Thanks Jessica. Right out of the gate I think I actually prefer the old EF due to the slightly lower contrast and - imo - better rendition. I understand they wanted to give the RF a nice warm tone but to me it moves a bit into the yellow zone which I don't like. Nothing that can't be corrected in post though, just an observation. Of course, in all other departments the RF wins hands down.
Caution: RF 50 1.2L is weather resistant only under the condition that a protection front filter is installed, as it is an external focussing lens. EF 50 1.2L is internal focussing, thus weather resitant even without protection filter. That said, the RF 50 1.2L is one of my favourite Canon lenses, perfect for capturing evening events. It's almost free of longitudinal CAs, and tag sharp corner to corner from 1.2 on.
The best buys these days, if you can handle manual focus, are Zeiss Classics. I have this year, in the UK, bought mint s/h 35mm f1.4 & 85mm f1.4 for the equivalent of around $550 each, a fraction of their original prices. The Canon mount adaptor with a control ring is worth the extra cost.
Except for business reasons the rf aren’t worth the price difference , have a 2000d and upgraded to an r7 and the ef lenses with the original canon adapter are so sharp that you can only see a difference in max zoom (quite unrealistic) and that a 1000$ more expensive lens is better should be a given , i am honestly impressed how lousy tiny the improvement is for the added price . Have the nifty fifty and could use a 50mm 1.2l at 2500 € , passed it into an image compare program and got 89% of the quality of the 1,2 l for the nifty. Visually you need to zoom in a lot or use a magnifying glass to see a difference , so 2200 vs 135 € only result in such small improvements isnt worth it unless you make 30m billboards for publicity , then its also usually the company who buys the equipment for tax reasons. So if you need it professionally get the L lenses ,for amateur and improved amateur the non L ones are very good too. I speak about canon lenses , third party is a complete other world where you can have great for less or not.
I love Canon gear, but they really have no qualms about dropping their loyal customers in the sht. They did the same when they switched over to the EF mount. The ethos of mirrorless is smaller and lighter, I guess Canon didn't get the memo.
The RF seems to narrow the images by a hair and thus the model seems a tad slimmer and she seems to stand up just a little straighter than she does in the EF.
Thanks for this! I went from a 5d iii to an R6, and I now own the RF 50 1.8 & RF 85 f2 lenses, but I’m not in love with them like I was with some of my old EF L glass. Need a good 50 & 85 to pair with my R6. I use an adapted EF 135mm when I have the room, and that lens works great! I wish Canon would toss out some decent RF 1.4 lenses in a 50 & 85 for us mid-tier folks.
@@winterlynstebner3002 I use this lens both inside and out. You can raise the ISO on the R6 without worrying too much about noise that looks unappealing. At least in my opinion. I think the EF 135 is GREAT!
I got the Sigma Art 50 1.4 for my R6 Mark II. It was 1/3 of the price of the RF 50 1.2 and it's just as sharp (did lots of comparisons). Also the Sigma focuses 2x faster than the native RF lens which was a shocker. And the Sigma has a 7 year warranty in Canada vs only 1 year for the Canon. AND the Sigma lens is smaller/lighter. I can't see any difference in bokeh from 1.2 to 1.4 either.
Thank you for this video, ive been wanting to know the difference. In the closeups, RF looked really sharp, but I agree with you that everything depends on the kind of shoot we do
Lenses getting smaller for mirrorless is mainly true for wide angle lenses - while almost all telephoto designs got a tad longer with the RF mount, to compensate for the reduced flange-to-sensor distance. Add some more lens elements to reduce longitudinal CAs (which were horrific on the EF 1.2 primes), and the weight increase comes on top...
I came to this video looking for the answer of this question. I think the crop of the model’s eye says it all, the mirrorless lens in this case simply has better resolution and sharpness by orders of magnitude. One interesting exception here is sigma 85/1.4 dg dn art which has roughly the same image quality as its dslr counterpart but is much smaller. It does bring some distorsion but I’m fine with that, I wish more mirrorless lenses opted for small size.
View the photos closer up here: www.jessicawhitaker.co/blog/canon-rf-ef-lens-comparison
Thanks Jessica. Right out of the gate I think I actually prefer the old EF due to the slightly lower contrast and - imo - better rendition. I understand they wanted to give the RF a nice warm tone but to me it moves a bit into the yellow zone which I don't like. Nothing that can't be corrected in post though, just an observation. Of course, in all other departments the RF wins hands down.
Caution: RF 50 1.2L is weather resistant only under the condition that a protection front filter is installed, as it is an external focussing lens. EF 50 1.2L is internal focussing, thus weather resitant even without protection filter. That said, the RF 50 1.2L is one of my favourite Canon lenses, perfect for capturing evening events. It's almost free of longitudinal CAs, and tag sharp corner to corner from 1.2 on.
I’m thinking of buying for weddings or waiting on the 35 1.2 to come
The best buys these days, if you can handle manual focus, are Zeiss Classics. I have this year, in the UK, bought mint s/h 35mm f1.4 & 85mm f1.4 for the equivalent of around $550 each, a fraction of their original prices. The Canon mount adaptor with a control ring is worth the extra cost.
Except for business reasons the rf aren’t worth the price difference , have a 2000d and upgraded to an r7 and the ef lenses with the original canon adapter are so sharp that you can only see a difference in max zoom (quite unrealistic) and that a 1000$ more expensive lens is better should be a given , i am honestly impressed how lousy tiny the improvement is for the added price .
Have the nifty fifty and could use a 50mm 1.2l at 2500 € , passed it into an image compare program and got 89% of the quality of the 1,2 l for the nifty.
Visually you need to zoom in a lot or use a magnifying glass to see a difference , so 2200 vs 135 € only result in such small improvements isnt worth it unless you make 30m billboards for publicity , then its also usually the company who buys the equipment for tax reasons.
So if you need it professionally get the L lenses ,for amateur and improved amateur the non L ones are very good too.
I speak about canon lenses , third party is a complete other world where you can have great for less or not.
The RF 1.2 50mm is he greatest night photography lens I have ever used. But if you get a gray market new RF version then you can get it for under 1600
I love Canon gear, but they really have no qualms about dropping their loyal customers in the sht. They did the same when they switched over to the EF mount. The ethos of mirrorless is smaller and lighter, I guess Canon didn't get the memo.
The RF seems to narrow the images by a hair and thus the model seems a tad slimmer and she seems to stand up just a little straighter than she does in the EF.
Thanks for this! I went from a 5d iii to an R6, and I now own the RF 50 1.8 & RF 85 f2 lenses, but I’m not in love with them like I was with some of my old EF L glass. Need a good 50 & 85 to pair with my R6. I use an adapted EF 135mm when I have the room, and that lens works great! I wish Canon would toss out some decent RF 1.4 lenses in a 50 & 85 for us mid-tier folks.
How did the 135 perform in low light on the R6? I mostly want one for low-light church ceremonies and Reception Speeches etc.
@@winterlynstebner3002 I use this lens both inside and out. You can raise the ISO on the R6 without worrying too much about noise that looks unappealing. At least in my opinion. I think the EF 135 is GREAT!
I got the Sigma Art 50 1.4 for my R6 Mark II. It was 1/3 of the price of the RF 50 1.2 and it's just as sharp (did lots of comparisons). Also the Sigma focuses 2x faster than the native RF lens which was a shocker. And the Sigma has a 7 year warranty in Canada vs only 1 year for the Canon. AND the Sigma lens is smaller/lighter. I can't see any difference in bokeh from 1.2 to 1.4 either.
Thank you Jessica for the helpful and informative comparison video! God bless, good luck and keep creating!
Thank you for this video, ive been wanting to know the difference. In the closeups, RF looked really sharp, but I agree with you that everything depends on the kind of shoot we do
when you said, " side by side comparision'' and raised one eye brow at a time was a super power! great video.
Thank you so much. well explained.
Why is the mirrorless lens bigger and more expensive?? I thought it was supposed to be the opposite of that...
Lenses getting smaller for mirrorless is mainly true for wide angle lenses - while almost all telephoto designs got a tad longer with the RF mount, to compensate for the reduced flange-to-sensor distance. Add some more lens elements to reduce longitudinal CAs (which were horrific on the EF 1.2 primes), and the weight increase comes on top...
I came to this video looking for the answer of this question. I think the crop of the model’s eye says it all, the mirrorless lens in this case simply has better resolution and sharpness by orders of magnitude. One interesting exception here is sigma 85/1.4 dg dn art which has roughly the same image quality as its dslr counterpart but is much smaller. It does bring some distorsion but I’m fine with that, I wish more mirrorless lenses opted for small size.
Exactly this, the size of these new lenses is ludicrous
@@EmilWall You can soften a sharp lens (e.g. with Tiffen Black Satin), but you can't, really, sharpen a soft lens.