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

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
highdesertmesa
highdesertmesa Regular Member • Posts: 461
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

tkbslc wrote:

highdesertmesa 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?

Not sure if joke or if high.

Did you mean the EF 35 f/1.4? The RF 35 is stupidly small and light. If you think the RF 35 is heavy, the RF 50 is going to feel like you're holding the entire weight of the Earth in your hand.

Not sure what you mean by last sentence. The new RF 50mm is only 160g and 2” long.

I guess I'm the one that was acting high. Missed the "new" part since the RF 50 f/1.2 is still new to me, lol. You mean the RF 50 f/1.8. The RF 35 1.8 feels feather light to me already, though. And 35 vs 50 field of view is completely different. I would use/keep both.

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