DPR Review of RF 35

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
Hoka Hey
Hoka Hey Contributing Member • Posts: 949
DPR Review of RF 35
2

Here's a link to DPR's review of the RF 35 1.8.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-is-stm-macro-review

How does the review match your personal experience?

-- hide signature --

Joe

ravkande Regular Member • Posts: 359
Re: DPR Review of RF 35
5

Hoka Hey wrote:

Here's a link to DPR's review of the RF 35 1.8.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-is-stm-macro-review

How does the review match your personal experience?

In my experience it's sharp wide open and not hazy

-- hide signature --

My blog -
www.ravirajkande.com

Rawpaul
Rawpaul Senior Member • Posts: 1,694
Re: DPR Review of RF 35
6

Hoka Hey wrote:

Here's a link to DPR's review of the RF 35 1.8.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-is-stm-macro-review

How does the review match your personal experience?

I think it,s better then the review lets on.

i really like the lens for all the obvious reasons.

but it,s a Canon product so it can,t be all good 😞

-- hide signature --

light is the source of all life.....

 Rawpaul's gear list:Rawpaul's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS M5 Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon EOS R Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +4 more
PGSanta Regular Member • Posts: 171
Re: DPR Review of RF 35
3

Hoka Hey wrote:

Here's a link to DPR's review of the RF 35 1.8.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-is-stm-macro-review

How does the review match your personal experience?

Pretty spot on.  The CA is bad, even for this price point.  It’s still a decent value lens at $450 considering everything else.

 PGSanta's gear list:PGSanta's gear list
Sony a7 III Canon EOS R Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 85mm F1.8 Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 +2 more
Rawpaul
Rawpaul Senior Member • Posts: 1,694
Re: DPR Review of RF 35

Hoka Hey wrote:

Here's a link to DPR's review of the RF 35 1.8.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-is-stm-macro-review

How does the review match your personal experience?

What is your opinion Joe ?

-- hide signature --

light is the source of all life.....

 Rawpaul's gear list:Rawpaul's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS M5 Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon EOS R Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +4 more
Hoka Hey
OP Hoka Hey Contributing Member • Posts: 949
Re: DPR Review of RF 35
1

Rawpaul wrote:

Hoka Hey wrote:

Here's a link to DPR's review of the RF 35 1.8.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-is-stm-macro-review

How does the review match your personal experience?

What is your opinion Joe ?

It's a versatile and fun little lens with great IQ.

I have found the lens to be sharp wide open. I haven't noticed the haziness at 1.8 mentioned in the review. This lens is definitely not soft at 1.8. I did notice that the image that the reviewer used to demonstrate the "haze" had the whites blown out on the 1.8 image which makes it look softer, but not on the 5.6 image which makes it look sharper.

Otherwise, I felt the review was pretty accurate.

-- hide signature --

Joe

Rawpaul
Rawpaul Senior Member • Posts: 1,694
Re: DPR Review of RF 35
1

Ok tHoka Hey wrote:

Rawpaul wrote:

Hoka Hey wrote:

Here's a link to DPR's review of the RF 35 1.8.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-is-stm-macro-review

How does the review match your personal experience?

What is your opinion Joe ?

It's a versatile and fun little lens with great IQ.

I have found the lens to be sharp wide open. I haven't noticed the haziness at 1.8 mentioned in the review. This lens is definitely not soft at 1.8. I did notice that the image that the reviewer used to demonstrate the "haze" had the whites blown out on the 1.8 image which makes it look softer, but not on the 5.6 image which makes it look sharper.

Otherwise, I felt the review was pretty accurate.

Ok thanks Joe.😎

-- hide signature --

light is the source of all life.....

 Rawpaul's gear list:Rawpaul's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS M5 Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon EOS R Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +4 more
Hoka Hey
OP Hoka Hey Contributing Member • Posts: 949
Re: DPR Review of RF 35

PGSanta wrote:

Hoka Hey wrote:

Here's a link to DPR's review of the RF 35 1.8.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-is-stm-macro-review

How does the review match your personal experience?

Pretty spot on. The CA is bad, even for this price point. It’s still a decent value lens at $450 considering everything else.

HaHaHa!!! Good to hear from you PGSanta. I knew that you would have something to say about the CA.

I still believe that you are overstating it. Even the reviewer states that it's only a problem in certain situations with harsh contrast.

Have a good day!

-- hide signature --

Joe

ZX11
ZX11 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,830
Re: DPR Review of RF 35
2

Hoka Hey wrote:

Here's a link to DPR's review of the RF 35 1.8.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-is-stm-macro-review

How does the review match your personal experience?

I like the way the EOS R does JPEG so I don't worry about the flaws the reviewer found.  The reviewer mentioned that the JPEG's will be fine.

I think the worry about the noise of the lens while shooting video is humorous.  Who uses the camera's onboard microphones and audio recorder for video?  Would they care about lens noise over all the other noises that it will bring to the recording?  I use an external mic and recorder.

The lens works great for me.  I am sure it is not for everyone.  Did the reviewer think the focus motor was slow?

Yesterday

Yesterday

-- hide signature --

"Very funny, Scotty! Now beam me down my clothes."
"He's dead, Jim! You grab his tri-corder. I'll get his wallet."

 ZX11's gear list:ZX11's gear list
Canon EOS 700D Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM
Noogy
Noogy Senior Member • Posts: 2,632
Re: DPR Review of RF 35
1

Hoka Hey wrote:

Here's a link to DPR's review of the RF 35 1.8.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-is-stm-macro-review

How does the review match your personal experience?

I’ve had this lens for more than six months now. I use it for travel a lot. However, I find the review quite accurate and it’s one of the rare times I would agree with DPR reviewers who by and large are technical reviewers and not solid photographers.

The RF35mm is light and fun to use. Coma is bad, background blur is acceptable and its focusing capability isn't the best. I find that it hunts more often than for instance my EFM28mm 2.8 IS USM, a smaller and cheaper lens.

Nonetheless it's on my R or RP when I'm on the road especially for street photography.

-- hide signature --

"Photography is therapeutic."
https://500px.com/joshcruzphotos

 Noogy's gear list:Noogy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS M5 Canon EOS R Canon EOS RP Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM +12 more
ZX11
ZX11 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,830
Haze focusing at distance objects

Hoka Hey wrote:

Rawpaul wrote:

Hoka Hey wrote:

Here's a link to DPR's review of the RF 35 1.8.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-is-stm-macro-review

How does the review match your personal experience?

What is your opinion Joe ?

It's a versatile and fun little lens with great IQ.

I have found the lens to be sharp wide open. I haven't noticed the haziness at 1.8 mentioned in the review. This lens is definitely not soft at 1.8. I did notice that the image that the reviewer used to demonstrate the "haze" had the whites blown out on the 1.8 image which makes it look softer, but not on the 5.6 image which makes it look sharper.

Otherwise, I felt the review was pretty accurate.

I thought the reviewer was talking about a haze while focused at long distance objects while wide open. I never noticed that but don't focus at distance objects fully wide open. Focusing on closer objects would sharpen it up.

Reviewers hunting for details users wouldn't notice?  I wonder if the test shot of the distant building was slightly out of the perfect focus area that wide open.  Closer or further buildings more in focus?

-- hide signature --

"Very funny, Scotty! Now beam me down my clothes."
"He's dead, Jim! You grab his tri-corder. I'll get his wallet."

 ZX11's gear list:ZX11's gear list
Canon EOS 700D Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM
jboyer Senior Member • Posts: 1,044
Re: DPR Review of RF 35

Rawpaul wrote:

Hoka Hey wrote:

Here's a link to DPR's review of the RF 35 1.8.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-is-stm-macro-review

How does the review match your personal experience?

I think it,s better then the review lets on.

i really like the lens for all the obvious reasons.

but it,s a Canon product so it can,t be all good 😞

Almost feels like an M50 on steroids. Or a FF M50.

-- hide signature --
 jboyer's gear list:jboyer's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS M50 Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF-S 10-22mm F3.5-4.5 USM +6 more
Glassfish Regular Member • Posts: 478
Re: DPR Review of RF 35
2

ravkande wrote:

Hoka Hey wrote:

Here's a link to DPR's review of the RF 35 1.8.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-is-stm-macro-review

How does the review match your personal experience?

In my experience it's sharp wide open and not hazy

The DPR author clarify this in the comments section:

"There are plenty of wide open samples in the gallery which show good resolution across all the normal apertures. Don't read too much into performance at F1.8 at infinity (it's not exactly a common use-case)."

Hoka Hey
OP Hoka Hey Contributing Member • Posts: 949
Re: DPR Review of RF 35
5

Glassfish wrote:

ravkande wrote:

Hoka Hey wrote:

Here's a link to DPR's review of the RF 35 1.8.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-is-stm-macro-review

How does the review match your personal experience?

In my experience it's sharp wide open and not hazy

The DPR author clarify this in the comments section:

"There are plenty of wide open samples in the gallery which show good resolution across all the normal apertures. Don't read too much into performance at F1.8 at infinity (it's not exactly a common use-case)."

Thanks for sharing that Glassfish. It makes the "haze" part of the article even more frustrating.

The reviewer stated that "Detail is a bit hazy wide open..." in the main review. Then, in the comments he states: "There are plenty of wide open samples in the gallery which show good resolution across all the normal apertures." This doesn't even make sense when you talk about the WIDE OPEN samples that show good resolution across ALL THE NORMAL APERTURES.  How can a lens be wide open across a range of apertures? Wide open is only 1.8 for this lens, not all the normal apertures.

Qualifying inaccurate reporting in the comments doesn't fix poor reporting in the article.

-- hide signature --

Joe

Minh C Nguyen Regular Member • Posts: 259
Re: DPR Review of RF 35
5

DPreview's review is typically too technical and not practical. No photographer that I know would use a fast lens wide open to take a picture of building/landscape in the middle of the day amid the sunshine therefore the review comments about "slight hazy at f1.8" is not realistic to me. I typically used this lens wide open only for indoor shots and I found it's very sharp. Also very sharp wide open for closeup shots (flowers, foods, products, etc.). Other than this, I agree with the review.

 Minh C Nguyen's gear list:Minh C Nguyen's gear list
Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Sony a6000 +8 more
Hoka Hey
OP Hoka Hey Contributing Member • Posts: 949
Re: DPR Review of RF 35

Hoka Hey wrote:

Glassfish wrote:

ravkande wrote:

Hoka Hey wrote:

Here's a link to DPR's review of the RF 35 1.8.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-is-stm-macro-review

How does the review match your personal experience?

In my experience it's sharp wide open and not hazy

The DPR author clarify this in the comments section:

"There are plenty of wide open samples in the gallery which show good resolution across all the normal apertures. Don't read too much into performance at F1.8 at infinity (it's not exactly a common use-case)."

Thanks for sharing that Glassfish. It makes the "haze" part of the article even more frustrating.

The reviewer stated that "Detail is a bit hazy wide open..." in the main review. Then, in the comments he states: "There are plenty of wide open samples in the gallery which show good resolution across all the normal apertures." This doesn't even make sense when you talk about the WIDE OPEN samples that show good resolution across ALL THE NORMAL APERTURES. How can a lens be wide open across a range of apertures? Wide open is only 1.8 for this lens, not all the normal apertures.

Qualifying inaccurate reporting in the comments doesn't fix poor reporting in the article.

I just spent way too much time looking at this and here is what I found:

DPP4 shows the same focus square on all photos. However, focus wasn't locked. One Shot Autofocus was used with AF Point Expansion: Surround. So, the lens refocused every time.

Within the focus square, there were two very different surfaces. A little less than half was semi-reflective glass (could that have caused a problem with focus) and a little less than half was a flat white surface with vertical lines.

Looking at the images, there is a huge change in the histograms that shows up between f2 and f2.8. Coincidentally, the image dramatically sharpens up between those two images. The histograms for f1.8 and f2 have one pattern and the histograms for f2.8 - f11 have another.

My guess is that the camera chose to focus on the semi-reflective glass in the f 1.8 and f2 images which threw focus off and the white surface for the rest.

I'd love for this test to be redone with locked focus.

-- hide signature --

Joe

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads