Absolutely hope so to! I believe it will make great sense to release a line of 24,35,50,85 etc with higher quality than the current cheap ones. However: even if they did not, the current lin up of cheap lenses still perform quite great.
@@ThreeCeeProductions extra bulk added by adapter, and the lens itself is now 30 years old. Great lens that I still use, but optically it doesn't compare to the rest of Canon's modern lenses.
Looking at the sample images side by side, you will probably see difference between the two. But if you show only one image and ask someone if it was taken with the 1.8 or 1.2, I think people would have a hard time telling which is which 😊 If you are a working photographer the 1.2 is probably worth it as you’re able to earn back the cost of the lens, but as a hobbyist like me, the 1.8 gives more than good enough results for the price difference ☺️
Completely agree! In most real world situations the differences aren't worth worrying about.
2 года назад
If you show only one photo to your client do they tell the difference? Less likely than a photographer. :) I love the 1.2 but I could still not justify it for myself and I work as a professional.
I was stunned due to the warmer and more authentic skin and lip tone of the 1.2 did not expect this… and the sharpness is really a big deal on the other hand there might be a phenomenon I would call over-sharpness some new urban, architecture and landscape photography tend to look more as a rendition than a photography.
Well ok, but here's my question: do CLIENTS see the difference? If you're a professional portrait photographer (which I am not) and you present the 1.8 pics to them are they gonna be pissed off? I'd honestly like to know the answers to such "real real-world" questions! PS THANK YOU for a great comparison video! I wish there were more such videos out there!
This is a great review and right on point! Weight is an important consideration when packing gears for traveling. I am on a 3-week vacation in Bangkok now and I brought along an RF 24-70 F2.8, RF 70-200 F2.8 and RF 35 F1.8. After walking a few days under the hot Bangkok weather, the light and versatile RF 35 F1.8 is now permanently on my R5 and the other lenses are in the hotel. I will be getting the RF 50 1.8 instead of the 1.2.
If i sell one of my kidneys, i can afford the awesome setup you’ve got. Just got my first fullframe, A Canon EOS RP and the kit version of the 24-105 (not F/4). The RF 50 1.8 is about to be delivered today 😁
I think less sharpness can be advantage if you photograph older person with wrinkles. You don't want to make them too visible. Instead of putting expensive pro mist filter on expensive lens, you can use affordable lens and play it's weakness as an advantage.
Thanks James! You do some of the best comparisons of this type, really great work. Actually, I am surprised on how obvious the difference often is. Maybe that is because I have the 1.2 and am used to its look. What struck me most is the handling of specular highlights in the background that are so much smoother in the expensive lens. I hadn't planned on shelling out for the 1.2, but then I tried it and the amazing look of OOF areas just made me fall in love. Then again, let's be honest: few non-photographers will really appreciate that difference. But one really gets those lenses for shooting them wide open - 2.8 is zero to one stops more than a decent kit zoom, I wonder why one would bother with a prime at this apterture range. But frankly, there will be few use cases where the 1.8 couldn't get an acceptable result.
Thank you so much Mihu. Completely agree regarding the 1.2, it really shines at tackling those specular highlights, better than most other lenses even when you match the aperture.
This is an amazing comparison, but other than the Bokeh, I think I can tell the difference judging by the skin tone and colour rendering. The rendering on the 1.2 looks more pleasing to my eyes.
I have both of these and picked up the 1.2 version about 5-6 months ago. I do some client work, mostly seniors and some weddings. I've never had an L lens and have always had the more budget-priced lens. I have the Tamron G2 2.8 zooms, the RF 35mm F1.8 and RF 85mm F2. I wanted to get one L lens and made my decision as if I may never get another, so I went for the RF 50mm 1.2 L because 50mm is the most versatile. I do love this lens. It's beautiful and I'm so glad I got it. I still enjoy the 1.8 for more casual/walk around/candid type of shooting where the weight makes a difference.
I love both of these lenses. The f1.8 great for walking around. I don’t get to use it enough. However, it is not weather proofed. I live in an area where it rains 50% of the time. So, I can not use it everyday. Also, the f1.8 has a tiny focal motor in the lens. So, I can not put filters on the lens with out slowing down the focus. Still, for natural light, I perfer the f1.8. It give a little more depth of field, which gives a range of focus from the tip of the nose to the back of the head. This makes the image more three dimensional. The f1.8 lens is brilliantly designed. The f1.2 is great for low light. I use it in the winter when we have short day or when I have to cover a band in a bar. For a professional it is a work horse lens. If I need to use lighting, filters, work in rain and snow, or low light this is the lens I reach for. I can control the image better with this lens. When I am working in difficult lighting situations this lens has not failed me. It is weather proofed. For me that is very important. I love working with this lens. For portraiture, I might need to get too close to my subject. So, it is better to use a longer lens like the 85mm. The 85mm gives me a little breath space. So, I am not to close to the subject. It also makes the subject thinner looking. The 50mm f1.2 is a little bit heavy for me. For most camera men it will not be a problem, but I work with a tripod or monopod a lot. So, I would like to have a mounting foot on the lens to attach to a tripod. The foot would give me a better balance. Both of these lenses are great lenses. I really enjoy working with them.
Thank you so much for the comparison, James！You have a very unique channel because of it! I have watched almost all of your videos about RF lenses. They are really brilliant, especially you put the pictures side by side. When you have time, could you possible also make a video for a RF 35mm 1.8 vs RF 50mm 1.2, that would be awesome! Thank you for a million again!❤❤❤
The RF 50 1.8 is perfect. Especially on the R6, where you don't really need the extra sharpness. So small, such a beautiful image, so cheap, pretty fast, and so light. When I want to go for maximum background separation I use the RF 85 1.2. However, the weight and size are crazy. Also, it tends to make people slightly uncomfortable. The 50 1.8 on the other hand is so sneaky, my friends often don't even realize I was taking shots of them, which creates beautiful and real situational photos.
What do you think causes the fear reaction of a large lens? Is it evolution teaching us large eyes looking at us are from large animals that pose a threat?
I still have the ef 50mm f1.4. I would sell it and get this one but the motor is sounding scratcher than it used so ill probably use it till it gives way rather than have it give way on someone else. It's very sharp stopped down, but I don't like the fringing wide open and hope that the rf does better at f1.8 when it's time to switch.
Hello and thank you for this video. Personally on all the images I prefer the RF 50 f 1.8, but it looks slightly more contrasted to me than the RF 50 f 1.2, doesn't it? I bought the RF 50 f 1.8 for my Canon RP and I am very satisfied with it, I find that it forms a Combo. perfect ... Sincerely, Philgood...
Nice 👌. EF range still needs some time to fill out, I had the ef 1.8 for a long time and it’s bang for buck is second to none, however I moved up to the ef 1.4 for a modest price bump and am more than happy with the image quality. Although build wise both ef 1.8 and 1.4 show their age.
That 1.8 @ f/2.8... for the money is WOW. I own it, havent used it yet waiting on my R6 mkii to come in the mail. The actuator on the lens is soooo much smoother than the EF variant. Feels a huge step up in quality from what I see so far.
Be interesting to see if Canon bring out f1.4 lenses. Previously they had 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm lenses. The EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM is ultra sharp with really good bokeh but the EF 50mm f1.4 was a really old design and not very sharp. Both the 24 and 35mm lenses were very good. They are a happy compromise between the weight & cost of the f1.2 lenses and the lightweight but slower f1.8 lenses. Canon has a huge gap between its current budget and fast aperture L lenses in terms of cost, performance and weight.
Totally agree Jeff. I imagine we will see the 1.4 lenses eventually but probably a few years to wait. I did adapt the EF 35mm 1.4 II to my R5 for a while and it was excellent. Thank you for watching.
Fair and useful. I keep flipping between the 50mm 1.2 and 85mm 1.2, as my favourite; but everyone should have that 50mm 1.8, no matter what. The 1.2 - yes or no - is the only question, thereafter.
I also completely agree! I own the RF 2.8 trinity and the RF 50mm 1.8 is my only prime. It is such a light and versatile lens. I am however desperately awaiting the RF 35 1.2 since I shoot a lot of videos indoors and have to use wider focal lengths.
@@ElBoyoElectronico also have the 2.8 trinity and my only prime at the moment is the 50 1.8(bought it to test the Canon RF system)😀 My next lens will be the 50 1.2.
Interesting! For IQ and peace of mind I would choose the f1.2 version, for comfort the f1.8 lens. You think they will add a RF50mm f1.4 ? I have the EF version and was mostly happy with it. Not so much with the sharpness, but with it‘s character. That‘s what I‘m looking for in a lens.
Thank you for watching! I would love to see Canon release some slightly smaller 1.4 L lenses, 50mm included. I'm sure they will at some point but fear we are quite a while away from that.
@@JamesReader yes, that would be something. I read there are 32 new RF lenses planned for the next four years. That means eight lenses a year. Let‘s see what happens. A small L quality pancake walk-around-lens would be desirable as well. For me the 40mm f2.8 in L quality. Then for planned shootings big and fast L glass.
comparing both lenses wide open, it is easy to find which lens is which; the 50/1.2 being "creami-er". stopped down to 2.8, it is not easy to tell for me which is which - apart from the resolution, of course!
Thanks for this. I am a freelance photojournalist for travel magazines and online news sites. I just recently upgraded my gear to an R6 with a RF 15-35 f2.8 and a RF 70-200 f4 because those are the two focal lengths that I prefer. I did need something to fill the gap, but my budget would be strained by the 50mm f1.2. I doubt magazine readers will pick up on the slightly lower quality of the f1.8. I didn’t want to spend big money on the 28-70 f2 because it’s just not a vocal range that I spend much time on so I don’t need the traditional holy trinity. You've just saved me a ton of money, my good man. Subscribed!
If you focus on the bokeh, the 1.8 has ugly "busy" bokeh sometimes, wile the 1.2 is perfectly smooth. But if you're the average Joe, you wouldn't know.
Given the price for the 1.2 is at least 10 times the 1.8, for the untrained eye like mine, i would go for the 1.8 any day, but then again, i am just a happy newbie photographer 😁
problem is: eventhough nobody I show my pictures to pixelpeeps, I do and I know that there is a significant difference in sharpness. So while I get equal uhhs and ohhhs out of my spectators I always feel like apologizing - "I know with the other lens it would have been sharper...". And if I have to stop the 1.8 down to 2.8 to get comparable performance (and we haven't even looked at the corners yet) I might as well dump the 1.8 and just take the 24-70 2.8 with me. The only reason for also packing the 1.8 is to have a faster lense with me when it gets darker.
The RF 50/1.2L lens is very sharp. It's an amazing lens with beautiful bokeh from what I saw in the video. But in my country, the RF 50/1.2L lens is 11 times more expensive than the RF 50/1.8 lens, and it is also bulky and heavy. In my opinion, the L lens should be a lens for professional photographers, while the RF 50/1.8 lens is more suitable for people with a small budget like me LOL.
Would be interesting to compare the bokeh from the EF 50 1.2 with the RF 50 1.2 to my eye the bokeh of all EF Lenses was softer and more creamy the price for the greater sharpness is an more edgy bokeh with mor disturbances so there is missing some smoothness in RF images very difficult I guess I might switch to middle format soon.
I picked it every time, but unless seeing side by side, I guess I'd never think the 1.8 wasn't good enough and the price of the 1.2 was eye opening! Looks like 1.8 for me lol.
Sorry for my English, but i think - all is correctly. I have 50 1.8 RF for Canon RP. And hier i look very little difference between quality 1.2 vs 1.8. But very big price difference. And sometimes you can just make bokeh of 1.8 less sharp in lightroom and after this you will have more strong bokeh, same in 1.2😂😂😂 And i can pay Canon 50 1.2,buuuut. I can't pay for this money higher skill 😂
I can easily see the difference are minor and may not make a difference in many cases unless low light or super bokeh is involve. I agree the low cost and compact f1.8 lens is a great lens. I have both and enjoy the each where the differences matter.
I sold the 50mm 1.2 to buy the 1.8 and bought a ticket to barcelona for a week and enjoy life.... I know to photograph so a lens is less important for me. I love to light weight and that it is small so people less notice it!
Thank you for the comment Johnny! I don’t blame you for that choice at all. The 1.8 lens is fantastic for the price and maybe the best travel prime ever!
Great video, I have 3 L lenses but don't think a 50mm f1.2 will ever be in my kit bag as it's just too expensive and heavy and my 50 f 1.8 does everything I need and I've had several images published using that lens. Sometimes it's a joy to take my R7 and 50 f1.8 out for general shooting just as it's so light compared to carrying an L lens around.
What an amazing video! Definitely, I could make a firm decision to go with 50mm 1.8 for the type of shoot I am planning to do. It's going to be perfect to capture the busy streets of Las Vegas! Thank you, James! This is the first video on your channel I saw and can't wait to watch more of these quality videos and subscribe to the channel.
You should have shot more of this on 1.8 or something like that because i dont think this should be a comparison between what 1.8 and 1.2 looks like, everyone knows there is going to be a difference shooting at a different aperture
Thank you for this video.. I have the 1.8 and was think of upgrading it to the 1.2.. definitely not worth the upgrade.. the Boke of the 1.8 is good enough on its own. And if I want more I can add in post.. extremely easy.. thanks again
Thanks! Kind of confirms my experience with the 1.8. It is way too contrasty (blacks are almost crushed) and combined with that strong magenta/blueish cast it makes portrait editing more time consuming than it should. I have learned my lesson and will go for the 1.2. Now I just need some serious cash 😕
Because of you I bought the R6 instead of the R7, so I guess I should say thank you. :) Obviously, now I'm buying the 50mm 1.8 so I came here to see what you have to say about it.
I'm still using the EF 50mm 1.2 L (w/ adapter) on my R6, but I did end up buying the RF 50mm 1.8 because it's so ridiculously inexpensive and its a great all-around lens when I'm not shooting professionally.
1.2 is ten times more expensive and six time heavier, so unless photography is your profession I would definitely go with the 1.8, and even professionals can easily choose 1.8 over 1.2. The diffrence in sharpness is not _that_ big and people ten to like slightly softer images anyway. Some of the video guys (and photographers) are going to use black mist filter or similar anyways.
yes, the 1.2 is better in every regard, but is it worth to pay 10 times the price and carry all the weight? there will be many situations when people wont even notice the difference. we will see more and more ai in the future - and it wont be a big problem to increase the background blur. the sharpness is better on 1.2 but i think sharpness on 1.8 is good enough for most things, and sometimes people dont want maximum sharpness ^^ i think with luminar ai u already can change background blur - dont know how good the feature is...
I just bought the Canon R50 as my first camera ever. For me after this really helpful video it’s pretty clear to go with the 50mm 1.8 as a beginner. I’m sure that after few years learning and practicing I’ll consider it again. Thank you so much 🙌🏽
The biggest difference I see is the color and that can be corrected in edit, I really don't see a big difference ,maybe the 1.2 a little smother and clarity... If a person is not a professional the should buy cheaper it is still takes a great photo. it might be different with actual photo but that is what I see...I love prime lens or maybe it is in my head they are the best...lol
I plan to switch from my Nikon D850 camera to Canon R5 but I’m so confused to what lenses should I get. With Nikon I use Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8, sigma 35mm f1.4 art and Nikkor 50mm f1.8. Now I don’t know what rf lenses to get. I am thinking rf 70-200 and rf 50 1.8. But I also like 85 1.2 and 50 1.2. What would you suggest?
A two lens option could be RF 28-70 f2 and the RF 70-200 F2.8. You could add the RF 50mm 1.2 in the future for a versatile prime. Prime route could be 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.2 and 85mm 1.2. This is often the kit i will take to every portrait shoot.
Personally, I love the look from the 1.2 but I need to be real and save up for it. I'll have to settle for the 1.8 for now. Hopefully in the future i can get the 1.2. Thanks for the video.
I see a lot of redness in both shots. That's really annoying as my D750 had this as well especially if you shoot portraits in lights eyes can go red fast and its a hassle to retouch... The 1.2 lens is better but still if you look at the back of the knee its really quite red/pink... Saw that before coming from the R5 in your raw files *thanks btw!*. BIG Thanks for your all your reviews, you made me come to a decision I'm gonna go with the canon R and get a the Sigma art 35mm lens ;)
To me, the thing I dislike most about the 1.8 is the color rendering. However, that should be a fairly easy fix in post processing. As nice as the 1.2 lenses are, I just cannot justify the price difference when they are so similar that the majority of people wouldn't know the difference.
