Canon 50mm f1.2 R Review: AMAZING, but one BIG problem...

[@AllgoodthingsTv]

I've watched all of the big KZbinr's reviews of this lens and this is definitely one of the better ones (along with the Christopher Frost review)... I recently compared this lens to the RF 28-70mm f/2. The 28-70mm has a different character - it is more contrasty and you can shoot at a considerably closer distance (39 cm), which allows you to get more unique angles. But at 50mm at f/2 there is no doubt this lens is sharper and gives far better bokeh. I agonized over buying this 50mm lens because it's so expensive, but I was shooting in a Peerspace that was quite small and I couldn't get the subject/background separation I wanted with the 28-70mm f/2 wide open. This lens is worth the $$ - very unique rendering. As Tony says, you may not see it explicitly, but you can *feel* it in the images.

[@DennisKapatos]

Sorry Tony but that 50mm f/1.4 that you're comparing is not "a fantastic lens", it came out... 25 years ago! Of course it sucks compared to modern lenses. Then you compare it to zooms (which is about as apples and oranges as you can get), a crop sensor lens that isn't close to the same field of view, and nothing else??? Sorry but this review is not up to your usual level of quality and completeness. Why wouldn't you compare it to a modern modern full frame 50mm f/1.4 like Sony's or Sigma's? Sony's resolves 41 perceptual megapixels on the A7Rii according to DxO Mark (which is 97% acuity), Sigma's resolves 40 (95% acuity), Sony's 55 f/1.8 does 40 (95% acuity), and that POS 25 year old Canon only resolves 22 perceptual megapixels on the 5DSR (44% acuity). I know this is a bit tough, but you can't claim this lens produces images that no other lens can without comparing it to it's competition. A f/1.2 lens like this BEGS to be compared to a modern f/1.4 to see what the VERY slightly larger aperture (and MASSIVELY higher price) actually does for you in terms of bokeh but it's not shown here. I still think you're one of the best on KZbin, but this looks bad and I can't blame people for complaining because the optics of this video are not good.

[@jonathankelly5997]

They have overa million subs - it seems more about getting out another vid out than being accurate or on point...

[@reng6688]

+Dennis Kapatos - I agree with everything you said here; however, all KZbinrs need viewers. By revealing the truth too much, fanboys are going to drop their subscriptions on this channel....:)

[@robwhitmore3040]

Yeah, I own that lens and the cheaper 1.8. I haven't touched the 1.4 since I got the 1.8 because its so soft wide open that I stop it down narrower than my zooms when I use it. If my 1.8 broke, I'd take my 40mm pancake over the 50 1.4

[@changleon7441]

That Ef 1.4 is garbage.... it doesn’t live up to today’s standards, even the focusing motor is not fast enough

[@shibui2466]

You guys love to criticize...

[@djole02]

The 50 mm "NORMAL" FOV comes from the fact that when you look through the viewfinder with a 50 mm lens, there is no difference in object size compared to looking with the naked eye. You can try this by looking with one eye normally and with the other eye through the viewfinder. Just keep in mind that most lenses have some focus breathing so the actual FOV might not be exactly 50 mm...

[@henryD9363]

That's because viewfinder magnification is designed for 50 mm so that the magnification through the viewfinder is the same as viewing with your unaided eye: 1.0X. There's nothing magic about 50 mm, it's a design choice. The viewfinder's magnification could have been set for, say, 35 mm. This choice goes back to film SLRs. Of course, 50 mm is a good all-around focal length.

[@djole02]

@Mister Man Yes, my mistake.

[@okaro6595]

Not so. From 5D MK IV specs: Viewfinder magnification 0.71x. It is measured with 50 mm. So it is 70 mm on which the image size is same. 50 mm was normal even in the rangefinder era and these did not change the magnification based on lens. Instead the viewfinder had markings for different focal lengths. Leica 1 from 1927 with 50 mm f/3.5 lens upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/LEI0060_186_Leica_I_Sn.5193_1927_Originalzustand_Front-2_FS-15.jpg I think the 50 mm was pretty arbitrary choice. One can argue on what the normal exactly is. It is somewhere between 30 and 70 mm.

[@okaro6595]

Viewfinder magnification is close to 1 only on crop cameras like EOS 7D Mark II. That is because viewfinder magnification is measured with a 50 mm lens regardless of the sensor size. However, on crop 50 mm is not the normal. In practice the viewfinder image on 7D Mark II is smaller than on 5D Mark II when one uses same equivalent focal length.

[@Hubieee]

@@henryD9363 na, not true exactly I would say. E.g if you would design it for 200 mm and keep the magnification to scale you would mostly see blackness inside the viewfinder, in contrast with wide angle lenses you would cut off parts of the image…

[@mallred4347]

Tony, Tony, Tony shouldn't we be comparing this lens to similarly priced 50's? This lens should be up against the Zeiss Otus or at least Milvus. I'm not sure why we're putting it up against a lens that costs 10% of what the RF lens costs...

[@axiom6947]

Zeiss Otus has not AF. Tony compare it to similar lens.

[@mallred4347]

Axiom - We're talking about Optical performance here. Who cares about AF??? Geraint & Julio - I'm talking about the $300 50MM Canon lens when I refer to the lens that only costs 10% of what the RF Lens costs. I know this math is bad - it's closer to 15%, but 10% sounds better in the post.

[@architagarwal256]

@@josecolon8143 lol. 10th of something and 10 percent of something is the same. You are joking right? Also, regardless it's an exaggeration so it hardly matters.

[@AllCarsUnited]

I laughed when he compared it to the 50 mm 1.4 300 dollar lense when there's a superior EF canon 50mm 1.2

[@QuietOC]

It would be interesting to see it compared with the EF 50mm F1.2 L USM and perhaps the EF 50mm F1 L USM.

[@kenshinzu_]

Maybe you should compare with the Canon EF 50mm 1.2L too :)

[@DrewPera]

A comparison with a 5D mkIV and an EF 50mm f/1.2 would be a good one.

[@FarizTGK]

This is sharper edge to edge, and looks very "robotic & digital" ,Jared Polin's words. The ef is more natural and has vigenetting. Dslr vs mirrorless, u know the debate. Note, I have NOT used either of these lenses or cameras this is just my knowledge, feel free to correct me.

[@FarizTGK]

@@TimHuhtala Theres just something about having that character in your images, having a prestine, ultra sharp image doesnt carry nearly as much emotion as a softer, more "flawed" lens. It's 4 am so i dont know how to put it best, but i feel like while the RF can be great for model shoots and all that stuff, EF is better for street photography, just an example. You can use either for both purposes, im just saying that certain lenses have more character and produces much more nuanced and unique images that, depending on your preference, can look better. 😄

[@felixbelanger2659]

The Canon 50mm f1.2 EF would be a much better comparison to the RF mount though... The 50mm f1.4 as always been considered fairly soft for it's price tag (and compared to the nifty-fifty)

[@RickyHarline]

The 50mm F1.2 is even softer. Their sharpest lens is their newest nifty fifty, the F1.8 STM. It also has much better control over vignetting, contrast, and chromatic aberration. Canon desperately needs to update their 50mm primes for their SLR line.

[@backslash36]

I've been able to make this comparison myself at some Canon event. Wide open, the EF 50mm f1.2 is way softer than its RF counterpart. The R mount truly raises the bar way higher than you can imagine.

[@unsilencednation6036]

@@RickyHarline the 50mm F1.2 is MUCH sharper than its 1.4 counterpart. What are you smoking?

[@GLAXxan]

Stop promoting the giveaway!!! You are reducing my chances of winning :'(

[@nuaveb]

Well said...

[@myerwerl]

Its closed 😢

[@meeta400]

Wait a second......you shot at 1.2 in bright light and f4.5 in low light.....and there you complain about IBIS. . . As much as I appreciate your reviews and the technical analysis...that broke my heart there

[@JerryMcMurphy]

Yeah... 1/60 second with a f/1.2 lens!? You’ve gotta be trying to take a bad portrait!

[@atqmail]

I think the 50mm (or 35mm) is a normal lens in regard to the degree of compression it makes, not too distorted nor too compressed. Thanks for your great videos , I really learned a lot from your channel. Thanks again for all your work..

[@SDMacMan]

Comparison with Fuji is not fair. Lightroom does terrible with the Fuji files. Plus Fuji is crop sensor with lower resolution. And Fuji 56mm + X-T3 = $2400 Canon 50mm + Canon R = $4600! Twice the price with worse auto focus and a single card slot. Sorry Tony, but kind of a silly comparison if you ask me.

[@marioslrzn]

SDMacMan did you just say that fuji xt3 beats dual pixel focusing? I guess KZbin if full of sheep

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

Love the football joke.

[@shotput8]

50% of shots in focus? I think I would want a higher percentage for $4600 camera + lens. But hey, that is just me. Good points about lack of IBIS. Using a high MP camera like this with a very sharp lens like this you notice any flaws.

[@weschilton]

Or you use a tripod like photographers have been doing for over 100 years. It’s not that big of a deal. very few cameras have IBIS.

[@ourtvchannel]

Except the market leaders

[@myhandlewastaken]

Work slower, problem solved. Especially with a camera like the EOS R.

[@shotput8]

Why limit your photography? Why not buy a camera that meets your photographic needs? I am just an amateur but I shoot many different types of photography from sports to wildlife to scenic to portraits to use of vintage lenses. There is no reason for Canon to limit the capabilities of the EOS R. In my travels I have found many places that don't allow tripods. That is why I want a camera that features image stabilization. Some caverns don't even allow you to lean against the walls to steady yourself.

[@myhandlewastaken]

@@shotput8 every tool is not an all-purpose tool. Nor should they be. You will find as you learn more, and require more from what you use, that each tool has an optimal setting/situation for optimal results. That thing may or may not be limited in other areas. And that's okay.

[@JUNO-69]

I love my canon 85mm 1.2 II Such a unique look even though it’s a chunky slow focusing monster. It’s just such a treat to shoot with

[@biplabdey1652]

why you compare canon RF50f/1.2 with EF50f/1.4? and secondly when you compare fuji 56mm f/1.2 with RF 50f/1.2 i saw that your focus with fuji was on the eyebrow and on the other hand your focus with canon was on the eyelash .

[@derekderekderek2]

How about a comparison with the new Voigtlander 50mm 1.2 M-mount? It's a manual focus lens, but put it on an A7iii with TechArt Pro adapter and it gets autofocus. It's also like 1/3 the size and weight of this lens.

[@john-paulthompson4932]

Tony, whilst the Canon 50mm 1.2 RF is undoubtedly a fantastic lens, this review really isn't a fair comaprison, it is already known that the Canon 50mm 1.4 and especially the 1.8 are not the sharpest lens on the market. Perhaps the Canon EF 1.2 L or the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art might have been more worthwhile adversaries. It was your earlier reviews on the EOS R that helped make up my mind to buy the EOS R, I got it yesterday and I thank you for that. It took most of my yearly camera budget to buy the EOS R; to then spend as much again on a single lens it not an option for me. I'm waiting to get a good deal on one of the two alternatives I mentioned.

[@lukapretegiani3348]

One thing is wrong here, 50mm is not normal on FF because of FOV it is cause of perspective factor on all sensor sizes. When you look through the VF and open the other eye to see outside the camera you will notice that you see the exact picture, so a distant mountain is the same size in the VF and the free eye. It is like you are looking normally with your eyes. It does not depend on sensor size when you look that way. Neither on frame size

[@svatostraka]

comparison to EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM would be interesting, even on the same EOS R body w/ adapter. Bit unfair to compare L class lens to (still amazing) f/1.4 50mm USM... ;-)

[@jaayres20]

I don't have native RF lenses yet but I have used the R on three shoots so far and have taken a little more than 4000 images with it. I find the focus system to outperform my 5D IV and even my 1Dx2 (for slow moving or still subjects). It is not even close for me. I shoot fast with sometimes questionable technique and I found the R to consistently nail the focus. Especially when I am shooting into the sun which I often do. I mostly used the 85mm 1.4 Art with an adaptor and it a great experience. I ended up shooting and keeping a significantly more number of images because of the EVF and superior AF. I can imagine the upcoming native RF 85 will be even better. Except for fast moving sports, I just don't see how one would need or expect a better AF system. It is literally almost impossible to miss focus.

[@briefcasemanx]

Josh Ayres yeah I don't get it. I tried it out at the store the other day with my Tamron 24-70 g2 and it worked amazingly. And that's a 3rd party lens.

[@teavaroa]

Couldn’t agree more, I’ve had zero issues with the AF on my EOS R, too many spec snobs out there that play this body down with no experience with it what so ever. Seems like a 6D mkii scenario all over again.

[@cooloox]

Yes, Travis Harris did a wedding with the EOS R and the images are beautiful and sharp. He found AF brilliant in low light.

[@kullumphoto]

I've also done a shoot with the EOS r and the sigma 105 1.4 art and the focus was great!

