This is my exact setup. I’m still in love with this lens even after upgrading to the R5. Those are great tests and fun to watch, but they are things that my customers will never ever notice. This lens has a quality that transcends technical specs. It took my photography to a new level when I started using it years ago on my 5D Mark III. Also, I love the size. It is a joy to shoot with. It also adapts seamlessly with the R5. This lens is the best investment that I have made as a photographer.
Yes, it's a very big step up. Constrast, color, and f/1.2 all make this lens very special especially for portrait or event photographers shooting people in various lighting conditions. On a full frame mirrorless, focus accuracy is also drastically improved. A very special lens indeed. Also, the lens is definitely sharp enough especially in rhe center and I shoot wide open at f/1.2 regularly. (If you are shooting people and not a wall, center sharpness is most important and corner less important. I can't think of a situation where I will shoot at f/1.2 worrying about corner sharpness...) I stop down only because of thin deprh of field rather than to improve sharpness.
This lens is a lot better on mirrorless than it ever was on DSLRs. My lens has severe back focusing on my 5D Classic, and moderate back focusing on my 5D IV, even at f/1.2 when the focus point isn't affected by its (separate) focus shift issue. But on the RP the focus is dead-on at f/1.2.
I really like your reviews Chris, I've watched them for years. However I am increasingly disappointed with everyone's reviews of lenses which focus on sharpness and contrast alone. When I started this is also all I focused on, but I've come to learn that Image quality is so much more that sharpness. I wish you and others would start to talk how images look over how sharp they are. I work in the film/video industry, and this is something the professionals there have known for decades. Many photography lenses are sharper then lenses used in cinema, but that doesn't mean they make a nicer looking image. This lens has a lot of flaws, but I love the images it creates, so for me it's worth more than a sharper lens that doesn't look as good.
I agree and coming back year after year, now I realize I don't like his shots at all, not even a bit, so...his perspective is probably very different than ours.
Ok but what you’re referring to is largely a matter of subjective taste. You can like a vintage look and imperfections, but that may not be what someone else wants in their image, especially for the price they pay for, so quantifying optical characteristics is valuable for studio photography or corporate video
I agree that it's an objective way to test a lens, and that what an image looks like is very subjective. All I was trying to say was that I wish some reviewers would make an attempt to talk about the subjective side, from their opinion. And I know that some do, Ken over at the art of photography often does this. It might be an extreme example but no one would like at "Water Lilies" by Monet, and say "it isn't very sharp". It isn't meant to be, it has a style and aesthetic that is sort of the opposite of sharpness. Now you may not like that look, and that's okay, but if you were going to talk about that painting you would certainly talk about that style of impressionism. Now, the differences in lenses is far more subtle than something like an impressionist painting, but some imperfect vintage lenses can contribute to a styler and aesthetic that is worth talking about. It is another tool in the toolbox. Personally, I love the Canon 50, because at 1.2 it has flaws and imperfections that I often find lovely. I can shoot it at 1.8-2 and retain some of the character, while adding a lot of sharpness, but I can also shoot it at F4+ and it will delivery super sharp results. For me its a lens that can give a number of different looks, which I find more useful and fun.
I'm glad you're commenting on the actual light transmission of bright aperture lenses. In fact, I think it merits mention on a lot of f/1.4 lenses, as well.
I completely agree. I have been using this lens for years now. It does give me something that I still can’t express in words. It is on my camera 90% of the time.
Agreed. There are very few lenses that come close to the way this one renders. You can get a lightly used, mint copy for around the same price as a SIgma Art. The 1.2L is a vastly more compelling lens IMO.
@@funkymoped537 I completely agree, I also have the 50 ef 1.2 l. I'm considering selling it for the 85mm ef 1.2 L. How would you say the two lenses compare in terms of that "unique" rendering quality?
I really enjoy your reviews and appreciate the time you put in. That being said, I own both the RF and EF 1.2 lenses and I’d say the EF has a dreamy character that the more surgical RF lens lacks. Technically, there are much better lenses but this EF 1.2 will still have a place in my camera bag.
I used and still using this gem of a lens. I got it on my 5D II + 5D III and now it’s still on my R5 and R6II… I love the character this lens gives at f1.2 and it can look really cinematic and beautiful. It is different in a good way. It’s not everybody’s taste but that’s ok for me and my clients. 😃
@@stanleeger4711 my wife, who's not a photographer described this lens when I had it up against a tamron 45 at a concert: "This captures the mood of the performance."
Thanks for doing these! Even though these are old lens, for the very first time, these L lenses are becoming affordable for the very first time to many of us!! So these "old" lens are becoming extremely relevant AGAIN (or for the first time to many of us)!! THANKS!
I used this lens once, I borrowed it from my son, who was using it for a film project he was shooting while at Uni. I’d heard all the misgivings about it previously, so was interested to try it out with some street photography. In short, absolutely loved it... the images were gorgeous shot at 2.0, with syrupy backgrounds and vivid colours. At 600 grams I found it substantial, but not too heavy. I would love to add it to my lens Arsenal, but not at that silly price. Canon really need to do a price drop on some of these older L lenses, now that the R is taking over... 🤔
Might be not the best lens for shooting test charts, but great for portreture. I think it is not about ultimate sharpness but the image it produces. Nice piece of glass.
Hey Chris. I'm just starting with my photography and buying RF lenses is a pain in the bank. I was wondering would be kind enough giving this lens to me if it is of no use to you?
I just got the EF recently and really like it, it's not super sharp at f/1.2 but I was surprised how usable it is from wide open. The biggest problem in my opinion is the amount of CA in some scenes, fortunately this is pretty easy to fix in just a few seconds (usually). I think I might have gotten an above average copy of the lens based on my experience with the sharpness.
There's a reason why people prefer glass like this over newer optically perfect lenses. That character and background rendition simply cannot be beat by clinical sharpness.
I wish more people/users would amplify that, but I think we are in minority. Most prefer razor-sharp images, esp. in this era of perfect videos, 4k, 8k, trillionk resolution etc. I can only keep my fingers crossed and hope that majority will go tired of insatiable clinical resolutions and sharpness and will sort of return to the foundation of photography.
Thanks for this review. Very interesting to see how this lens performs at your new EOS R5. I would also be curious how the Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART would perform at the R5.
Well, this is why we buy the Canon EF 50mm 1.2. It gives the images a touch you won't get with the Canon RF 50mm 1.2. Exactly because of these failures & mistakes. For portraits simply lovely, same as the Canon EF 85mm 1.2. Until today, I did not buy any RF lens for my R5 as the EF lenses perform so great.
I watched lots of reviews by you in the last years, I respect you but I think here you missed the shot. I've been extensively using this lens for two years on an Eos R and it's become a favourite. The colors are the best ever seen, straight out of the camera. Portraits are amazing. Its got some limits though (color aberration being the worst), but as long as you know its character and understand how to extract its juice, it delivers (I always use strobes on my subjects). Shooting a subject like that dolphin with the sea on the background is a no-go for lots of reasons and I guess you know it, what did you expect? Also the best bokeh it's more often at 1.8 than 1.2. The lens has a vintage look (love it), but stopped at f4 or narrower aperture it's sharper than the Canon 24/70 markII, so it's definitely sharp.
This is a love it or hate it kind of lens. I personally hated this lens and was extremely delighted to retire it for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art lens back in the DSLR days. But some people swear by the rendering of this lens - it wasn't for me.
Well, this lens is unique. And it's the only lens give the dreamy creamy feeling look. It's really good at portraits, low light and against light. You really got to be creative about your photos then you will know how much range this lens can offer you.
In 2022, after having shot with this and the sigma, despite the sigma being “sharper” it’s not weather sealed and that’s a deal breaker for me. I love shooting in cloudy and rainy weather. There isn’t much weather sealed 50mm for canon. Some of my favourite photos are in the rain with this lens with my 5d mark iv.
Hi Chris. Lovely lens review as always. You mentioned right at the end to buy the Sigma f1.4 Art lens for half the price of the Canon f1.2 but I bought the Sigma lens first and returned it to buy the f1.2 because of the massive weight difference. The Sigma weighs over twice that of the Canon f1.2 and so you should have mentioned the weight difference to your viewers. I find the Canon f1.2 lens used at f2 or f4 to be even sharper than the Art lens and with the weight difference it makes it much more enjoyable over long periods of time. Thank you for re-testing the older lenses on the R5 it is great watching the reviews again but updated. I bought the M6 mk2, R5 and R6 and love all of the cameras, R6 for video and R5 and M62 for stills. Excellent cameras. Thanks again for all of the great videos.
I guess since the light is exponential... 1/3 of stop is equivalent to an extra 25% of light and not 33%. So it goes like: 1/3 - 25%, 2/3 - 50%, 3/3 (full stop) 100%. Notice that it keeps doubling: 25% - 50% and then 100%.
Shooting a flat surface only proves that it's plane of focus is not flat and that doesn't represent real world use. I personally love this lens and much prefer the look of the images over the sigma.
great review, I have this lens and a canon R5. Was very curious to hear your thoughts on it. I agree with all the points you made but would counter with just one thought, the lens does have a certain character about it, the softness and look wide open is not always a bad thing I like the over feel of the lens even if it is less than technically perfect. One technical question why do you think the performance is worse on the aps-c sensor? is it because it is only using the center of the elements? I would have thought that would be likely to improve performance. Thanks again for another great interesting video for camera nerds like me.
My guess is it has a lot to do with the pixel pitch of the sensors. The Canon M6 II has a pixel pitch of 3.23 microns where as the Canon R5 has a pixel pitch of 4.39. I wonder if the 50mm f/1.2 would perform better or at least have it's flaws be less obvious on the R6/EOS R or RP.
When evaluating DSLR and Sony lenses, it would be nice if you could adapt them all on a7R IV, if you have one. Otherwise keeping the resolutions of the sensor similar is fair enough.
@@RealRaynedance Yeah, that's what he got. It's close to the same resolution than R5 and his Z7. So that's a really good and equal set of camera bodies from resolution point of view.
Probably my favourite ever lens. I use this or the EF 85mm F1.2 about 90% of the time :-) Wonderful for good ol' film photography too! Incidentally; I use this a lot with my EOS 5DSR, which is still the highest resolution Canon camera on the market, I think? Bit of a bargain used these days.
@@brandonj8018 Compared to what you get, it really is! You can't get a better camera for that price imo. The image quality is absolutely stunning. But yeah, a point 'n' shoot is cheaper.
@@Gessinger09 The sharpness in the middle is roughly the same on mine, but the 50mm has more aberrations than the 85mm wide open. As a result, the image might appear slightly less sharp. It cleans up quite a bit already at 1.4 is is pretty much gone by 1.8. I haven't really been bothered by lack of sharpness wide open with any of them, even with a 50mpx camera.
@@thedondeluxe6941 Thanks for the reply ... Could you send some images in good resolution to my email for me to see on the pc? I am choosing between one of the two, it would be very important ...
Can I ask a daft question? Why are the APS-C images worse around the edges than on full frame? I feel like APS-C should be like a crop of the centre of the full frame, with the centre being sharper.
The APS-C images are zoomed in more compared to the full-frame images, in order to get the test charts appearing the same size in the video, so the optical issues become more apparent.
interesting, I tested my EF 50 f1.2L even with 22mp 5D mark III on tripod. The chart I was using is ISO12233. So any aparture larger than f2.2 looks soft for me even in the center,down to f5.6 it slowly improved but I would like to say it is not sharp. And it starts turning sharp after f6.3, f8 f9 f10 are the sharpest range. It looks similar on my R6. Color fringe is very bad if aparture is larger than f2.8.I am curious about whether mine is just a lemon lens???
I miss owning this lens on a 5Dii and just 'knowing' it couldn't get any better lolll! The past few weeks I've been using an R5 with the RF 50L and sadly now I'm very well aware of how far from perfect gear will always be... I want that "it'll never get any better than THIS" feeling again
I'm in a similar situation as you. I've used the EF 50L on 5DIIIs and IVs for years, and it has always kind of worked, but the EF version just never gives that 'wow' feeling I had expected when I first got one. Still, for years, there wasn't anything better - for my purposes, the Sigma is not an option, because I need weather sealing. I'm currently testing and writing a review about the R5 + RF 50L combo, and it's just miles ahead of everything we've seen on EF mount.
Oldie but goldie, you should get a copy of the 50 mm f1.0 to test with newer cameras. I would love the old canon f0.95 for rangefinders, but I know it is not your jam.
Hi Chris, thanks for these videos and over the years, your channel has become a standard for me before buying any lens. A question: Are you releasing a review of the Canon RF 85mm F2 IS Macro STM, anytime soon?
Thank you for this! While I do currently own a 50mm f1.8 STM (you just can’t beat a $125 price point!) I have been thinking about an upgrade. That being said, I have been looking at this lens and the Tamron 45mm f1.8 SP VC...I was wondering if the output on the Canon is worth the price point! I have used the 45mm f1.8 SP VC before and it was just oh so lovely...and at a reasonable price point!
Hey! I need your help, i have a canon eos 200d, and I am planning to buy the 50mm 1.2. I don’t know if these 2 are compatible or not. Can you help me? Thanks
Hi Cris, could you please retest most common APSC Canon Lenses on the M6mk2? I want to see how do they perform on that camera or the 90D. For example 18-135 is USM Nano, 55-250 STM... I guess it will be good help for those who actually own that lenses and want to upgrade to a 90D or jump to the mirrorless world using an adaptor on the M6mk2. Thanks in advance.
why dont you do the same AF test for every lens where you record the back of the screen or record the viewfinder while autofocusing? thats a very helpful part of the video
The lens projects more "bowel" distortion is what i heard lol. Oh man, Chris, i don't know how you test these lenses... Great review, buddy! As always!
I agree with everything said here. This lens was one of my biggest disappointments when I was shooting Canon a few years back on a 5D MK II body. Plus, the humble autofocus system of the 5D MK II coupled with this lens left a lot to be desired, and I found myself mostly focusing manually to get properly focused shots. However, I'm assuming that with newer focus systems this should focus no problem. That said, I really found it too soft for my liking at the centre to the extent that I used to even doubt that I got the focus right and end up taking the same shot again tin live view mode with magnification to ensure that I am getting the focus where I want it to be, only to find out that the focus was accurate but the image is soft. I also did not like its bokeh effect which was the main reason why I bought it in the first place. I finally got a 50mm Zeiss Planar 1.4 T*, and oh my lord the difference! Even though it was a manual focus lens, but the bokeh was incomparable and the lens felt much sharper and was a joy to behold. In short, compared to other EXCEPTIONAL red ring L glass from Canon, this one is better off on the retail store shelves. I hear that the RF version is quite a come back that leaves this one in the dust... where it actually belongs... I was never disappointed in any L series glass the way I was with this one, and I watched this video just to validate if my hate for it was justified. Now I can die in piece!
Im commenting right after the mention of focus breathing so if its answered later in the video i apologize. If adapting this to the R5, pushing it further from the sensor, does that do anything good or bad for focus breathing? Or is there no change?
Canon seems to be ignoring the needs for a 55-65mm large aperture prime. Nikon has afs 58f1.4g , Voigtlander has 65apo. Hope rf mount users have something similar soon
Why on earth would anyone want/need a 58 if they own a fast fifty is a mystery to me. Jump to an 85 or just use a zoom - 28-70/2 is as fast as the Voigtlander 65 and doubtless sharper...
@@funkymoped537 Sony sells tonnes of 55f1.8 while having had ZA50mmF1.4 at not much higher price. Nikon has been selling various versions of 58mm F1.2 F1.4 F0.95 since 1970s while 50mm f1.4 is always available.
Love your review 👍🏾. I think this lens weakness are what makes it great for what it is used for the most, Brides 😊. Although the sigma is sharper, most Brides don't want their skin detail "that" in focus 😂.
I think Canon made a deliberate choice to not compromise image quality for convenience. I wouldn't take these RF L lenses on hikes but if you are a pro I guess you want your work to stand out.
If you like the focal length don't hesitate to get one. the 135 for me is in the same category as the 50 1.2: there is something amazing about how it renders and it will make you (and the potential subject) very happy. Plus the 135L is tack sharp, inconspicuous and not very heavy. Not sure what you shoot but a dream combo for me
The video quality in low light would be interesting with the wide F1.2 and ibis on newer cameras, but as you said maybe a sigma would be the wiser option , then end of an L lens era.
Thanks for an eye opener to the old EF50 , I feel bad for asking as a lot of others has asked for other reviews but if you get the chance to review the RF85 F2 Macro I would love to know how sharp it is and if it is on par to the RF85 F1.2 ,, thank you in advanced just in case :D
Before he got the R5 he tested every canon lens for high resolution on his Sony A7RII and afaic he never mentioned any problems though may be that was only for the image quality test charts only.
Newer production copies have had this issue resolved, however, Autofocus Micro Adjustment is a complicated issue with interchangeable lens cameras, particularly dSLR’s as you’ve noted. That is why with some models you can adjust it in camera if you notice the lens front or back focusing slightly. All cameras and lenses come out of the factory calibrated to within tolerance.
@@WatchesAndPhotography It was not resolved. The focus shift is inherent in the design, due to the lack of a floating element. It happens at close range at apertures around f/2.8 to f/4. The camera will focus correctly at f/1.2, but the actual focus drifts further back when the lens stops down during exposure. This problem is not fixed by AF micro adjustment because adjustment affects AF generally, not close range specifically.
I love watching these videos even for lenses I’m probably not gonna buy. They’re just so quality.
This is my exact setup. I’m still in love with this lens even after upgrading to the R5. Those are great tests and fun to watch, but they are things that my customers will never ever notice. This lens has a quality that transcends technical specs. It took my photography to a new level when I started using it years ago on my 5D Mark III. Also, I love the size. It is a joy to shoot with. It also adapts seamlessly with the R5. This lens is the best investment that I have made as a photographer.
TY for your comment. Please share what is your second and third fav lens. Have a good day.
In your opinion, is that a really big step up from f1.4?
both aren't exactly sharp untif f2.8 and all that...
Yes, it's a very big step up. Constrast, color, and f/1.2 all make this lens very special especially for portrait or event photographers shooting people in various lighting conditions. On a full frame mirrorless, focus accuracy is also drastically improved. A very special lens indeed. Also, the lens is definitely sharp enough especially in rhe center and I shoot wide open at f/1.2 regularly. (If you are shooting people and not a wall, center sharpness is most important and corner less important. I can't think of a situation where I will shoot at f/1.2 worrying about corner sharpness...) I stop down only because of thin deprh of field rather than to improve sharpness.
@@sammy-qo7oco3 but I've heard it's notorious for its focus shift. how's that affected your experience with it?
@@sunlbx Didn't really experience any problems with it. Again, I am mostly using 50mm f/1.2 L on Canon Mirrorless full frame Cameras.
This lens is a lot better on mirrorless than it ever was on DSLRs. My lens has severe back focusing on my 5D Classic, and moderate back focusing on my 5D IV, even at f/1.2 when the focus point isn't affected by its (separate) focus shift issue. But on the RP the focus is dead-on at f/1.2.
I really like your reviews Chris, I've watched them for years. However I am increasingly disappointed with everyone's reviews of lenses which focus on sharpness and contrast alone. When I started this is also all I focused on, but I've come to learn that Image quality is so much more that sharpness. I wish you and others would start to talk how images look over how sharp they are. I work in the film/video industry, and this is something the professionals there have known for decades. Many photography lenses are sharper then lenses used in cinema, but that doesn't mean they make a nicer looking image. This lens has a lot of flaws, but I love the images it creates, so for me it's worth more than a sharper lens that doesn't look as good.
I agree and coming back year after year, now I realize I don't like his shots at all, not even a bit, so...his perspective is probably very different than ours.
Ok but what you’re referring to is largely a matter of subjective taste. You can like a vintage look and imperfections, but that may not be what someone else wants in their image, especially for the price they pay for, so quantifying optical characteristics is valuable for studio photography or corporate video
This is the only objective way of measuring their standard.
I agree that it's an objective way to test a lens, and that what an image looks like is very subjective. All I was trying to say was that I wish some reviewers would make an attempt to talk about the subjective side, from their opinion. And I know that some do, Ken over at the art of photography often does this. It might be an extreme example but no one would like at "Water Lilies" by Monet, and say "it isn't very sharp". It isn't meant to be, it has a style and aesthetic that is sort of the opposite of sharpness. Now you may not like that look, and that's okay, but if you were going to talk about that painting you would certainly talk about that style of impressionism. Now, the differences in lenses is far more subtle than something like an impressionist painting, but some imperfect vintage lenses can contribute to a styler and aesthetic that is worth talking about. It is another tool in the toolbox. Personally, I love the Canon 50, because at 1.2 it has flaws and imperfections that I often find lovely. I can shoot it at 1.8-2 and retain some of the character, while adding a lot of sharpness, but I can also shoot it at F4+ and it will delivery super sharp results. For me its a lens that can give a number of different looks, which I find more useful and fun.
Amen!
I'm glad you're commenting on the actual light transmission of bright aperture lenses. In fact, I think it merits mention on a lot of f/1.4 lenses, as well.
+1
Stats are one thing, but there is a quality about the images from this lens which cannot be measured. My favourite lens (on my 5D IV) for sure.
micro contrast: something that the sigma lacks completely, but woooow look how it's sharp!
I completely agree. I have been using this lens for years now. It does give me something that I still can’t express in words. It is on my camera 90% of the time.
Agreed. There are very few lenses that come close to the way this one renders. You can get a lightly used, mint copy for around the same price as a SIgma Art. The 1.2L is a vastly more compelling lens IMO.
@@funkymoped537 I completely agree, I also have the 50 ef 1.2 l. I'm considering selling it for the 85mm ef 1.2 L. How would you say the two lenses compare in terms of that "unique" rendering quality?
This is my favorite walk-about lens at night on my Canon 5D4... the images are magical. Definitely a legacy lens.
Lens has character softness that brings skin look nice ,unlike other lenses overly sharp that you spend so much time photoshoping blemishes
My thoughts.
Exactly. Modern lenses are way, way too sharp in my opinion for "people photos".
The RF 50 1.2 is probably the first high end AF Canon 50 worth buying.
I really enjoy your reviews and appreciate the time you put in. That being said, I own both the RF and EF 1.2 lenses and I’d say the EF has a dreamy character that the more surgical RF lens lacks. Technically, there are much better lenses but this EF 1.2 will still have a place in my camera bag.
Shame I can't afford the RF as I prefer surgical precision
I used and still using this gem of a lens. I got it on my 5D II + 5D III and now it’s still on my R5 and R6II… I love the character this lens gives at f1.2 and it can look really cinematic and beautiful. It is different in a good way. It’s not everybody’s taste but that’s ok for me and my clients. 😃
I have this lens and still love it. It's far from perfect technically, but the way the images look in the end is great.
I agree, not perfect technically. But it's a lens with some good character. I've made some wonderful photos with it.
@@stanleeger4711 my wife, who's not a photographer described this lens when I had it up against a tamron 45 at a concert:
"This captures the mood of the performance."
I'd really like to see a re-test for the sigma 18-35 f1.8 with the new cameras
Same
Thanks for doing these! Even though these are old lens, for the very first time, these L lenses are becoming affordable for the very first time to many of us!! So these "old" lens are becoming extremely relevant AGAIN (or for the first time to many of us)!! THANKS!
I used this lens once, I borrowed it from my son, who was using it for a film project he was shooting while at Uni. I’d heard all the misgivings about it previously, so was interested to try it out with some street photography. In short, absolutely loved it... the images were gorgeous shot at 2.0, with syrupy backgrounds and vivid colours. At 600 grams I found it substantial, but not too heavy. I would love to add it to my lens Arsenal, but not at that silly price. Canon really need to do a price drop on some of these older L lenses, now that the R is taking over... 🤔
Try getting it used - I see them around for around 700€ sometimes...
N B 500 is more reasonable for a lens of this caliber.
Might be not the best lens for shooting test charts, but great for portreture. I think it is not about ultimate sharpness but the image it produces. Nice piece of glass.
Hey Chris. I'm just starting with my photography and buying RF lenses is a pain in the bank. I was wondering would be kind enough giving this lens to me if it is of no use to you?
I just got the EF recently and really like it, it's not super sharp at f/1.2 but I was surprised how usable it is from wide open. The biggest problem in my opinion is the amount of CA in some scenes, fortunately this is pretty easy to fix in just a few seconds (usually). I think I might have gotten an above average copy of the lens based on my experience with the sharpness.
There's a reason why people prefer glass like this over newer optically perfect lenses. That character and background rendition simply cannot be beat by clinical sharpness.
I wish more people/users would amplify that, but I think we are in minority. Most prefer razor-sharp images, esp. in this era of perfect videos, 4k, 8k, trillionk resolution etc. I can only keep my fingers crossed and hope that majority will go tired of insatiable clinical resolutions and sharpness and will sort of return to the foundation of photography.
Thanks for this review. Very interesting to see how this lens performs at your new EOS R5. I would also be curious how the Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART would perform at the R5.
Well, this is why we buy the Canon EF 50mm 1.2. It gives the images a touch you won't get with the Canon RF 50mm 1.2. Exactly because of these failures & mistakes. For portraits simply lovely, same as the Canon EF 85mm 1.2. Until today, I did not buy any RF lens for my R5 as the EF lenses perform so great.
I watched lots of reviews by you in the last years, I respect you but I think here you missed the shot. I've been extensively using this lens for two years on an Eos R and it's become a favourite. The colors are the best ever seen, straight out of the camera. Portraits are amazing. Its got some limits though (color aberration being the worst), but as long as you know its character and understand how to extract its juice, it delivers (I always use strobes on my subjects). Shooting a subject like that dolphin with the sea on the background is a no-go for lots of reasons and I guess you know it, what did you expect? Also the best bokeh it's more often at 1.8 than 1.2. The lens has a vintage look (love it), but stopped at f4 or narrower aperture it's sharper than the Canon 24/70 markII, so it's definitely sharp.
This is a love it or hate it kind of lens. I personally hated this lens and was extremely delighted to retire it for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art lens back in the DSLR days. But some people swear by the rendering of this lens - it wasn't for me.
Please another Test with the EF 85LII.
Yes, please
Well, this lens is unique. And it's the only lens give the dreamy creamy feeling look. It's really good at portraits, low light and against light. You really got to be creative about your photos then you will know how much range this lens can offer you.
In 2022, after having shot with this and the sigma, despite the sigma being “sharper” it’s not weather sealed and that’s a deal breaker for me. I love shooting in cloudy and rainy weather. There isn’t much weather sealed 50mm for canon. Some of my favourite photos are in the rain with this lens with my 5d mark iv.
It's a dreamy len and render beauty colors of dark scenes.
EF 35mm f1.4 L mark i please. Thank u Chris
Hi Chris. Lovely lens review as always. You mentioned right at the end to buy the Sigma f1.4 Art lens for half the price of the Canon f1.2 but I bought the Sigma lens first and returned it to buy the f1.2 because of the massive weight difference. The Sigma weighs over twice that of the Canon f1.2 and so you should have mentioned the weight difference to your viewers. I find the Canon f1.2 lens used at f2 or f4 to be even sharper than the Art lens and with the weight difference it makes it much more enjoyable over long periods of time. Thank you for re-testing the older lenses on the R5 it is great watching the reviews again but updated. I bought the M6 mk2, R5 and R6 and love all of the cameras, R6 for video and R5 and M62 for stills. Excellent cameras. Thanks again for all of the great videos.
How does the central sharpness of the canon 50 1.2 in 1.4 compared to sigma?
let's mention also the lack of micro contrast on the sigma
I really don’t know how Canon can justify the prices of these lenses.
I guess since the light is exponential... 1/3 of stop is equivalent to an extra 25% of light and not 33%. So it goes like: 1/3 - 25%, 2/3 - 50%, 3/3 (full stop) 100%. Notice that it keeps doubling: 25% - 50% and then 100%.
My photos ARE ALWAYS SHARP WITH THIS CANON 50MM F1.2L
Still gonna need a review on the 70-200 2.8L II, the prosumers budget option when buying used
Shooting a flat surface only proves that it's plane of focus is not flat and that doesn't represent real world use. I personally love this lens and much prefer the look of the images over the sigma.
would be interesting to see how a vintage 55mm takumar 1.8 copes with your tests
I hope so much you can compare this lens to the new sony 50 1.2 ... back when i used canon the 50 1.2 was my favorite lens and i totally miss it
fantastic lens on mirrorless bodies. perfect gimbal lens for event videography.
I don't know why but this is my favorite lens of all time. it's not too good technically but I love it
great review, I have this lens and a canon R5. Was very curious to hear your thoughts on it. I agree with all the points you made but would counter with just one thought, the lens does have a certain character about it, the softness and look wide open is not always a bad thing I like the over feel of the lens even if it is less than technically perfect. One technical question why do you think the performance is worse on the aps-c sensor? is it because it is only using the center of the elements? I would have thought that would be likely to improve performance. Thanks again for another great interesting video for camera nerds like me.
My guess is it has a lot to do with the pixel pitch of the sensors. The Canon M6 II has a pixel pitch of 3.23 microns where as the Canon R5 has a pixel pitch of 4.39. I wonder if the 50mm f/1.2 would perform better or at least have it's flaws be less obvious on the R6/EOS R or RP.
This lens seems to be decentered: take note the color fringing at the 'frame center.
When evaluating DSLR and Sony lenses, it would be nice if you could adapt them all on a7R IV, if you have one. Otherwise keeping the resolutions of the sensor similar is fair enough.
I believe he has an a7R II.
@@RealRaynedance Yeah, that's what he got. It's close to the same resolution than R5 and his Z7. So that's a really good and equal set of camera bodies from resolution point of view.
Would you go for this or a 24-70mm f/2.8? I don’t have anything between 35-70mm and want something specifically for 50mm
50mm f/1.4
Probably my favourite ever lens. I use this or the EF 85mm F1.2 about 90% of the time :-)
Wonderful for good ol' film photography too!
Incidentally; I use this a lot with my EOS 5DSR, which is still the highest resolution Canon camera on the market, I think? Bit of a bargain used these days.
Around 800-900 USD-not exactly what I’d call a bargain.
@@brandonj8018 Compared to what you get, it really is! You can't get a better camera for that price imo. The image quality is absolutely stunning. But yeah, a point 'n' shoot is cheaper.
The sharpness of the 50 1.2 is worse than the 85 1.2 fully open, in the middle? How is it closing at 50 to 1.4 compared to 85??
@@Gessinger09 The sharpness in the middle is roughly the same on mine, but the 50mm has more aberrations than the 85mm wide open. As a result, the image might appear slightly less sharp. It cleans up quite a bit already at 1.4 is is pretty much gone by 1.8. I haven't really been bothered by lack of sharpness wide open with any of them, even with a 50mpx camera.
@@thedondeluxe6941 Thanks for the reply ... Could you send some images in good resolution to my email for me to see on the pc? I am choosing between one of the two, it would be very important ...
Can I ask a daft question? Why are the APS-C images worse around the edges than on full frame? I feel like APS-C should be like a crop of the centre of the full frame, with the centre being sharper.
The APS-C images are zoomed in more compared to the full-frame images, in order to get the test charts appearing the same size in the video, so the optical issues become more apparent.
I just wonder if the EF 50 1.2 is that much better than the new RF 50 1.8 cheap lens.
No
I wonder how this lens compares to the 50mm f2.5 Compact Macro from Canon. I just bought one and I have to admit I love it.
Hi Chris, thanks for uploading! A nice lens to use on my Canon RP and Nikon Z6!
My R6 gave this lens a huge upgrade performance Wise.
I actually use an FD 55mm f/1.2 SSC lens on my EOS RP. I bet it would do very poorly in this test. :P
interesting, I tested my EF 50 f1.2L even with 22mp 5D mark III on tripod. The chart I was using is ISO12233. So any aparture larger than f2.2 looks soft for me even in the center,down to f5.6 it slowly improved but I would like to say it is not sharp. And it starts turning sharp after f6.3, f8 f9 f10 are the sharpest range. It looks similar on my R6. Color fringe is very bad if aparture is larger than f2.8.I am curious about whether mine is just a lemon lens???
I miss owning this lens on a 5Dii and just 'knowing' it couldn't get any better lolll! The past few weeks I've been using an R5 with the RF 50L and sadly now I'm very well aware of how far from perfect gear will always be... I want that "it'll never get any better than THIS" feeling again
I'm in a similar situation as you. I've used the EF 50L on 5DIIIs and IVs for years, and it has always kind of worked, but the EF version just never gives that 'wow' feeling I had expected when I first got one. Still, for years, there wasn't anything better - for my purposes, the Sigma is not an option, because I need weather sealing. I'm currently testing and writing a review about the R5 + RF 50L combo, and it's just miles ahead of everything we've seen on EF mount.
Oldie but goldie, you should get a copy of the 50 mm f1.0 to test with newer cameras. I would love the old canon f0.95 for rangefinders, but I know it is not your jam.
at 2:11 in the video. Please take into account the difference between F stops and T stops. As they are related but not the same.
I'm glad I bought a used Sigma 50mm Art for $550!
Will you test the new RF 50mm f1.8 STM? I wonder how good is it when compared to the EF counterpart
Hi Chris, thanks for these videos and over the years, your channel has become a standard for me before buying any lens.
A question: Are you releasing a review of the Canon RF 85mm F2 IS Macro STM, anytime soon?
Thank you for this! While I do currently own a 50mm f1.8 STM (you just can’t beat a $125 price point!) I have been thinking about an upgrade. That being said, I have been looking at this lens and the Tamron 45mm f1.8 SP VC...I was wondering if the output on the Canon is worth the price point! I have used the 45mm f1.8 SP VC before and it was just oh so lovely...and at a reasonable price point!
Have you considered the Sigma 50 1.4 Art? I have it, it is big and heavy but sharp as knife.
@@khuo0219 She is a sharp little beastie isn’t she?! That being said, it costs $500 USD more than the Tamron so...
@@obsidian00 True. At that price I will get the nifty fifty from Canon. Retains its value longer and get support from Canon.
Hey! I need your help, i have a canon eos 200d, and I am planning to buy the 50mm 1.2. I don’t know if these 2 are compatible or not. Can you help me? Thanks
I need Canon to release 5Dsr replacement, so I can get an RF version.
How are Sigma 24 and 35 f1.4 on R5? Or should I wait for RF versions?
Pls review Tamron 35-150mm f2.8-4 lens. Also if possible review lenses adapted to Eos M6 with Speed booster
Hi Cris, could you please retest most common APSC Canon Lenses on the M6mk2? I want to see how do they perform on that camera or the 90D. For example 18-135 is USM Nano, 55-250 STM... I guess it will be good help for those who actually own that lenses and want to upgrade to a 90D or jump to the mirrorless world using an adaptor on the M6mk2.
Thanks in advance.
Great commentary on the extra light you get from 1.4 to 1.2. It's really not much so I happily got a better 1.4 lens
why dont you do the same AF test for every lens where you record the back of the screen or record the viewfinder while autofocusing? thats a very helpful part of the video
This is exactly the video I was looking for! How it does on the newer R5/6. Thank you :)
The lens projects more "bowel" distortion is what i heard lol. Oh man, Chris, i don't know how you test these lenses...
Great review, buddy! As always!
Oh no 💀😂
Definitely agree with it! Best review as always. Well done, mate!
I agree with everything said here. This lens was one of my biggest disappointments when I was shooting Canon a few years back on a 5D MK II body. Plus, the humble autofocus system of the 5D MK II coupled with this lens left a lot to be desired, and I found myself mostly focusing manually to get properly focused shots. However, I'm assuming that with newer focus systems this should focus no problem. That said, I really found it too soft for my liking at the centre to the extent that I used to even doubt that I got the focus right and end up taking the same shot again tin live view mode with magnification to ensure that I am getting the focus where I want it to be, only to find out that the focus was accurate but the image is soft. I also did not like its bokeh effect which was the main reason why I bought it in the first place. I finally got a 50mm Zeiss Planar 1.4 T*, and oh my lord the difference! Even though it was a manual focus lens, but the bokeh was incomparable and the lens felt much sharper and was a joy to behold. In short, compared to other EXCEPTIONAL red ring L glass from Canon, this one is better off on the retail store shelves. I hear that the RF version is quite a come back that leaves this one in the dust... where it actually belongs... I was never disappointed in any L series glass the way I was with this one, and I watched this video just to validate if my hate for it was justified. Now I can die in piece!
perfect revisit
thank you so much for all your hard work - SOO helpful! also I love your collection of Christian books! are you a C.S. Lewis fan too?!
Sure, I'm studying him a lot this year
Im commenting right after the mention of focus breathing so if its answered later in the video i apologize. If adapting this to the R5, pushing it further from the sensor, does that do anything good or bad for focus breathing? Or is there no change?
No change
Cool vid! I would like you to review the lens Tamron 35-150 f2.8-4. Thanks =)
Canon seems to be ignoring the needs for a 55-65mm large aperture prime. Nikon has afs 58f1.4g , Voigtlander has 65apo. Hope rf mount users have something similar soon
Why on earth would anyone want/need a 58 if they own a fast fifty is a mystery to me. Jump to an 85 or just use a zoom - 28-70/2 is as fast as the Voigtlander 65 and doubtless sharper...
@@funkymoped537 Sony sells tonnes of 55f1.8 while having had ZA50mmF1.4 at not much higher price. Nikon has been selling various versions of 58mm F1.2 F1.4 F0.95 since 1970s while 50mm f1.4 is always available.
Its a great old lens. Sadly its still too expensive even used.
which is more sharper than Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art?
Probably i wil buy the new rf 50mm 1.8. It might not be as sharp but its budget friendly and smaller
Very nice review!
Love your review 👍🏾. I think this lens weakness are what makes it great for what it is used for the most, Brides 😊. Although the sigma is sharper, most Brides don't want their skin detail "that" in focus 😂.
1:35 it would be great to test it on the RF camera.
Can you please review the ZEISS Touit 50mm f/2.8M Macro Lens for FUJIFILM X cameras?
Outstanding. Thank you.
How does it look on a film camera like the eos 1v?
Hey Chris, I think your Pop filter was broken at some point >.
Chris - you have to test out the Dream Lens!
i wonder how this is on R7 with a speedbooster.
How comes all the new fast mirrorless lenses are so much bigger than the old designs?
They are better! 😊
I think Canon made a deliberate choice to not compromise image quality for convenience. I wouldn't take these RF L lenses on hikes but if you are a pro I guess you want your work to stand out.
Hello, I would like to buy a used Canon EF 135 F2, how about that? Mainly take pictures of children at home. My fuselage is EOS R.
If you like the focal length don't hesitate to get one. the 135 for me is in the same category as the 50 1.2: there is something amazing about how it renders and it will make you (and the potential subject) very happy. Plus the 135L is tack sharp, inconspicuous and not very heavy. Not sure what you shoot but a dream combo for me
hope you will re-test ef50 1.0
Why?
You sound different... Hope you're okay... 🙂
I got one of these canon lenses and I paid £490.00 for it second hand and Is BOXED
The video quality in low light would be interesting with the wide F1.2 and ibis on newer cameras, but as you said maybe a sigma would be the wiser option , then end of an L lens era.
Thanks for an eye opener to the old EF50 , I feel bad for asking as a lot of others has asked for other reviews but if you get the chance to review the RF85 F2 Macro I would love to know how sharp it is and if it is on par to the RF85 F1.2 ,, thank you in advanced just in case :D
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art is better thanks to well coatings and 1.4 optimize
Older is not always better… I’ll pass . Thanks for the info.. 😊
huge thanks
RF 50mm f1.8 plz !🙃
I don't think people wanted to buy a 50 1.2 for their DSLRs, they just wanted a better lens than the poor Canon 50 1.4.
This lens is actually punsihing us who have bought the RF version.
If possible, please adapt each revisit canon lenses to sony camera, it might be helpful to those demand to see the results of adapted lens?
This would be super helpful
Before he got the R5 he tested every canon lens for high resolution on his Sony A7RII and afaic he never mentioned any problems though may be that was only for the image quality test charts only.
Stop teasing me like this Chris!!! When's the new Sigma 50mm being released?? 😂🙉
Haha
Just get the cheap but good EF 1.8 stm
That lens had an awful focus shift on dslrs!
Newer production copies have had this issue resolved, however, Autofocus Micro Adjustment is a complicated issue with interchangeable lens cameras, particularly dSLR’s as you’ve noted. That is why with some models you can adjust it in camera if you notice the lens front or back focusing slightly. All cameras and lenses come out of the factory calibrated to within tolerance.
@@WatchesAndPhotography It was not resolved. The focus shift is inherent in the design, due to the lack of a floating element. It happens at close range at apertures around f/2.8 to f/4. The camera will focus correctly at f/1.2, but the actual focus drifts further back when the lens stops down during exposure. This problem is not fixed by AF micro adjustment because adjustment affects AF generally, not close range specifically.