Talk me into or out of the RF 50/1.8

EOSSpeedLite wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

I'm not going to talk down your pictures, and I'm glad you're happy with it, but I like better bokeh.

I understand, but I can show you 50 images made with my RF 50L f1.2 at f1.8 and 50 more from my RF 50 f1.8 of the same scenes/models, and the chances that anyone could tell the differences in most pictures is very small.

For some backgrounds and some distances it doesn't matter that much, however, I've seen pretty weird rendering from this lens, head shot distance to the subject, foliage in the back ground at a distance that is apparently the "horror zone" and I know even the Sigma Art does this a lot better, let alone the RF f/1.2.

What you would find is that the eyelashes made with the RF 50L are sharper,

I didn't want to talk down your pics, but yes, I noticed that.

but bokeh? Except for particular use-cases,

I'm shooting a lot with foliage in the back ground, so the RF f/1.8 is not for me.

you will not be able to tell the differences.

Yes, the RF 50mm f1.8 is that good!

As always, if you know the weaknesses of your gear and you can work around it, it's good enough. The portraits you're showing are posed and this helps for choosing back grounds and using good flash techniques.

For candid - more spontaneous - portraits it's a different story. This is more like event shooting. For this kind of shooting you'll need to rely on your lens it can render the back ground well, no matter what. Now that might sound a bit like professional use, however, most amateurs shoot a more candid style, whereas the pro or experience photographer can go by with a consumer lens.