Reviews of the 35/1.8 Macro RF?

Here is a nice review of the lens:

https://youtu.be/hdldTtRIt5E

For me, it's a must have lens for the R. Compact and light, perfect for walkabout. True all rounder, able to do macro, portraits with nice bokeh, low light work with 5 stop IS, wide enough for landscapes, great for street photography or hiking, function ring, very sharp, low CA. Unfortunately AF is gear type STM which is noisier. However, it becomes quieter in video mode. It's the lens that is always on my R.

travelinbri_74 wrote:

Trouble finding reviews of this, does anyone have experience or good links? Thoughts?

This guy does good technical reviews and has a review for the RF35/1.8IS Macro. I have the lens and find it to be better than my EF35/2IS. It's a great all around lens and has excellent IQ for its size. It doesn't focus quite as fast as the RF24-105/4L or the RF50/1.2L but it's very accurate and the IS feels very solid.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-35mm-f-1.8-IS-STM-Macro-Lens.aspx

gimp_dad wrote:

travelinbri_74 wrote:

Trouble finding reviews of this, does anyone have experience or good links? Thoughts?

This guy does good technical reviews and has a review for the RF35/1.8IS Macro. I have the lens and find it to be better than my EF35/2IS. It's a great all around lens and has excellent IQ for its size. It doesn't focus quite as fast as the RF24-105/4L or the RF50/1.2L but it's very accurate and the IS feels very solid.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-35mm-f-1.8-IS-STM-Macro-Lens.aspx

From that review alone, one can say that the IS is amazing but the lens is soft overall and vignettes a lot (as much as the 35/2 IS).

J A C S wrote:

gimp_dad wrote:

travelinbri_74 wrote:

Trouble finding reviews of this, does anyone have experience or good links? Thoughts?

This guy does good technical reviews and has a review for the RF35/1.8IS Macro. I have the lens and find it to be better than my EF35/2IS. It's a great all around lens and has excellent IQ for its size. It doesn't focus quite as fast as the RF24-105/4L or the RF50/1.2L but it's very accurate and the IS feels very solid.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-35mm-f-1.8-IS-STM-Macro-Lens.aspx

From that review alone, one can say that the IS is amazing but the lens is soft overall and vignettes a lot (as much as the 35/2 IS).

Yea. Pretty similar to the 35/2IS which feels like it was just upgraded all around without any major breakthrough.  It's lighter, with better IS and slightly less distortion. Plus a one third stop increase in aperture along with the Macro capability.
But mounted on a tripod, manually focused on a flat test image it's pretty similar.
I honestly hardly use it because of how great the other three new RF lenses are but it seems like an excellent all around budget lens much like the 35/2IS was for its time. It's just an evolution from that one (which was also an excellent all around lens).

check out these pics,

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/canon-rf-35mm-f-1-8-is-macro-the-ugly-bokeh-king.36469/

and also the youtube videos on page 2

what do you guys think?

Ricardo O wrote:

check out these pics,

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/canon-rf-35mm-f-1-8-is-macro-the-ugly-bokeh-king.36469/

and also the youtube videos on page 2

what do you guys think?

No surprises here. This is very consistent with what I have said above about being an evolutionary enhancement of the EF35/2IS. This is not a low cost RF50/1.2L or EF35/1.4LII.  There's a reason the RF50/1.2L weighs and costs so much more.  Even without IS it has 15 elements with several aspherical and/or UD elements along with special coatings compared to the RF35/1.8IS Macro which has 11 elements including IS.

1. No one should think they are getting a newly designed L prime for $500,
2. the user review looks like it was taken using EFCS which can affect bokeh quality (see the chopped off bokeh balls),
3. getting close helps with the bokeh much like with the 35/2IS but this creates it's own challenges since getting too close will induce perspective warping you don't want; using a wide angle lens for bokeh is not easy,
4. this lens makes very interesting compromises for its size and cost which many people will enjoy as long as they pay attention to the above.
5. Not mentioned in the review is the fact that it will not have the level of contrast or saturation delivered by other L lenses either (even though it is a little improved over the EF35/2IS in this regard).

This lens outperforms the Sony/Zeiss 35/2.8 ZA I used to have back when I had an A7R2 and outperforms my RX1R2 which has the Zeiss designed 35/2. All three of these solutions are fine for travel and general use and will take excellent shots. If stopped down, you can create a 3 foot by 2 foot image printed on metal that you would mount on your wall. But, while I may take this lens with me on a trip to save weight, I will usually reach for the RF50/1.2L when people are involved in the shot.

gimp_dad wrote:

1. the user review looks like it was taken using EFCS which can affect bokeh quality (see the chopped off bokeh balls),

He says that this was not the case on p.2. Also, EFCS creates a very different effect of gradually dimmed bokeh balls in the direction of movement of the shutter. What we see here is the effect of mechanical vignetting.

With all this talk about the benefits of the new mount and this lens used as a poster child vs. the 35/2 IS, it is interesting to see that this lens preforms more of less the same as the latter with a better IS maybe.

J A C S wrote:

gimp_dad wrote:

1. the user review looks like it was taken using EFCS which can affect bokeh quality (see the chopped off bokeh balls),

He says that this was not the case on p.2. Also, EFCS creates a very different effect of gradually dimmed bokeh balls in the direction of movement of the shutter. What we see here is the effect of mechanical vignetting.

With all this talk about the benefits of the new mount and this lens used as a poster child vs. the 35/2 IS, it is interesting to see that this lens preforms more of less the same as the latter with a better IS maybe.

Ok. Didn't see that. Thanks for the clarification.

That said, I never expected this to be a 35/1.4LII replacement. I am happy with the incremental benefits over the 35/2IS and will use it similarly for non-critical uses where size and weight are the priority.

gimp_dad wrote:

J A C S wrote:

gimp_dad wrote:

1. the user review looks like it was taken using EFCS which can affect bokeh quality (see the chopped off bokeh balls),

He says that this was not the case on p.2. Also, EFCS creates a very different effect of gradually dimmed bokeh balls in the direction of movement of the shutter. What we see here is the effect of mechanical vignetting.

With all this talk about the benefits of the new mount and this lens used as a poster child vs. the 35/2 IS, it is interesting to see that this lens preforms more of less the same as the latter with a better IS maybe.

Ok. Didn't see that. Thanks for the clarification.

That said, I never expected this to be a 35/1.4LII replacement. I am happy with the incremental benefits over the 35/2IS and will use it similarly for non-critical uses where size and weight are the priority.

BTW, can you confirm the improved IS? I was never able to get good shots with my 16-35/4 IS at, say 1/8 sec. or so and Bryan at TDP says that he can get to 1 sec.?

J A C S wrote:

gimp_dad wrote:

J A C S wrote:

gimp_dad wrote:

1. the user review looks like it was taken using EFCS which can affect bokeh quality (see the chopped off bokeh balls),

He says that this was not the case on p.2. Also, EFCS creates a very different effect of gradually dimmed bokeh balls in the direction of movement of the shutter. What we see here is the effect of mechanical vignetting.

With all this talk about the benefits of the new mount and this lens used as a poster child vs. the 35/2 IS, it is interesting to see that this lens preforms more of less the same as the latter with a better IS maybe.

Ok. Didn't see that. Thanks for the clarification.

That said, I never expected this to be a 35/1.4LII replacement. I am happy with the incremental benefits over the 35/2IS and will use it similarly for non-critical uses where size and weight are the priority.

BTW, can you confirm the improved IS? I was never able to get good shots with my 16-35/4 IS at, say 1/8 sec. or so and Bryan at TDP says that he can get to 1 sec.?

I haven't run any comparison tests but can feel a major difference between most of my Canon lenses and the three newer ones I own with "5-stop" IS: the RF35/1.8IS, RF24-105/4LIS and EF70-200/4LII.  These all have this substantially more solid feel when the IS kicks in. I don't get the same feel from my new 85/1.4LIS but I'm not bothered by that since I only use it for people and would't go below 1/60 (or preferably 1/100) for people anyway.

One of the reasons I'm not being more definitive than that is that I have had a pretty big drop off in hand steadiness which has progressed over the last two years.  I'm not that old (mid fifties) but years of using computers all day has finally caused me to pay a toll in steadiness (especially my right hand). Also, my steadiness is not super consistent.  Sometimes I am almost as good as I used to be and sometimes I feel like 5-stops of IS gets me about 1 stop better than the 1/FL rule (meaning I'd probably need 1/(FL * 3) or so without IS).

So overall, I feel that the RF35/1.8IS has much better IS than my EF35/2IS but I think I had shots a couple of years ago with my 35/2IS around 1/6s that I couldn't do now.  And, I have also achieved in that range or even better (like 1/4s) with my 16-35/4LIS at 16mm but using the best of 5 attempts. Again this was 2 or 3 years ago.

Honestly, I feel like the RF35/1.8IS is a jack of all trades but master of none.  I don't expect to use it very often but it will take over the role that was previously reserved for my RX1R2 (i.e. the minimum weight while still bringing a FF camera).  For that role, I think it will be just fine. Photographing things (buildings, landmarks, etc.) usually makes me want IS and not need a super wide aperture, but the penalty for that F1.8 is not high so it can offer me the opportunity to take a street shot in a pinch.

gimp_dad wrote:

J A C S wrote:

gimp_dad wrote:

J A C S wrote:

gimp_dad wrote:

1. the user review looks like it was taken using EFCS which can affect bokeh quality (see the chopped off bokeh balls),

He says that this was not the case on p.2. Also, EFCS creates a very different effect of gradually dimmed bokeh balls in the direction of movement of the shutter. What we see here is the effect of mechanical vignetting.

With all this talk about the benefits of the new mount and this lens used as a poster child vs. the 35/2 IS, it is interesting to see that this lens preforms more of less the same as the latter with a better IS maybe.

Ok. Didn't see that. Thanks for the clarification.

That said, I never expected this to be a 35/1.4LII replacement. I am happy with the incremental benefits over the 35/2IS and will use it similarly for non-critical uses where size and weight are the priority.

BTW, can you confirm the improved IS? I was never able to get good shots with my 16-35/4 IS at, say 1/8 sec. or so and Bryan at TDP says that he can get to 1 sec.?

I haven't run any comparison tests but can feel a major difference between most of my Canon lenses and the three newer ones I own with "5-stop" IS: the RF35/1.8IS, RF24-105/4LIS and EF70-200/4LII. These all have this substantially more solid feel when the IS kicks in. I don't get the same feel from my new 85/1.4LIS but I'm not bothered by that since I only use it for people and would't go below 1/60 (or preferably 1/100) for people anyway.

One of the reasons I'm not being more definitive than that is that I have had a pretty big drop off in hand steadiness which has progressed over the last two years. I'm not that old (mid fifties) but years of using computers all day has finally caused me to pay a toll in steadiness (especially my right hand). Also, my steadiness is not super consistent. Sometimes I am almost as good as I used to be and sometimes I feel like 5-stops of IS gets me about 1 stop better than the 1/FL rule (meaning I'd probably need 1/(FL * 3) or so without IS).

So overall, I feel that the RF35/1.8IS has much better IS than my EF35/2IS but I think I had shots a couple of years ago with my 35/2IS around 1/6s that I couldn't do now. And, I have also achieved in that range or even better (like 1/4s) with my 16-35/4LIS at 16mm but using the best of 5 attempts. Again this was 2 or 3 years ago.

Honestly, I feel like the RF35/1.8IS is a jack of all trades but master of none. I don't expect to use it very often but it will take over the role that was previously reserved for my RX1R2 (i.e. the minimum weight while still bringing a FF camera). For that role, I think it will be just fine. Photographing things (buildings, landmarks, etc.) usually makes me want IS and not need a super wide aperture, but the penalty for that F1.8 is not high so it can offer me the opportunity to take a street shot in a pinch.

Here's my attempt.  Not quite perfect at 0.4s but much better than I could do with the 35/2IS even in my steadier days.

Focus was on the "r" in Birds. Handheld while seated but arms not supported, by a relatively unsteady person (me).

Only thing I did in DPP4 was crop out superfluous parts of the frame.