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

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
JustUs7 Senior Member • Posts: 1,563
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

thunder storm wrote:

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

Chances are the bokeh of the RF lens is worse compared to the EF lens. If you don't need bokeh, there's no need to use a prime at all, so..... that's what i call "not useful".

I don’t use a prime for bokeh in most cases. The 35 I use when light is limited and I have no flash. Using something that starts at f/4.5 isn’t fine in those cases. Or f/5 as the consumer RF zooms hit at 50 mm.

I’m trying to capture a subject in those cases. A pleasing background can be a bonus, but the background isn’t why I’m using the prime.

 JustUs7's gear list:JustUs7's gear list
Canon EOS 1000D Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS RP Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow