Full Frame RF 45mm f/1.2

[BasilFawlty]

Just curious if anyone else has preordered the new Canon 45mm f/1.2 ?

After watching several reviews of the preproduction model from reviewers I trust, I went ahead and preordered this lens. I recognize it has some shortcomings, but seems like a good value.

 

[ShipleyNW]

I hear they're flying off the shelves.

 

[BasilFawlty]

Kinda surprised this thread isn’t getting more activity.

 

[Bryan Conner]

I might think of it in the future. I owned Tamron's 45mm F1.8 for EF mount and really liked it. When I bought the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 G2 EF mount lens I sold the 45mm because the 45mm wasn't that much smaller or lighter to warrant keeping it. Yeah, the f1.8 was nice, but I did a lot of comparison shots and I couldn't pick out which lens was used with which image , except in close-up shots with the 45mm at 1.8.

This new Canon, while it doesn't have IS, is a good bit lighter and a bit smaller especially since it doesn't need an ef-rf adapter. Plus, it is f1.2. Also, since I now have IBIS in my R6 MkII, the lack of IS has certainly been mitigated.

I will definitely keep my eyes open in the future for a deal on one. Since I just got the R6 mkII and battery grip, I really need to refrain from pushing the limit with my finance minister aka wife.... at least for a few months.....

 

[BasilFawlty]

This new Canon, while it doesn't have IS, is a good bit lighter and a bit smaller especially since it doesn't need an ef-rf adapter.

Interestingly, none of the RF 50mm lenses have IS, not even the new 50mm f/1.4 VCM

 

[pauliusm]

Just got my, so far really happy (NB: never had 1.2 lens before), started new image thread, so feel free to jump there.

 

[GaryM]

For what’s worth I have had this lens a few days and have been able to take thousands of pics with charts, people, basketball games, and scenery. I used an r62 and an r5. I have owned the rf50 f1.8 and 1.2L and borrowed the ef50L.

This lens is much better than i was expecting and i find pleasure using it. It is soft on the edges and reasonably sharp in most of the center at 1.2, to 1.8. At 1.8 the edges sharpen up and are very nice at 2.8. From 2.8 through 11 the lens is nicely sharp across the entire frame. At 16 it is still nicely sharp albeit a small amount of diffraction is setting. (Both the 50 1.2lL and the 70-200 2.8L i would classify as super sharp across the frame at all apertures and the difference is noticeable)

The autofocus and bokeh are normally pretty good. In fact the autofocus is to me quieter and less chunky than the rf501.2L. It is different from the other non L 24, 35, 50 and more like the 50L although not as fast. Has that recessed, clunky movement without the clunk of the Rf50L.

Where the 45 is downgraded is chromatic aberation with busy or shiny backgrounds and on occasions nervous bokeh. But in my first so called normal shots i never saw any CA. It wasnt until i intentional tried to get it by photographing jewelry and it was very noticeable. Also there is zero apparent weather sealing, but we knew that. The 45 is light and well balanced and has been just a joy to use. I have just been using jpegs with all the corrections. They are quite good right out of the camera .
The raw files processed through DPP are just so slow that i have to wait for adobe to get their profile up.

In summary i kind of liken the 45 to the 50L as the rf 100-400 is to the 100-500. Both surprised me with their weight, price, and image quality. Are they L lens quality? Absolutely not. But they are way better than i thought they would be and love using them at times when i don’t want that extra weight …..i.e. travel photography. Very similar results on the R5 as well.

For what you get at this price point it is quite a competent lens. I’m very pleased that canon engineered this lens and made it affordable for those who might want to try it. I hope they keep it up. Also I think canon has done a good job at accurately describing this lens. But i do love my L’s as they are still definitely a step above and beyond, but it comes at a premium price and usually a premium weight too!

Edit: attached files are 1.2 (279), 1.4 (280), 1.8 (281), 2 (282), 2.8 (283), 4 (284), 5.6 (285), 8 (286), 11 (287), and 16 (288). All at minimum focus distance and all straight out of the camera jpegs at 100 ISO. Canon R6II. Kind of in the reverse order I wanted. Oh well.....

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[BasilFawlty]

For what’s worth I have had this lens a few days and have been able to take thousands of pics with charts, people, basketball games, and scenery. I used an r62 and an r5. I have owned the rf50 f1.8 and 1.2L and borrowed the ef50L.

This lens is much better than i was expecting and i find pleasure using it. It is soft on the edges and reasonably sharp in most of the center at 1.2, to 1.8. At 1.8 the edges sharpen up and are very nice at 2.8. From 2.8 through 11 the lens is nicely sharp across the entire frame. At 16 it is still nicely sharp albeit a small amount of diffraction is setting. (Both the 50 1.2lL and the 70-200 2.8L i would classify as super sharp across the frame at all apertures and the difference is noticeable)

The autofocus and bokeh are normally pretty good. In fact the autofocus is to me quieter and less chunky than the rf501.2L. It is different from the other non L 24, 35, 50 and more like the 50L although not as fast. Has that recessed, clunky movement without the clunk of the Rf50L.

Where the 45 is downgraded is chromatic aberation with busy or shiny backgrounds and on occasions nervous bokeh. But in my first so called normal shots i never saw any CA. It wasnt until i intentional tried to get it by photographing jewelry and it was very noticeable. Also there is zero apparent weather sealing, but we knew that. The 45 is light and well balanced and has been just a joy to use. I have just been using jpegs with all the corrections. They are quite good right out of the camera .
The raw files processed through DPP are just so slow that i have to wait for adobe to get their profile up.

In summary i kind of liken the 45 to the 50L as the rf 100-400 is to the 100-500. Both surprised me with their weight, price, and image quality. Are they L lens quality? Absolutely not. But they are way better than i thought they would be and love using them at times when i don’t want that extra weight …..i.e. travel photography. Very similar results on the R5 as well.

For what you get at this price point it is quite a competent lens. I’m very pleased that canon engineered this lens and made it affordable for those who might want to try it. I hope they keep it up. Also I think canon has done a good job at accurately describing this lens. But i do love my L’s as they are still definitely a step above and beyond, but it comes at a premium price and usually a premium weight too!

Edit: attached files are 1.2 (279), 1.4 (280), 1.8 (281), 2 (282), 2.8 (283), 4 (284), 5.6 (285), 8 (286), 11 (287), and 16 (288). All at minimum focus distance and all straight out of the camera jpegs at 100 ISO. Canon R6II. Kind of in the reverse order I wanted. Oh well.....

View attachment 41661

View attachment 41662

View attachment 41663

View attachment 41664

View attachment 41665

View attachment 41666

View attachment 41667

View attachment 41668

Mine just arrived about an hour ago. Haven’t had a chance to shoot much except my cat. Amazing how light it is.

 

[Mr. Phil]

Owning 3 50mm lenses (don't ask ) I struggle to justify buying the 45mm. What am I missing?

 

[pauliusm]

Owning 3 50mm lenses (don't ask ) I struggle to justify buying the 45mm. What am I missing?

Probably nothing, except GAS.

 

[BasilFawlty]

Owning 3 50mm lenses (don't ask ) I struggle to justify buying the 45mm. What am I missing?

You’re not missing anything necessarily. If what you’ve got is meeting your needs then there certainly may not be any reason to buy this 45 mm. The only 50 mm I had is EF 50 mm 1.4 which I have to use with an adapter. I’m planning on selling this and replacing it with the 45 mm which I just took possession of a couple days ago.

 

[GaryM]

Same reply as the others. If you have other 50’s and they suit your needs then look no further. However if one of your 50’s is not a 1.2 then the 45mm 1.2 adds another dimension at a pretty inexpensive price (to me anyway). Just depends on your photographic style and what is important to you.

In my case i loved the rf 50mm f1.2, but got rid of it because it was so expensive and heavy that i used it only 3 times in 2025. I had the 50 f1.8 too but never really liked it so sold it off as well. So when the 45 came out it was just crying out my name. It was my very first preorder and zero regrets.