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

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
tkbslc Forum Pro • Posts: 15,579
Maybe for some
3

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?

I think you probably set of a few nerves by calling the 35 "large and rather heavy". Given that it is smaller and lighter than your 24-105 and is the lightest and smallest lens in the system until the 50mm ships.

But ignoring that phrase, the answer to your question is that the 50mm may make the 35mm redundant for some. I am sure plenty of people bought the RF 35mm because it was the only reasonably small and affordable prime lens for the RF system. Now the RF 50mm will beat it in both size and price. Others prefer a 50mm, but there wasn't an affordable option so they would settle for 35mm.

However, many also just prefer the 35mm focal length and the RF 35mm features. It's a bit more versatile as an all-around focal length. And the RF35mm also has stabilization and macro focusing.

Given the low cost, I will likely buy the RF 50mm 1.8 to add to my kit alongside the 35mm. They are close, but I still find it useful to have both. I like 50mm as prime to pair with a standard zoom. I like 35mm better to pack as a compact single lens kit, or to pair with an 85mm.

If I was on a little more of a budget, I think the RF50mm is a good balance between owning both the 35mm and 85mm and it's cheap.  I would pick it up as my first or only prime lens without hesitation.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow