Canon EF 50 1.2 vs RF 50 1.2

Hey everybody.
Does anyone have experience with both? if so, what were your conclusions?
I seem to understand that the RF is better in every possible single way, bar slow focussing perhaps.

However, it's considerably a lot of $$$ more, not sure the upgrade is worth it.

Maybe not so obvious, but I own the Canon RF 50 1.2.
Recently upgrade to R5 from MK IV.

On the R5 at 1.2 the camera struggles like hell with focussing... it's hunting forever.
And the autofocussing on this camera was touted like world class.

Was the lens OK with your mkIV, or did it struggle to AF on that body as well?

I've had both, still own the RF 50 F/1.2L.

The EF version I really loved a lot. I was lucky at the time I got it, because I could test quite a few to pick the best specimen out of a total of eight, and ended with the one that had barely any focus shift. I did get it tweaked by Canon support as well, with extensive instructions, and a few back and forths on the day, as I delivered it personally and had a few lenses recalibrated. After that it was perfect, and I loved it, one of my favourite lenses.

It performed very well on my EOS R as well, so I was hesitant to potentially replace it with the RF version, and held on to it for a while. However, I found I never used it anymore, so I traded it in when getting my next lens. There just is no comparison between the two, the Rf is really way better. At F1.2 it is sharp from corner to corner, you really needed about F/3.5 with the EF version to achieve a similar level of sharpness. In addition the transition from OOF areas both in front and the back of the focus plane is even better than with the EF, and that says something. Overall it is way sharper than the EF as well, and an F/1.2 image with the Rf feels like an F/2.8 or even F/3.5 image with the EF, the RF surpasses basically teh EF at all levels.

As to AF, I have never had any problems at all, unlike cicciobuccio, so no idea what is causing his problem. Neither have I ever heard of anybody with focusing problems with the Rf 50 F/1.2L. Very strange. You'd expect that with the EF 50, yes, because of the potential focus shift at F/2.8, but the RF does not have this problem at all.

Anyway, I love the lens and its IQ.

HTH, kind regards, WIm

I seem to recall it was not hunting for focus as much as the R5.
On the R5, it's borderline unusable in terms of focus at 1.2.. it just won't stop hunting

wow, I didn't know there could be such a great variance among samples. I thought Canon QC would have been much better.
I thought about re-calibration, but as I am in Thailand right now... I don't simply trust their level of professionalism.

It's all pretty "random" in this part of the world...

I am glad to learn that the RF version would boast a much better IQ.
What about color rendition though? Too clinical like most modern lenses?

cicciobuccio wrote in post #19534580
wow, I didn't know there could be such a great variance among samples. I thought Canon QC would have been much better.
I thought about re-calibration, but as I am in Thailand right now... I don't simply trust their level of professionalism.

It's all pretty "random" in this part of the world...

That was in the very early days of the EF 50 F/1.2L.

The problem really was focus shift at F/2.8. From F1.2 to F2.5 no problem, from F/3.5 and smaller apertures neither. This of course had to do with the algorithms programmed in for AF, where full open focus and closed down to F/2.8 was not in sync. It was clear to me that Canon hadn't figured out (yet) how to deal with it. When I handed it in for calibration, I indicated exactly what it did and what was wrong, although mine was just fine, really, a really minor focus shift that was handled by DoF anyway. I actually was called in by a technician to show him exactly what I meant, and they got it exactly right for me.

Despite the focus shift, over here it was a very popular lens amongst professional photographers, a.o. for weddings etc. they loved it for the way it rendered.

BTW, my 24L had slight problems too, and my 85L II also had s slight focus shift. They fixed both for me back then as well. There always is a difference when it comes to AF when the focusing mechanism isn't really part of the imaging system itself, liek with any dslr. That problem really only was solved with the advent of mirrorless cameras, with the focusing elements baked into the sensor.

The only reason I had my lenses recalibrated, is because I happen to eb a perfectionist. Regardless, lenses should be recalibrated every so often anyway.

Kind regards, Wim

P.S.: Never had to have my RF lenses (re)calibrated, and neither was that necessary for any of my EF lenses used with adapter on my EOS R. Focus is always spot on, unless I make an error myself.

cicciobuccio wrote in post #19534581
I am glad to learn that the RF version would boast a much better IQ.
What about color rendition though? Too clinical like most modern lenses?

No, absolutely not.

Colour rendition is like all Canon L-lenses, EF and RF alike, and which I love. It is the reason why I like Olympus as well - my small carry-kit if I can't bring FF for whatever reason. Colour rendition of the Oly lenses is very similar to Canons L-lenses.

I have noticed, BTW, that the RF non-Ls get very close as well regarding colour rendition, whereas the older, EF non-L lenses often did not.

I've shot Pentax in the past, pre-digital, and one thing I never liked too much was the colour rendition. Too cool for my liking. Since I mostly shot b&w back then, it didn't really matter, though. It is one of the reasons why I went with Canon rather than with Nikon 20 years ago, when I switched to digital.

Kind regards, Wim

cicciobuccio wrote in post #19534579
I seem to recall it was not hunting for focus as much as the R5.
On the R5, it's borderline unusable in terms of focus at 1.2.. it just won't stop hunting

That is really weird, and should not happen.

I think you should have both it and the camera checked. I see no reason why the combination should give you any problems at all.

BTW, you have not set the focus limiter on the lens to the 0.8 m to infinity range by any chance?
If you did, anything closer will make the lens hunt indeed.

HTH, kind regards, WIm

I didn't liked R/RF. Never feel it to be as simple and robust as EF.
50L RF is perfect example. Humongous and way too overpriced.

50L EF was just awesome, except super cheap design. Where entire front is connected to the lens block... via sticky gasket.
Not a lens for intensive use over years. Canon service wasn't able to repair it to factory tolerance.

I owned the EF 50 1.2 for about a year and used it on the 5D3. I used it for a few weddings and some family portrait sessions, but it was not my favorite 50mm. The focus shift really bothered me when shooting anything besides individual portraits. If I was shooting groups of 3+ people, or any kind of moving subject, I needed to go to f/2.8 or higher, which got me into the focus shift territory. Not to mention is you plan to use the lens for general purposes which will surely have you above the f/2.8 aperture more regularly. Besides that, f/1.2 was a double-edged sword in low light due to the hunting AF. I always felt I needed to go up to at least 1.8 to get a good keeper rate in regards to in-focus shots.

Last year I rented the RF50 1.2 for a week and used it on the R5. No focus shift, very minimal focus hunting in low light (about what I would expect when shooting any lens at f/1.2), and all-around better image quality at 100% crops. With that said, I honestly wouldn't base much of your decision on image quality. IMO, long ago we've reached a point where just about every high-end lens is good enough and/or far exceeds the image quality that even most professionals require. Without looking at 100% crops, I doubt most experienced photographers can consistently tell a difference between the EF vs RF 50 1.2, and I highly doubt a client would do any better.

Overall, if you want the best of the best 50mm attached to your RF body, get the RF 1.2 without hesitation. If you just want a fast 50mm prime, the RF50 1.8 is something you should strongly consider. Alternatively, you could look at the older Sigma ART 50 1.4, although you will need the EF-RF adapter ring. That lens is a great middle ground between the RF 50 1.8 and the RF 50 1.2.

side note...this is personal preference, but if I were to spend $2k+ on a fast prime lens, it wouldn't be a 50mm. I'd be looking at the RF 85 1.2 or RF 135 1.8. Those are going to give you some unique creative possibilities due to the shallow depth of field they can achieve at those focal lengths.

kf095 wrote in post #19535031
I didn't liked R/RF. Never feel it to be as simple and robust as EF.
50L RF is perfect example. Humongous and way too overpriced.

50L EF was just awesome, except super cheap design. Where entire front is connected to the lens block... via sticky gasket.
Not a lens for intensive use over years. Canon service wasn't able to repair it to factory tolerance.

I feel the same way as you about some of the RF lenses versus most of the EF L lenses, although I enjoy using the RF 100-500 I have. But one thing I dislike about some of the RF lenses like the RF 16mm and 50mm is that they lack an AF/M switch on the barrel, so in order to switch the lens to manual focus one must go through the menu.

Ahhh, the EF 50L... my absolute favorite lens for years, despite its many foibles (soft rendering, CA, and the specter of focus shift always looming, which never really ever bothered me). That lens under the right conditions was able to make images that just sang. It harkens back to the era before this nonsensical "Sony" clinical perfection arms race started, when the designers made lenses for how the image rendered instead of winning test chart competitions. The EF 35 f/1.4L, 85L II and 135L come from that same generation. Classics.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ia6v​Li