[Klaus]

I'm puzzled ...

Yesterday I took some real-world pictures - meant to illustrate the issue with the lens. And nothing ... all seems to be in order.

I'm wondering whether the issues that I've seen in the lab were due to some close focus problem. I will have to revisit this .... *sigh*

FWIW ... here are some snapshots: https://photozone.smugmug.com/Canon-RF-50mm-f18-STM

[wim]

I'm puzzled ...

Yesterday I took some real-world pictures - meant to illustrate the issue with the lens. And nothing ... all seems to be in order.

I'm wondering whether the issues that I've seen in the lab were due to some close focus problem. I will have to revisit this .... *sigh*

FWIW ... here are some snapshots: https://photozone.smugmug.com/Canon-RF-50mm-f18-STM

Well, I have seen similar differences before.
I reckon the testing setup really shows the worst in bokeh possible, rather than what it does for real life shooting. Nothing wrong with that, because it means you can take that into account.

One earlier example was with the EF 50 F/1.2L, where you saw some not so great bokeh. I have never ever seen this happening with my own specimen of this lens, and it actually has always shown flawless bokeh, as in, very smooth transitions to both foreground and background OOF areas, and I just loved it for that. And I doubt very much this is caused by sample variance, as this tends to be caused by overall lens design and placement of diaphragm on the optical axis, IOW, generally not bound by simple lens variance.

It may well be that there is a difference in shooting flat subjects (testing), and 3D real life objects, who knows.

Having said that, other tests I have read so far, seem to indicated that bokeh is not it strongest point, and that it is only marginally better than the latest EF version, and mostly better in the corners, while showing more flare, possibly due to the front lens element being so far forward, compared to the EF versions - IOW, a lens hood is a requirement almost.

Kind regards, WIm

[Klaus]

I'm puzzled ...

Yesterday I took some real-world pictures - meant to illustrate the issue with the lens. And nothing ... all seems to be in order.

I'm wondering whether the issues that I've seen in the lab were due to some close focus problem. I will have to revisit this .... *sigh*

FWIW ... here are some snapshots: https://photozone.smugmug.com/Canon-RF-50mm-f18-STM

Well, I have seen similar differences before.
I reckon the testing setup really shows the worst in bokeh possible, rather than what it does for real life shooting. Nothing wrong with that, because it means you can take that into account.

One earlier example was with the EF 50 F/1.2L, where you saw some not so great bokeh. I have never ever seen this happening with my own specimen of this lens, and it actually has always shown flawless bokeh, as in, very smooth transitions to both foreground and background OOF areas, and I just loved it for that. And I doubt very much this is caused by sample variance, as this tends to be caused by overall lens design and placement of diaphragm on the optical axis, IOW, generally not bound by simple lens variance.

It may well be that there is a difference in shooting flat subjects (testing), and 3D real life objects, who knows.

Having said that, other tests I have read so far, seem to indicated that bokeh is not it strongest point, and that it is only marginally better than the latest EF version, and mostly better in the corners, while showing more flare, possibly due to the front lens element being so far forward, compared to the EF versions - IOW, a lens hood is a requirement almost.

Kind regards, WIm

The bokeh tests scene isn't THAT close focus actually - albeit more so than in the days of the EF 50mm f/1.2. 

The LoCA scene is close focus for practical reasons.

[Rover]

The 50/1.2 showed ugly bokeh in RL pictures, but these contained foliage and twigs, which - when falling into the transition zone - can make the bokeh of any lens look bad.

Mind you, that was not the biggest problem of the 50/1.2 anyway.

[wim]

I'm puzzled ...

Yesterday I took some real-world pictures - meant to illustrate the issue with the lens. And nothing ... all seems to be in order.

I'm wondering whether the issues that I've seen in the lab were due to some close focus problem. I will have to revisit this .... *sigh*

FWIW ... here are some snapshots: https://photozone.smugmug.com/Canon-RF-50mm-f18-STM

Well, I have seen similar differences before.
I reckon the testing setup really shows the worst in bokeh possible, rather than what it does for real life shooting. Nothing wrong with that, because it means you can take that into account.

One earlier example was with the EF 50 F/1.2L, where you saw some not so great bokeh. I have never ever seen this happening with my own specimen of this lens, and it actually has always shown flawless bokeh, as in, very smooth transitions to both foreground and background OOF areas, and I just loved it for that. And I doubt very much this is caused by sample variance, as this tends to be caused by overall lens design and placement of diaphragm on the optical axis, IOW, generally not bound by simple lens variance.

It may well be that there is a difference in shooting flat subjects (testing), and 3D real life objects, who knows.

Having said that, other tests I have read so far, seem to indicated that bokeh is not it strongest point, and that it is only marginally better than the latest EF version, and mostly better in the corners, while showing more flare, possibly due to the front lens element being so far forward, compared to the EF versions - IOW, a lens hood is a requirement almost.

Kind regards, WIm

The bokeh tests scene isn't THAT close focus actually - albeit more so than in the days of the EF 50mm f/1.2. 

The LoCA scene is close focus for practical reasons.

Hi Klaus,
I wasn't talking about close® focus, but about flat objects, with which I meant the playing cards .

Kind regards, Wim

---

The 50/1.2 showed ugly bokeh in RL pictures, but these contained foliage and twigs, which - when falling into the transition zone - can make the bokeh of any lens look bad.

Mind you, that was not the biggest problem of the 50/1.2 anyway.

The biggest problem of the EF 50 F/1.2L was focus shift up to F/2.8. However, I spent a day at a Canon Service Center to get it fixed, and with direct interaction with one of the technicians, they actually got it fixed for me after several tries . Corner sharpness was of my specimen appeared also quite a bit better than the one tested here.

I am a big 50 mm fan, probably because a 50 mm lens was my first encounter with slr photograpy in 1973 , and for me that EF 50 F/1.2L was the best 50 mm I ever used - until I got the RF version .

Kind regards, WIm

[Rover]

We had an EF 50/1.2 in stock at the paper where I worked. Since I mostly had my own gear, I've never borrowed it but the chief said that this lens was adjusted for one aperture only, wide open, and the rest turned out iffy. I had to take his word for it.

I'm content with the 45/1.8 now, it's so much better than the EF 50/1.8 (second version) I had before. But I'm not using these focal lengths much for some reason, I always seem to shoot wider or narrower (24 or 85 if primes are used).

[wim]

We had an EF 50/1.2 in stock at the paper where I worked. Since I mostly had my own gear, I've never borrowed it but the chief said that this lens was adjusted for one aperture only, wide open, and the rest turned out iffy. I had to take his word for it.

I'm content with the 45/1.8 now, it's so much better than the EF 50/1.8 (second version) I had before. But I'm not using these focal lengths much for some reason, I always seem to shoot wider or narrower (24 or 85 if primes are used).

Well, I am spoilt for choice, but I mostly shoot 50 mm, 85 mm, 135 mm (with or without extender), 24-105 mm, 24 mm, 100-400 mm, 10 mm, in that order, and my other lenses when I have a lot of time on my hands, or when travelling .

BTW, 45 F/1.8, is that the Olympus?

Kind regards, Wim

[Brightcolours]

It is the Tamron.

[Rover]

It is the Tamron.

Right. I like it and the 85/1.8 VC a lot.