What can you do with a cheap lens? 1: outdoors

thunder storm wrote:

G Dickson wrote:

unhappymeal wrote:

You know that Nikon makes a 40mm f/2, right? Its list price is within 50 Euros of the RF 50mm f/1.8 and it weighs a whopping 10g more. That extra 50 euros buys you silent autofocus (I've played with the RF 50mm f/1.8 at our local store, it audibly chatters), weather sealing and nicer (imho of course) bokeh.

I'm glad you like the lens, but some of us want Canon to do better. I feel the same way about Canon's entry-level bodies. The RP, in a vacuum, is a fine camera, but the Z5, which was selling for nearly the same price, is just so much better it's ridiculous. It feels like outside of Canon's top tier bodies and lenses that they are regressing.

In many ways I completely agree with you. I was thinking about replacing my 40mm f2.8 stm with the 35mm RF. Over 500 pounds. Plastic construction and no weather sealing. At that price point. No thanks.

I am absolutely no lens snob, but the non-L RF lenses really don't appeal. For the price of that 35mm, Sigma offer an f2 (but not for Canon of course) in full metal construction, metal lens hood, weather sealing gasket at the mount and an aperture ring.

Having the option to adapt the 40mm f/2.8 pancake is great. Due to IBIS the ILIS advantage of the RF 35mm isn't huge. It's still more than a stop brighter being as compact as the 40mm+adapter on your camera though. But at that price point..... I'm sticking with my EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM.

As I just responded to G Dickson, I used to have the 35 F2 IS. It's an excellent lens. But the RF 35 is better in every way (and much smaller than the EF 35 on the adapter). Maybe if you were shooting racing cars with your 35, you'd notice a slight difference in AF speed. I have yet to miss a shot with my RF 35 because of the STM focusing. There's always a first time, perhaps.