all it's still not gonna be the same and it's just extra time and effort that you want to avoid on the daily basis, trust me. Great video!
Depends on what you do; if you're a studio portrait photographer, and you shoot almost exclusively f4 f5.6 f8 with strobes, then the difference between f1.2 and f1.8 is negligible 🙂
99% won't notice the difference. It's not going to make or break a shot. A pro or a hobbyist could use either lens,.
l loved that you did this video and how you presented the info/comparison. I shoot cocktail parties in dark restaurant where I can't use a flash and have to push my shutter/ISO to the "edge" on the f/1.8. Yes, LR can clean up noise and most people do not "Inspect" images up closely but the extra full stop would be nice --- and the when it's really dark the 1.8 tends to hunt for focus on the R6. This creates a problem when people don't know this is happening.
There is also the issue of quickness of focus and focus accuracy with the 1.8 which many RUclips reviewers have noted. It seems that this lens would not match up well with an R6 M2 and better. What is the point of shooting at 12 frames-per-second and up with a lens that has a slow and noisy STM motor. Canon is missing a 50 mm L series f/1.4 prime in their lineup in the $1200 price range to compete with Sony's offering.
The 1.8 has way more chromatic aberration. To be honest that alone is enough for me to get the 1.2
I'm hoping that Canon is in the process of designing a 50mm f/1.4 as a mid-range compromise. Their old 50 1.4 wasn't perfect, but it was a nice lens for the price. I'm not a professional photographer, so spending over $2000 on an L series prime doesn't make sense. I like the idea of the 50 1.8, especially since Canon has stepped up the quality on this lens from the old ef counterpart. I like that it's small and light and is a good lens to throw on the camera for walking around. But I find myself looking at the Sigma 50 f/1.4 as well.
Could you try the sigma 17-70 f/2.8 macro for ef-s and ef-M, I'm thinking about buying this one to replace my kit 15-55mm f/ 4.5-5.6 because that's the only zoom lense compatible with my M50 that's worth buying (I got the 55 to 200mm)
I've been waiting for this exact video haha
I mean the f1.8 is 1/10 of the price but it's definitely more than 1/10 of the quality
Yeah exactly, and I bought it a few days earlier ✨
The thing is you were using wider than f/1.8 on the L lens. If both were shooting at say f/2.8 for example - I think it gets A LOT more trickier to tell.
BUT it's not all about IQ (slight edge on the L, with almost a stop wider apaerture) - the L lens has weather seal, it's far better build quality and unlike the 50mm f/1.8 it does have 2 rings - one for customized controls and one for focusing while on the f/1.8 it's a single ring that serves either purpose so you'll have to toggle the switch to get it to work the way you want.
All right I'm Sony user. I would say that 2000$ lens is really just for professionals. I mean as long as we don't make our living with our lenses nobody will care really. And with corrections during editing I would be fine.
About the ISO. I mean with a camera body released later than 2020 noise is no longer that much of a deal.
Hi Anthony, can you please do canon RF vs the sigma art - canon. thank you
The giveaway in the buildings was the "P", and the rest of the letters, of the billboard/signboard on top right angle; the contrast in the letters is clearly better on the f1.2 lens, to find difference between the two different lenses in a real world scenario it's better to zoom into the angles, while the centre will be almost indistinguishable when CA corrections are applied.
I have the RF f1.8 as a backup lens, but my primary is not the RF 1.2 that's too expensive for what it offers.
I would say that the absolute best bang for your bucks is a Sigma 50 Art, you buy it used around 400€$£ and it's 90% as good as the RF L at comparable apertures, I had it on DSLR, then brought to my R6, and results were amazing; but I actually ended up with making a slight different choice since then.
I had 50 Art but also RF 35 1.8 and the latter was barely used (I planned to shoot hand held video with that thanks to IS, but most time I end up using on a tripod, so IS advantage wasn't really needed), so I ended up selling both of them, and I purchased a brand new Sigma 40 f1.4 Art (yes, 40, not 50) which cost just 750€ and is 101% as good as the RF L, meaning it's actually superior while costing a third of it; yes, you need the adapter and the thing is A MONSTER in size and weight, but the result...oh my...best lens ever used, the thing at f1.4 is as sharp as f8 on any other lens. So kudos to Canon, 50 RF L is amazing, but Sigma rules, so please Canon, open the fckng RF mount to third party, we want nicer, and cheaper, glass then you can offer to us!
I have a Canon R6II + RF 50mm f1.8. But I don't want to use an adapter. So I'm thinking about going to Sony to use Sigma 105mm f1.4 without adapter.
@@michelecintramika8482 consider that the Sigma 105 for Sony is not a re-designed version for mirrorless (so smaller and lighter, like Sigma did for the 35 1.4 and the 85 1.4), but it's the dslr version with a built-in adapter. So you have the advantage to have the lens in one single piece, but from the size/weight standpoint, the Sony native lens is exactly equal to the dslr Canon version with the RF adapter.
@@ritrattoaziendale
Your information is very useful. Helped me a lot. I did not know that. So, better wait for a real ND version of the 105mm f1.4 for mirrorless. If Sigma doesn't launch it by the end of 2024, I'll buy the RF 85mm f1.2.
@@michelecintramika8482 they surely have different prices 😀
I'm in Canon since 1999, in the film days, but honestly I'm for the first time thinking of switching, there are too many Sigma and Tamron lenses I want, and Canon dosen't allow third party lenses on RF. If they won't allow it in the next year, after the 2024 wedding summer season I'll start moving to Sony, evn if I don0t like their body ergonomics and menus, Canon is way superior in that. But pics are done by lenses, not by bodies; if I can't have the lenses I want, I'll leave Canon, I don't feel they're supporting me as a professional, and I have to protect and elevate my business.
Great video. If you pixel peep. The edited picks will be minor after correction. The main difference is bokeh wide open and character of the finished product. Pros will want their pics to stand out. They will usually want the option to shoot wide open because it will give a more 3D quality to the images lacking in the cheaper lenses. Customers will pay more for the character that make the images stand out. You will also have more options in shutter and aperture choices with the pro lenses. The nifty 50 with Canon is more than enough for most amateurs IMHO.
I emphatically disagree as I've intentionally shot sessions with both lenses and the client could not tell the difference. That said...in no way am I suggesting that the 1.8 is as good as the 1.2...it's not, but for the layperson...they really don't look at images in the same way that we photographers do.
Well yeah, difference is not that big overall exept the bokeh, tho whe it comes to low light, then difference is huge
Great video!!
Did you compare them at the same aperture?
I made a video about this topic, and once i saw the quality of the 1.8, plus my shooting style, the $200 version was the winner. It has become the lens i use most in sketchy situation, because if something was to happen to it, i could replace it much easier than the 1.2
In Deinem Studiotest ist mir aufgefallen, dass das 1.2er selbst abgeblendet auf 1.8 etwas mehr Licht durchlässt als das 1.8er. Man erkennt das gut an der kürzeren Belichtungszeit bei ansonsten gleichen Einstellungen. Möglicherweise hat es aber auch mit dem etwas veränderten Ausschnitt zu tun. Wieauchimmer, eine bessere Transmittion ist sicher auch ein Qualitätsmerkmal der 2000er Linse...
An extremely underrated 50mm people should consider is the Tokina Opera 50mm F/1.4 for Canon EF! It’s $1000, but it’s on sale for $699.00. it has USM and the auto focus is blazing fast and accurate! It’s a heavy lens and it’s weather sealed. I can’t recommend it enough!
Great video...thank you! I initially was not happy with my version of the 50mm 1.8, primarily due to its sharpness. However, that all changed once I stopped it down to 2.0 as my max aperture when shooting. Based on the price and the images I am getting from the lens after some lens correction, the overall value of the lens simply can't be beat. I also have the RF 35 1.8 which I think is a better overall lens especially if you also shoot video, however, I truly enjoy shooting images with my 50mm.
the sweet spot is F2.2
What about using them not wide open. Like at f8 I think the differences would be less there?
Please make a video for adapter to use ef lenses instead of rf
thanks for the analysis...... i could get a body and nifty fifty for 2k and some change to get an sd card and a bag... the ration of the capabilities and the cost just dont balance
Anthony everybody wants that $2000 lens, but your photos make it obvious: it’s not worth the difference. Thanks 😊
Great job with the tests. I'd recommend not using manual focus since the lenses are different sizes. a "meter" away from the front of the lense is different on the 1.2 vs the 1.8 lens since the 1.2 is like 2.5 times the size lol even though the bar shows you're manual focus is set to "50%" on one lens, that may mean something slightly different on the other one.
Another point would be to just do manual on everything. I know you were intending to match the exposure, but that shutter speed is different in both pictures. If you used a timed shutter, maybe that wouldn't matter, but that different shutter speed on those pics in your test although close could cause the slightest bit of motion for the slower shutter speed, which may also affect your test.
I may do this myself to see if I can mimic your design because this is an amazing REAL WORLD simulation unlike some of those other ones where they take a picture of like a flat document with different meters and random photos throughout.
Great vid 🎉
I owned an RF 50 f/1.8 for about 6 months and bought the f/1.2 a few weeks ago (and before that I owned the EF 50 f/1.4 for several years).
I take photos of my wiggly kids, up close, indoors, in low light (tough conditions) and for that the f/1.2 is magical. Under these conditions the smaller aperture 50s take significantly longer to achieve focus lock, if they ever do, and sometimes miss anyway. The f/1.2 focuses more quickly and almost never misses. The net result is that my hit rate is probably three times higher with the f/1.2.
In addition to the massively higher hit rate, the quality of the f/1.2 images in these conditions is on another level. The background blur has something to do with it, but I think it's also that lighting looks different when there isn't very much of it, and with the wide f/1.2 aperture you can properly expose in conditions previously not possible so you see photos that you just couldn't capture before. I would sleep with this lens under my pillow if it weren't so big.
Great video just let you know price in New Zealand for that lens is $4500 just fyi
It's technically difficult to put image stabillization in a 50mm ('normal' focal length) full frame lens - actually I don't know of any 50mm full frame lens with IS integrated.
The law of diminishing marginal returns seems to apply to all camera gear. I this example 10 x the price only gives you an almost imperceptible improvement in image quality. It’s a no-brainer unless you’re a pro shooting for very demanding clients who expect ‘the best’ or shooting say events in poor lighting where the extra stops of light are important. Further, with images increasingly being viewed on mobile devices, the case for the ‘best’ quality decreases further. I do see the argument for good third party lenses. I have the Canon 75-300 F4-5.6 which costs around £300, weighs very little, but it delivers ‘soft’ images as the optics are cheap and cheerful so I bought the 150-600 Sigma for £850 and the results are vastly superior, however, it is VERY heavy (over 2kg) so I tend to use the lightweight Canon most of the time if I’m on a casual walk! I only use the Sigma on a planned shoot and with a tripod.
I use this lens with a R50. I believe that the 50mm transforms to 80mm due to the APS-C sensor. Still, I like the lens.
For the same reason, I might be interested into a prime 35mm lens.
Curious to see a comparison of full frame 50mm vs APS-C 35mm performance.
50mm f1.2 fullframe = 80mm f1.9
More expensive lenses doesnt always mean amazingly better photos every time. It simply means it is able to manage harder photo situations with great results. Typical factors exepensive lenses do better are sharpness at maximum aperture, corner sharpness, less chromatic aberrations, bigger maximum aperture, image stabilizations etc.
So its all about what youre gonna do with your photos. In my case Im not professional and I value a smaller and not super expensive kit as I like to travel. The more affordable prime lenses still delivers great results while being small. It following the 80/20 rule, for 20% of the price you get 80% of the quality. The last 20% in quality costs alot of money, so its up to you to decide what you gonna use your camera for.
basically - get neither of these and get the 50mm F1.4 - it is outstanding, the price is reasonable (maybe $400) and the size is good (the 1.2 is way to bulky and heavy). the 1.4 is the happy medium and best overall option
did you shoot both at 1.8
I have compered those. I think I’m gonna sell 1.2. It’s too heavy and the price tag isn’t worth it in my opinion.
Can you explain to me manual focus is very difficult.
Photography for me is a tangible record of memories. 50 1.2 produces something magical out of those memories so it’s a given. Capturing those precious moments in the best possible quality is a must, so no cheaping out 😊
Just from a standpoint from someone who primarily shoots & Films weddings - You can get away with f1.8- HOWEVER, at f1.2 it has a totally different look and that makes it worth the bank, not just for me, but for my clients.
I never knew about the colour picker!
In perfect conditions you can get nice pic even with iPhone (for social media) but when you need to play with filters, low light and challenging color rendering you can always tell why it costs so different
Basically, no to 99% of users
Congrats for the 300k 🎊🎉
Tried the RF 50/1.8 as a travel alternative to my RF 50/1.2L and returned it almost immediately because of noticeably worse CA, noticeably worse vignetting, noticeably lower resolution across the frame at wide-open aperture and unattractive bokeh. Too many optical compromises to achieve the 50/1.8’s size, weight and price, in my opinion.
I bought the R6 mark 2 with the 50mm 1.8 in a pack that makes the lens free (discount) so that was a no brainer for me 😬
I got the 1.8, but after getting the 28-70 F2 I just don't use it at all, even for everyday carry.
On Nikon side the choice is more interesting with 50 1.8S. It is considerably more expensive (~$600) than cheap nifty-fifties, although discounts to $500 or even $400 are common.
But for that price you get weather sealing and great image quality wide open at f/1.8. Then choice between it and 50 f/1.2 truly becomes a question if you really need go wider than f/1.8 and extra bulk and price that comes with it.
Tony....You're a beast!
What’s wild here is that usually the faster lens is optically worse.
With that in mind, the L sounds like a bargain.
But then again, I shoot Sony with the gorgeous Sigma 35mm 1.2 (and other Sigma Art lenses), and I feel sad for the Canon people for missing out…
It’s hard to explain but the nifty 50 just looks “meh” to me and is missing “something” (pizzaz) in my tests… I have L series to compare it too, and then I’ve got a cheap Helios 44M and a Zeiss Pancolar Red MC too. Those vintage lenses take gorgeous photos and I’ll shoot manual focus over the nifty fifty any day. But anything you point the L series glass at just has a certain something, but I shoot wide open 80% of the time.
I guessed correctly. Years back I had used an inexpensive ($100) 50mm 1.8 prime lens to try out some astrophotography. The lens did not have aspherical elements so one would notice the stars in the centre had good focus, but moving away from the centre stars became increasingly smeared towards the edge. A quality lens and glass would had prevented this. Some problems are more easily seen depending on the use case. Astrophotography can push a lens to its limits.
is a 50mm prime even a realistic for astrophotography?
@@cjc1212 Sure, you will get results. It was my first attempt many years back so I didn’t care too much if the results were poor. Using an inexpensive 50mm prime, and SLR, you won’t get a full sky photo, but you can see features like Andromeda, or nebula which are fairly large sky objects. So long as you can do long exposures, polar align, and track. Today I would recommend a stable tripod and a camera tracking mount with polar scope. My original post was to comment that a cheap lens will likely give noticeably poorer results.
I usually just run around with my Sigma 24-105 F4 ART, 0r an 85MM. I mostly soot portraits. Point being, most people don't see this anyway... :)
The difference between the kit lenses and L series lenses is not just in optics, but mostky in terms of quality of build. I shoot a lot of vintage lenses and a good 70 year old Schneider-Kreuznach blows away anything made today all around. That said, .oubt conversions from DKL or medium format lenses to R mounts can be dodgy unless you find the proper direct conversion rings.
The difference between those two will really shine at portraits and low light. So, if you are a street photographer who mostly shoot buildings, streets etc at daylight, it doesn't make any sense buying the 1.2 unless you are a wealthy person. But if you are like me, who will always film or photograph people, faces, eyes, mostly at night, it does worth the 1.2. The difference become obvious on the sharpness, the footage become "alive". Plus: there is the crop factor. Sometimes, 50mm isn't enough to frame something or someone, so you gotta crop. The 50mm on a Canon R6 can simulate even until 250mm, 5x crop factor to 100% of the picture, even going up to 125%. I'm not sure if the 1.8 can do the same thing.
I don't think any one should compare any of these from their phone screens. You'd really just be able to appreciate the difference if you're viewing this through a large enough screen or if you're printing 😊.
I’m a hobbyist so it’s the 50 1.8 (which I have anyway)
Ignoring the background blur, I preferred the cheaper one every time... 🤔
What we need is a 40mm or 50mm f/1.4 L lens in the 1000 Dollar range. Although I am very happy with the Nifty Fifty - most people will not see a difference in image quality to the much heavier and more expensive f/1.2 anyway. The great advantage of the 50/1.8 STM, apart from its light weight, is it's inconspicuousness which allows you to get candid shots from people in the street, for example.
Well. Probably you are not buying 1.2 lens for taking pictures of distance buildings but more for portraits. So yes there is huge difference between the lenses.
If you can afford a used, yes. It’s not an investment financially. It’s an expense. It will not go up in value.
I can tell the difference but you need to use dirt in front of the lens (bokeh) and probably some lights behind so you can really tell the difference
If you have to try figure out the difference then the expensive one is not worth it. Clients wont even be able to tell the difference
You needed a ND filter for these outdoor shots. That bokeh is some of what you’re paying for.
I do own an EF 50mm 1,8, and an EF 50mm 1,4. The 1,2 I relly can not afford...I don't use 50mm much anyway. But the 1,8...it just doesn't feel rigth. The picture quality is good and...but. :)
I can certainly tell the difference but it's not worth a 1.8k extra. Btw, still use a EF 50mm f/1.2, got it used with broken autofocus for $500, then replaced the motor for $150 extra
I already have the EF50mmf/1.2L and use it on the R5 with an adapter. The RF version costs twice as much and I won’t be buying one. I probably couldn’t tell the difference either.
For the price of the 1.2, the purple and green fringing appeared around 6.40 are totally unacceptable to me. I am happily using the ef 50 1.8 till canon allow sigma lenses.
Got a Sigma F1.4 50mm for $200, absolutely amazing
Yeah, spend 2k or use A.I. to enhance the bokeh of the nifty fifty for peanuts... ;) I feel the expensive lenses are really just for professional photographers, who can value time saved by using extreme quality gear...
i was having a stroke trying to use my 35 f1.2 sigma for sony in broad daylight today, 1/8000 shutter and 100 iso, photos still end up blown out, its not until you use it at night that it really shines
Slap on an ND filter during the day.
I was wrong every time. Thank god. 😂
My mother said always before spend money do the best decision how much time you want to use it for any technologies for what purpose it will does just take a time for it and what your budget money you want to spend too me my advice in these things is when money is spend do your budget before and take your time.
Nowadays you can find the 1.2 used for about 1500, which makes it a far better deal than it used to be.
Still not a better deal than the Sigma 1.4 - and rumor has it that Sigma will be launching an RF 50 1.4 soon…
i can tellll!!!!!! but the size made me go for the obvious one 🤣
Witch better r6 or r5
R5
Having both, wide open and on high mp like r5. It’s no brainer.
Something that annoyed me more than iq with silver ring rf is autofocus.
ayoo, Anthony why were you holding a fuji camera not canon !?!?!?!!? (SUS) 🤔🤔🤨🤨🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤨🤨
The deal breaker for me its not distorstion or chromatic aberration, its the fact that rebel cameras are not good at managing high iso so I NEED that stop of light
But you wouldn't be able to use either lens on an EF mount to begin with...or are you just generally speaking?
@@FyahAlex yes generally speaking since canon makes rf 1.2 lenses
@@FyahAlex but wait, im pretty sure canon makes ef 1.2 lenses dont they?
i can tell!!
Well, here has to be a difference in quality regarding the difference in price. The question is, is it worth the 2000 $ difference and more important, are you a pro photographer or a hobby photographer. In case you are a pro and you earn money with your profession you most probably can afford a bunch of those 2000-3500 $ lenses - that's great! But if you are shooting as a hobby and for leisure I wonder how many people can afford those lenses and even if they can - do they really need them?
RF 1.2 provides better results - better contrast, less chromatic aberrations and no colour fringing, faster focusing, 77mm filter thread... RF 1.8 is noisy, slower but cheap. You can make such video with any comparable L and non-L lenses and if your budget it limited then you will always choose the non-L option.
If you're a hobbiest for travel and street photography, get the 1.8. trust me small, compact, lightweight , and 99% of people will mever know the difference unless you zoom in 200% in post to spot the flaws, and if you are one of those peole, you got some screws lose. Now if you're a professional photographer and deep pockets, get the f1.2
I liked the 1.8 better 😎⚡️🙌
One issue (among several) I have with super fast lenses is that I have to CARRY them. I am 70 years old, and my typical shooting involves either walking around a city taking architectural detail and people pics, I may walk miles in a day that way, on concrete. If I am not doing that, then I am hiking. VERY rarely am I in any place where I am driving a car up to where I am going to be shooting from. With my particular style, I usually want good depth of field, so I use 5.6 to 11.0 a lot anyway. Bottom line being if a 1.2 lens weighs 2-3 lbs., I am probably going to opt for a 1.8 that weighs under 1 lb. Same thing applies in zooms, but at another level. Right now the zoom that stays on my camera most of the time is 3.5-5.6 making it pathetic in low light unless I want a lot of noise from high ISO. But it is smaller and lighter than a faster zoom, and WAY lighter than 3-4 fast primes. When I was in my 30s, I carried a bag that weighed 36 pounds when full, and my lighter setup weighed 25 lbs. Now I don't want to carry more than 10.
Hear you. I'm 34 and I already hate carrying massive kit bags!
not to mention, there are no 3rd party RF lenses available as of 12/2023.