Canon RF 50mm 1.8 vs Canon RF 50mm 1.2 - Is it easy to tell the difference?

[@RogerAVHansen]

Looking at the sample images side by side, you will probably see difference between the two. But if you show only one image and ask someone if it was taken with the 1.8 or 1.2, I think people would have a hard time telling which is which 😊 If you are a working photographer the 1.2 is probably worth it as you’re able to earn back the cost of the lens, but as a hobbyist like me, the 1.8 gives more than good enough results for the price difference ☺️

[@JamesReader]

Completely agree! In most real world situations the differences aren't worth worrying about.

If you show only one photo to your client do they tell the difference? Less likely than a photographer. :) I love the 1.2 but I could still not justify it for myself and I work as a professional.

[@tap6943]

And the weight/portability

[@propylaeen]

I was stunned due to the warmer and more authentic skin and lip tone of the 1.2 did not expect this… and the sharpness is really a big deal on the other hand there might be a phenomenon I would call over-sharpness some new urban, architecture and landscape photography tend to look more as a rendition than a photography.

[@asystasyorg]

Well ok, but here's my question: do CLIENTS see the difference? If you're a professional portrait photographer (which I am not) and you present the 1.8 pics to them are they gonna be pissed off? I'd honestly like to know the answers to such "real real-world" questions! PS THANK YOU for a great comparison video! I wish there were more such videos out there!

[@KPAki1Ler]

I wish they'd make a 50 1.4L for RF at a price somewhere between these 2.

[@tossemanden]

Absolutely hope so to! I believe it will make great sense to release a line of 24,35,50,85 etc with higher quality than the current cheap ones. However: even if they did not, the current lin up of cheap lenses still perform quite great.

[@ThreeCeeProductions]

Why don’t you just adapt the EF versions?

[@williamw]

@@ThreeCeeProductions extra bulk added by adapter, and the lens itself is now 30 years old. Great lens that I still use, but optically it doesn't compare to the rest of Canon's modern lenses.

[@ThreeCeeProductions]

@@williamw I have both RF and EF lenses. The RF are sharper but I like the rendering of the older EF L lenses. It differentiates my look from others.

[@DanCThorpe]

@@ThreeCeeProductions I agree, I've got the EF 1.4 and performs fine on my R5 body.

[@greggScutum]

You provide one of the best reviews - not much tech talk, straight to great real world comparisons!

[@mjztx]

I have both of these and picked up the 1.2 version about 5-6 months ago. I do some client work, mostly seniors and some weddings. I've never had an L lens and have always had the more budget-priced lens. I have the Tamron G2 2.8 zooms, the RF 35mm F1.8 and RF 85mm F2. I wanted to get one L lens and made my decision as if I may never get another, so I went for the RF 50mm 1.2 L because 50mm is the most versatile. I do love this lens. It's beautiful and I'm so glad I got it. I still enjoy the 1.8 for more casual/walk around/candid type of shooting where the weight makes a difference.

[@meisterhubert]

The RF 50 1.8 is perfect. Especially on the R6, where you don't really need the extra sharpness. So small, such a beautiful image, so cheap, pretty fast, and so light. When I want to go for maximum background separation I use the RF 85 1.2. However, the weight and size are crazy. Also, it tends to make people slightly uncomfortable. The 50 1.8 on the other hand is so sneaky, my friends often don't even realize I was taking shots of them, which creates beautiful and real situational photos.

[@MarkJHEllis]

I love using my RF50 f/1.8 for street for that sneaky candid photography :-)

[@jichaelmorgan3796]

It's so easy nowadays to add a tad more blur in photoshop if you really needed, it if things got too busy in the background.

[@bodinian]

What do you think causes the fear reaction of a large lens? Is it evolution teaching us large eyes looking at us are from large animals that pose a threat?

[@jichaelmorgan3796]

@@bodinian I heard this is absolutely the case with dog photography

[@jichaelmorgan3796]

I still have the ef 50mm f1.4. I would sell it and get this one but the motor is sounding scratcher than it used so ill probably use it till it gives way rather than have it give way on someone else. It's very sharp stopped down, but I don't like the fringing wide open and hope that the rf does better at f1.8 when it's time to switch.

[@workingwiththelight3119]

I think less sharpness can be advantage if you photograph older person with wrinkles. You don't want to make them too visible. Instead of putting expensive pro mist filter on expensive lens, you can use affordable lens and play it's weakness as an advantage.

