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

Alastair Norcross wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Given the shutter speed this is excellent timing. Well done.

Some hate the fact that Canon has this 50 and the big heavy and expensive 50 F1.2, and no 50 in between.

Some do, and others are deeply disappointed.

I'm fine with it, because I would have bought this one, and not the in between one anyway. I hope, for the sake of those whose lives are blighted by the lack of the in-between option, that Canon comes out with what you want at some point.

That's just so nice. In the name of "all of those whose lives are blighted": Thanks for your hoping.

I'm happy with this one. And with the other affordable RF primes.

I love happy people.

Live and let live.

Somehow I do not feel entirely free to express my own opinion on this lens completely in this topic, but let me say I agree with you it's value for money and it's performance lives up to what you might expect from it given it's size and weight. The lens is small, light and affordable. You could even argue it punches a bit above it's price point even if the same is true for some other lenses for other systems.

The probably in this topic forbidden thing to say is I do not entirely agree with everything you're stating about it's image quality, so let me just say that's probably forbidden to say here. There's also no need to say it as it's discussed before in another topic in a - in my opinion - pretty constructive manner, and I have no problem to continue the debate there if I feel the need to do so.

Tactfully stated.

Thank you.

Of course, I'm basing my opinion of the lens on my copy of it. For all I know, there may be some variation. One interesting thing I've discovered with my use of this lens is that I find myself using it a lot more than I originally thought I would. I bought it mostly because it was cheap, thinking that I much preferred the 35 and 85 focal lengths. If I had been faced with spending $500 on a 50, especially one that was much bigger and heavier (but even one that wasn't), I almost certainly wouldn't have bothered. But, I thought, for $200 I might as well buy it. You never know. But the small size and light weight of it mean that I take it with me pretty much every time I take my R. It's such a small addition to whatever I'm already carrying that I think I might as well have it with me. If I don't use it on that occasion, it's no big deal. It's not like lugging my 70-200 F2.8L IS II with me and not using it. So I actually use it quite a bit, because I have it with me most of the time. If someone gave me a considerably bigger 50mm, even if it was optically excellent, I almost certainly wouldn't use it nearly as much as I use this nifty fifty, because I just wouldn't have it with me nearly as much.

It's making your full frame small, while you're still benefiting from the sensor of the R. That's the charm of the RF 50mm f/1.8.

As for that small Nikon 40 F2 that someone mentioned, I'd never buy that, simply because it's so close to 35, which I also have. I still have my EF 40 F2.8 pancake, which is a very nice lens, but there is simply no occasion when I can see myself thinking "you know what? 35mm isn't right, but 40mm would be perfect, so I'll slap on the 40". The difference between 35 and 50 is clearly big enough, as you know, to justify having both in the bag at the same time.

It's more about increments imo. My Tamron 17-35 has nice IQ up to 28mm, so I'm effectively using it as a 17-28mm. If that one is combined with an 85mm I prefer a 40mm in the middle in stead of 35mm. That said, next to a 50mm I still prefer a 40mm over a 35mm.  35mm is too far from normal perspective and not wide enough at the same time. Sometimes compromises are good, but 35mm isn't a good compromise for me.

I was never a great fan of the 50mm length. Even though the EF-M 32 F1.4 is terrific, I use my 22 F2 and 56 F1.4 a lot more with my M6II. I've become a fan, not of the 50mm focal length as such, but of this particular 50mm lens on my R. If I were a big fan of the 50 focal length all along, I can see how I might be willing to devote more space in my bag to it, and to want one that maybe did some things that this nifty fifty doesn't. So, I hope you get your wish eventually. Maybe when Sigma releases some RF primes?

I don't think it will happen.  And it's probably not an issue for me anymore as I simply sacrificed compactness. I've moved in the other direction, I was a 50mm shooter, but the 40mm Art changed this a little bit. Now it's 40mm + 85 Art indoors or 40mm + 105mm Art outdoors or 40mm + 70-200mm f/2.8 outdoors. Actually, having finally a good rendering 70mm in that zoom (unlike the 70mm of the EF 24-70mm mkII) makes the 40mm a better combination than a 50mm.

If I'm forced to bring one prime it's a 50mm, but, well, nobody is forcing me.

For M  I'm going with just the 32mm as my prime. That's the simplicity kit.