I have the R, and the RF50 and RF24-105. If you think the RF50 is expensive, you may not understand what you're getting. It is something like 3x sharper linearly, meaning 10x sharper area-wise, than any of the EF50mm lenses, and is potentially the sharpest normal lens ever (a claim also made by the 55mm Otus and 50mm APO-Summicron, which are significantly smaller apertures). I've made my own lens charts that show in practice the RF50 in the corners look nearly ideal black and white stripes at 40lp/mm while the EF50 1.2, 1.4, and 1.8 are simply greyish mush.
The main competition for this lens is any Canon 70-200 f2.8. This lens (the 1.8) is amazing and great and unique, but the 70-200 f2.8 available for as little as $750 used are also pretty damn good. Maybe a little less bokeh, but a little sharper, especially into the VII and III IS models. And 1/3 of the weight.
@@nostalium You're right, there is no comparison done in this video! Those are very pretty photos. here is an actual side by side: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qoIBEqBzre4.html You can see it's hard to tell the difference, and I've owned and shot both lenses. The 70-200 F2.8 III I have now is a far better lens, as the 200mm 1.8 is just too large and heavy, and not as sharp, and has no IS. The boke is a little better, but does not overcome the shortcomings.
U got that right, I’m a camera technician and have seen this once in the shop, disassembling it without spare parts was nerve wracking to say the least...
These guys have a MUCH higher information density than kai, tho. Kai is hilarious and a great entertainer, but the info is sometimes lacking :( love both of them tho
Bought one of those a few years back; an early specimen manufactured in May 89. Kept it for almost two years before selling it. Three things to note in this, that were not mentioned in the video: 1- There is an FD version of this lens introduced in 1989, IIRC, though few of those were made. 2- This lens uses focus by wire. Probably the first SLR lens to do so. There is no mechanical link between the focus ring and focus group. When not mounted to a body, or when there is no battery in the body, you can rotate the focus ring as much as you want and the auto focus will not move. 3- Canon stopped repairing this lens in 2009 or so, as they run out of spare parts. So, if anything goes wrong with any element of the autofocus system (USM motor, encoders, electronics, etc), it becomes a very expensive paperweight, as it will be impossible to focus it, even in MF mode. This was the reason why I sold mine.
I rented this lens several times in 2002-2004. I regularly saw it at basketball games back then too. It's great because a 1.4X converter turns it into a lens that is slightly faster than a 300mm f2.8.
I had opportunity to shoot a college hockey game with one of these things. Unreal lens...in hockey arena lighting you can freeze the puck mid air at 400 ISO. Couldn't believe it. Mind blowing glass!
Ah, I know a guy with the f/2.0 IS little brother and you could literally take a photo of a model on a beach full of trash, and the lens would turn it into lovely little bokeh.
As a lucky owner of the 200 f2 IS I can confirm that it is a better lens than the 1.8 but at the used price the 1.8 is well worth buying if one is available. Talking about the f2 200 - it is as good as an Otus (I own the 55mm Otus and am a past owner of the 85 so can compare) In fact the 200 is very similar to an Otus in that the sharpness extends into the corners and is nearly perfect wide open. It is the sharpest lens Canon makes, with only the 300mm f2.8 coming close to it in terms of sharpness. At 200mm the IS is both brilliant and necessary. The only downside is the razor thin depth of the focus zone. Because of the thinness of the in focus area going to 1.8 from f2 is not really a benefit as it just makes it harder to get the shot in perfect focus. It benefits from good technique and experience to get the most out of it, but it is one of that rare breed of lenses that can give you goosebumps from the results. Cheaper lenses are used by everyone and so it is hard to make your work stand out but shooting the 200 f1.8 or f2 can create images that really stand out. When I die, they can bury me with my 200 in my hands. That way I can go out happy.
With mirrorless camera era there are quite the options to achieve these results with a lenses that are under 200$. There are quite a lot projector lenses which have 150mm focal lengths and bright apertures, currently own 120mm 1.8, 140mm 1.8f and even 180mm 2f each of them cost me less than 150$. Of curse they cant compare to this lens in sharpness, CA and other categories, but they still give good sharpness and beautiful bokeh, good for portraits :)
I've owned one since mid 90s. It's heavy for certain but it's every bit the special lens described above. It was primarily used to document kids activities on a dimly lit stage and outdoor soccer field. DOF is spectacular. I don't use it as much anymore but can't part with a legend.
$3500 seems pretty fair, but as much as I love the nostalgia of the 1.8, the reliability, weight savings, and repairability of the current f2L make it a better investment. Considering you can find good used copies for around $4K, I'd probably do that... But damn, I want one of these!
Awesome review. I envy an owner who has 2. I am happy with owing one. The pinnacle of Canon lens technology. What is more scarce is the FD mount version.
@@eyeeyeoh Yup, in the 1950's lol They also made a super scarce 300mm F1.8 for FD mount cameras in the early 1970's. I was talking about EF mount lenses:) They made some insane TV/Cine lenses in the old days too.
@@NebulousFilms Notably some of the largest focal length mirror lenses such as the 5200mm F14 which was commonly used on cine cameras though also stills, there was a 50mm F0.95 tv lens as well. The vintage TV broadcast box lenses are some of the craziest zooms too (9.3-930mm F1.7 IS in B4 mount for example). I don't have a complete list as there is not a ton of info online about them without a lot of digging. More industrial but I also class the Canon XI lenses under tv/cine in my mind (50mm F0.75, 65mm F0.75, 65mm F1.0, 90mm F1.0 among others in the line)
I want my hands on a discontinued in 2001 EF 50 f1.0. Even tho it's more expensive than f1.2, It's not the sharpest, has chromatic aberration, and other stuff, but images you can get from f1.0 are just the sickest. Canon's glass is the best.
I've owned and shot with this Lens. Is OK. The main competition for this lens is any Canon 70-200 f2.8. This lens (the 1.8) is amazing and great and unique, but the 70-200 f2.8 available for as little as $750 used are also pretty damn good. Maybe a little less bokeh, but a little sharper, especially into the VII and III IS models. And 1/3 of the weight.
An almost intimidating lens, very respectable, as so is your presentation too! Excellent presentation and well articulated. Kudos for introducing us to these rare pieces of glass!
first i see this video it was surprise, i thought the host is Kai W and review at other country like hong kong or else but actually at my country and has this legend lens!! that dude for making this video..
Unless you compare it side by side with a modern 70-200. when you do such as this video: @zre4 the subtle difference does not seem worth the price, weight, soft image.
I'd suggest the RF50mm f/1.2 as a candidate for your show. I'm an owner, and have compared to my EF50s (1.2, 1.4, 1.8) and it's so much sharper that even to compare seems unfair. I think the limit of seeing its sharpness, even wide-open and in the corners, is the sensor, not the lens. That combines with better bokeh than the Leica Noctilux (less of a swirl effect because there's less mechanical vignetting/eclipsing) and extremely fast AF. I hate the size and price but other than that, it's perfect.
i used it for 20year´s in my job as a Pro Photographer ,,sad to say it started to dust up inside the len´s ..the new 200mm f2 is just as good glad to say!
I know that Alexandre Deschaumes has used this for astro-landscapes and tele-panoramas. He actually carried it around in the high mountains of the Alps. :D
its a great lens for what it was but now its a collectors item,i can get same of much better results with my sony a1 with 135mm f1.8 lens super fst autofocus ect. nice lens to have in my collection
Would love to have this converted to a 4.73 inch f/1.8 Astrograph imaging telescope for asteroid hunting using full frame cooled monochrome cmos imaging system...
Not really. The longer the focal, the more extension you need and more light you loose. And because od it's size it is possibile that the sharpening point will be behind front element (not in front od it) so focusing would not be possibile at all. And theoretically 200mm 1.8 macro 1:1 depth od Field would be non existing ;)
You'd be better off with the 180 f4 macro they make. 200 can be a very useful focal length because of the working distance you get (especially for skittish animals like amphibians and reptiles). The 180 gives you 1:1 without needing extension tubes.
@@LuLeBe oh, I get it, I think, but wouldn't the remaining crop be 1.3? Because, X * 1.5 = x * 3/2 (cropping for apsc) X * 2 = x* 3/2 * 4/3 ( going from APS-C to m4/3). Right?
Jake Van Bueren they don’t have it yet at lense library but I’ve try the 400mm canon mounted on the A7riii that is also very impressive (and expensive 😅)
Fantastic review. I would like to know just what goes into the pricing of lenses, they all seems overpriced. I cant quite understand why a lenses cost more than say modern computers or refrigerators.
Imagine the care it takes to grind a bit of glass to the tolerances required for the subtle curvature of a contact lens. Now scale up the surface area of that glass to the size you see here. Now there are 12 elements, so grind all 24 surfaces to those standards. Okay, now include all the other motors, weather sealing, electronics, and other hardware which will move these elements over the course of decades.
@@ed_halley don't forget the years of r&d money and special expensive elements like ed glass, aspherical design and the more expensive than gold zeiss ones that go into one as well
Hi ZY, probably you can do one for the Loxia since their price is even higher than the Batis although MF and slower aperture :) Available in Lens Library too!
I would like to add some information also to ZY Productions. Canon once made the world's fastest EF limited ATG (3) production lenses. 1. First, on drawing table aka, A.L (ATG's "A"wesome "L"enses with gold trim line), then changed to "L" with red 2. Large diameter with better eltro contacts for AF & Aperture 3. EF50/1.0, EF200/1.8 and 1200/5.6 (the rarest AF monster lenses) Two were discontinued/complied with USA. 1200/5.6 was made only in amount of 69, but less were passed in under 46. For the records based on ATG of the 1200: The first working production was FD mount ATG changed/modified FD to EF to becomes AF (42mm to fused 44mm FFD) ATG has 3 Canon has unknown amount Carl Zeiss has 1 Herman Schreiber had 3 James Jannard has 2 Leica has 1 Sports Illustrated has 2 MPB Photographic had 1 CIA has 1 USA Special Forces have minimum of 2 Ruler in Asia has 1 ZY Productions has zero
