Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
Swerky Regular Member • Posts: 344
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

DaveyA wrote:

I have ordered the new RF 50mm but wonder if I really can manage without the large and rather heavy 35mm lens? I have the 24 - 105 for general purposes (non professional), and as a carry around combination the RP plus 50mm seems sufficient. Am I wrong?

Two different tools. The 50 is an inexpensive nifty fifty. Haven’t seen reviews of that lens yet. The EF version for instance isn’t very sharp at 1.8. If this lens is similar I’d skip it. The 35 may be more expensive and double the weight but is still light at around 300g, is sharp right from 1.8, stabilised (5 stops) and has above average MFD and magnification, permitting for some semi macro in photography. Get the 50 only if you really don’t want the 35mm focal length.

 Swerky's gear list:Swerky's gear list
Canon G1 X III Voigtlander 20mm F3.5 Color Skopar SL II Voigtlander 90mm F3.5 APO-Lanthar SL II Canon EF 35mm F2 IS USM
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow