EF Lenses on R Mount (f/1.2 portrait primes)

saltydogstudios wrote:

enigmatico wrote:

saltydogstudios wrote:

I've been interested in getting into the R Mount for a while now with the 50mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 lenses for portrait work - both natural light and studio.

Adding all of the above to my cart ends up being around $8000 USD for the body and both lenses.

But the latest DP Review video has me thinking - why not get the EF mount equivalents?

Sure the lenses are older and the autofocus and optical performance may not be as good - but with some used EF lenses, my cart is now half the price (body, two lenses and adapter).

Does anyone who has experience with both the EF and R versions of these lenses have an opinion on this?

With the lenses at less than half the price of the R mount versions, it seems like a no brainer - I can get started and then trade up to the R versions if/when it makes sense.

Is there any major reason I would regret getting the EF lenses?

I used Canon 5D series for many years and had the 35mm 50mm and 85mm L lenses. When I switched to Sony I sold the 5Diii bodies, but kept those lenses. I call it nostalgia, my wife calls it hoarding.

It sounds like both of you are right.

I recently bought a Canon RP just as an excuse to get those lenses out of the cabinet again. Of course they are still as capable as ever, but their character and rendering doesn’t have the state of the art precision of, say, lenses like the Canon RF 50/1.2 or the Sony GM 85/1.4 (Neither of which I own).
I sometimes want images with feeling over precision, so those last-generation lenses are perfect for those occasions. For example, I’d describe the EF 50/1.2 as having more of a “glow” when used wide open, than the impressive RF version which is incredibly crisp.

I love a good "character"lens - The Nikon 50mm f/1.2 is a lens I'd describe in this way.

http://sodium.nyc/portfolio/slides/Debra.php (somewhat NSFW)

Prone to flaring and with a "spherical aberration" charm - I like that this is a lens that I can predict to be non-clinical in a very specific way.

That said - clinical has its time and place, and I suspect your characterization is precisely what I'm getting at.

If I want a character lens - I want it to be a manual focus and quirky lens - embracing all the flaws at once.

But when I want to do studio beauty shots (as an example) I want optical perfection. Which I suppose I could get at a cheaper price and more moderate aperture.

So yes - exactly - on the scale of "character lens with flaws" to "optical perfection + wide aperture" where do the EF versions stack? That's the question I'm asking.

You seem to be making a decision based on the cost of EF vs RF lenses. I see you are someone who cares about the flesh-tone differences between camera sensors as you have spent time on creating an interesting colour comparison shootout chart. So my suggestion would be that you research the considerable differences in the rendering between the EF and RF lenses and make your purchase decision based on what style works best for you.

Indeed - I get in trouble around these parts for saying that the sensor matters in the final image in terms of color - but one of the main reasons I'm considering Canon over the other full frame options is the colors.

Saving money is pointless if you’re frustrated with the results.

As a certain photo blogger says "the poor man pays twice, the rich man pays once."

This is why I'm soliciting advice.

Is any perceived difference from the previous generation more about perception of quality "older is less perfect" or about actual differences that show up in the resulting image.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

Have you seen this article that someone else linked to on another thread?:

https://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2018/11/27/to-big-to-fail-the-canon-rf-50mm-f/12l