[@geoffkeeton4311]

I have the Zeiss MF 50, 100 and 21 for EF. These new Canon lenses remind me of them and get me excited about the new changes at Canon. 50 mm, 28-70, and 24-105 look beyond awesome. Hoping on a IBIS body...I really like their new type autofocus...

[@laurent5455]

Great review, thanks. But you convinced me to go with Fuji. I'm really astound on how close the image quality of the Fuji is against the Canon. Only a minor difference in my opinion. Price-wise it's quite a big difference.

[@Davitor1]

Laurent Belener if you’re on a budget then what’s the point of comparing?

[@GLAXxan]

Why get a bad budget option and not wait and save for excellent expensive option? That is why we are comparing

[@laurent5455]

@@Davitor1 The point of comparing is to avoid spending unnecessary money, on a budget or not, and to find the best camera for yourself.

[@Davitor1]

Laurent Belener and thanks for reminding me that when I can afford it I rather go for the best.

[@MacClellandMan]

Plus, get the image in focus and you'll really better impressed

[@AgnostosGnostos]

Wide lenses creat unavoidable perspective distortion which looks weird. The human eye creates perspective distortion too but that doesn't bother us. The 50mm full frame lenses produce a similar perspective distortion to the human eye. So normal lenses close to 50mm deliver natural results. That is very important with portraits.

[@RealRaynedance]

I think saying that 50mm approximates what the human eye sees is based on your central vision, completely ignoring periphery. When using a 50mm lens, I do find that the picture is pretty close to what I see if I ignore my peripheral vision.

[@simons700]

Would have compared it with the Zony 50mm 1.4. Hope this comparison is coming ;)

[@Miltonbosss]

Eos r is actually a great camera better than the mark iv in most people’s opinions

[@ApertureApex]

I saw an article today on Canon rumors showing that Canon filed a patent for sensor stabilization !

[@dave2400plus]

Tony you can eliminate camera shake with a tripod and delayed shutter.

[@okaro6595]

50 mm is about the angle of view you comfortably see without turning your head. What you maximally see is much wider, about 18 mm and if you count even what you see blurrily by moving just your eyes that is over 180 degrees.

[@AllCarsUnited]

Comparing it to a canon 50mm 1. 4 300 dollar lense when there's a canon 50mm 1.2 ef that's superior? Why that choice? 2400 for a non autofocus non stabilized Lense makes the whole argument that people use against sony glass being expensive seem irrelevant. Is this the direction all mirrorless cameras are going?

[@exosoul]

So.. what you are saying is... I SHOULD get this system. Everyone knows that the most important thing is the lens since we can easily change/upgrade bodies. I have tried this system and this lens. It is actually pretty amazing. And we all know a more “Pro” body is coming. Hmm.. 🤔

[@braincoral9866]

I have a Nikkor 50mm 1.2 (manual) It's got an ethereal quality to it..almost bloom-like sometimes, with the right light..Love it!

[@finallyanime]

Hey tony! You can tell the angle/scale of view is like the human eye by opening your other eye & lining up the scene. Should be almost 1 for 1 when you line things up

[@piotrkiszka3499]

I am not sure if lack of IBIS is really such a big concern. If you do portraits, anything about 1/60, 1/90 is risky, not only because of camera shake, but also because of person movement. This knowledge and proper technique give me consistent, very good resuts, starting from 1/125 (Auto ISO on Nikon). And if you spend $2,300 on 1.2 lens, you probably plan to use 1.2 aperture lot of time - which hardly would force you to go that down with your shutter speed.And, IBIS body would be larger, heavier, and less battery-efficient.

[@12340786ful]

At 9:19 wooooow . Now I’m thinking when they introduce higher megapixel body then this lens is going be even more sharper .

[@axiom6947]

thats why bigger is better. You can't make sharp lens for higher megapixels cameras without making bigger lens )) I love big lenses ))

[@airdailyx]

And why sooner or later Sony will need to seriously reevaluate the current mount.

[@ellenhertz3993]

I still don't get why the aperture changes as well if you make it equivalent to a FF. Like Tony said, Fuji 56 mm f1.2 becomes 85 mm f1.8?? Can someone explain please?

[@stevepa999]

Something tells me when the pro body comes out Tony is switching back to Canon again.

[@MikedieONE]

switching back? he owns canon cameras already.

[@airdailyx]

...and, don’t expect Cannon to release one anytime soon.

[@joelcleare]

You think he just owns and shoots on ONE camera system. 🤣

[@NewMoon57]

The main reason that I am interested in the above video is that I need to be able to focus in manual as I do a lot of focus merge photography. And switching from live-view in program and then going back in manual to the SLR viewfinder is a real pain.

[@NewMoon57]

I am not wanting to view the scene by pumping the iso. What i need to accomplish is to be in manual and to be able to see what i am photographing. Just give me the view that i need and to have the camera take the pic at the manually pre set. Is this possible? I do not want i To keep going between program and manual as this not possibe to do in an actual shoot.

[@nikonmark37814]

It would have been better if you could have compared the EF 50 f/1.2L against the RF 50 f/1.2L.

[@sebastiaanvanwater]

uh... no Tony. The old 50mm f1.4 is just very soft wide open. By any standard.

[@JasonGiraulo]

Someone help, I currently shoot both Sony and Fuji and have discovered that in AF-C both the A7rii and XH-1 don’t keep the aperture open while autofocusing, but instead close down to whatever f stop you set it at. This is vastly different from my Nikon DSLR, that would only stop down as you pressed the shutter. By forcing the lens closed during AF, these bodies switch from PDAF to CDAF (beyond f8) ruining the continuous autofocus tracking. Are there any mirrorless bodies that autofocus the way my Nikon/Canon did or am I out of luck? I shoot planes, and to get prop blur I’m often down at f11 or lower.

[@armandot9137]

HI Tony, I would really be interested in comparing images from the EOS R with the 50/1.2 vs the A7III with the Zeiss FE 1.8/55. To me it is an interesting comparison because one is a large and expensive option vs a cheaper and far more portable one. Comparison should account for overall picture rendering, sharpness and effective T-stop benefit from a 1.2. We all know that we have diminishing returns in terms of T-Stop with extreme apertures. Let's consider that Canon's pixels are tiny due to the deal pixel design which it is not a good thing, although, as you pointed out the 50/1.2 has the optics so close to the sensor that possibly pixel vignetting has been minimized. In total honesty I think your comparison with the Canon 50/1.4 is not a fair comparison. Canon 50/1.4 is not a very sharp lens at all with really low contrast, which makes the new 50/1.2 look better than what I think really is vs more competitive optics. Why you picked such lens instead of better lenses?

[@TimLucasdesign]

This seems like an amazing lens but the lack of IS would be a deal breaker for me. Since Canon decided to leave IBIS out of their body, all their new lenses should have it.

[@thisis5123]

Tim Lucas do you only do landscape without a tripod ?

[@rickeycarter]

Low pass filter: for years, you have railed on Canon for losing sharpness due to a low pass filter. Here, sharpness is off the chart. Could the low pass filter have never been the issue and instead, it was refraction due to lens design?

[@carldaniel3155]

Question... how do you shoot at f1.2 in bright daylight, with a max shutter speed 1/8000? My 50mm f1.8 I have to fit an ND filter. With my Fujifilm xt3 it auto switches to Electronic up to 1/32,000 - never have an issue. Thanks

[@mrdamiansingh]

Just wish you would have compare it to the EF 50mm 1.2

[@VaughnFelixMusic]

If you can’t get Sharp shards unless you have sensors stabilization, then you need to work on your technique

[@AstroLaVista]

It's a stunning bit of engineering and optics, so you've got to appreciate the achievement despite it not being a practical consideration for most of us. For someone like yourself Tony, at the apex of photography, I can imagine it to be a must have to give you the edge.

[@clouisphotography]

So your saying the new EOS lens isn't compatible with the FD system?!? Oh darn.

[@stormbringeram]

The real test would be on a higher megapixels camera for such a lenses at the 50mm RF 1.2L, so hopefully Canon will release a pro Canon R camera soon in the coming months with IBIS. The RF series of lenses so far look superior to the Nikon Z counterpart of lenses, but need to up the game to compete against the expanding full frame mirrorless camera war. Canon so far have been a little disappointing in releasing a full frame mirrorless camera with no IBIS and one card slot and costing more against competitors. The Canon EOS R is still a very good camera in the Canon cameras line up with some terrific RF lenses, but is it enough against the competition.

[@JeremyGalloway]

50mm lens doesn't give you the "angle of view" that the human eye does. If that were the case, then humans would barely have a 90 degree field of view with both eyes together. 50mm is "normal" because it creates no wide angle distortion nor telephoto compression, therefore subjects appear relatively "normal" as we see them with our eyes.

