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

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,319
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?
1

noggin2k1 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

noggin2k1 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

noggin2k1 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

noggin2k1 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

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.

Any suggestions on an autofocussing $199 lens that performs better, on any mount...?

I'm not saying it's bad for it's price. It's just not good enough for me. Oh, and the RF mounts allows for a better performance.

I'd make a friendly suggestion that you add that extra context in future then. Initially, it sounded as if you were holding it to expectations far in excess of it's price point.

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.

If you're unable to get an outstanding portrait with this lens, the hardware isn't the issue.

I saw some preview pictures from this lens from Irene Rudnyk, and she didn't manage to get outstanding portraits with this lens. It wasn't anything but the lens it's fault.

Ah, the old "I've seen a sample gallery, so I know it isn't good enough."

I don't know who associated with the RF 50/1.8 has offended you, but your absurd and baseless

What's wrong with basing criticism on examining pictures? I don't see why that would be baseless.  You have a suggestion of a better source?

criticism towards it is a bit embarrassing.

I've not seen a single comment or photograph from you on these forums that adds gravitas to your opinions as a photographer, and this is simply compounding that.

That's a very polite way to say you disagree with me, however, without any counter arguments. Talking about baseless....

For me this makes the value of this lens close to zero, but for others it will be worth it's price or more.

When I'm using the words "not good enough" it can't be anything but a subjective thing. I'm absolutely sure this is a great lens when you're on a budget and want a second lens next to your RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 is stm in stead of both the rf 35mm f/1.8 and the rf 85mm f/2.0. At the same time there's a chance this lens will leave you wanting, and will turn out to be an incremental upgrade that could have been skipped.

-- 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 +16 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow