Canon makes some wildly good and wildly expensive lenses, including the RF 50mm f/1.2L USM, which offers amazing results but also costs north of $2,000. Do you really need to spend that much? This useful video will help you decide.
Coming to you from Jaquie Ohh, this insightful video explores the age-old question: do expensive lenses truly make a difference? Ohh crafts a comparison between two Canon 50mm lenses: the budget-friendly EF 50mm f/1.8 STM ("Nifty Fifty") and the professional-grade RF 50mm f/1.2L USM.
Ohh conducts a series of tests, capturing images in various lighting conditions and settings. She examines aspects like sharpness, bokeh, color rendition, and distortion, providing a clear visual representation of the differences between the two lenses. While the RF lens demonstrably excels in sharpness and produces a smoother bokeh, the EF lens holds its own with pleasing color and decent image quality, especially considering its affordability.
Ultimately, Ohh emphasizes that the "Nifty Fifty" remains a capable lens, particularly for those starting their photographic journey. However, for professionals requiring the utmost image quality and precision, the RF lens proves its worth with superior performance. This comparison highlights that while expensive lenses offer undeniable advantages, achieving excellent results is still possible with more budget-conscious options.
The video underscores the importance of understanding your individual needs and priorities as a photographer. Factors such as budget, intended use, and desired image quality all play a role in determining the ideal lens, so think twice before spending blindly. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Ohh.
Any lens that is made by Canon for RF mount is not worth it. Overpriced and forcibly limiting our choices. Even on EF platform i would never pay that exorbitant amount of money for a lens that is ... meh at best. There are so many other choices and me ... i prefer to have options where to spend my money.
It's obvious your hate for Canon gear makes one wonder why you bother with Canon at all. There are camera makers out there you can troll as well. Btw, Sigma and Tamron will be introducing lenses for Canon's APSC cameras with an RF mount this summer. I'm sure full frame will eventually follow.
Oh my ... please tell me what i can do. Please ... i am not to be left to think on my own and need you to tell me what i can do.
My hate as you call it for maker that has gone off the deep end, effectively leaving people who has/have use/d their equipment for decades scratching their heads. Most of people i am talking about have their own heads to think and dont fall for BS like ... we will forbid you and others to buy/use what you want, but what we give you, and you will like it.
Also, what makes you think i care about APSC? Its meaningless gesture on canon part. Means to act like you are doing something for users, but actually you are not. They lack optics for APSC and will allow others to make optics ... BUT ... only mediocre ones, no ART or SPORt ... because those will compete against Canon ... So ... yes ... any lens made by Canon for RF mount is just not worth it. Its costs 3 times as much compared to alternatives and most of the time competition has better products or better understanding of the market with lenses made to better suit people.
It's hard for someone like you, but try not to confuse thinking for yourself with lying to yourself.
Thank you kind sir for taking pitty on me and setting me straight. I would otherwise for sure perish with all those lies to confuse me and let me astray.
Praise the maker that you came a long.
Meh i Dunno about that, over priced? probably, but they are still very good lenses. It's pretty difficult to find objectively terrible lenses and cameras anymore. Really biggest metric to judge lenses on now is price and like you stated Canon lenses seem to be the most expensive compared to the competition. They are all very good though. Canon does REALLY need to open the RF mount. Like last year. They are way behind in 3rd party lenses. It's the main reason I skipped them when switching fully to mirrorless.
If you shoot Canon and are in the RF ecosystem, the 50mm 1.2 is better than the other options. Now, it will always end up on the use of the lens. If you use it beyond 1.2… maybe 1.8, other cheaper options will bring similar results for a fraction of the cost.
One of my issues with RF lenses is how cheap they feel in your hand compared with other lenses that are housed in metal.
There are no other options :) Its illusion of choice. RF lenses, not EF ones. Me personally will not be migrating to RF till 3rd party lenses are permited into ecosystem.
I think the main problem is that there really is no alternative on the RF mount as others have pointed out. The 50 1.8 is a junky lens, good for what it is but not a professional tool, while the 1.2 is overkill for a lot of shooters, and you are paying a lot for a beast of a lens. The right answer for most shooters would be a middle-ground 1.4, but Canon doesn't seem to want to make one of those.
That said, if it was me, I'd say the 1.2 is absolutely worth the cost of entry. I'm on Nikon platform and will absolutely be paying the premium for the 1.2 primes at some point. (Though I'm still in love with my 58mm 1.4G for now)
You will not be disappointed in Nikon's 1.2 primes; I have the 50 and 85 and they are amazing!
Yeah, they look amazing. My only hesitance is the weight and size. I have the Sigma 135 1.8 and its a great lens, no question about it, but I often don't reach for it because I don't want to deal with the weight all day when shooting heavily. The Nikon 85 1.2 is almost the exact same size/weight.
I think that's part of why I love that 58 so much. Like don't get me wrong, its an amazing lens. Not the sharpest lens ever created which is why it gets such a bad rep but its one of the best rendering lenses I've ever used. But its also compact and portable. I can shoot all day without my arms getting tired.
(And I say this as also a wildlife photographer who often carries around a monster 500mm prime, but just as a general rule, I find I'm a "better" creative when I'm not trying to endure exhaustion.)
All that said, those primes have a future in my kit for sure. No question about it. Especially the 85. I just gotta save up! That lens ain't cheap and the price up here in Canada is even more "ain't cheap" ;)
Not a basher of Canon! No matter the maker and for whatever camera the race for the widest f/# lenses is like returning to the film days. Back then the faster the lens helped in handholding to capture an image. Today with now mirrorless cameras all about with IBIS and OSS/IS on telephoto lenses and with many different AF/MF options per maker, I can only help with bokeh and DOF with this money saving option when capturing something you want the bokeh and DOF is to use the little square on the subject and you will get what you desire. And even in very low light like in a nightclub or dark section of a city/town the new cameras will handle the ISO's and even for models that have a difficult time with low noise at higher ISOs there is more than enough help in post.
Also if you can and have adapters for the old film lenses you can find super wide lenses in the used market for low $'s but not the word cheap because they were well made and even if getting one that is foggy inside there is away to rid that also without sending to lens cleaner. Just study your camera with all your lenses at wide-open and little square focus say on the eye and you will get a blurry nose and ear tips.
1. Sony ILCE-7RM5, FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS + 2X Teleconverter, 770.0 mm, f/13, 1/500 sec, ISO 500, And due to a bright sunny day my EF dail was at -5 for Highlights control. I know it is like magic but using the little square over subject and yes Eye AF did also go green over the babybird.