How Are RF Lenses Really Better?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
hunk
hunk Veteran Member • Posts: 3,397
Re: How Are RF Lenses Really Better?

dmanthree wrote:

hunk wrote:

I make 80% of my income with 50mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2, half the time wide open.
The RF versions are so much better, I would rebuy them even if they would cost three times as much. No comparison really.
70-200, 24-70... Not such a big difference. Love the compact size but I don't care for any quality difference.
The f/1.2 benefits the most, smart job to introduce them first.
Now please give me a 24mm f/1.2... 28 of f/1.4 will be fine too.

Your experience mirrors anyone who has shot those lenses, yet there are replies here saying "no, they're not any better." Nonsense. And I bet you have the images to prove that.

I do have many pictures that prove it. That said, before I owned the RF lenses I was madly in love with my EF f/1.2 lenses. I still like the pictures, the thing is I had lots of work correcting the purple and green edges. Like when you photograph a model with backlight, the edge of her face gets a three pixel green outline. You then turn on automatic abberation removal and the green line turns grey. In a face... not pretty. So you go to photoshop, set a brush on color only and paint over the green and purple edges. No big deal. I did it for 15 years. 
I seldom ever have to do it with RF images.

 hunk's gear list:hunk's gear list
Olympus Stylus 725 SW Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Panasonic GH5 Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 +10 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow