Canon RF 45mm F1.2 STM Review | Dream Lens or Nightmare?

0:00
[music and bell]
0:10
Hi, I'm Dustin Abbott and I'm here today
0:12
to give you a [music] review of the
0:13
Canon RF 45mm F1.2 STM. You may have
0:18
noticed that my snow is getting so high
0:21
in my yard where I'm doing my outdoor
0:23
filming that I'm kind of running out of
0:25
space to work with. But I'm back today
0:27
to give you a review of the lens that
0:30
when I mentioned I now had a connection
0:32
with Canon Canada and a chance to start
0:34
to review more Canon uh lenses and
0:37
cameras. This was the lens that the
0:39
majority of you mentioned that you would
0:41
like me to cover. And so here I am today
0:43
and thanks to Canon Canada once again
0:46
and particularly Jim there who's become
0:47
my contact for setting me up with the
0:49
loaner this lens and also the 24 to
0:52
105mm f2.8 8 l USMZ lens which I will be
0:57
uh covering next. But this lens uh is
1:00
one that I think is Canon's attempt to
1:03
satisfy those who are still looking for
1:06
Tamron, Sigma, Viltrox type lenses. And
1:09
that is a mid-tier price for a lens that
1:12
gives you a little bit of a faster
1:14
maximum aperture. or well in this case a
1:16
much brighter maximum aperture and thus
1:19
maybe a little bit more uh upscale
1:21
performance relative to the number of
1:24
slower typically f1.8 type lenses that
1:27
we have had access to at lower price
1:29
points in the past. So today I'm going
1:32
to explore whether this lens holds up to
1:34
its promise because on paper it's
1:36
fantastic. 45 millimeter focal length is
1:38
obviously a very popular one. Just a
1:40
little bit wider than the typical
1:42
normal, but for many people even more
1:44
versatile. That maximum aperture of f1.2
1:46
is obviously fantastic, particularly in
1:49
a lens that cost under $500 as this lens
1:53
does. But does the promise bear out when
1:57
we actually start to use and shoot and
2:00
test with the lens? Well, that's what
2:02
we're going to explore today. And so
2:04
we're going to jump in first with a look
2:05
at the build and handling to see what
2:08
you're getting for that little under 500
2:11
bucks. All right, let's take a closer
2:13
look at the build and handling. Starting
2:14
with the price at $469,
2:17
that is over $1,000 cheaper than the
2:20
50mm f1.4, which is $1,549 USD and uh a
2:25
good 2,000 plus cheaper than the 50mm
2:28
f1.2L, which runs right under 2,600 USD.
2:32
So obviously that is a big win for this
2:34
lens. Also um you know a highlight is
2:38
the fact that it is so compact and
2:39
lightweight particularly for an f1.2
2:42
lens. It is 78 mm in diameter or 3.1 in
2:48
but just 75 mm or 3 in in overall length
2:52
making it a nice and lightweight 346 g
2:56
or 12.2 oz. Now, as you can see, this
3:00
lens, it is engineered plastics, but
3:02
it's definitely a step up from their
3:05
cheap lenses in that it does have a
3:08
little bit of sculpting to the body. It
3:09
does feel tough and wellmade. It's got
3:11
their accent, which is pretty common
3:13
there. It's got a metal lens mount. It
3:15
doesn't necessarily feel cheap. It
3:17
doesn't feel premium, but neither is it
3:19
just, you know, some kind of plastic
3:21
fantastic either. Up front, we have 67
3:23
mm front filter threads here. And one
3:27
thing that you will note is that while
3:29
this lens it is internally focusing, but
3:33
it is front focusing. And so what you'll
3:34
see here is that as I manually focus it,
3:37
you'll see the focusing group moving
3:39
back and forth. Now, it never gets
3:41
longer than the length of the lens
3:42
itself. So it does remain internally
3:44
focusing. However, if you're someone
3:46
that's concerned about, you know, some
3:48
weather sealing, considering that this
3:49
lens is not sealed, you might want to
3:51
put a protection filter up front and so
3:53
that you can protect anything from
3:55
coming inside there, be it dust or
3:57
moisture. It might make you feel a
3:59
little bit more comfortable about that.
4:02
As far as the feature set, pretty simple
4:04
here. We have an AFMF switch, which I do
4:07
like. And outside of that, we just have
4:08
the manual focus along with the
4:10
customizable control ring here.
4:12
customized control ring is very
4:14
familiar. It does everything that you
4:16
would expect from uh one of these. It
4:19
you can assign different functions from
4:20
within the camera body. The focus ring
4:22
itself, if you're making small
4:24
adjustments, I actually like it. It
4:26
feels like it's got some actual weight
4:28
to it. If you're making more significant
4:30
focus changes or focusing faster,
4:32
however, you will feel a little bit of
4:34
drag from the focus motor. And frankly,
4:36
that's a little bit of a drag. Inside,
4:38
we have nine aperture blades. And while
4:41
they are reasonably rounded at large
4:44
apertures, you're going to find that by
4:47
the time you get to smaller apertures,
4:48