[@jamespeirce2582]

Jeremy it’s a weird concept to abstract into a lens, but the comparison of 50mm is fair to some degree. It depends on how you want to consider our periphery vision. Still, what “feels” natural to me in this sense is a little wider than 50mm.

[@tehn00bpwn3r]

It’s obviously more complex than that but we are seeing with varying sharpness across our vision. In the periphery you are not seeing any detail, only enough information to tell if something is moving. What we are actually seeing in high detail I suppose would be somewhat similar to a 50mm lens although I always felt looking through a 30mm lens on aps-c felt the most ‘normal’ so a little bit wider at 45mm

[@stuartschaffner9744]

This is a really fun comment sub thread. Tehn00, you are right about it being even more complicated. Actually, your eye scans a large visual field and the visual cortex of your brain assembles the scan into one “image”. That’s one reason why we see an entire scene as sharp. Actually, camera images are quite different, but we have gotten used to them. There’s a lot of room for artistic creativity here.

[@xandr13]

The "normal" focal length is not 50 - it's 42.5 (50 is called that for convenience sake). And it's about perspective, not angle of view. Basics, really.

[@boudewijnj.m.kegels5198]

@@xandr13 The 'normal' is equal to the diagonal of the sensor/film: 43.266615 mm for full frame -- square root of ((24mm)²+(36mm)²).

[@mad3st]

How is sharpness compared to Sony 55 1.8

[@jn3750]

This will cheapo lens has no chance with the Canon

[@marksoukup1267]

50mm is virtually equal to the focal length of what our eye sees. A simple test? With a Full Frame or APS-C DSLR and a 50mm lens attached and focused on a subject, look through the viewfinder with one eye and with your other eye open look at the same subject (outside of the viewfinder) that the lens is focused on. You should see a basically perfect stereo, or 3D image. You can try it on a mirrorless camera if you like, but the live preview will kind of make difficult seeing the results properly.

[@MblueMusic]

i like the sharpness, but bokeh seems to be slightly nervous.. well i have to admit i'm kinda dissapointed by this bokeh, especially considering the $$$

[@ftdoomplays]

Aesthetically this is the best looking lens ever.

[@bigdhav]

The images I took when I went to the canon UK roadshow were ridiculously sharp. And obviously the canon colour science. Absolutely stunning lens quality.

[@zeusapollo9790]

The Canon isn’t sharper than the XF 56mm, you missed the shot. That is movement/blur, not softness/sharpness. Either the camera or the subject moved or shutter speed was off. We are talking about a 56mm FujiFilm, that I own, that is sending light to a sensor that has no lowpass optical filter with BSI tech. I’ve pixel peeped tested that lens when I bought it, and it never had that much softness in a proper shot.

[@bengttolkis8646]

How come you didn’t talk anything about the performance of the lens for shooting video? I found that the autofocus to be very noisy, at least compared to other modern lenses and also not nearly as reliable as the Canon RF 24-105mm F/4.0.

[@nightcoder5k]

In low light condition, I usually bump up the ISO and shutter speed. I'd rather get grainy pictures than blurry ones. Sometimes grainy pictures look classic.

[@joaovtaveira]

I would to see a comparison between this and the Canon EOS 50mm f/1.2L USM.

[@PKSiAMiAM]

With the rear element being all the way to the back would that mean that lenses are "safer" and less likely to get dust and mould etc in the lens?

[@bog2k3]

"normal" lens doesn't have anything to do with the field-of-view or view-angle, rather "normal" means (at least on the old 35mm film cameras) that you get a roughly 1:1 magnification when you look through the viewfinder. Thus, looking with one eye through the viewfinder and with the other eye directly at the subject you'd see the the subject at the same size with both eyes, although cropped with the one you look through the camera (hence, not the same field-of-view)

[@simeonkolev1231]

Why comparing it to the X-T3? I find that really pointless :). It is a good camera but we all know that lightroom makes it soft and blurred. Plus the difference in the FOV... I think that a comparison to a 50 1.4 Art or something at least close to it was going to be more interesting.

[@1barnet1]

Good point especially when on a D850 which should outperform it due to sensor being better.

[@jro669]

No, idea. It probably makes sense to compare it to a Sigma 50 1.4 Art on Canon 5D IV as that camera uses a similar sensor.

[@mikew9788]

Absolutely, would love to see it compared to a sigma art on a 5div

[@GLAXxan]

Well, he is comparing LENSES and their optics alone are similar 56 1.2 / 50 1.2 the thing that ekvivalencies exist is due to the body not the lens

[@simeonkolev1231]

@@GLAXxan How the 56 1.2 designed for APS-C sensor can be equivalent to a 1kg 50 1.2 designed for 35mm sensor?

[@TwoTracksOutdoors]

Good information, Tony. Now, bring on that promised RF 24-105 kit lens review, which you mentioned was pretty much as sharp as the RF 28-70. Can't wait.

[@aldeen1982]

As Dennis Kapatos said, you compare apples to oranges. XT3´s 56 is an 85, its a different purpose. The 50 1.4 is really old and its soooo much cheaper. Everybody knows, the 1.8 is sharper wide open. The 50 1.4 is known to be soft wide open. Why didn you compare it to a Zeiss 50 1.4? Sigma 50 1.4? Not a good comparison at all. But nice lens though!

[@Arctic_Narwhal]

Why are you complaining about camerashake at 10:00, when your shooting at F4. 5?

[@stephenscharf6293]

The image stabilization provided by the current crop of tripods is pretty amazing.....no reason why one should get soft photos with high resolving lenses and sensors.

[@5nanometers]

I remember when people dismissed the 5-axis IBIS, or argued that the lens stabilization was enough. Maybe with the EOS R mark 3 we'll have it. But until then, it's a no from me

[@alexworks9659]

Tony. Something about compression in your audio makes your solo videos very hard to listen to. It’s too (same volume, tone) ish. I dunno audio stuff. But it subconsciously makes me try to “clear” my ears like when driving over mountain. Love the podcast btw!

[@dpie4859]

when will lenses and cameras become smaller? An iphone X can take quite good pictures and its SO much smaller.

[@AdamWoodhouse]

When doing the brief comparison to Fuji I would have expected you use the 35/1.4 since it has an effective full frame focal length of approx 50mm. That would have been more of an apples-to-apples comparison @ F1.4.

[@rvboondocker2559]

Nice review but, uh, yeah, it’s 1.2 so you shouldn’t use 1.4 settings in the review. Not Tony-like.

[@Sergei__v]

Canon 50mm F1.4 is a very sharp lens wide open, there may be fringing, but the details are very sharp. The example is out of focus.

[@rudedevil09]

Why not compare the 50mm 1.2L with the new 50mm 1.2 lens for mirrorless?

[@davidkieltyka9]

I’ve used an A series Pentax 50/1.2 on Sony cameras via a Techart Pro AF module and a K-to-M adapter. Works great. Underrated lens. The new Canon looks really impressive, based on multiple reviews, but I’ll wait for the R system to mature before considering it.

[@sigmaoctantis_nz]

Thanks for sneaking in an astro shot for me. I actually shoot a lot of panoramas at 50mm, although I'll probably be switching to the Sigma 40mm Art when it comes out.

[@speedwolf5212]

Only 50% of shots were in focus? That’s terrible.

[@MrBazReviews]

The Canon 50mm F1.4 performance wide open is a disaster I'd have returned that immediately. My Minolta 50mm F1.7 AF destroys that wide open. I know these are previous film era lenses, still no reason a lens like that should be so much worse than one from 1985.

[@darrelrobertson8169]

Always like your videos. An old casual snapshot 4/3 shooter using an Olympus 25mm F1.8...all I could afford.

[@lmallard3788]

Should have compared ef 50mm f/1.2 with rf 50mm f/1.2 the ef 50mm f/1.8 is sharper than the 1.4 version

[@Manuel-qu3tc]

ALL European men were glad to hear Tony say football instead of ''soccer''. Thank you, Tony.

[@rodrigomortagua2117]

What does he mean about 50% shots in focus ? In perfect light conditions, like outside, how can be outfocus with focus point on the eye or face ? This 50% accuracy doesn't make any sense

[@typoded]

are these photos straight out of camera? the fuji colour is, like, wayyy better

[@cremersalex]

Close-up eye with XF56 1.2 was out of focus.

[@outoforder0]

Yep I was thinking the same thing.

[@tomislavmiletic_]

Yes but with a little effort it could be nailed. If I can do it with my XT2, XT3 should do it too.

[@LCdrDerrick]

He might not be a trustworthy guy. With the A7 and Z7 low ISO tripod studio shots he also missfocused on purpose or at least left the IBIS on, to make Canon look at least competitive. These are no coincidences anymore, if you ask me. Or what is it then, Tony?

[@robwhitmore3040]

I don't think Tony has any canon bias. After all, he's trashed them in the past and he made a pretty big video about a card failure in this body. I think he's just a professional spec reader more than a professional photographer. I'd rather watch Jared Polin with his annoying personality and lack of in depth specs because he's a great photographer. Having said that, I watch a few channels to see both sides of every argument Seems Tony and Chelsea will promote a different brand every day of the week if the price is right.

[@stephengatley8144]

The 56mm does miss focus some times (X-T2/X-PRO2) but i always see when it does before i take the shot!

[@soumikdatta09]

So you're telling that dynamic range depends on camera lens also?

[@ameer_saban]

Let me guess - the lense only has one card slot?

[@Dan.gibson.photographer]

Ameer Saban 🤣🤣🤣

[@gewglesux]

Nice one....

[@oliviervanrillaer]

Fantastic lens. And that function ring. Great workability. That new RF mount promises us such exciting times. Next to it there will be a RF 15-38 f2.8 IS!! lens. 2.8 IS!! So far Canon was never able to produce a EF 16-35 f2.8 IS lens. It would have been too large and to expensive so you had the EF 16-35 f2.8 and the EF 17-40 f4 IS or the EF 16-35 f4 IS. It probably has everything to do with the new RF mount and the reduced 'flange distance'. It lets Canon produce smaller and compacter lenses which let in more light than previously so they can make them super small like the new RF 70-200 or add IS like the new RF 15-38 f2.8. Super exciting!! It the Eos R or the Eos RF will not pull us towards the mirroless canon bodys, the lenses surely will. Canon you sneaky bastard! ;-)

[@timur7381]

Compare it with Pentax dfa 50 1.4 :) beautiful and round bokeh all the way to the corners, and tack sharp across the frame from 1.4

[@abymathew295]

Would you use this 50mm 1.2 or the Sony 85mm 1.4G for your portrait works.??? We would like to see a comparison review of both lenses.

[@geko9425]

50 mm and 85 mm has different usage for portraits. You should know that in what case you has to use which lens. Therefore you cant ask "Hey, which is better for portraits?" It depends on what kind of portraits you will shoot

[@13squier]

I think "normal" means more like the near-to-far compression of objects rather than the angular FoV. Sorry if this has already been addressed 100 times in these comments.

[@duncanwallace7760]

Tony, can you make sure you never compare anything to anything else because people will say it's not 'fair'.

[@SkeleMusic]

Tf? Why are u getting that much camera shake at 1/60th? Were you shaking the camera on purpose

[@melissahall7009]

Thank you very much!! Been considering this one vs the older 1.2 or 1.4, so this is extremely helpful. Thank you!!

[@Hofsaedter]

how they could make that great pictures in the past without IBIS ?

[@raquelacosta1100]

how about a comparison with the new Sigma 40 1.4? that one looks crazy good on paper.

[@OppaHan]

Can it fit to canon m6 ?

[@RedderThanAres]

Great video! I watched this when it was new, and it just occurred to me to come back to it. With the new Canon mirrorless cameras now coming with IBIS, does this review change at all? Anyone see the sharpness issue with camera shake that has an opinion on what IBIS does for that? Thanks!

[@AlreadyTiredOfYou]

Beautiful but gargantously big lens! And it's just plain sad that Canon introduced such beautiful lenses in such an underwhelming body. Really looking forward to see Canon next gen of mirrorless bodies. Oh, by the way, that eye on the 56mm1.2 shot was definitely out of focus. I've own that lens for quite some time. Can't wait to see your camera bodies reviews! (EOS R, Z7 and X-T3). I do respect that you're taking your time to properly test the cameras.

[@axiom6947]

"but gargantously big lens" Big is good. more large lenses more conveniently fit into the hand

[@AlreadyTiredOfYou]

@@axiom6947 not so good when you mean to use the lens for long periods of time.

[@KentuckyMan30]

Same here with the 56mm. I've owned it for several years now, and it is TACK sharp (even at 1.2). I like it more than my old Canon 85mm 1.8.

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

You could have compared it to the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 with a Canon adaptor on the same body. That would have been a more like for like comparison.

[@sarcofalo]

Shot at f1.2 = unique quality/ different feel. Great video!! But I don’t think people are going to notice the difference between an f1.2 and f1.4 shot.