Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The biggest benefit of this fifty is, that fits perfectly in my smaller hands with R body.


All brands today produce all those super sharp and corrected bulky lenses that lack personality, what people use to say about the “leica look” “zeiss pop” and the amazing L primes EF set Canon have (…had). When my EF L primes will stop working I’d rather go medium format with Fuji, that, while still obsessed with all this overly corrected stuff, being medium format delivers on its own outstanding nuances and micro contrast. Something that EF L primes have (sacrificing a bit of resolution when wide open) and modern mirrorless lenses don’t. Truly disappointed by the direction where photography is going.

Al K in CVG

While this lens does everything his precious Fuji medium format will do (IE. Excellent Micro-contrast, great bokeh, etc.), he trashes it. I’ve tried one, and it’s images are just beautiful! I’m saving up for mine.


I never see COMA discussed. How does this lens compare to other high end lens wrt COMA.


Not sure what everyone is seeing here. The EF is clearly better at every aperture except for the corners.

Ok I’m here to whine. I’ll admit it. The white mark on the brick wall is a muddy mess on the RF. It’s over corrected for maximum detail resolving power that would only show up at wall size print sizes…

That’s medium format territory.

I’m sick of the photography industry catering to prosumers and people who lack the nuanced vision to see what a truly professional lens can deliver circa 2008. Then everything became about sacrifice to tone and color to higher virtual megapixel scores to make people who lack vision but want to feel justified in spending 3000$ On a lens.

Al K in CVG

Yes, you’re a whiner. I had the EF 50mm f1.2L, and I’ve tried tried the new RF 50mm f1.2, and the new lens is, corner to corner, an order of magnitude better. The images the new lens produces are something special. If everyone believed, like you, that the peak of lens development occurred in 2008, Nikon, Fuji, and Canon, etc would have gone out of business a decade ago. As for nuanced vision, get out and your basement, and you’ll find dozens of local photographers producing beautiful work with their “prosumer” equipment.


Hay PL readers
Looking for camera upgrade having 35, 50, 24-70 nikon system with D3500 should I go for 850 or move all together to mirrol less system keeping future for at least 4-5 don’t get out dated.

Need seriuos advise



You need to do two things.
1. Learn how to read.
2. Post your questions in the right place for that, here we are discussing this review, for questions like your there is a proper forum place.
3. Loose the arrogans where you think that rules don’t apply to you.


Is it in the rules somewhere that it’s OK to leave rude replies to innocent (if off-topic) questions? And I don’t see you having much room to criticize his reading abilities considering all the grammar and spelling errors in your post.


Thanks Mark
For your support, I have been following site for almost over 6 to 7 years. But never saw such reply to any one. Readers over here are quite mature sensible.
Any how Thanks again for your support.


Dvir, although I really really like your sample pictures for how they look and their colours and everything: But if I’d be a Canon shooter and would think about getting a really fast 50 mm, I would like to know how it behaves in dark situations, inside or in the streets. I would also like to know how much coma it has in case I’d like to snap some Milky way pictures. I would like to know how thin the DoF in a face is – a fruit as a close-up just doesn’t tell me the same. I would like to know how well it’s handling frontlight. All of these questions are potentially weak points of fast lenses – how it behaves stopped down, I really don’t care much – I simply expect the best at this price.

The lens has to be sharp at least at around f/2.8, at this price point this is no question, it’s a simple demand. As Moses said “$ 2300… Hmmm” I think you should ask yourself what reasons you’d accept to spend this kind of money and if the lens live sup to your expectations. No one needs a f/1.2 50 mm just for landscapes, no matter how beautiful you did them…


Any chance you could do a comparison at the same apertures of the Nikon 50mm 1.8 S lens vs this one? Curious to see whether the much smaller Z lens can keep up with this behemoth.

Spencer Cox

Having used both side by side – although, granted, not doing so with the intent to compare image quality – it appears to me that the Canon is just a hair sharper along the edges of the frame at wider apertures. Not a big difference, but still pretty amazing for Canon, since the Nikon 50 is in the top 5 sharpest lenses we’ve ever tested on Imatest. I didn’t compare bokeh enough to make any firm statements, but my initial impression is that the Canon is a bit better here as well, with the Nikon having slightly busier bokeh along the edges. But again, the differences are minor.

Both are stunning lenses, and they have remarkably comparable optics overall. Of course, the Canon is a stop wider, while the Nikon is smaller and less expensive.


Good review Dvir.

I sometimes wonder if executives today at camera companies remember the genesis of the suite of lenses we currently have. The 50/1.2 was created in the 1970/80s as a ‘wide-angle’ portrait lens, with low light advantages. As the standard portrait lenses in the 85-135mm range had achieved F1.8 apertures, a 50 with similar bokeh characteristics needed to be in the F1.2-1.4 range. At the same time, since quality film stock for publication maxed out at ISO 400, the extra stop facilitated evening event portraits, without flash. As a portrait lens, it was accepted that the corners would show vignetting and blur. Indeed, this was probably considered a benefit, since soft edges help focus the attention on the centre of the frame. No one wants sharp bokeh! So, what are these modern 50/1.2 lenses actually for? The shallow depth of field landscape shot is a pretty niche market, although I do enjoy dioramas. I would suggest adding a few more portrait shots for comparison in this review.


$2300 for a 50mm lens that only pixel peepers would appreciate vs $200 50mm that will do 99% of the same thing. Hmmmmmm

Al K in CVG

In the past, I’ve owned Canon’s EF 50mm f1.4 & EF 50mm f1.2L. I recently acquired their RF 50mm f1.2L, and believe me, you don’t have to pixel peep to tell the difference between it and all previous Canon 50’s. When you pick up this lens, it’s size and weight are your first clues that something is up. Then…. You start looking at the images it makes, and everything comes into focus. Terms such as “lifelike” and “3 dimensional” rendering come to mind. Yes, it expensive, but your paying for a very sophisticated lens design, which is then manufactured to an extremely high standard of construction. It now lives on my R5 as my everyday, walk around lens.