even f2.8, you're going to start seeing
4:51
a bit of those shapes because they're
4:52
not perfectly rounded here. Now, as far
4:55
as the geometry, the geometry is you're
4:57
going to see the typical cat eye kind of
4:59
effect towards the edge of the frame by
5:02
about f1.8. However, you can see we get
5:04
basically perfectly circular shapes
5:06
across the frame. So, that's nice.
5:08
Minimum focus distance here is not
5:10
impressive. It's just 45 cm, leaving us
5:13
a 0.13 times level of magnification,
5:16
which definitely falls behind all of the
5:19
50mm options from Canon. And most
5:21
notably behind the 50mm f1.8, which will
5:24
do a 0.26 time level of magnification.
5:27
Now, the f1.8 lens is not particularly
5:30
sharp up close, but neither is this one,
5:32
unfortunately. There is no weather
5:35
sealing here, unfortunately, which is
5:37
Canon's policy with all of their nonL
5:39
series lenses. Nor do they include a
5:42
lens hood, which is really unfortunate
5:43
because, as we're going to see, this
5:44
lens needs one. And that lens hood, if
5:47
you want to buy it, is going to cost you
5:49
an additional $59.
5:51
And I'll throw a link to that in the
5:52
description down below. Overall, I like
5:55
the look of the the lens on the camera
5:57
itself. It's a great lens profile and
6:01
kind of reminds me of the EF35mm f2is
6:04
lens, a lens that I quite liked. It's
6:06
nice and compact, but it is also uh
6:10
unfortunately it's consumer grade and so
6:12
on Canon that means it doesn't have much
6:14
in terms of features or premium
6:16
qualities. So, let's talk autofocus.
6:19
Autofocus here comes from Canon's STM or
6:22
stepping focus motor. Now, Canon's STM
6:25
focus motors, they are not the most
6:27
sophisticated that I've seen at this
6:29
stage. There is a wide variety of STM
6:31
focus motors, a wide variety of how
6:33
smooth they are, how fast they are.
6:35
Really comes down to the individual
6:37
lens. And in this case, we have a a
6:40
focus motor that's certainly not bad. As
6:42
you can see here, it focuses with a
6:45
pretty decent amount of speed. there is
6:47
a little bit of a buildup of inertia and
6:50
so you see kind of a bit pause before it
6:52
moves but it moves with pretty good
6:54
speed once it actually moves. It's just
6:55
not like instant like for example we saw
6:58
recently with the 50mm VCM lens. At the
7:01
same time the focus motor is it's not as
7:05
definitely not as smooth as the VCM
7:07
focus motors. You will hear a little bit
7:08
of noise, a bit of a worring sound back
7:10
and forth. And I did note already that
7:13
in manual focus, you can feel a little
7:14
bit of drag from that uh focus motor
7:17
because it doesn't have quite as much
7:18
smoothness or even thrust as what we
7:21
might like. At the same time, however,
7:23
if you look back at a a lens like uh you
7:26
know 50mm f1.2 from the EF series, you
7:30
know, back in the day, this lens is
7:31
focusing every bit as good if not better
7:33
than that lens. And certainly if you
7:35
look at the very old at this point EF
7:38
50mm f1.0 O um lens, we're talking about
7:42
a vast improvement in overall
7:44
performance. And so as far as the
7:47
actually there have been some reports
7:48
and I tried to replicate them. I didn't
7:50
necessarily see them reports that with
7:53
some older bodies which I'm using the
7:55
Canon EOS R5 which will qualify at this
7:57
point as being older that there is some
7:59
issues with focus shift. I wasn't able
8:01
to replicate that and I found that focus
8:03
was actually accurate for me even if I
8:05
was shooting at you know smaller
8:07
apertures. And so, um, you know, but you
8:09
may have to watch for that. Your mileage
8:11
may vary. I actually found that my focus
8:12
accuracy I didn't really have a problem
8:14
with. You can see from a shot like this
8:16
that, uh, of the cats that it hasn't
8:18
just, even though depth of field is tiny
8:20
at f1.2, it hasn't gotten like, you
8:22
know, the eyelid or eyelash. It is right
8:24
there on the iris as you would want it.
8:26
And obviously, the depth of field is so
8:28
small that it's kind of hard sometimes
8:30
to tell what's in focus. But in this
8:33
case, I can tell that it is accurately
8:34
focused where I want. And so whether I
8:37
was doing, you know, portrait shots and
8:39
unfortunately it's it's, you know, this
8:41
morning it was minus 29 Celsius out
8:43
here. And so, uh, there's not a lot of
8:45
volunteers for portrait work this time
8:47
of year. So, you got portraits of me.
8:49
What I found in my session, um, of
8:51
myself was that I I got, you know,
8:54
perfectly accurately focused results.
8:55
The lens, as we're going to see, is not
8:57
particularly high contrast at f1.2, not
8:59
super sharp. And so, as a byproduct, at
9:02
f1.2, too. It can be a little bit hard
9:03
to tell that it's perfectly focused
9:05
because it's just not as crispy as what
9:07
you might like. But certainly in this
9:09
shot at a smaller aperture of f/2.8,
9:12
it's, you know, very crisp and detailed
9:14
and you can tell that focus is in the
9:15
right place. And so, as far as autofocus
9:18
for stills, I really didn't have any
9:20
kind of issue. I don't think that this
9:21
is a lens that I would use for sport or
9:23
fast action. Uh, probably if you're
9:25
wanting to shoot, you know, in and
9:26
around the 50 millimeter focal length,
9:28
your best bet is actually the 50mm f1.4
9:30
4 VCM which has the fastest focus of any
9:33
of the 50 millimeter options on RF right
9:36
now. Now on the video side of things, uh
9:40
overall not too bad. What it feels like
9:42
Canon has done is they've really d-tuned
9:45
the focus speed to enable it to be
9:47
smooth as it does focus pools. And so we
9:50
don't see any kind of visible steps,
9:51
which is great. But what I did notice is
9:54
that there is quite a delay between when
9:56
I touch on screen and when focus
9:59
actually starts to move for these focus
10:01
pulls. And you can see they actually
10:02
feel fairly cinematic, but that's mostly
10:04
because they're quite slow. And then
10:07
likewise, I saw that pop up in other
10:08
places with my hand test. You can see
10:11
that, you know, sometimes there's just
10:12
there's too much of a delay. And even
10:14
though I tried to go slow, sometimes my
10:17
hand was starting to move before focus
10:19
had started to move. And frankly, at
10:21
this point, my eyesight is not sharp
10:23
enough to always be able to tell if I'm
10:25
looking at the view or the viewfinder
10:27
turned around towards or the LCD screen
10:29
turned towards me to monitor it. I can't
10:31
quite tell if it's made the focus change
10:33
or not. One thing I will say is that
10:36
because of that kind of damping on that,
10:38
it there is a fair amount of focus
10:40
breathing, but it doesn't show up quite
10:42
as bad because it doesn't doesn't jump
10:44
back and forth. Likewise, when I
10:46
approached to the camera, you can see
10:48
that it it tracked me fine as I got
10:50
close. When I stepped out of frame or
10:52
ducked out of frame, there's a delay
10:54
before it goes to the background and
10:56
then there's a delay before it picks me
10:57
back up. This is not a highly responsive
11:00
focus motor uh when it comes to video
11:02
applications. But the upside of that is
11:04
that it doesn't jump around either. And
11:06
so I found when I was kind of moving
11:08
around a subject, um, you like the cats
11:10
for example, I found that, uh, focus
11:12
was, you know, stayed locked and was not
11:14
jumping around. So overall, I actually
11:16
didn't hate this for video work. It's
11:18
not so loud that you're going to pick up
11:20
anything on the onboard microphone and
11:23
that, you know, slow. As long as you're
11:24
not looking for responsive, I think it's
11:26
going to work just fine for you. All
11:28
right, let's take a look at the optical
11:29
performance first. The actual optical
11:31
design here. For those of you that love
11:33
simple optical designs, you'll be
11:35
delighted. Nine elements in seven
11:37
groups, and there's just one aspherical
11:39
element that's a part of that. Now,
11:41
unfortunately, those of you that are a
11:43
fan of sharp lenses are going to be less
11:46
delighted at this particular diagram
11:48
that shows a uh the MTF that this lens
11:51
is not super sharp in the center. And by
11:54
the time you get to the far corners at
11:56
f1.2, it has almost no image quality.
11:59
And so unfortunately this uh you know
12:02
looks very much like a design from the
12:05
past rather than a modern design. So how
12:08
does that bear out in the real world?
12:09
Well, Canon is maybe the worst offender
12:12
amongst modern lens makers when it comes
12:15
to leaving things like distortion and
12:17
vignette uncorrected. I don't even know
12:19
how you get this much barrel distortion
12:22
in a 45 mm lens. Usually these are
12:25
pretty neutral almost every design that
12:27
I see. But yet we need a plus 22 to
12:30
correct to get what you've got here on
12:32
the right. As far as the vignette, I had
12:34
to max out the slider to get the result
12:37
that you see here. So a 100% vignette
12:39
correction. When you get to that level
12:41
of vignette, it is going to be
12:43
noticeable. Here is the uncorrected raw
12:45
on the left side and then after the
12:47
profile correction on the right. You can
12:49
just see they're they're very very
12:50
different looking images. And so it is
12:53
there's going to be situations where
12:54
that definitely negatively impacts the
12:56
image. Likewise, there is quite a lot of
12:59
longitudinal style chromatic aberration.
13:01
You can see it both before and after the
13:03
plane of focus on my test chart. Uh this
13:06
shot for example, you know, at a little
13:08
bit more of a distance. You can see if I
13:10
go in there, this is at f1.2. You can
13:12
see lots of that magenta fringing here.
13:14
Lots of green fringing in the bokeh
13:18
beyond there. Uh if we look here at my
13:20
dad's old SLR, you can see that yeah,
13:23
it's, you know, it's it's a little bit
13:24
kind of hazy here and some green
13:28
fringing. And then as we look towards
13:29
those shiny bits, lots of fringing back
13:31
there. Now, a quick look at the bokeh
13:33
geometry. You can see here at f1.2, we
13:36
got that lemon or cat eye shape.
13:38
However, just stopping down to f1.8
13:40
gives us basically circular shape. I
13:42
mean, this one's not perfect, but for
13:44
the most part here, we've got pretty
13:46
close to perfect um geometry right off
13:49
to the very edge of the frame. Likewise,
13:51
there is some lateral chromatic
13:53
aberrations as well. You can see it in
13:54
these transitions from black to white,
13:56
kind of the high contrast areas near the
13:58
edge of the frame. So, unfortunately, it
14:00
doesn't really pass with flying colors
14:02
on any of these tests. The same is going
14:05
to be true when it comes to resolution.
14:07
And so here I'm using a 45 megapixel R5
14:11
showing you results at 200%
14:12
magnification. You can see in the center
14:14
of the frame. There is, you know,
14:16
there's a decent amount of of resolution
14:18
there, but contrast is certainly not
14:20
high here. And just, you know, resolving
14:22
some of these textures. It's just
14:24
they're just looking kind of muddy.
14:25
Mid-frame here has a slightly jittery
14:28
quality here. You can see almost that
14:30
little bit of like Vaseline type haze
14:33
over the top of the textures. Now,
14:35
things get pretty bad if we pan off into
14:37
the corners where you can see by the
14:39
time you get to the far corner, it's
14:41
just mush. I mean, there is there's not
14:43
a whole lot redeemable there. So, as far
14:46
as how that plays out for something like
14:47
portrait work, well, I mean, it's I
14:50
don't think it's terrible, actually. You
14:52
can see here that there's a reasonable
14:54
amount of contrast around the eye. It's
14:56
just it's not crisp, and so the eyes
14:58
don't really shine or pop. But some
15:00
people are they're not looking for a lot
15:03
of, you know, texture information on the
15:04
face. And of course, that poor corner
15:06
performance. It is rarely an issue in
15:08
real world shots where you're not
15:10
composing right off near the edge of the
15:12
frame. Stopping down to f1.4 makes a
15:15
tiny tiny difference, but nothing really
15:18
significant yet. You'll see a more
15:20
noticeable jump from f1.4 to f2 where
15:23
now the text, you know, like the text
15:25
there is starting to get crisper
15:27
looking. The mid-frame is definitely got
15:29
better contrast and it's starting to
15:31
look okay. Unfortunately, down here in
15:34
the corners, things are still looking
15:36
pretty weak. You can see that resolution
15:38
is starting, but it's still a long way
15:40
off. It's not until around f5.6 that
15:43
you'll see those corners really start to
15:44
sharpen up. And as we'll see in a
15:46
moment, they actually look pretty good
15:48
um out in real world shots at f5.6 to
15:50
f8. If you want higher contrast in your
15:53
portraits, this is at f2.8. You can see
15:55
now, you know, contrast looks good.
15:57
There's more sparkle to the eyes there.
15:59
And definitely more contrast around like
16:01
the eyelashes. And again, by f5.6, we
16:05
can see in this landscape image that,
16:08
you know, detail in the center of the
16:09
frame looks really good. But as we pan
16:11
off to the side, right off to the edge
16:12
of the frame, everything is looking nice
16:14
and crisp there on both sides. And so
16:17
for landscape work, it actually does
16:18
fine. It actually does sharpen up. Some
16:20
lenses just never sharpen up in the
16:22
corners. This lens does. It gets better
16:24
as you stop it down. Very much a classic
16:26
design. Now, defraction will start to
16:28
set in by f11 and then the minimum
16:31
aperture of f-16. It's a little bit more
16:33
prominent, but you can see that we're
16:35
still in better shape at both of these
16:37
aperture values than what we were, you
16:39
know, all the way up to basically f2.
16:41
And so, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot
16:42
there. I think that you're still going
16:44
to get decent images out of this. So, as
16:46
we saw earlier, the maximum
16:47
magnification is not particularly
16:49
impressive from this lens. up close
16:51
performance is only okay that you know
16:54
there is some detail there but you can
16:56
see that contrast is rather low. The
16:58
plane of focus looks relatively flat but
17:02
um you know it's this is not going to be
17:04
a pseudo macro lens in any kind of way.
17:07
Here's another shot up close. And what I
17:09
will say is the lens is able to produce
17:11
a really strongly defocus background
17:14
where you're shooting at that minimum
17:15
focus distance and f1.2. And so there's
17:18
certainly applications for this. You
17:20
know, I I still like this shot. Even
17:21
though, you know, in on the technical
17:23
level, it's not super high detail or
17:26
contrast there. It still looks good.
17:28
Now, when it comes to the bokeh quality,
17:30
in many situations, it is nice. Now,
17:32
what you will see is there's a little
17:34
bit more outlining than what I would
17:35
like. It's not like completely creamy in
17:38
the background in some situations.
17:40
However, it does have a fairly artful
17:43
rendering to it. And in shots like this,
17:45
again, close to minimum focus distance,
17:47
that shallow depth of field is going to
17:49
allow people to create images that they
17:51
certainly can't do with even an F1.8
17:55
lens or even beyond that, their kit
17:58
style lens. This is an image I I
18:00
actually quite liked. Now, here I I
18:02
don't love the outlining in the
18:04
background there, but even shooting at
18:05
f1.2, I felt like that was a very usable
18:08
amount of contrast and detail. And so,
18:11
you know, looking at the image, I
18:13
actually kind of like it. It has
18:14
somewhat of a painterly effect to it.
18:16
So, no big complaints there. Flare
18:18
resistance is a final area that I'll
18:21
cover here. I didn't have an opportunity
18:22
to shoot astro, but astro results are
18:24
terrible from what I've seen from other
18:26
reviewers. So, don't buy this lens for
18:28
that. And I certainly wouldn't buy it to
18:30
point into the sun either. And you can
18:32
see here from this still shot that the
18:35
flare looks terrible. And then, you
18:36
know, as we pan back and forth, whether
18:38
it's at large apertures um here or
18:42
stopping the lens down, it is not very
18:46
good with bright light shining into it.
18:48
So, unfortunately, it came without that
18:50
lens hood and it really needs it.
18:52
Overall, this is not a lens that does
18:54
fares well in my test. However, I think
18:57
that there is still a redeemable quality
19:00
to it. It does produce unique images and
19:02
certainly has some real strengths even
19:04
though it has some very strong
19:05
weaknesses as well. So what's my
19:08
conclusion? I think that this actually
19:10
is an interesting addition to Canon's RF
19:13
lineup. And no, as we have seen already,
19:16
it is far from being a clinically
19:19
perfect kind of lens. It has frankly a
19:21
lot of optical flaws. And in many ways,
19:24
this feels more like a classic optical
19:26
design than a modern optical design. But
19:28
it is that very thing that may appeal to
19:31
some of you who are not looking for
19:33
clinical perfection, but prefer a lens
19:35
that does have some character. And I
19:37
would say that this lens certainly
19:38
qualifies for that. This is not a lens
19:41
for pixel peepers. It's certainly not
19:43
those for looking for everything to be
19:44
perfectly optically corrected in lens.
19:47
It's just not happening at all. But for
19:50
those of you that are looking for um a
19:52
lens where it has a bit of personality,
19:54
wide open, a little bit of that dreamy
19:56
quality like you've put on a black mist
19:58
filter uh maybe for your video work. And
20:00
so it's interesting in that regard. And
20:01
then when you stop it down, it is nice
20:03
and sharp and no issues with that. You
20:05
have that kind of dual personality that
20:07
I know from past experience with lenses
20:09
like the Voitlander Noctton 40mm f1.2
20:12
too that there are some of you that are
20:14
really intrigued in lenses like that
20:16
that have, you know, again, that
20:17
character to their overall rendering.
20:19
So, I do think that this is a lens that
20:22
is worthy of consideration. I don't
20:24
think that it's competing quite in the
20:26
space of what like Viltrox is doing in
20:28
terms of giving us both great rendering
20:30
and, you know, really great build
20:32
quality and sharpness and all of those
20:34
things. But, you know, at this point
20:35
that's kind of that's moot because we
20:38
don't have lenses like Viltrox's or
20:40
Sigma's lenses here on Canon RF at this
20:42
point, at least for full-frame. And so,
20:44
that means that I'm glad that this lens
20:46
exists and I hope that Canon is willing
20:48
to make a, you know, take a few more
20:50
chances. And as far as those optical
20:52
flaws, I actually had the opportunity to
20:54
review the EF50mm f1.0 O L. And I will
20:58
say that that lens had far more optical
21:00
flaws than this one does, despite the
21:03
fact that it retailed in 1989 with an
21:05
MSRP of 2500 US bucks, which is the
21:08
equivalent of about 6,500 in today's
21:11
buying power. So that tells me that at
21:14
about $470 for this lens, that's a
21:17
pretty nice value all things considered.
21:20
Now, if you want more information, you
21:21
can check out my full text review that
21:23
is linked in the description down below.
21:25
As always, thanks for watching. Have a
21:26
great day and let the light in.

Canon RF 45mm F1.2 STM Review | Dream Lens or Nightmare?

Dustin Abbott

Viltrox AF 35mm F1.4 PRO FE | Did We Need Another Viltrox 35mm?

S-LINE vs SONGRAW | 85MM F1.2 SHOWDOWN

Nikkor Z 20mm F1.8 S Review | Nikon's Best Wide Angle Prime?

Nikkor Z 85mm F1.2 S Review | Still the Best?

Tamron 16-50mm F2.8 A Review | Your New APS-C Zoom

TTArtisan AF 24mm F3.8 VCM Review | Full Frame $99 Pancake Treat

Sigma 50-120mm F2.8 DC OS Review | It Just Makes Sense!

SongRaw vs Viltrox Pro | 85mm Z-Mount Showdown

Laowa AF 35mm F2.8 APO Macro - A Flawed Macro Gem

7Artisans AF 18mm F2 | An APS C Pancake for $169!

The Best (Affordable) Way to Reach 600mm and 800mm on Sony

SongRaw 85mm F1.2 MS Review | Huge Lens, Huge Performance

Sony FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS Review | 600mm in Under a Kilo!

Sony FE 400mm F4.5 GM OSS Review | Lightweight Perfection!

Bluetti Elite 100 Mini Review | 1000Wh in a Small Package

Up next in 10

Canon RF 45mm F1.2 STM Review | Dream Lens or Nightmare?

Dustin Abbott