Talk me into or out of the RF 50/1.8

EOSSpeedLite wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

EOSSpeedLite wrote:

juliemeikle wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Texchappy wrote:

For a while, I planned to get the the RF 50/1.8 stm. lately however, I’m leaning away from it. Against it is some sub par reviews, mushiness away from center, and it not being a zoom*. For it are cost and aperture **. So talk me into or out of it…

*Been shooting primarily primes on Fuji for the last decade. Being in a wheel chair while shooting, I’ve found zooms much more convenient. I currently have the RF 24-105L & RF 100-400.

**It’s hard to beat $200 but if I never use it then it’s still a waste. However, having nothing less than f4 is new to me.

As a landscapes lens it's good. So the question is rather simple: do you need a 50mm for landscapes? If yes, buy it.

Of course you can buy it because it's affordable, but if you don't need it spilled money is spilled money, even if it's not a whole lot.

If you want a portrait lens being capable to render your backgrounds beautifully it's not worth it imo.

I have just bought one. It is my only non-L lens and I know it will not stand up to the quality of my other lenses. So why did I buy it? To add a small, pocketable lens for when I am carrying heavier gear and cannot add the 24-70 f 2.8. It gives me a wider angle than the longer lenses at minimal cost, weight and size. It fits in a pocket! It will be used stopped down for landscapes so I thought it was worth the try. It will be better than the lens I have left behind!

Julie, you will find that RF 50mm f1.8 will provide your portraits with excellent

well....

bokeh in most

o.k., that's a nuance, granted

cases, and most backgrounds. No, it cannot complete with the RF 50 L f1.2, but in far more cases than one might realize, it will deliver.

There are just too many examples of this lens providing excellent bokeh for anyone to dismiss it. Those who don't have the skills will probably never get good fruit out of this cheapo small lens...and undoubtedly from the L version too.

So.... you either like the rendering of this background or you're (mis)judging the skills of the photographer of this portrait. Pick your poison.

It's not the lens, it's the photographer creating smooth rendered backgrounds baby....

It is true that the bokeh in this shot is a bit nervous, and instead using the RF 50L f1.2 at f1.8 would have shown smoother bokeh, agreed.

However, in other situations (even with a foliage background), the f1.8 can deliver good bokeh, and beautiful bokeh, just not in as many situations as the f1.2 would.

The photographer has the power to ascertain which backgrounds would work bokeh' wise and for a given lens, having certain flaws/limitations.

That is a skill, but for events shooting you don't always have the luxury to create the composition without loosing a decisive moment.   I would love to see Canon produce a lens in between the f/1.8 stm and the f/1.2 L.   It would be very nice to have a 650 grams f/1.4 USM for 800 or 1000 euro.  I'm hooting the Sigma f/1.4 Art, which came used at 350 euro only. Not even twice the price of this RF lens.  If you don't might some weight and you're on a budget this lens will be way less critical for controlling backgrounds.

When looking at thousands of portraits taken with the f1.8, in some cases, you will get noticeably better bokeh had you used the f1.2 lens at f1.8.

To counter your image shot with the RF 50mm f1.8 and showing nervous bokeh, I couinter with images with similar backgrounds shot with the same lens showing pleasing smooth bokeh, and these I doubt that had I used the RF 50L f1.2 at f1.8 they would have turned out much better:

Not perfect, but fine. The Sigma f/1.4 Art would have done a bit better job at f/1.8, but nonetheless this is a nice result.

Great

Great

The (very) left&upper corner isn't 100% perfect, but other than that it's good.

Nervous Bokeh:

It looks like the lens has the most problems with more harsh light and a background at a certain distance & the subject relatively close to the camera.

And other with a home interior background:

Interiors are generally less challenging.

When Canon is the Demiurg / Yaldabaoth producing f/1.2 and other lenses to make money Irene Rudnyk is the Pleroma / Goddess(ness) of the fairlylike backgrounds to delight us with magical enchanting pictures.  I think she did understand here task as an unbiased reviewer of the RF f/1.8 stm to include a worst case shot.

I don't want to let my kids pose for my portraits, so I can't always control my background, so the RF 50mm f/1.8 isn't for me.  I do have a budget lens requiring some skill:  The EF 24-70mm f/2.8 mkII @70mm&f/2.8 can show bad rendering too in some circumstances, while for other situations it's fine.  If there's no control over the background and it looks bad >> I'm stopping down.  It's better to have no (or very little) bokeh than busy bokeh imo.