Canon needs a compact walk around RF 35mm

Alastair Norcross wrote:

dmartin92 wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

They really didn't. The 35 F1.8 is pretty good for this. I don't know what reviews you've read, but they seem to have given you a mistaken impression of the lens

https://dustinabbott.net/2019/05/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-macro-is-stm-review/

For myself, it was what Dustin Abbott said.

In the part « Conclusion ». The word « underwhelmed ». Saying that it wasn’t as good as the EF 35mm f/2 IS.

Well, he's wrong about that. I had and used the 35 F2 IS for about eight years, so I know exactly how good it is (very good). I've had and used the RF 35 F1.8 for over two years, so I also know exactly how good that lens is (even better). Dustin Abott is a fine reviewer, but his reviews aren't based on extensive usage for many years. The one and only area where the EF lens is slightly better is AF speed, but the difference is totally irrelevant to almost all subjects. I have never lost a shot because of it. The RF is slightly faster (aperture-wise), smaller, lighter, closer focusing, and cheaper (so definitely not overpriced). The idea that a small, light, sharp, close focusing (closer than other 35 options) image stabilized lens should sell for under $499 (even cheaper when on sale, as it is sometimes is) is just absurd.

For me the price would be 549 Euros. Which is maybe 200 Euros more than I paid for my EF 35mm f/2 IS, four years ago.

Dustin Abbott makes it sound only marginally better than the 50 RF, which I could have for 229 Euros.

Maybe some sample variation comes in to play when the lenses are closely matched?

My 35/2 IS was definitely slightly sharper and cleaner overall than my copy of the RF. However, not enough to matter much in general photography or tip the balance to using the EF adapter with its size & weight penalty.