[@williamgollatz1911]

THIS. How many people want every defect in their face, skin, teeth, hair, lips, or body to be perfectly recording with excellent sharpness?

[@goonerscalise]

@@williamgollatz1911 I disagree. It's not a matter of sharpness but of clarity. There's a difference. And clarity brings about the richness of character, whether or not defined lines, wrinkles, etc. are involved. I wouldn't compromise on quality for the sake of the individual being self-conscious. Embrace those so called "defects". That's just character imo.

[@luckystriker7489]

Thanks for this. I am a freelance photojournalist for travel magazines and online news sites. I just recently upgraded my gear to an R6 with a RF 15-35 f2.8 and a RF 70-200 f4 because those are the two focal lengths that I prefer. I did need something to fill the gap, but my budget would be strained by the 50mm f1.2. I doubt magazine readers will pick up on the slightly lower quality of the f1.8. I didn’t want to spend big money on the 28-70 f2 because it’s just not a vocal range that I spend much time on so I don’t need the traditional holy trinity. You've just saved me a ton of money, my good man. Subscribed!

[@JamesReader]

I’m really glad to of helped, totally agree with your choice! It’s a great little lens.

[@sebastianyuan]

This is an amazing comparison, but other than the Bokeh, I think I can tell the difference judging by the skin tone and colour rendering. The rendering on the 1.2 looks more pleasing to my eyes.

[@zenscape]

This is a great review and right on point! Weight is an important consideration when packing gears for traveling. I am on a 3-week vacation in Bangkok now and I brought along an RF 24-70 F2.8, RF 70-200 F2.8 and RF 35 F1.8. After walking a few days under the hot Bangkok weather, the light and versatile RF 35 F1.8 is now permanently on my R5 and the other lenses are in the hotel. I will be getting the RF 50 1.8 instead of the 1.2.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you! Totally agree. Perfect travel lens, especially if you pair it with something like the 24-105 f4.

[@jriis2010]

If i sell one of my kidneys, i can afford the awesome setup you’ve got. Just got my first fullframe, A Canon EOS RP and the kit version of the 24-105 (not F/4). The RF 50 1.8 is about to be delivered today 😁

[@andremp1634]

​@@jriis2010 r u sure ur kindney equal to that gears ? Lol

[@jriis2010]

haha no, i guess it requires both :-)

[@AnthonyKellett]

Fair and useful. I keep flipping between the 50mm 1.2 and 85mm 1.2, as my favourite; but everyone should have that 50mm 1.8, no matter what. The 1.2 - yes or no - is the only question, thereafter.

[@JamesReader]

Completely agree, a very useful little lens. Thanks for watching Anthony.

[@ElBoyoElectronico]

I also completely agree! I own the RF 2.8 trinity and the RF 50mm 1.8 is my only prime. It is such a light and versatile lens. I am however desperately awaiting the RF 35 1.2 since I shoot a lot of videos indoors and have to use wider focal lengths.

[@faocisco]

@@ElBoyoElectronico also have the 2.8 trinity and my only prime at the moment is the 50 1.8(bought it to test the Canon RF system)😀 My next lens will be the 50 1.2.

[@JamesReader]

@@ElBoyoElectronico 24-70 or 24-105 with the 50mm 1.8 would is probably going to be my travel combo whilst I wait for the 35 1.2 also!

[@K9malinois_dog_love]

The biggest preference of the L series lens I think it’s on your pocket, because in the photography was really negligible. In my opinion.

[@catalyst_6]

Another excellent comparison. You always answer every question I have before I even know to ask them.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for watching, glad to know the video was helpful!

[@gilgillis3816]

Great comparison video. Simple, well explained and to the point. Thanks!

[@JamesReader]

Thank you!

[@chadpurser]

I really like how you do side-by-side comps. Great job!

[@JamesReader]

Thank you!

[@OhhhhhhhBugger]

Honestly the sharpness is what gives them away for me more than anything. Thanks for loading this at 4K so we can actually distinguish which is which!

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for watching! Really glad it helped

[@RigoLuchi]

Mate! The video is great! But I love the images you taken!! Such a great photos man!

[@JamesReader]

Thank you so much Rigo!

