Right now the 1.8 is only $159.99 at Best Buy. Call me weird but I like the contrasts images from the 1.8 much more. Too sharp of a lens shows skin blemishes more, also vignetting and any aberrations can easily be fixed in Lightroom’s lens correction panel.
Wish I could justify the price difference to my wife. I cant, so 1.8 it is... The weight and size is a huge benefit. It goes everywhere with me since it's so small on my r6.
I use my RF 50 1.8 while saving up for the 28-70 2.0! The 1.2 is a hell of a lens though, but I personally wouldn't spend so much money on a prime lens.
Nikkor Z 50mm S, is a cheap lens and sharper than any Canon RF lens. If you use it with a Nikon Z7II, you get the best sharpness and quality you can get for less than a Canon R5 with a 50mm f1.2 RF.
this was super helpful to see the difference between the two lens. I just bought the 1.8 for $150 and I love it so far, can see myself using it a lot especially bc of the small size. I’m thinking long term, I’ll likely upgrade to the 1.2, I like the sharpness and clarity in details.
This is such a great view as I've been considering the 1.8 or upgrading to the 1.2 , As I only photograph my kids and candid shots of my family, The lightweight lens makes a difference and capturing the moment beats missing the moment. I think one day I'll upgrade to the 1.2 but for now I'll stick with the 1.8
Appreciate this review for the broader, er, picture. It is very informative on what to look for comparing any lenses and judging the quality of a lens you already have. Thank you.
I would say 1,8 all the way :-) Both are almost too sharp, 1,8 bokeh more than enough for me, 1,2 too heavy, too expensive. For even more bokeh I would rather take 85 1,8 as the context of background is lost anyway in such wide apertures. The only thing I probably would not like is out of date AF system. I would rather pay 300 for a version with silent internal AF.
Of course the 50 1.2 takes amazing pictures and you'd hope so at that price. For £220 the 50 1.8 is a great little lens, and I know which one I'd want to carry around all day.
Thanks JP. Very clear comparison. The 1.2 is clearly a better lens. But - 10 times better?? Maybe not. That’s why we have the Sigma Art to split the difference! 😀
The only downside are the high amount of problems, festures that are blocked in your camera and other limits. Third party lenses are currently also just EF lenses with an RF mount. That means they mount directly, but behave like an old EF lens including the limits of features available. Sigma lenses are nice. But they come with downsides people should be aware of. Visiting any forum will immediately throw a lot of threads about problems and Limitation of sigma lenses at you. So it’s still Good purchase for the price. But I would recommend reading on your specific lens before making a purchase
Very good comparison. I have the $200 rf and I used my buddy’s f1.2 lens and I thought, wow, I really noticed the difference right off the bat! I really do think they over price their lens, all manufacturers do and wish they lowered the price.
I think you missed one point...you always seemed to shoot using max AP. What about apples to apples 1.8-1.8. Good review but I do like seeing an exact side by side.
Isn't 1.2 more than a whole stop wider than 1.8? In whole stops it goes 1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8.... (each stop is the square root of 2 times the previous stop). So 1.2 to 1.7 is one stop. 1.4 is 2/3 stop faster than 1.8.
You can see a difference for sure, but not a $2K difference. Some more polishing compound on that glass in the factory and get it half way between where it's at now and the 1.2 and charge $800 and you got a perfect lens
That's not the only thing he forgot. What a sad review. A problem with how accessible the ability to blog has become is that you have people with no idea how to review products nonetheless blogging about them...
$2300 vs $200 and I liked the 1.8 better. Yes the 1.2 was tack tack sharp for pixel peepers gut the f1.2 is not $2100 better for slightly better bokeh. Want more bokeh shoot with the 85mm.
I wonder if the sharpness difference wouldn't be so dramatic on a lower MP camera like the RP or R6? It's very unlikely the 50mm 1.8 can resolve anywhere near the 45MP of the R5. That 50mm 1.2 sure is stunning though.
Finally I can see the difference between these two lenses. I have 1.2 and when I saw how cheap and small 1.8 is, I was thinking like "what if I'd use 1.8?" But now I clearly see that 1.2 is truly UNLIMITE lens. I will not switch it even in order to save 2000$
Thanks for the comparison! I would go for the 1.8 because canon refuses to update the old EF 50mm 1.4 to a new RF model and as much as I like my EF 50mm 1.4 I can see how far behind Canon is compared to say a Sigma or other third party lens manufacturers! So if my next camera ends up being a canon mirrorless a 50mm 1.8 also gets purchased!
EF patents has expired. But instead of just paying for RF patents Sigma president had talked about "reverse engineering". No wonder 88 yo Canon CEO who is a lawyer is stopping all third party lens manufacturers from making and selling RF lenses and refusing to license them.
I have to tell you: moving from f/1.8 to f/1.4 increase the light in 2/3 stop; Moving from f/1.8 to f/1.2 increase light 2.25 times, which is a bit more than one f/stop.
I wish you had included image examples with the lenses stopped down. If you need the lens for portraits, then obviously the f1.2 is the better one. Is it the better value lens? Depends of course. Personally I would go with the f1.8. amazing little compact lens, and I'm sure the image quality is much better when stopped down. In general I like the images from this lens better.
Thank you for the video. I believe chromatic aberration comparison would be needed to show where the $2,000 comes from. I have these two lenses and the CA difference is huge, especially at a wide-open aperture.
I don't think it's worth $2000 more. You're paying 10x the price for a hardly noticle difference in normal viewing conditions of photos. 1.8 for me. Then again, if I was loaded with cash I'd want the best of the best lol 😆
For the vignetting on the 1.8, did you run this through lightroom with lens correction enabled? I found I had to do that with my kit lens to get rid of the vignetting.
@@DanielFazzari It wouldn't look cool. Because the RF 50mm f/1.2 is already very sharp. If you apply even more sharpening it will look ugly. So the correct comparison is like @James Gates said. And I'm sure in the end, they would look the same. However, for those who will shoot 99% at f/1.2 and will only have this lens and no other, I think that in this specific case it is worth buying the f/1.2.
What we don’t know is, is the vignettig of the 50mm F1.2 more internal corrected to let it look better ;) . I don’t trust manufactures in this department. What this comparison shows is, that there is a huge need for a 50mm F1.4. I wouldn’t buy a F1.2 because I wouldn’t use it for events etc. It’s to big, to heavy and to dangerous to be stolen. I love those small, lightweight lenses that you don’t have to care and carry a lot. More so I would pay 400-500$ for a better 50mm F1.8 that is still compact and lightweight, with better image quality.
Bonsoir Merci beaucoup il y a une chose que je ne comprend pas j'ai acheté ce Canon Rf que j'ai mis sur mon R5 et j'ai zéro vignettage ? Good evening Thank you very much there is one thing that I do not understand I bought this Canon Rf that I put on my R5 and I have zero vignetting ?
For those asking - I had the rf 1.8 and then got a EF 1.4 and went back to the 1.8 The 1.8 is way faster and way sharper. The ef is clunky compared to the 1.8 - just one man’s opinion. Lol
@@TheSlantedLens Cool - did you look for it, or did you just not notice? Just curious because the Canon 1.8 has significant focus breathing. By comparison the Nikon 50mm 1.2 has very little - almost an irrelevant amount, and the Nikon 50mm 1.8 (a far superior lens to the Canon RF 1.8 - but also somewhat more expensive) has basically no focus breathing. Making a smaller lens may have advantages - but wherever there is a benefit there is a downside - that was obviously the compromise that Canon was willing to make in their 1.8 lens that Nikon did not, but I was curious how the 1.2 Canon faired in this respect. Glad to hear that it is not a problem. Also, a while back you did a comparison of Sony, Canon and Nikon for AF focus acquisition. At the time, you were making some mistakes using the Nikon focusing system which led to a poorer performance from the Nikon than what it actually does do in the real world. That said, admittedly at that time, the Nikon was more behind than it is now. It would be interesting to see the same comparison done today with Nikon firmware 1.2 and using the Nikon properly - from what I can tell, the Nikon is now very close to the others - certainly as good for portraiture and event photography and just about there for tracking, but it would be nice to see a fair comparison. I do want to say thanks for the great videos! I like your channel and the work that you do in spite of my sometimes seemingly argumentative comments - tone through text is hard to achieve as I am sure you know. Again, I do like your channel a lot and the work that you do :) -B
I found that the 50mm f1.8 isn't actually f1.8 'light wise' - it may be actually a f2.2 in terms of light transmission... (tested against Canon RF35mm f1.4L mk2)
there is no RF 35mm F1.4, perhaps you meant EF 35mm F1.4. Good observation. This who need low light ability will buy the F1.2 version. It's an important point. thanks for bringing it up.
Lets not forget that there are people completely infatuatuated with an L lens that adds bulk and girth making setups professional looking. To real money making photographers, sure its worth it to them, but for most people, its not 2k better. Also depending on what you are shooting, you might not want always want to shoot wide open due to something might not be in focus. To each there own.
This RF 50mm f/1.2 lens is only worth it if you're always going to use it at f/1.2 because of the closed environment with low light. I would buy it just for that. I would be 99% using f/1.2. But if I was always using f/2.8 or f/4, I would buy the RF 50mm f/1.8. And for photographers who don't earn money with photography but will only have one camera and one lens for the rest of their lives, and will only shoot at f/1.2 99% of the time, then, in this specific case, it's worth buying this f lens /1.2. For it will be just her for everything.
@@TheSlantedLens I picked up an RF 50mm f1.8 last week. Pretty happy with it. Also have an EF 50mm f1.4 which to me was looking a bit soft on the R5. After watching this I decided I would save for the 28-70 f2 instead of the f1.2 50
Anyone please take a moment to recognize how stunningly beautiful the model is? :D I had difficulties concentrating on the sharpness and the quality of the bokeh, to be very honest! I admire how you people stay on-topic in the comments ;)
Right now the 1.8 is only $159.99 at Best Buy. Call me weird but I like the contrasts images from the 1.8 much more. Too sharp of a lens shows skin blemishes more, also vignetting and any aberrations can easily be fixed in Lightroom’s lens correction panel.
It makes sense if you mostly shoot portraits!
Wish I could justify the price difference to my wife. I cant, so 1.8 it is... The weight and size is a huge benefit. It goes everywhere with me since it's so small on my r6.
That is a good point. And price really does matter!
I use my RF 50 1.8 while saving up for the 28-70 2.0! The 1.2 is a hell of a lens though, but I personally wouldn't spend so much money on a prime lens.
That sounds like a good plan!
Nikkor Z 50mm S, is a cheap lens and sharper than any Canon RF lens. If you use it with a Nikon Z7II, you get the best sharpness and quality you can get for less than a Canon R5 with a 50mm f1.2 RF.
this was super helpful to see the difference between the two lens. I just bought the 1.8 for $150 and I love it so far, can see myself using it a lot especially bc of the small size. I’m thinking long term, I’ll likely upgrade to the 1.2, I like the sharpness and clarity in details.
Great to hear. Glad you found in helpful!
This is such a great view as I've been considering the 1.8 or upgrading to the 1.2 , As I only photograph my kids and candid shots of my family, The lightweight lens makes a difference and capturing the moment beats missing the moment. I think one day I'll upgrade to the 1.2 but for now I'll stick with the 1.8
Sounds like a great plan! Enjoy photographing your family!
Appreciate this review for the broader, er, picture. It is very informative on what to look for comparing any lenses and judging the quality of a lens you already have. Thank you.
Glad it was helpful! Thanks for your feedback!
I love the Slanted Lens vids, but the background music in this 1 is just distracting.
Good to know. Thanks for the feedback.
I would say 1,8 all the way :-) Both are almost too sharp, 1,8 bokeh more than enough for me, 1,2 too heavy, too expensive. For even more bokeh I would rather take 85 1,8 as the context of background is lost anyway in such wide apertures. The only thing I probably would not like is out of date AF system. I would rather pay 300 for a version with silent internal AF.
You make some excellent points!
Of course the 50 1.2 takes amazing pictures and you'd hope so at that price. For £220 the 50 1.8 is a great little lens, and I know which one I'd want to carry around all day.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
I have 'cheap' one, and I am happy with the results, personally. For me, is like playing an Ephiphone E200, because I can't afford the Gibson SJ200.
Thanks! I ordered the 1.2 version and have the 1.8 already. I will keep it for family events and use the 1.2 with customers!
Good choice! Glad you are liking the lenses!
Thanks JP. Very clear comparison. The 1.2 is clearly a better lens. But - 10 times better?? Maybe not. That’s why we have the Sigma Art to split the difference! 😀
Excellent point. Third party manufacturers are often a great choice!
The only downside are the high amount of problems, festures that are blocked in your camera and other limits. Third party lenses are currently also just EF lenses with an RF mount. That means they mount directly, but behave like an old EF lens including the limits of features available. Sigma lenses are nice. But they come with downsides people should be aware of. Visiting any forum will immediately throw a lot of threads about problems and Limitation of sigma lenses at you. So it’s still Good purchase for the price. But I would recommend reading on your specific lens before making a purchase
Very good comparison. I have the $200 rf and I used my buddy’s f1.2 lens and I thought, wow, I really noticed the difference right off the bat! I really do think they over price their lens, all manufacturers do and wish they lowered the price.
That was our take, the F1.2 is definitely a nicer lens, but maybe not worth $2100 more.
very informative thank you
you also showed me the quality of the 1.8 and I think I'm going to get it to start off with, much appreciate the help
It is a great lens at an incredible price. Enjoy your purchase.
I think you missed one point...you always seemed to shoot using max AP. What about apples to apples 1.8-1.8. Good review but I do like seeing an exact side by side.
That's a good point and another approach. Thanks for watching!
Isn't 1.2 more than a whole stop wider than 1.8? In whole stops it goes 1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8.... (each stop is the square root of 2 times the previous stop). So 1.2 to 1.7 is one stop. 1.4 is 2/3 stop faster than 1.8.
That is correct. Thanks for sharing!
You can see a difference for sure, but not a $2K difference. Some more polishing compound on that glass in the factory and get it half way between where it's at now and the 1.2 and charge $800 and you got a perfect lens
That sounds like a great plan!
You forgot about the bit where you close down the aperture to see how they perform.
For good measure you could throw in a EF 50mm F/1.4.
Next time! Thanks for watching!
That's not the only thing he forgot. What a sad review. A problem with how accessible the ability to blog has become is that you have people with no idea how to review products nonetheless blogging about them...
Would’ve been great to see the old ef verions with these
That would be fun. Another time!
$2300 vs $200 and I liked the 1.8 better. Yes the 1.2 was tack tack sharp for pixel peepers gut the f1.2 is not $2100 better for slightly better bokeh. Want more bokeh shoot with the 85mm.
Excellent point. Thanks for sharing!
I wonder if the sharpness difference wouldn't be so dramatic on a lower MP camera like the RP or R6? It's very unlikely the 50mm 1.8 can resolve anywhere near the 45MP of the R5.
That 50mm 1.2 sure is stunning though.
Yeah, that is a terrific lens!
1.8 is better looking for the subject ... doesn't show every flaw. Ladies are not fans of imperfections. Unless your versed in photoshop. 😂
True, some of the really sharp lenses make retouching women's faces very time consuming!
Finally I can see the difference between these two lenses.
I have 1.2 and when I saw how cheap and small 1.8 is, I was thinking like "what if I'd use 1.8?" But now I clearly see that 1.2 is truly UNLIMITE lens.
I will not switch it even in order to save 2000$
Yeah, that 1.2 is super nice.
Canon RF 50mm f/1.2 L USM lens is a L lens.
L means LUXURY.
U just justify your overpriced buy…😅
Thanks for the comparison!
I would go for the 1.8 because canon refuses to update the old EF 50mm 1.4 to a new RF model and as much as I like my EF 50mm 1.4 I can see how far behind Canon is compared to say a Sigma or other third party lens manufacturers!
So if my next camera ends up being a canon mirrorless a 50mm 1.8 also gets purchased!
Good points. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
EF patents has expired. But instead of just paying for RF patents Sigma president had talked about "reverse engineering". No wonder 88 yo Canon CEO who is a lawyer is stopping all third party lens manufacturers from making and selling RF lenses and refusing to license them.
To me a more appropriate comparison would be the 50mm EF 1.2 vs the RF. The EF is half the price.
That's another thought for another time. Thanks for watching!
i'm going for 1.2
I have to tell you: moving from f/1.8 to f/1.4 increase the light in 2/3 stop;
Moving from f/1.8 to f/1.2 increase light 2.25 times, which is a bit more than one f/stop.
Thanks for the math lesson. Gotta love physics!
I wish you had included image examples with the lenses stopped down.
If you need the lens for portraits, then obviously the f1.2 is the better one. Is it the better value lens? Depends of course.
Personally I would go with the f1.8. amazing little compact lens, and I'm sure the image quality is much better when stopped down. In general I like the images from this lens better.
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint!
Thank you for the video. I believe chromatic aberration comparison would be needed to show where the $2,000 comes from. I have these two lenses and the CA difference is huge, especially at a wide-open aperture.
Good to know. Thanks for sharing your knowledge!
I haven't seen hardly any CA in my 50mm 1.8.
@@MrPanthers23 Try shooting high contrast areas at 1.8
Nice video, tnx
With all the chit chat about bodies it is really in the area of lens manufacturing that advancements have been made
True, lenses are huge! Thanks for your comment!
Thank you for comparing.
Our pleasure! Thanks for watching!
What tripod were you using?
Are there also great budget lenses like this which you recommend? 😊
Unfortunately with Canon you have to go with Canon Lenses for the RF mount.
I love you man thanks for this video❤️❤️❤️
You are very welcome! Thanks for your comment!
Thank you so much! Great Job! I would be great if you could review the
Laowa OOOM 25-100mm T2.9 Cine and DZOFilm DZO 20-70mm T2.9
I will add that to our list. Thanks for watching!
Hey, Jay P., where did you get that Flower of Life shirt?
It was purchased at H&M. Thanks for watching!
I don't think it's worth $2000 more. You're paying 10x the price for a hardly noticle difference in normal viewing conditions of photos. 1.8 for me. Then again, if I was loaded with cash I'd want the best of the best lol 😆
How much you pay is something important to consider. But I really see a difference in the lenses.
Just wondering, why did you use a tripod for these shots?
Low light indoors and evening low light.
For the vignetting on the 1.8, did you run this through lightroom with lens correction enabled? I found I had to do that with my kit lens to get rid of the vignetting.
We only processed in raw and didn't change anything so you all could see the results before editing.
Appreciate this video very much. Can you compare a $900 Tamron SP 35 1.4 Di to a $1800 Canon EF 35 1.4 II?
Great suggestion. We will see what we can do.
I thought something the 1.8 was nicer than the 1.2 and sometimes the 1.2 was the nicer one. However the way the 1.2 render detail is great.
Very true. Thanks for your comment!
Take one of the images from the f1.8 lens and run it through Topaz Sharpen AI and see how it compares to the f1.2 lens.
That's an interesting idea. We will have to check that out.
K, then take an image from the 1.2 and do the same...
@@DanielFazzari wow! That would be interesting! I’d like to see that also.
@@DanielFazzari
It wouldn't look cool. Because the RF 50mm f/1.2 is already very sharp. If you apply even more sharpening it will look ugly. So the correct comparison is like @James Gates said. And I'm sure in the end, they would look the same. However, for those who will shoot 99% at f/1.2 and will only have this lens and no other, I think that in this specific case it is worth buying the f/1.2.
I'm not worried about sharpness in f/1.8 at ALL!
Good point. Thanks for watching!
What we don’t know is, is the vignettig of the 50mm F1.2 more internal corrected to let it look better ;) . I don’t trust manufactures in this department.
What this comparison shows is, that there is a huge need for a 50mm F1.4.
I wouldn’t buy a F1.2 because I wouldn’t use it for events etc. It’s to big, to heavy and to dangerous to be stolen.
I love those small, lightweight lenses that you don’t have to care and carry a lot. More so I would pay 400-500$ for a better 50mm F1.8 that is still compact and lightweight, with better image quality.
Great points, especially for event photography. Thanks for sharing!
Bonsoir Merci beaucoup il y a une chose que je ne comprend pas j'ai acheté ce Canon Rf que j'ai mis sur mon R5 et j'ai zéro vignettage ? Good evening Thank you very much there is one thing that I do not understand I bought this Canon Rf that I put on my R5 and I have zero vignetting ?
If it works for you go with it.
For those asking - I had the rf 1.8 and then got a EF 1.4 and went back to the 1.8 The 1.8 is way faster and way sharper. The ef is clunky compared to the 1.8 - just one man’s opinion. Lol
Great to hear your take on it!
Does the 50mm 1.2 focus breath as badly as the 1.8?
I didn't notice the 1.2 having issues with focus breathing.
@@TheSlantedLens Cool - did you look for it, or did you just not notice? Just curious because the Canon 1.8 has significant focus breathing. By comparison the Nikon 50mm 1.2 has very little - almost an irrelevant amount, and the Nikon 50mm 1.8 (a far superior lens to the Canon RF 1.8 - but also somewhat more expensive) has basically no focus breathing.
Making a smaller lens may have advantages - but wherever there is a benefit there is a downside - that was obviously the compromise that Canon was willing to make in their 1.8 lens that Nikon did not, but I was curious how the 1.2 Canon faired in this respect. Glad to hear that it is not a problem.
Also, a while back you did a comparison of Sony, Canon and Nikon for AF focus acquisition. At the time, you were making some mistakes using the Nikon focusing system which led to a poorer performance from the Nikon than what it actually does do in the real world. That said, admittedly at that time, the Nikon was more behind than it is now. It would be interesting to see the same comparison done today with Nikon firmware 1.2 and using the Nikon properly - from what I can tell, the Nikon is now very close to the others - certainly as good for portraiture and event photography and just about there for tracking, but it would be nice to see a fair comparison.
I do want to say thanks for the great videos! I like your channel and the work that you do in spite of my sometimes seemingly argumentative comments - tone through text is hard to achieve as I am sure you know. Again, I do like your channel a lot and the work that you do :)
-B
The funny thing is when i get the R5 one day, i´ll just buy an EF adapter and use my old 1.8.
That is a great solution too.
Actually, the 1.2 is a full stop faster than the 1.8, not 2/3.
That is true. Good eye. Thanks for the note!
Thank you!!!
You're welcome! Thanks for watching!
I found that the 50mm f1.8 isn't actually f1.8 'light wise' - it may be actually a f2.2 in terms of light transmission... (tested against Canon RF35mm f1.4L mk2)
Good to hear. Thanks for sharing your knowledge!
@@TheSlantedLens Very surprising indeed. And I suppose that's why the film industry uses 'T' stops instead of f stops... way more accurate
there is no RF 35mm F1.4, perhaps you meant EF 35mm F1.4. Good observation. This who need low light ability will buy the F1.2 version. It's an important point. thanks for bringing it up.
Can i know your glasses frame???
They are Giorgio Armani Keyhole Frame.
Performance little bit, not Price
Yeah, price is another big thing!
Lets not forget that there are people completely infatuatuated with an L lens that adds bulk and girth making setups professional looking. To real money making photographers, sure its worth it to them, but for most people, its not 2k better. Also depending on what you are shooting, you might not want always want to shoot wide open due to something might not be in focus. To each there own.
That is the beauty of depth of field and choosing what you want to be in focus!
This RF 50mm f/1.2 lens is only worth it if you're always going to use it at f/1.2 because of the closed environment with low light. I would buy it just for that. I would be 99% using f/1.2. But if I was always using f/2.8 or f/4, I would buy the RF 50mm f/1.8. And for photographers who don't earn money with photography but will only have one camera and one lens for the rest of their lives, and will only shoot at f/1.2 99% of the time, then, in this specific case, it's worth buying this f lens /1.2. For it will be just her for everything.
Just bought EF 50 for £80... good deal
Yeah, that's a good deal. Enjoy shooting with it!
Hmm I preferred the 1.8 images 🙈
That's interesting. It comes down to personal preference.
I actually like the 1.8 more in a lot of these shots.
You are not alone in that. Others have made the same comment!
@@TheSlantedLens I picked up an RF 50mm f1.8 last week. Pretty happy with it. Also have an EF 50mm f1.4 which to me was looking a bit soft on the R5. After watching this I decided I would save for the 28-70 f2 instead of the f1.2 50
You said both are $200 0:12
I said one was $200 and the other was $2200.
Still 1.2 could not justify it's 10 times higher price point. This lens is surely overpriced.
That is a hefty price difference!
Great UA-cam as usual nice :)
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for watching!
50mm f/1.8 performs much better starting at f/2.8.
Good point. Thanks for sharing!
as always, the L beats the nifty fifty... it boils down to what one can afford .... thanks for the review
Very true. Thanks for watching!
What a name :)
Yep, blame my parents. Thanks for watching!
I thought JP Morgan went down with the Titanic!
😆I'm not that old! Hope you enjoyed the video!
1.8 looks much better on my TV
That is crazy that the less expensive one looks better to you.
Anyone please take a moment to recognize how stunningly beautiful the model is? :D
I had difficulties concentrating on the sharpness and the quality of the bokeh, to be very honest!
I admire how you people stay on-topic in the comments ;)
Hope you learned a thing or two despite the distraction!
@@TheSlantedLens I definitely did, thanks a lot for your work!