Talk me into or out of the RF 50/1.8

EOSSpeedLite wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

ProDude wrote:

I find the responses here rather humorous on end and absurd on another. While one may not wish to compare the RF50 1.8 to the likes of a RF50 f1.2 and such, it still provides better subject isolation than a f2.8 or f4 lens which is it's true intentions. If you do the research and look at the statistics a large aperture lens of this type is more often then not used for portraits or a single subject isolation shot. For that it does a remarkable job in the first place for it's price to say the least.

As far as results if one is careful in choosing their subject's distance from the background carefully you can get some very high quality bokeh even from this lens. Most folks aren't all that careful so I won't go there. They tend to want the equipment to do most of the work for them;-)

That's me. I love my lenses to render the background nice and smooth no matter what.

If you want to get a lens that will allow you to learn a lot for very little it's a good choice indeed. I wouldn't worry about corner sharpness

Well, it's not about corner sharpness only .

if you are doing a portrait type shot in the first place. If you want a "walk around" lens look elsewhere.

Well, if you get the RF 50L f1.2 (I have both RF's), you might be sorely disappointed.

Why?

Because ALL prime fast lenses will disappoint for certain combinations of background, model distance from the background, and photographer distance from the model.

although true they will disappoint way less, and waaaaaay less often

Sure, the f1.2 will give you a better chance of getting the creamy awesome smooth bokeh you desire, and provide more bokeh possibilities for being faster, but to be so dismissive of the cheapo RF f1.8, thinking not to bother making portraits with it, is to not be informed.

In other words, you can make super high-priced portraits of super high quality with both RF 50s, even if the f1.2 will give you a more likelihood

a whole lot more likelihood

of getting the best bokeh.

It comes down to this: if the photographer has great skills, those skills will determine more than anything the quality of the portrait, and it's bokeh.

If you think this background from the cheapo $200 RF 50 f1.8 is sub-par, then I would say you are not being truthful:

There are more areas with some less good stuff, but I think this clearly indicates the best of all areas things will get worse with more difficult back grounds. If that's untruthful I'm "untruthful", I rest my case.

It's always possible to find this artistic, preferable, or whatever, that's true, as bokeh quality is subjective in the end of course. Let me just say: It's not my taste.  Feel free to disagree.