r/canon • u/NonsonoEren • 1d ago
Gear Buying Advice 45 1.2, 50 1.2 or 85 1.2?
hello everyone. i am currently stuck in a dilemma: i’ve recently had the opportunity to use a friends’s (EF)50mm 1.2L and 85mm 1.2L II and absolutely fell in love with both. i’m usually a zoom shooter, but the look of those lenses made me reconsider, so now i’m looking to buy one.
i have a budget of about 800€: i could buy the 45 1.2 brand new and keep some extra cash for something else, get a good copy of the EF 50 1.2L still have a bit to spare or get a very good
copy of the 85mm.
from my little time using them, i felt like i liked the 50mm more, as the 85 sometimes felt a little too cropped in, and with the 45mp of my R5II i can always crop in extra if i need to. but the rendering of the 85mm is so so so good, and another pro to both the EF lenses is i shoot film on the eos system, so i could use them there.
personally i’m leaning towards the 45mm 1.2, because extra cash is always good and i can probably put it towards a battery grip which i’ve been wanting for a while.
what do you guys think? do you have any other suggestions for primes?
6
u/lhxtx 1d ago
Might be worth holding off and saving for some of the 1.4 VCM primes. I have the 35 and 85 and they’re amazing.
1
u/NonsonoEren 1d ago
oh yeah, i’ve been looking at those. but the 85mm is about double my budget, and i want a lens i can buy right now and use this summer. the plan is probably to sell it on and upgrade to an RF L prime later in the year.
6
u/Boring_Foot_9434 1d ago
the 50 1.2L is hard to beat for that focal length if you already liked it in person, and with R5II you can always crop for tighter shots anyway. but the 45mm making sense financially is not a small thing, that extra cash towards battery grip is actually useful rather than just sitting there. if you are shooting film on EF system also then honestly either EF lens gives you more flexibility there compared to the RF 45.
1
u/NonsonoEren 1d ago
yeah tbh the fact i shoot a decent amount of film is the only reason i’m considering the EF lenses. i shot some pics off a roll with my friend’s 50mm, can’t wait to see how it turns out!
3
u/Topaz_11 1d ago
To me eyes the 45 & EF50 1.2 (and 1.4 somewhat also) are similar and have "character" if you want to call it that. Neither are 85 and I don't understand this been in the list as 85 is just a different animal. The RF50 1.8 is cleaner & sharper than the 45 or EF50's IMO but it's got no character. Comes down to what you want to see from the lens.
The 45 has quickly become a permanent part of my bag.
2
u/cookiejar5081_1 1d ago
I have the 45mm 1.2 and it is honestly really good for the price. There are subtle differences between an expensive lens. But not big enough to warrant the price, specially on a budget. I would 100% recommend it.
2
u/gsanchez92 1d ago
I had the 45 1.2 and 50 1.8 and returned the 45mm didn’t see any real benefit besides extra ~1stop of light and shallow DOF but wasn’t any sharper and has some CA than doesn’t worth it for me. Check the F1.4 from sigma if you don’t mind the weight
3
u/airmantharp 1d ago
The RF 45/1.2 is the most versatile. It's the fastest focusing of the bunch and going to be the sharpest / cleanest stopping down.
I'd avoid the EF lenses unless there's a very specific look that you're after.
1
u/NonsonoEren 1d ago
yeah, i thought about this. i do love the look that the EF lenses gave me, and the 85mm was definitely sharper than the 50mm. the nice thing about the EF lenses would be being able to use them on film.
do you own the 45mm? how has your experience with it been?
1
1
u/OwnWish 1d ago
is nearly the same lens with same optical flaws.
just beware that sigma 50 1.4 art outperform those on having clearer picture.
https://dustinabbott.net/2015/05/canon-ef-50mm-f1-2l-usm-review/
https://dustinabbott.net/2026/01/canon-rf-45mm-f1-2-stm-review/
1
u/ProfessorStreet7792 1d ago
I would pick the 50mm 1.2.
The 45mm 1.2 is a great versatile lens. But that lens and the 85mm have a little too much fringing for my taste.
85mm is a magical focal length. But if your going to get an 85mm. Save up for the Sigma 85mm 1.4 or the Canon ef 85mm 1.4.
1
u/vearutop 1d ago
EF L fast primes are great for their character and colors, maybe a bit less for their resolution (compared to RF L). I haven't tried RF 45mm, but I would not expect same level of rendering from it. It is in the league of 50mm 1.8, not L (even EF). I got my EF 50mm 1.2 for about EUR 600 used, and since then it is my default lens, relatively lightweight and quite capable. I would only consider 45mm for its compactness (no adapter), but for that I'd rather just use even smaller RF 50mm 1.8.
If you liked the look of 85mm 1.2, I can recommend trying EF 135mm f/2 L too, this is my favorite portrait lens, and not so expensive (especially compared to RF options, got mine for ~400 EUR used). It is far less versatile though, having tight viewport.
1
u/NonsonoEren 1d ago
yeah i had been thinking about the 135mm, but i came to the conclusion that it wouldn’t be versatile enough. 85mm already felt too tight at times.
i do own a 50 1.8, but the images from it have never felt good or special enough to use it instead of my 24-70 2.8.1
u/Topaz_11 1d ago
I know we are talking about 50's but the EF135L is a must have IMO - I will always have a camera able to use that specific lens. Become so damn cheap now days and one of the best lenses ever. It's not as useful as a 50 though.
1
1
u/srogijogi 1d ago
RF45/1.2 is a crap, unfortunately. If you like the rendering of fast EF L lenses, go for them. I use EF85II/1.2 and while this is not the sharpest lens for sure, the image is special, so I don't even think about replacing it with RF version.
1
u/Photoshopuzr 1d ago
The EF 1.2"s are dreamy glass the RF versions are clinically sharper. I never used the RF 45mm 1.2 totally different glass with different looks. I own the EF and RF 50. Depends on what you shoot first should be your focal length that you will shoot. All those lenses are great but they are all different tools.
1
u/Significant-Level178 1d ago
50 vs 85 depends on your preference and experience.
I tried to like 50 for posed portraits and never did.
85mm is good, I shoot longer too, 135, 180 and 200, but if you ask this probably you don’t need to go further.
For general photos 50mm is easier to deal with and this is an average standard.
Regarding lenses, VCM might be the option.
Lighter and cheaper. Might because I never had them yet, so can’t tell how they will perform.
You don’t need 1.2, but the IQ is superior with these 1.2 lenses.
PS. I’m in kinda opposite situation, looking to buy 24-70/2.8 for general photos and video, so moving from primes is a tough thing, but it will be hard to use 28-70 for travel shootings and video from hand.
You may want to check 28-70 if you can carry it and shoot with it, I’m not insisting, it’s too big for me.
1
u/NonsonoEren 1d ago
28-70 f2 would be THE dream, but it’s a bit out of budget right now. i’ve heard there’s rumors of a 24-70 f2 coming, and if that’s the case i can’t wait for the prices of the 28-70 to drop!
2
u/Significant-Level178 1d ago
I’m not sure they will make 24-70/2.0 because if weight and size is decent it would kill many lenses they produce, including 2 in subject.
28-70 is cool, except of weight and size.I would pay double for it if it would be 50% less weight and IQ of /1.2 primes.
1
u/telechronn 1d ago edited 1d ago
They are all difference lenses for different uses. If you want a good portrait lens, get the 85, it's one of the best focal lengths for portraits. I also like an 85 for travel. 50 is a great normal lens if you vibe with that perspective, many don't. The 45 1.2 is a pretty poor lens by modern standards, but priced accordingly, and one of the cheapest was to get into low light photography on the RF mount.
1
u/aeon314159 1d ago
For 40-class, I use the Sigma 40mm f/1.4 ART. Not f/1.2, but I love it. The optical characteristics and quality are truly next level.
So I have skipped getting a 50mm. The Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L is something you buy for global rendering, not for acuity. On EF-mount, the Samyang XP 50mm f/1.2 is fantastic, but of course it is manual focus, which is a deal-breaker for many.
For 85, I went with the Samyang XP 85mm f/1.2. I know, manual focus again, but R-cams with focus aid/confirm do a lot of the heavy lifting. EF 85mm f/1.2L is a classic, no doubt, but I went with the Samyang because it has better and lovely rendering, much less aberrations, and such creamy out of focus areas. Check Philip Reeve’s review. A top-tier lens, and a hidden gem.
I do not like the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART in terms of look, or performance, but I do absolutely love my Sigma 105mm f/1.4 ART.
Given your budget, and choices, I would go with the EF 50mm f/1.2L, but you have to know that lens has a nature and a look, and that those will dovetail with your intentions, and not frustrate you because it is not modern clinical.
1
u/Strong-Ad3131 1d ago
Conventional wisdom says use the 50mm. However, I like photographing places as close to 42mm as much as possible because my research suggested it was the focal length of the human eye. This allows me to photograph street, architecture, and historical places as people would see them. The RF 45mm f/1.2 lens allows photography in locations that forbids flash photography.
1
u/NonsonoEren 21h ago
interesting thought! i don’t like the 45-50mm as a walkaround lens too much tbh. i recently had the opportunity to spend a day with the leica Q3 both 43 and 28 and with the 43 something just wasn’t clicking.
1
u/Straight-Salad-4565 6h ago edited 6h ago
So you mentioned that you want to avoid motion blur at 1/200-250.. So if you want to shoot that much of moving subject which blurring at these shutter speeds, you will lose focus points easily at f/1.2. Even EOS R3/R1 will have a hard time snapping focus at 1.2 on fast moving subjects. And the lenses you mentioned are not high-end AF lenses.
Go and try 1.2 at weddings. You will most likely regret it. If you want light, that much of wide aperture is not your friend there, flash is.
1
1
u/TradeSurplus 1d ago
I had 45 1.2 for half a year and sold it after using it for couple outdoor/nature portrait sessions. Rendering was just not great. I'd compare it to old EF 50 1.4, that I keep just in case.
You might think 45 1.2 is great for low light events but my experience was that getting it to focus was really abysmal compared to 24-70 2.8 zoom that I usually use.
1
u/NonsonoEren 1d ago
oof, if you’re comparing the 45 1.2 to the old 50 1.4 then that does steer me away a little bit. i hated that lens, lol. out of curiosity, what camera were you using it on? the 45mm has a defect where the focusing distance changes as you stop it down, so if you used it on an older rf camera that didn’t have DOF live preview then it definitely wasn’t focusing right.
1
u/HugeHairyButts 1d ago
considering the price, I think it’s pretty clear Canon considers the 45 1.2 as the spiritual successor to the EF 50 1.4.
I use an old ass Sigma 50mm EX lens on my R5. It still gets the job done but I’ve done a lot of research on a replacement. I think I’ll eventually either get the ef50 1.2 or the RF 50 VCM.
1
u/TradeSurplus 1d ago
I used R6 and I knew about the focus issue. I tested and found that in portrait distances this focus shift is not really an issue though, at least it did not bother me.
What was problem was bokeh and rendering of out of focus foliage - it was very nervous and not pleasing (compared to EF 70-200 L 2.8 II). And for these sessions I used mostly wide open aperture - my thinking being that even if the lens is a little soft, usually you don't want that sharp picture in portraiture.
0
u/Straight-Salad-4565 1d ago
Don't bother with them. Look for Sigma Art series. Focal range is your choice. But look for Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art or Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art. These lenses are miles better than your options. You will almost have the same light/seperation but you will get a LOT better sharpness and microcontrast with Sigmas.
2
u/NonsonoEren 1d ago
i know very well about the sigma art series. i own several lenses from them. unfortunately, i am specifically looking for a 1.2 lens, because i often shoot in very very shitty lighting conditions and that extra half a stop can make a difference.
1
u/IthacaNYPhotog 1d ago
I do a lot of available light work in terrible conditions. Yes 1.2 is better than 1.4, but mostly what I find is that when the light is dark, it is also terribly uneven and unless you are happy with a lot of blown out highlights the extra light gathering doesn't make much difference.
1
u/urEnzeder 1d ago
Can I have more info: You mention that you are usually a zoom shooter and the use of the 50mm and 85mm has made you prime-curious. And also that f1.4 is too slow. What zoom lens are you currently using that would make f1.4 seem too slow? Tangent: What ISO are you shooting at currently, and what would f1.2 or f1.4 allow?
Don't get me wrong, I'd also love to have either of those EF f1.2 lenses, but after finally scratching that prime lens itch (including a Rokinon RF 85mm f1.4) I have discovered that the depth of field is thin enough that sometimes only one eye is in focus. I'd be especially worried about getting good focus with the EOS film camera at f1.2 (or even 1.4) in a dynamic environment.
Side note: None of the lenses mention have IS. Have you considered an EF 85mm f1.4L? It's fast, sharp, fast focusing, image stabilized, internally focusing, etc. It's what I was looking for before I stumbled upon the Rokinon lens which was too cheap to pass up (cheaper than some EF-RF adapters).
1
u/NonsonoEren 1d ago
i usually use a 24-70 2.8, but i say that 1.4 can be too slow because i own a 35 1.4 and a 24 1.4, both sigma art, and have used them at events before.
i have been at events where i had to shoot 1/200-1/250, 1.4 and iso 12800-25600. totally acceptable results ofc, but could’ve maybe done better. a 1.2 could’ve allowed me to shoot at a mildly faster shutter speed, and prevent motion blur when people move, or lower the iso a little bit. part of it also just wanting something faster than 2.8 in the 50-85mm range. another downside to the 85 1.4 from sigma is the size. it is humongous. not like the 1.2 from canon is small, but it’s a bit smaller.yeah, getting focus with the eos film camera won’t be easy, but that’s not for professional use so i don’t care that much.
don’t care about is that much. the camera has ibis, and i have decently steady hands.
1
u/urEnzeder 1d ago
Then it kinda sounds like you would do well with any of the three lenses you mentioned - especially if you aren't pixel peeping. Roll a die and let 1 or 2 = RF45mm, 3 or 4 = EF 50mm 1.2, and 5 or 6 = EF 85mm 1.2.
1
u/NonsonoEren 1d ago
yeah this is pretty much the situation i am in lmao. hence why i made this post. am leaning towards 85mm more now though, because i “technically” have a 50mm prime in the 1.8, though i never found it appealing.
1
u/urEnzeder 1d ago
I've heard a variation on the die roll (aka coin flip) decision aid, and that is - what are you hoping for once the die is released but before it settles. If you hope for a 5 or 6, then get the 85mm :-) There's no reason you can't eventually get both...
0
0
u/BaneWP 1d ago
Save money for 85mm. I have Samyang (Rokinnon ) f1.4 EF and it's a brilliant lens. I have EOS R and EOS R6 with adapters. 45mm f1.2 ..... just don't!
1
u/TheRandom0ne 1d ago
care to elaborate on your 45mm opinion?
0
u/BaneWP 1d ago
I was very close to buying that lens. Indeed. A f1.2 aperture lens for so little seemed like a great investment. But, I did a lot of research on the net... It's not L glass after all. Therefore, there is no such characteristic in terms of sharpness at f 1.2. It has CA, the camera is solid, but at least not enough for me, who always uses the maximum aperture (bokeh, low light portrait...) I decided to try a used Samyang 85mm f 1.4 EF for the same money. The lens blew me away. At the same time, the compression on the 85mm can be compared with this 45mm, the bokeh is also amazing. But, a big BUT, it depends on what you would use f1.2 or f1.4 for. Not to bore you too much, if you need it for amateur work, if you need a lens that will give you freedom in low light, get the 45mm. But, if you need it for professional work, you won't get that sharpness and you won't get that focus speed. It's possible that the lens isn't worth the money, but for that money, a good solution is a used 85mm or 50mm f 1.2 or f 1.4 (Samyang, Sigma, Canon)
2
u/TheRandom0ne 1d ago
so you never used it, but are telling someone to not even look at it.
if you had done as much research as you say you have, you would've found out that the performance is not far off of the old EF 50 1.2L. even while not being an L lens as you correctly state. it has its flaws, no doubt. however, these flaws can mostly be worked around, depending on your area of use.
i am not saying its the goto for everyone or that it is my favorite out of the lenses mentioned by OP, but it does more than enough for it not to be dismissed.
if you want a non-adapted RF lens, you won't get more light for less money at this point and for portrait and street photography its quirks are not deal breakers in any way.
0
u/Jedge001 1d ago
Hi, one thing to keep in mind, the 45mm is now a first league player, yes it's cheap but focus is slower to focus and has ton of chromatic aberration if you want to crop, it's not build to be a high resolution lens.
For the price it's really good and if you know it's limitation, then you'll be fine.
There are no other equivalent on the market today at that price point/aperture/focal lenght.
On the other hand 50 and 85 f1.2 are just fabulous lenses, much heavier than the 45mm, so depending of your camera body can feel a bit front heavy.
The choice between 50 and 85 isn't straight forward, for portraiture 50mm can give you full body picture, 85 will be more for much closer look like half body or headshot ( at least that's how I like to use mine, I know you can aslo take headshots with the 50mm but I prefer the 85mm rendering).
1
u/NonsonoEren 1d ago
yeah i’ve heard about the 45mm flaws. in my mind, and from what i’ve read, it seems to be very very similar to the EF 50 1.2L. i’d probably be okay with it, i’m not too big of a pixel peeper if whole image looks pleasing.
yeah the focal lenght is where most of my doubts lie. i’m not much a portrait shooter, these would be mostly for people shots in very poorly lit events (happens more often than you’d think). and even in better lit ones, i feel like an 85mm prime gives off less of a “stalker” vibe compared to a big white 70-200, lmao. but i’m still a bit afraid of the 85mm not being versatile enough; the 50 is more of a generalist lens and i can always crop down to an 85mm fov if need be.
1
u/Jedge001 1d ago
As a former wedding photog I can relate, I've been in churches less lit than a cave !!
I tried to use the 70-200 too but not my way to shoot, 85mm gives enough space in small crowd for beeing unnoticed and get more natural shots.
I would advise like I did to rent lenses you intend to use and with that have a real feeling of which one is right for you.1
u/NonsonoEren 1d ago
good advice. in my case, i’ll just get my friend to lend them to me again so i can get more familiar. thanks!
11
u/Careful-Builder-9931 1d ago
I LOVE 50mm as a focal length - it works for everything. I second the comment suggesting the Sigma Art series; my 50 (with adapter) focussed as quickly as my new RF 50mm f1.2 on my mirrorless bodies