[@davidthegood]

Excellent review - thank you, James.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for watching David

[@bukococonut]

I love both of these lenses. The f1.8 great for walking around. I don’t get to use it enough. However, it is not weather proofed. I live in an area where it rains 50% of the time. So, I can not use it everyday. Also, the f1.8 has a tiny focal motor in the lens. So, I can not put filters on the lens with out slowing down the focus. Still, for natural light, I perfer the f1.8. It give a little more depth of field, which gives a range of focus from the tip of the nose to the back of the head. This makes the image more three dimensional. The f1.8 lens is brilliantly designed. The f1.2 is great for low light. I use it in the winter when we have short day or when I have to cover a band in a bar. For a professional it is a work horse lens. If I need to use lighting, filters, work in rain and snow, or low light this is the lens I reach for. I can control the image better with this lens. When I am working in difficult lighting situations this lens has not failed me. It is weather proofed. For me that is very important. I love working with this lens. For portraiture, I might need to get too close to my subject. So, it is better to use a longer lens like the 85mm. The 85mm gives me a little breath space. So, I am not to close to the subject. It also makes the subject thinner looking. The 50mm f1.2 is a little bit heavy for me. For most camera men it will not be a problem, but I work with a tripod or monopod a lot. So, I would like to have a mounting foot on the lens to attach to a tripod. The foot would give me a better balance. Both of these lenses are great lenses. I really enjoy working with them.

[@whosyourbrad]

I love the swirl in the background with the f1.2 ❤

[@ecristianlopez]

Pleasant in camera present, great example and beautiful model. Thanks mate

[@JamesReader]

Thank you Cristian

[@goonerscalise]

Great video! Very helpful. Thank you. The differences are certainly apparent, imo. That clarity you get with the 1.2 is just too nice in comparison to the 1.8.

[@novainvicta]

Be interesting to see if Canon bring out f1.4 lenses. Previously they had 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm lenses. The EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM is ultra sharp with really good bokeh but the EF 50mm f1.4 was a really old design and not very sharp. Both the 24 and 35mm lenses were very good. They are a happy compromise between the weight & cost of the f1.2 lenses and the lightweight but slower f1.8 lenses. Canon has a huge gap between its current budget and fast aperture L lenses in terms of cost, performance and weight.

[@JamesReader]

Totally agree Jeff. I imagine we will see the 1.4 lenses eventually but probably a few years to wait. I did adapt the EF 35mm 1.4 II to my R5 for a while and it was excellent. Thank you for watching.

[@mihugong3153]

Thanks James! You do some of the best comparisons of this type, really great work. Actually, I am surprised on how obvious the difference often is. Maybe that is because I have the 1.2 and am used to its look. What struck me most is the handling of specular highlights in the background that are so much smoother in the expensive lens. I hadn't planned on shelling out for the 1.2, but then I tried it and the amazing look of OOF areas just made me fall in love. Then again, let's be honest: few non-photographers will really appreciate that difference. But one really gets those lenses for shooting them wide open - 2.8 is zero to one stops more than a decent kit zoom, I wonder why one would bother with a prime at this apterture range. But frankly, there will be few use cases where the 1.8 couldn't get an acceptable result.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you so much Mihu. Completely agree regarding the 1.2, it really shines at tackling those specular highlights, better than most other lenses even when you match the aperture.

[@MWRtelevision]

Great video. The 1.8 really holds its own. Unless you really need f1.2 probably isn’t worth it for most photographers. Both beautiful lenses.

[@anonymousprof7374]

What an amazing video! Definitely, I could make a firm decision to go with 50mm 1.8 for the type of shoot I am planning to do. It's going to be perfect to capture the busy streets of Las Vegas! Thank you, James! This is the first video on your channel I saw and can't wait to watch more of these quality videos and subscribe to the channel.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you so much! I'm really glad you enjoyed the video.

[@PHILGOODOK1]

Hello and thank you for this video. Personally on all the images I prefer the RF 50 f 1.8, but it looks slightly more contrasted to me than the RF 50 f 1.2, doesn't it? I bought the RF 50 f 1.8 for my Canon RP and I am very satisfied with it, I find that it forms a Combo. perfect ... Sincerely, Philgood...

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for watching Philgood. Definitely more contrast out of the 1.8 lens. It’s a great lens.

[@EliMandarin]

Thank you so much for the comparison, James！You have a very unique channel because of it! I have watched almost all of your videos about RF lenses. They are really brilliant, especially you put the pictures side by side. When you have time, could you possible also make a video for a RF 35mm 1.8 vs RF 50mm 1.2, that would be awesome! Thank you for a million again!❤❤❤

[@Duffmedia]

The 1.8 performed really well. Hard to justify the huge jump in price for the 1.2. Thanks for doing the side by side comparison.

[@JamesReader]

Totally agree! Thank you for watching

[@michaelmottlau5941]

Great video, for my street photography the RF 1.8 is good enough for me!

[@joshuataliaferro]

I love the nifty fifty. But man that RF 1.2 is so impressive. But also. SO HEAVY.

[@jolijnsnijdersss]

its so heavy. not a pleasure to work with at all....

[@Realwildshots]

I just bought the Canon R50 as my first camera ever. For me after this really helpful video it’s pretty clear to go with the 50mm 1.8 as a beginner. I’m sure that after few years learning and practicing I’ll consider it again. Thank you so much 🙌🏽

[@JuanLopezmusica]

Bro you just make everything looks so great!

[@JamesReader]

Thank you so much!

[@ThoSchoholic]

Interesting! For IQ and peace of mind I would choose the f1.2 version, for comfort the f1.8 lens. You think they will add a RF50mm f1.4 ? I have the EF version and was mostly happy with it. Not so much with the sharpness, but with it‘s character. That‘s what I‘m looking for in a lens.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for watching! I would love to see Canon release some slightly smaller 1.4 L lenses, 50mm included. I'm sure they will at some point but fear we are quite a while away from that.

[@ThoSchoholic]

@@JamesReader yes, that would be something. I read there are 32 new RF lenses planned for the next four years. That means eight lenses a year. Let‘s see what happens. A small L quality pancake walk-around-lens would be desirable as well. For me the 40mm f2.8 in L quality. Then for planned shootings big and fast L glass.

[@rdm5546]

I can easily see the difference are minor and may not make a difference in many cases unless low light or super bokeh is involve. I agree the low cost and compact f1.8 lens is a great lens. I have both and enjoy the each where the differences matter.

[@richardhooper7297]

Great video, I have 3 L lenses but don't think a 50mm f1.2 will ever be in my kit bag as it's just too expensive and heavy and my 50 f 1.8 does everything I need and I've had several images published using that lens. Sometimes it's a joy to take my R7 and 50 f1.8 out for general shooting just as it's so light compared to carrying an L lens around.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you Richard! Have you tried the RF 24mm 1.8 on the R7? My favourite lens for that camera for sure!

[@richardhooper7297]

No I mainly use long zoom lenses for most of my pics, I wouldn't get much use out of a 24mm.

[@spinnetti]

I picked it every time, but unless seeing side by side, I guess I'd never think the 1.8 wasn't good enough and the price of the 1.2 was eye opening! Looks like 1.8 for me lol.

[@vaskoobscura_]

Awesome video. I've been on the fence about the 50 1.8. I have the old EF 50 1.8 and EF 1.4 so I think I'm good for now.

[@AlexandruMusetoiu]

Videos like this make my day, thanks a lot for the comparison James. Also, very nice photos :)

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for the kind words Alexandru, I’m glad you enjoyed the video!

[@michiuno2238]

problem is: eventhough nobody I show my pictures to pixelpeeps, I do and I know that there is a significant difference in sharpness. So while I get equal uhhs and ohhhs out of my spectators I always feel like apologizing - "I know with the other lens it would have been sharper...". And if I have to stop the 1.8 down to 2.8 to get comparable performance (and we haven't even looked at the corners yet) I might as well dump the 1.8 and just take the 24-70 2.8 with me. The only reason for also packing the 1.8 is to have a faster lense with me when it gets darker.

[@oje101]

Thank you for this video.. I have the 1.8 and was think of upgrading it to the 1.2.. definitely not worth the upgrade.. the Boke of the 1.8 is good enough on its own. And if I want more I can add in post.. extremely easy.. thanks again

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for watching! I love the 1.8

[@nathandd8541]

Great Review Canon RF 50mm 1.8 is Amazing For Price

[@criticalpoint7672]

Because of you I bought the R6 instead of the R7, so I guess I should say thank you. :) Obviously, now I'm buying the 50mm 1.8 so I came here to see what you have to say about it.

[@malayneum]

why everytime there is a comparison video about these 2 lens its always in bright daylight? to spot the difference, you need to test in low light !

[@faocisco]

Really enjoy your reviews. They have a sort of a “dreamy” vibe. The model looks also adds to that vibe. Thanks for posting and keep it up👍

[@JamesReader]

Thank you Francisco, I appreciate the kind words!

[@pawelbrzozowski3899]

Another great video. Straightforward yet very informative. You should do more,

[@JamesReader]

Thank you Pawel

[@henrycartier]

Thanks! Kind of confirms my experience with the 1.8. It is way too contrasty (blacks are almost crushed) and combined with that strong magenta/blueish cast it makes portrait editing more time consuming than it should. I have learned my lesson and will go for the 1.2. Now I just need some serious cash 😕

[@maboleth]

My approach is slightly different. Yes, f1.2 has that creamier, more tame bokeh, it gives you more polished and isolated look out of the box. But the bokeh alone definitely isn't something that will make your photos stand out if you are not aware of the light, posing, interesting angles, ideas or post-production first. As a side note, I actually prefer the skin rendering of 1.8, similarly why I also like the softer EF50mm at f/1.4. My rationale is this - get the RF50mm f/1.8 - it's no brainer. It will give you far more than you invested. Learn the craft first. If you are a working pro or enthusiast, if your job demands it (consider your revenue as well), think about f1.2. But you have to know why. A colleague of mine did some exceptional artsy studio headshots using the EF50mm f/1.8 STM at 1.8. This lens is very similar to the RF version, if not even slightly inferior. No f1.2 lens can save your uninspired or poorly composed images. The RF 50mm f/1.8 is more than capable of challenging you there, providing all the tools you need to explore your creativity. Thanks for the review James, appreciated.

[@eviain]

Nice 👌. EF range still needs some time to fill out, I had the ef 1.8 for a long time and it’s bang for buck is second to none, however I moved up to the ef 1.4 for a modest price bump and am more than happy with the image quality. Although build wise both ef 1.8 and 1.4 show their age.

[@CremerXiao1979]

I love this lens, I get 50/1.8 24-105/4 100-400 15-35 35/1.8 85/2 for my eos r6 , and 50/1.8 is the most frequently used lens in my daily shooting :)

[@carolingrimaldi]

comparing both lenses wide open, it is easy to find which lens is which; the 50/1.2 being "creami-er". stopped down to 2.8, it is not easy to tell for me which is which - apart from the resolution, of course!

[@davey3765]

That 1.8 @ f/2.8... for the money is WOW. I own it, havent used it yet waiting on my R6 mkii to come in the mail. The actuator on the lens is soooo much smoother than the EF variant. Feels a huge step up in quality from what I see so far.

[@JamesReader]

It’s a great lens for the price Davey! Will be a great match for the R6 MkII

[@nigelwest3430]

I split the difference and bought the Sigma EF mount 50mm f1.4 Art and use it via the control ring adaptor.

[@tomisham9900]

Funny thing is I liked the pictures on the 1.8 better.

[@Ssmorenas]

Amazing video! did u record some shots in C-log? Or just LUT or basic color grading?

[@JamesReader]

Thank you! All shot in CLOG 3 then converted with the Gamut LUTS!

[@jeffcsMN]

I'm still using the EF 50mm 1.2 L (w/ adapter) on my R6, but I did end up buying the RF 50mm 1.8 because it's so ridiculously inexpensive and its a great all-around lens when I'm not shooting professionally.

[@Jamallkhan]

Really good comparisson!

[@matthewmorgan4910]

Awesome video again! I picked up the 1.2 and haven’t looked back.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you Matthew! It's an amazing lens.

[@darrylstubbs4245]

I have the rf 50 1.8 but have to save for the 1.2.I have the rf 85 1.2 and its incredible,so looking forward to getting the 50 1.2.

[@jriis2010]

Given the price for the 1.2 is at least 10 times the 1.8, for the untrained eye like mine, i would go for the 1.8 any day, but then again, i am just a happy newbie photographer 😁

[@Sエイちゃん]

2:19や5:54で差が出てる 6:31でも50mmF1.2の方がF1.8よりキレイに写ってる その差に価値を認めるかどうかはあなた次第

[@zmajofficial687]

I really like mood and tone of your photos. Can you make a video for how to edit your photos? Thank you very much.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you so much! I’m definitely working on that video

[@zmajofficial687]

@@JamesReader 🥰🥰🥰🥰

[@關門小聲一點]

Hello, I'm from Taiwan, your videos are very good

[@JamesReader]

Thank you so much!

[@emmyherbal2752]

The RF 50/1.2L lens is very sharp. It's an amazing lens with beautiful bokeh from what I saw in the video. But in my country, the RF 50/1.2L lens is 11 times more expensive than the RF 50/1.8 lens, and it is also bulky and heavy. In my opinion, the L lens should be a lens for professional photographers, while the RF 50/1.8 lens is more suitable for people with a small budget like me LOL.

[@wastedtalentusa]

Amazing video. Super easy to see the differences this way. 1.2 is really awesome. But, the price, omg.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you! Let's hope we see a 1.4 version soon for a more reasonable price.

[@rogerwirth6060]

Many thanks for the great video! Very useful and informative, and beautifully made. One thing that crossed my mind: All the pictures and footage in this video were shot under rather even lighting conditions. I was wondering whether there would be any difference in how these two lenses handle more extreme lighting situations like shooting into direct sunlight, stray light, flare, situations with sharp highlights such as reflections of metal or glass under harsh light, and similar. (I do own a 50 1.8 on an R6 and was wondering whether I should be upgrading to a 1.2 L because I do feel that the 1.8 sometimes struggles a bit with contrasty edges and sharp highlights which may lead to magenta fringes and similar in my experience.) Cheers!

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for watching Roger. In hindsight it would of been good to do a few more controlled tests, especially direct sunlight as my 50 1.2 flares a great deal and loses a lot of contrast when shooting back lit. Would be interesting to see how the 1.8 performed there.

[@bassamtarabay9723]

Great comparison, thank you,

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for watching!

[@tom_k_d]

Thanks James, I admit I clearly can see the difference in these great sample pictures - but: having had a RF 50mm 1.2 in my hands for a few days now, it reminds me a Mercedes W140 from the 90ies - a little over-engineered, and often way too bulky to be practical. If I want tons of bokeh, and am willing to carry a hefty lens with me, I'd rather go with my RF 70-200 2.8 or EF 85mm 1.4. I'd love a high quality, weather sealed 50mm for the RF system to carry around at all time, though. With maybe 1.4 max aperture and a T-stop close to that (RF 50mm 1.2 seems to delivers only T1.4 anyway), a modern, quiet nano USM (instead of the somewhat clumsy ring USM of the RF 1.2), maybe just a little more affordable, and a max weight of 600g...

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for watching Tom! Totally agree - I would love a smaller, lighter 1.4 version of the 50mm and 85mm. I imagine we are a few years away from seeing them though!

[@tom_k_d]

​@@JamesReader The EF 85mm 1.4L IS adapts perfectly to my R6. It's quite sharp at 1.4 already, and stopped down to 2.8 it's razor sharp. It has a quiet, fast, fully internal focus system (I rarely miss focus even on moving subjects) and a very nice bokeh: I can highly recommend that one for the R bodies - compared to the RF L-series primes it's a bargain, less chunky and well balanced on the R6 body despite the adapter attached. Also, it has a very good light transmission of almost T1.4. Remains the need for a little more lightweight yet sharp L-Series 50mm...

[@tom_k_d]

@@JamesReader I got me the 50 1.2 anyway now 🤷🏻‍♂️, couldn't resist... - yes, it's heavy like a brick, but image rendering is stunning even wide open, focus speed is fast - just focus action and noise is far from being elegant 😜, at least compared to RF 70-200 2.8... Also, as the front element moves, a protection filter seems mandatory to achieve the advertised weather sealing. That said, so far I did not encounter a loss of image quality when using the original Canon 77mm protection filter. Thanks again for your excellent reviews, which helped me a lot to decide which way to go.

[@JamesReader]

@@tom_k_d Really glad to have helped Tom! It's an amazing lens, glad to hear you're liking it as much as I do

[@北小川]

Love your video, I can learn more from it. Thanks.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you!

[@tonysluna]

Looking at both lens Images... It is almost impossible at a "Normal Usage Case"... to notice the difference... now I want the 50mm f1.8

[@MannyScoot]

I gave up worrying about the bokeh years ago..... I like the DOF at F4 .....

[@TheFalkingFive]

yes, the 1.2 is better in every regard, but is it worth to pay 10 times the price and carry all the weight? there will be many situations when people wont even notice the difference. we will see more and more ai in the future - and it wont be a big problem to increase the background blur. the sharpness is better on 1.2 but i think sharpness on 1.8 is good enough for most things, and sometimes people dont want maximum sharpness ^^ i think with luminar ai u already can change background blur - dont know how good the feature is...

[@DarkstarDarth]

I’m curious if the 1.2 was adjusted to 1.8 to compare.

[@propylaeen]

Would be interesting to compare the bokeh from the EF 50 1.2 with the RF 50 1.2 to my eye the bokeh of all EF Lenses was softer and more creamy the price for the greater sharpness is an more edgy bokeh with mor disturbances so there is missing some smoothness in RF images very difficult I guess I might switch to middle format soon.

[@fragu123]

I own both lenses and completely agree…

[@testusersg]

From your video, both lens are very sharp.. one question, if I may ask.. Which picture style do you use, and if there are sharpening applied (in camera)? I often find that the pictures from my lens out of camera isn't as sharp as those seen on youtube videos like yours, regardless of the lens.. I use the neutral picture style with no sharpening.. not sure if that is the reason. Thanks.

[@JamesReader]

The picture profile I used here was “camera faithful”. No I’m camera sharpening was used, but a little sharpening added in Lightroom. Hope that helps.

[@testusersg]

@@JamesReader Thanks.

[@Frame_first]

I love the 1.8 in the future maybe i will take sigma 30mm f1.4 rf mount and for now i don't think i need nothing more

[@risulight]

I'm using RF 1.2 for couple of years now and it was really easy for me to see which lens was used for the shot even before I saw second shot with another lance. Meanwhile my roommate is struggling to see the difference even when shots are placed next to each other. I'm going to switch now for 24-70 f2.8 and I cry inside for selling 50 1.2, but it's too expensive to have them together same time...

[@JamesReader]

If it makes you feel better the RF 24-70 is one of the best lenses on the RF Mount! I think you’ll love it.

[@risulight]

@@JamesReader I know that and I know it truly fits my purposes the best way. Just sold 50 1.2 about 15 minutes ago. Excited to get my new 24-70 🙂 Thanks for your message!

[@BrianHallmond]

Starting to appreciate my 1.8mm a bit more.

[@frankseophotos9633]

Good review 👍

[@JamesReader]

Thank you!

[@Webrisernl]

I sold the 50mm 1.2 to buy the 1.8 and bought a ticket to barcelona for a week and enjoy life.... I know to photograph so a lens is less important for me. I love to light weight and that it is small so people less notice it!

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for the comment Johnny! I don’t blame you for that choice at all. The 1.8 lens is fantastic for the price and maybe the best travel prime ever!

[@Zackabier]

Yes, I can see the difference and appreciate the slightly higher quality of the L lens, but to me it is in no way worth the extra cost.

[@blertapanci8230]

I plan to switch from my Nikon D850 camera to Canon R5 but I’m so confused to what lenses should I get. With Nikon I use Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8, sigma 35mm f1.4 art and Nikkor 50mm f1.8. Now I don’t know what rf lenses to get. I am thinking rf 70-200 and rf 50 1.8. But I also like 85 1.2 and 50 1.2. What would you suggest?

[@JamesReader]

A two lens option could be RF 28-70 f2 and the RF 70-200 F2.8. You could add the RF 50mm 1.2 in the future for a versatile prime. Prime route could be 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.2 and 85mm 1.2. This is often the kit i will take to every portrait shoot.

[@Silencioro]

Great review but I still don’t know what to do 🙈 not a professional photographer so I guess the 1.8 will do just fine om my Eos R body. Subscribed and liked

[@JamesReader]

Thank you Christophe! The RF 1.8 is really good. If you want a step up that won’t break the budget take a look at the Sigma 50mm 1.4 with an adapter. Amazing lens.

[@Silencioro]

@@JamesReader I just ordered the Sigma 50mm 1.8! The reviews were outstanding so perfect solution for me. Thnx again

[@philipthao8527]

Personally, I love the look from the 1.2 but I need to be real and save up for it. I'll have to settle for the 1.8 for now. Hopefully in the future i can get the 1.2. Thanks for the video.

[@Capeau]

The aberration is the biggest give away in my opinion.

[@jolijnsnijdersss]

I see a lot of redness in both shots. That's really annoying as my D750 had this as well especially if you shoot portraits in lights eyes can go red fast and its a hassle to retouch... The 1.2 lens is better but still if you look at the back of the knee its really quite red/pink... Saw that before coming from the R5 in your raw files *thanks btw!*. BIG Thanks for your all your reviews, you made me come to a decision I'm gonna go with the canon R and get a the Sigma art 35mm lens ;)

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for watching Jolijn, really glad to hear the videos helped. The Sigma is a great lens, hoping we get an RF version soon!

[@juho1057]

1.2 is ten times more expensive and six time heavier, so unless photography is your profession I would definitely go with the 1.8, and even professionals can easily choose 1.8 over 1.2. The diffrence in sharpness is not _that_ big and people ten to like slightly softer images anyway. Some of the video guys (and photographers) are going to use black mist filter or similar anyways.

[@carrow2250]

I’m very new to all this, but why is her dress more pink with the 1.8?

[@nicolaschallenor1120]

Great video, I do think many people would be better off getting the Sigma Art over the RF 50 1.8. Sure you have to use an adapter, but the Sigma is comparable in quality to the RF 85mm 1.2.

[@JamesReader]

Very true. The Sigma 50mm is great. Probably the sharpest and most well corrected lens I have ever used is the Sigma 40mm 1.4. Monster of a lens but unbelievably good.

[@nicolaschallenor1120]

@@JamesReader I don't have any experience though with the Sigma Art 35 or the Sigma Art 24-70 any thoughts?. I know in your other video you had a sigma in the Lumix, but not sure if you have the 35mm?

[@JamesReader]

@@nicolaschallenor1120 I've had the 35mm too which is great, just suffers a little from CA wide open (presuming we are talking about the EF version). My favourite "wide" angle Sigma prime is easily the 28mm 1.4. The Sigma 24-70 ART is seriously great too.

[@nicolaschallenor1120]

@@JamesReader Thanks for the info 👍

[@lsamoa]

The bokeh with the RF 50mm 1.8 looks quite nervous, in lack of better words. Looking at it makes me squint. The 1.2's is much smoother

[@JamesReader]

That’s a good way to describe it. I have found the same. Even at equal apertures the 50mm 1.2 is a little nicer

[@lsamoa]

​@@JamesReader I find that comparisons with fiolage or flowers in the background like yours give the best idea of overall image quality. Great video!

[@bjoneill74]

There absolutely is a difference. What I’m not seeing is a $2000 difference.

[@ssshonnn]

Its actually the shutter speed performance that is important. Not necessarily bokeh

[@robertbohnaker9898]

Hi James. On reviewer stated that in their tests, the canon R5 exhibited consistently better images with a cheap lens ( like the CANON 50 1.8 rf) than the canon R6 using more pro lenses ( like the canon RF 50 mm 1.2). I’d love to hear you’re experienced opinion on this, as it flies in the face of all advice saying put your money into Glass, Glass ! Thanks 😊😊

[@JamesReader]

Hi Robert. I suppose it depends what makes an image "better" for the reviewer. I actually think the R5 is going to expose the flaws of a cheaper lens much more than the R6 because of it's higher resolution. I saw a huge jump in quality when I started using the RF 50mm 1.2 on my R6, even compared to good lenses like the Sigma 50mm 1.4. I think you would be wise to invest in good glass, and will see the benefits no matter which camera! Thank you for watching.

[@Mathieu_CHRC]

The photos are beautiful.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you!

[@arturoavalos5939]

Awesome video, but I am not a fan of 1.2, it’s too much bokeh, I think 1.4 is the sweet spot.

[@BrianHallmond]

Which has better/faster AF and eye AF?

[@JamesReader]

Both very similar and very good.

[@thenexthobby]

I'm surprised you got both eyes in focus at such wide apertures ... you seemed close to the subject.

[@chetanshanfilms9988]

Can you share preset?

[@DB-wv8oq]

Nice photos; obviously for most it would be better to start out with the 1.8 n save up to get the 1.2 🎉

[@japomi]

Nice to compare those two, tons of pictures, but man, not a sigle bit of a smile on her face.