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

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
RDM5546
RDM5546 Senior Member • Posts: 2,222
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

tkbslc wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

In other words: it's so affordable it's not very useful as a portrait lens for rule of third compositions. In fact it's so affordable it's not useful as a portrait lens at all as the bokeh is really poor.

A bit over the top, wouldn't you say?

If the EF version could take portraits, then the RF surely can.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Canon%20EF%2050mm%201.8%20portrait&view_all=1

It is really the RF 50 vs the RF35 for potraits when travelling.  I will read everone's opinion if the have hands on experience with both lenses.  It would nice to include the RF 24-105mm and the RF 24-240mm in any comparisons too.  They are all good/great travel lenses IMHO.

 RDM5546's gear list:RDM5546's gear list
Canon G5 X II Canon EOS 70D Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R +38 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow