Talk me into or out of the RF 50/1.8

EOSSpeedLite wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

ProDude wrote:

will just scream

What's the need really to frame debating style of conversation partners having another opinion than you like this.

Let's just try to disagree respectfully.

Yes, agreed, but it helps if one is not so quickly

What's wrong with quickly?

dismissive

Well, I'm just expressing my opinion on this lens. That's exactly the same you're doing here. You like the bokeh. I respect that. But respecting this isn't the same as having the same opinion and not expressing my own opinion.

of the abilities of the consumer-grade kit. Doing so suggests that it's all about the kit, and not the skills of the photographer, which is a falsehood.

Let me quote myself: "As always, if you know the weaknesses of your gear and you can work around it, it's good enough."

Just don't act as if I would have stated otherwise.

Let's not quash the hopes of others who desire to produce excellent images, but who can only afford consumer-grade lenses.

That's sympathetic. I like this. But let's not forget a used Sigma f/1.4 Art costs as little as 350 euro, and a used RF f/1.8 is at least 175. That's almost double, but a doubling of very little is still pretty little.

You don't need to pay 13 times the price to get a great improvement. That guy being only able to afford consumer priced lenses is me. This shouldn't be mixed up with consumer grade lenses though.

And let's not reject the fact, the reality, that a photographer who knows what he/she's doing can take most consumer-grade lenses and create awesome, fantastic art with them.

To take a screenshot of 3% of the bokeh

And what percentage exactly would have been "legal enough" to explain why I have an opinion on the bokeh of this lens? Like I've said: there are more areas (like that bright spot right in the middle of the negative space), but apparently this 3% was pretty hard to handle already, as somehow the taboo shouldn't be attacked. *2

of an image and use that to make the case that the cheap lens used is crap

I said: not worth it.

"Crap" is you putting an unpolite worth in my mouth. *1

and should never be used for portraits is elitist,

*1

and arrogant,

*1

especially when that sample proves little.

*2

We all know and agree that the RF 50L can result in better bokeh, sharpness, micro-contrast, and less CA...but to suggest that the RF 50 f1.8 should be dismissed for portraits is just plain wrong.

You made the same error

*1 = "When my opinion is different than yours I'm allowed to disagree disrespectfully."

*2 = "My opinion is the factual truth, your opinion can't be anything more than an opinion and is therefor nonsense, as mine is the truth"

Respectfully isn't necessarily about agreeing only. That's why I said: Let's respectfully disagree. I hope respectfully disagreeing isn't an internal contradiction to you.