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

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,265
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

tkbslc wrote:

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.

Based on what?

The available sample pictures. And the logic more contrast and sharpness in a budget lens design comes at the risk of more busy bokeh. But if you don't believe me, just have a look at the pictures of Irene, and see how harsh that bokeh looks.

If you don't need bokeh, there's no need to use a prime at all, so..... that's what i call "not useful".

You are just full of absurd arguments today.

I would rather have a detailed background than a background with a lot of busyness in it's blur.  At the end of the day you can do your portraits just with your kit zoom.

-- hide signature --

victory

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM +15 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow