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

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
Martin_99 Senior Member • Posts: 1,529
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

thunder storm wrote:

Martin_99 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

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.

I would say that it's subjective statement. Personally I'm rather forgiving in relation to corner sharpnes. I notice it usually only when do sharpness test.

This performance is hurting IQ when doing rule of thirds compositions. Yes, that's a preference, and therefor it's subjective, but rule of thirds compositions are pretty common. It's not just about pixel peeping in your very corners.

Look, I was just hoping for something like this. Not a 2300 prime, not a 200 euro prime, but kind of 680 euro, and suitable for rule of thirds compositions. The RF 50mm f/1.8 is not.

I'm far from MTF expert, but as I understand for rule of thirds should be important performance between 10-15 lines, where difference seems not to be extreme: 85mm 0.6-0.75 vs 50mm 0.55-0.6.

I get your point, for PRO work you want to have appropriete tools. But I assume, that such difference would be hard to see on real world photos.

 Martin_99's gear list:Martin_99's gear list
Sony a6400 Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow