Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
DaveyA New Member • Posts: 12
Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

I have ordered the new RF 50mm but wonder if I really can manage without the large and rather heavy 35mm lens? I have the 24 - 105 for general purposes (non professional), and as a carry around combination the RP plus 50mm seems sufficient. Am I wrong?

 DaveyA's gear list:DaveyA's gear list
Canon EOS RP Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro Canon RF 24-105mm F4.0-7.1 IS STM Canon RF 85mm F2 Macro IS STM Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM
sobrien
sobrien Senior Member • Posts: 1,544
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?
10

DaveyA wrote:

I have ordered the new RF 50mm but wonder if I really can manage without the large and rather heavy 35mm lens? I have the 24 - 105 for general purposes (non professional), and as a carry around combination the RP plus 50mm seems sufficient. Am I wrong?

The RF 35 is neither large or heavy.

And 35mm is a very different focal length to 50mm. For pictures of people, for instance, it allows for more environment to be included (for a given subject size). You can always use your 24-105 for those types of shots but then you won’t have the wide aperture to isolate your subject.

35mm is also arguably more versatile as a single carry around do everything lens. You can also use your 50mm for that but with more restrictions - you mightn’t always have enough space, for instance.

In short, I’m sure you’ll be fine with your combo but don’t rule out getting yourself the small and light RF 35 down the line.

-- hide signature --

"The simple things are also the most extraordinary things and only the wise can see them."
https://www.flickr.com/photos/135843555@N03/

 sobrien's gear list:sobrien's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon Extender EF 2x III +16 more
noggin2k1
noggin2k1 Senior Member • Posts: 2,715
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?
5

Just as an FYI; I'd probably avoid buying the RF 85/1.2 if you think the RF 35/1.8 is large and heavy.

 noggin2k1's gear list:noggin2k1's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 35mm F1.4L II USM Canon RF 50mm F1.2L USM Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS USM +3 more
Martin_99 Senior Member • Posts: 1,514
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

DaveyA wrote:

I have ordered the new RF 50mm but wonder if I really can manage without the large and rather heavy 35mm lens? I have the 24 - 105 for general purposes (non professional), and as a carry around combination the RP plus 50mm seems sufficient. Am I wrong?

Canon RF is one of the lightest modern FF 35mm f1.8 even with stabilisation and close focus ability. It seems to be great lens (with exception of AF, really shame on new mount)

Not directly comparable with 50mm due to obvious focal length difference. 50mm is easy to design in small size.

 Martin_99's gear list:Martin_99's gear list
Sony a6400 Canon EOS RP Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS +2 more
phatgreatwall Regular Member • Posts: 157
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?
6

my rf 35 is probably the lightest canon lens i have in my backpack (EF and RF)...... if that is too heavy for you, then i think the R system is not right for you. you might be better off with Olympus/Panasonic/iPhone instead.

 phatgreatwall's gear list:phatgreatwall's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro
phatgreatwall Regular Member • Posts: 157
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

sobrien wrote:

DaveyA wrote:

I have ordered the new RF 50mm but wonder if I really can manage without the large and rather heavy 35mm lens? I have the 24 - 105 for general purposes (non professional), and as a carry around combination the RP plus 50mm seems sufficient. Am I wrong?

The RF 35 is neither large or heavy.

And 35mm is a very different focal length to 50mm. For pictures of people, for instance, it allows for more environment to be included (for a given subject size). You can always use your 24-105 for those types of shots but then you won’t have the wide aperture to isolate your subject.

35mm is also arguably more versatile as a single carry around do everything lens. You can also use your 50mm for that but with more restrictions - you mightn’t always have enough space, for instance.

In short, I’m sure you’ll be fine with your combo but don’t rule out getting yourself the small and light RF 35 down the line.

agree, 35mm is also very usable for indoor photos, whereas the 50 can get very tight in an average sized family room.

 phatgreatwall's gear list:phatgreatwall's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro
SteveinLouisville
SteveinLouisville Contributing Member • Posts: 501
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

I have the RF 35mm 1.8 and it is, as noted by others pretty light and small.  What I like most about it is that it has IS and is a Macro, so you can get some photos indoors in poor light that you wouldn't ordinarily even try to take.  Example: our French Bulldog climbing on my chair yesterday looking for some Turkey. She was about 8 inches from the camera I was holding in my lap. I used the LCD touch screen to set the focus point on her eye.

OP DaveyA New Member • Posts: 12
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?
1

As the new 50mm so much lighter and smaller than the 35mm, my question is whether this compact lens is likely to be the one most often attached to the RF. I appreciate your comment that the 50mm might often prove impractical, good advice and thank you.

 DaveyA's gear list:DaveyA's gear list
Canon EOS RP Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro Canon RF 24-105mm F4.0-7.1 IS STM Canon RF 85mm F2 Macro IS STM Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM
robgendreau Veteran Member • Posts: 7,948
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?
1

DaveyA wrote:

As the new 50mm so much lighter and smaller than the 35mm, my question is whether this compact lens is likely to be the one most often attached to the RF. I appreciate your comment that the 50mm might often prove impractical, good advice and thank you.

It might be more often attached to your camera. Not mine. I won't be trading the width of the 35mm, OIS, and close focusing for 145g of weight.

It is rather a case of comparing an apple and orange by weight.

sobrien
sobrien Senior Member • Posts: 1,544
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?
1

DaveyA wrote:

As the new 50mm so much lighter and smaller than the 35mm, my question is whether this compact lens is likely to be the one most often attached to the RF.

No. I honestly can’t imagine ever not taking out the RF 35 due to size or weight concerns. You will take the focal length that makes more sense. The size/weight difference is immaterial, particularly when you add in a body. Both are very small and light lenses.

I appreciate your comment that the 50mm might often prove impractical, good advice and thank you.

You’re most welcome!

-- hide signature --

"The simple things are also the most extraordinary things and only the wise can see them."
https://www.flickr.com/photos/135843555@N03/

 sobrien's gear list:sobrien's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon Extender EF 2x III +16 more
JustUs7 Senior Member • Posts: 1,552
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?
1

I don’t know. 35mm is a pretty great family room focal length as someone mentioned.  Have you had a chance to use it?  Can’t imagine why one would call it heavy.  Doesn’t feel like anything on the front of the RP.

Had some fun taking pictures of the kids decorating the tree today with the 35. Plenty of room to ‘work’.

$200’s a bargain for RF glass, but we probably spent our lens allowance this year with the 85 f/2.

 JustUs7's gear list:JustUs7's gear list
Canon EOS 1000D Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS RP Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS +3 more
JustUs7 Senior Member • Posts: 1,552
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

noggin2k1 wrote:

Just as an FYI; I'd probably avoid buying the RF 85/1.2 if you think the RF 35/1.8 is large and heavy.

If one is calling the 35 expensive, I don’t think avoiding the 1.2 is going to be an issue. I know I wouldn’t accidentally buy that beast.

 JustUs7's gear list:JustUs7's gear list
Canon EOS 1000D Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS RP Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS +3 more
Eddie Rizk Contributing Member • Posts: 781
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

DaveyA wrote:

As the new 50mm so much lighter and smaller than the 35mm, my question is whether this compact lens is likely to be the one most often attached to the RF.

Not mine.  50 mm is the most common focal length, so I don't own one.  It is also the focal length that creates the most realistic size relationships between objects at different distances.  That's another reason not to get it.  There is enough reality in this world without me adding to it.

I appreciate your comment that the 50mm might often prove impractical, good advice and thank you.

Some people, actually a lot of people, love the 50 mm length and use it all the time.  I wouldn't choose between those two based on the weight, though.

-- hide signature --

That's my opinion, and it's worth what you paid for it.
Eddie Rizk
The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.
Formerly "Ed Rizk"
My email was hacked and unrecoverable along with all associated accounts, so I got permission to create a new one.

 Eddie Rizk's gear list:Eddie Rizk's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS R Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon EF 24-70mm F4L IS USM +4 more
Nerdferkel New Member • Posts: 19
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?
3

The RF 35mm is only 305 g. That's as light as they come. Neither is it overly expensive. Are you sure that you are talking about the right lens?

 Nerdferkel's gear list:Nerdferkel's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS R Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM +2 more
Dan W Regular Member • Posts: 359
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?
1

DaveyA wrote:

I have ordered the new RF 50mm but wonder if I really can manage without the large and rather heavy 35mm lens? I have the 24 - 105 for general purposes (non professional), and as a carry around combination the RP plus 50mm seems sufficient. Am I wrong?

I'm sorry, I had to laugh, the RF35 1.8 is Large and Heavy? Are you talking a few ounces and fraction of an inch compared to the new RF 50 1.8? I have the RF 35 and its stupid light! Now if you were talking about the EF 35 1.4L then yes. Its big and heavy.

 Dan W's gear list:Dan W's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon RF 50mm F1.2L USM Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,294
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

DaveyA wrote:

I have ordered the new RF 50mm but wonder if I really can manage without the large and rather heavy 35mm lens? I have the 24 - 105 for general purposes (non professional), and as a carry around combination the RP plus 50mm seems sufficient. Am I wrong?

The 50mm is a walk around lens, useful outdoors when there's enough space to step back a little if needed. It's light and small, and it's best used somewhat stopped down.

The 35mm is a low light lens as it has both a large aperture and IS. This lens is also usable indoors because of it's wide open sharpness and wider focal length.

Maybe it's worth it to think about what prime you would need next to a 35 and 50mm enabling you to leave the zoom at home.

-- hide signature --

victory

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM +16 more
OP DaveyA New Member • Posts: 12
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?
2

Nerdferkel wrote:

The RF 35mm is only 305 g. That's as light as they come. Neither is it overly expensive. Are you sure that you are talking about the right lens?

Well, unless I have misread the specs,  I believe the new 50mm weighs 160g, almost half the weight. It is 40.5 mm long, against nearly 68 mm for the 35mm. This seems to be truly as light as they come.

I understand that for experienced photographers used to shooting full frame, these differences in dimensions appear not to matter as much as choosing the right lens for the job.

I do appreciate the helpful comments about the restrictions of the longer focal length, and I’m glad my question gave someone a good laugh.

 DaveyA's gear list:DaveyA's gear list
Canon EOS RP Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro Canon RF 24-105mm F4.0-7.1 IS STM Canon RF 85mm F2 Macro IS STM Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM
Martin_99 Senior Member • Posts: 1,514
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

thunder storm wrote:

DaveyA wrote:

I have ordered the new RF 50mm but wonder if I really can manage without the large and rather heavy 35mm lens? I have the 24 - 105 for general purposes (non professional), and as a carry around combination the RP plus 50mm seems sufficient. Am I wrong?

The 50mm is a walk around lens, useful outdoors when there's enough space to step back a little if needed. It's light and small, and it's best used somewhat stopped down.

The 35mm is a low light lens as it has both a large aperture and IS. This lens is also usable indoors because of it's wide open sharpness and wider focal length.

Maybe it's worth it to think about what prime you would need next to a 35 and 50mm enabling you to leave the zoom at home.

Why do you think, that 50mm is not sharp wide open? I saw no sharpness tests so far.

 Martin_99's gear list:Martin_99's gear list
Sony a6400 Canon EOS RP Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS +2 more
davidwien Forum Member • Posts: 82
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

Eddie Rizk wrote:

Some people, actually a lot of people, love the 50 mm length and use it all the time.

The price and size of the RF 50mm are both attractive, and I cannot recall a time when I didnt have a 50mm lens for FF; but I find it impossible to remember when I last chose to use it. Even when I use a zoom lens, I do not find myself setting it to 50mm. I read that this focal length gives the same angle of view as the human eye; but I dont find it provides a very interesting or useful perspective for photos.

No disrespect meant to those who disagree with me!

David

 davidwien's gear list:davidwien's gear list
Sony RX100 VA Canon EOS RP Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +4 more
Swerky Regular Member • Posts: 355
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

DaveyA wrote:

I have ordered the new RF 50mm but wonder if I really can manage without the large and rather heavy 35mm lens? I have the 24 - 105 for general purposes (non professional), and as a carry around combination the RP plus 50mm seems sufficient. Am I wrong?

Two different tools. The 50 is an inexpensive nifty fifty. Haven’t seen reviews of that lens yet. The EF version for instance isn’t very sharp at 1.8. If this lens is similar I’d skip it. The 35 may be more expensive and double the weight but is still light at around 300g, is sharp right from 1.8, stabilised (5 stops) and has above average MFD and magnification, permitting for some semi macro in photography. Get the 50 only if you really don’t want the 35mm focal length.

 Swerky's gear list:Swerky's gear list
Canon G1 X III Voigtlander 20mm F3.5 Color Skopar SL II Voigtlander 90mm F3.5 APO-Lanthar SL II Canon EF 35mm F2 IS USM
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads