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

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,284
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

Martin_99 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

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?

The 50mm is a walk around lens, useful outdoors when there's enough space to step back a little if needed. It's light and small, and it's best used somewhat stopped down.

The 35mm is a low light lens as it has both a large aperture and IS. This lens is also usable indoors because of it's wide open sharpness and wider focal length.

Maybe it's worth it to think about what prime you would need next to a 35 and 50mm enabling you to leave the zoom at home.

Why do you think, that 50mm is not sharp wide open? I saw no sharpness tests so far.

Not a real test, but we do have mtf charts.

It's sharp in the center, however, sharpness drops too soon when going to the border. The EF is worse, but the RF still isn't good enough.

-- hide signature --


 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM +16 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow