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

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
R5D4
R5D4 Contributing Member • Posts: 844
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?

I'm not sure I follow. The RF 35 is neither large, heavy or expensive. Perhaps you have it confused with the EF 35 f1.4L II with adapter?

24-105 + 50mm prime would be sufficient for a lot of people. Only you can decide of course. If you want only one prime, you can't go wrong with either 35 or 50. Personally 50mm is my favorite focal length, despite the fact that it's often not wide enough.

 R5D4's gear list:R5D4's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Fujifilm X-T3 Canon EOS R Canon EF 35mm F1.4L II USM Canon 85mm F1.4L IS USM +5 more
The Bad Photographer Regular Member • Posts: 116
I love the affordable and not heavy RF35

It's a great lens. I hope the new 50 is equal.

 The Bad Photographer's gear list:The Bad Photographer's gear list
Canon PowerShot G16 Canon EOS RP Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM +4 more
Eddie Rizk Contributing Member • Posts: 846
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?
1

davidwien wrote:

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

I had the equivalent, when I bought the EF 35 F2 for my 60D.  It was my only "fast" lens, and I took some decent shots with it.  Then I got the 6D and liked the lens so much better.  That little bit of depth exaggeration really makes things look more interesting, as does the little bit of compression of the 85.  I haven't looked at a 50 since.

-- 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 R Canon EOS RP Canon EF 24-70mm F4L IS USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon 85mm F1.4L IS USM +3 more
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,480
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

Martin_99 wrote:

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.

Not a real test, but we do have mtf charts.

It's sharp in the center, however, sharpness drops too soon when going to the border. The EF is worse, but the RF still isn't good enough.

-- hide signature --

victory

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A Sigma 105mm F1.4 DG HSM Art +17 more
noggin2k1
noggin2k1 Senior Member • Posts: 2,742
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?
1

thunder storm wrote:

Not a real test, but we do have mtf charts.

It's sharp in the center, however, sharpness drops too soon when going to the border. The EF is worse, but the RF still isn't good enough.

Any suggestions on an autofocussing $199 lens that performs better, on any mount...?

 noggin2k1's gear list:noggin2k1's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS USM Canon RF 85mm F1.2L USM Canon RF 50mm F1.2L USM Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM +3 more
Martin_99 Senior Member • Posts: 1,598
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

thunder storm wrote:

Martin_99 wrote:

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.

Not a real test, but we do have mtf charts.

It's sharp in the center, however, sharpness drops too soon when going to the border. The EF is worse, but the RF still isn't good enough.

I would say that it's subjective statement. Personally I'm rather forgiving in relation to corner sharpnes. I notice it usually only when do sharpness test.

 Martin_99's gear list:Martin_99's gear list
Sony a6400 Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA
tkbslc Forum Pro • Posts: 15,759
Maybe for some
3

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 think you probably set of a few nerves by calling the 35 "large and rather heavy". Given that it is smaller and lighter than your 24-105 and is the lightest and smallest lens in the system until the 50mm ships.

But ignoring that phrase, the answer to your question is that the 50mm may make the 35mm redundant for some. I am sure plenty of people bought the RF 35mm because it was the only reasonably small and affordable prime lens for the RF system. Now the RF 50mm will beat it in both size and price. Others prefer a 50mm, but there wasn't an affordable option so they would settle for 35mm.

However, many also just prefer the 35mm focal length and the RF 35mm features. It's a bit more versatile as an all-around focal length. And the RF35mm also has stabilization and macro focusing.

Given the low cost, I will likely buy the RF 50mm 1.8 to add to my kit alongside the 35mm. They are close, but I still find it useful to have both. I like 50mm as prime to pair with a standard zoom. I like 35mm better to pack as a compact single lens kit, or to pair with an 85mm.

If I was on a little more of a budget, I think the RF50mm is a good balance between owning both the 35mm and 85mm and it's cheap.  I would pick it up as my first or only prime lens without hesitation.

Dan W Regular Member • Posts: 360
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

DaveyA wrote:

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.

I'm sorry if I sounded like I was making fun of you, that wasn't my intent. I'm used to using L lenses and most of those come in pounds, not ounces like both the new 50 and the 35 1.8

So yes they both are very light compared to any other lens out there worth owning. Im not sure what your using but I assume the RP or maybe the R? I came from the 5D3 and that was a heavy camera even without a lens mounted compared to my R. Obviously your new looking for knowledge, don't let comments like mine deter you from enjoying the hobby.

Happy shooting...

 Dan W's gear list:Dan W's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 50mm F1.2L USM Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,480
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

noggin2k1 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Not a real test, but we do have mtf charts.

It's sharp in the center, however, sharpness drops too soon when going to the border. The EF is worse, but the RF still isn't good enough.

Any suggestions on an autofocussing $199 lens that performs better, on any mount...?

I'm not saying it's bad for it's price. It's just not good enough for me. Oh, and the RF mounts allows for a better performance.

-- hide signature --

victory

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A Sigma 105mm F1.4 DG HSM Art +17 more
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,480
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

Martin_99 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Martin_99 wrote:

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.

Not a real test, but we do have mtf charts.

It's sharp in the center, however, sharpness drops too soon when going to the border. The EF is worse, but the RF still isn't good enough.

I would say that it's subjective statement. Personally I'm rather forgiving in relation to corner sharpnes. I notice it usually only when do sharpness test.

This performance is hurting IQ when doing rule of thirds compositions. Yes, that's a preference, and therefor it's subjective, but rule of thirds compositions are pretty common.  It's not just about pixel peeping in your very corners.

Look, I was just hoping for something like this. Not a 2300 prime, not a 200 euro prime, but kind of 680 euro, and suitable for rule of thirds compositions.  The RF 50mm f/1.8 is not.

-- hide signature --

victory

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A Sigma 105mm F1.4 DG HSM Art +17 more
(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 468
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?

Not sure if joke or if high.

Did you mean the EF 35 f/1.4? The RF 35 is stupidly small and light. If you think the RF 35 is heavy, the RF 50 is going to feel like you're holding the entire weight of the Earth in your hand.

tkbslc Forum Pro • Posts: 15,759
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

highdesertmesa 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?

Not sure if joke or if high.

Did you mean the EF 35 f/1.4? The RF 35 is stupidly small and light. If you think the RF 35 is heavy, the RF 50 is going to feel like you're holding the entire weight of the Earth in your hand.

Not sure what you mean by last sentence. The new RF 50mm is only 160g and 2” long.

Martin_99 Senior Member • Posts: 1,598
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

thunder storm wrote:

Martin_99 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Martin_99 wrote:

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.

Not a real test, but we do have mtf charts.

It's sharp in the center, however, sharpness drops too soon when going to the border. The EF is worse, but the RF still isn't good enough.

I would say that it's subjective statement. Personally I'm rather forgiving in relation to corner sharpnes. I notice it usually only when do sharpness test.

This performance is hurting IQ when doing rule of thirds compositions. Yes, that's a preference, and therefor it's subjective, but rule of thirds compositions are pretty common. It's not just about pixel peeping in your very corners.

Look, I was just hoping for something like this. Not a 2300 prime, not a 200 euro prime, but kind of 680 euro, and suitable for rule of thirds compositions. The RF 50mm f/1.8 is not.

I'm far from MTF expert, but as I understand for rule of thirds should be important performance between 10-15 lines, where difference seems not to be extreme: 85mm 0.6-0.75 vs 50mm 0.55-0.6.

I get your point, for PRO work you want to have appropriete tools. But I assume, that such difference would be hard to see on real world photos.

 Martin_99's gear list:Martin_99's gear list
Sony a6400 Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA
(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 468
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

tkbslc wrote:

highdesertmesa 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?

Not sure if joke or if high.

Did you mean the EF 35 f/1.4? The RF 35 is stupidly small and light. If you think the RF 35 is heavy, the RF 50 is going to feel like you're holding the entire weight of the Earth in your hand.

Not sure what you mean by last sentence. The new RF 50mm is only 160g and 2” long.

I guess I'm the one that was acting high. Missed the "new" part since the RF 50 f/1.2 is still new to me, lol. You mean the RF 50 f/1.8. The RF 35 1.8 feels feather light to me already, though. And 35 vs 50 field of view is completely different. I would use/keep both.

RDM5546
RDM5546 Senior Member • Posts: 2,347
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

highdesertmesa wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

highdesertmesa 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?

Not sure if joke or if high.

Did you mean the EF 35 f/1.4? The RF 35 is stupidly small and light. If you think the RF 35 is heavy, the RF 50 is going to feel like you're holding the entire weight of the Earth in your hand.

Not sure what you mean by last sentence. The new RF 50mm is only 160g and 2” long.

I guess I'm the one that was acting high. Missed the "new" part since the RF 50 f/1.2 is still new to me, lol. You mean the RF 50 f/1.8. The RF 35 1.8 feels feather light to me already, though. And 35 vs 50 field of view is completely different. I would use/keep both.

No one has the RF50f1.8. It may ship next week. It seems much smaller than the RF35mmf1.8 IS. Maybe the removal of the IS in the lens makes the 50mm lens smaller at 1.6" long. I will have both and keep both. The smaller size will make this a better travel lense for me along with the RF 24-240mm and probably the EOS R unless the situation dictates the R5 which slight bigger and 160g. (3 oz) heavier and more than twice as expensive and this would extravagent unless the expected subject matter warrants it.

I must admit the IS in the 35mm is of value to me and it may factor which of the two I take traveling.  After I get hands on with both lenses. I will know better which I prefer and for which case I will prefer it.

 RDM5546's gear list:RDM5546's gear list
Canon G5 X II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 70D Canon EOS R +38 more
noggin2k1
noggin2k1 Senior Member • Posts: 2,742
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

thunder storm wrote:

noggin2k1 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Not a real test, but we do have mtf charts.

It's sharp in the center, however, sharpness drops too soon when going to the border. The EF is worse, but the RF still isn't good enough.

Any suggestions on an autofocussing $199 lens that performs better, on any mount...?

I'm not saying it's bad for it's price. It's just not good enough for me. Oh, and the RF mounts allows for a better performance.

I'd make a friendly suggestion that you add that extra context in future then. Initially, it sounded as if you were holding it to expectations far in excess of it's price point.

 noggin2k1's gear list:noggin2k1's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS USM Canon RF 85mm F1.2L USM Canon RF 50mm F1.2L USM Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM +3 more
davidwien Forum Member • Posts: 84
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?
2

noggin2k1 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

noggin2k1 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Not a real test, but we do have mtf charts.

It's sharp in the center, however, sharpness drops too soon when going to the border. The EF is worse, but the RF still isn't good enough.

Any suggestions on an autofocussing $199 lens that performs better, on any mount...?

I'm not saying it's bad for it's price. It's just not good enough for me. Oh, and the RF mounts allows for a better performance.

To make a useful comparison, I have added Canon's MTF graphs for the RF35mm lens

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
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,480
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

noggin2k1 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

noggin2k1 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Not a real test, but we do have mtf charts.

It's sharp in the center, however, sharpness drops too soon when going to the border. The EF is worse, but the RF still isn't good enough.

Any suggestions on an autofocussing $199 lens that performs better, on any mount...?

I'm not saying it's bad for it's price. It's just not good enough for me. Oh, and the RF mounts allows for a better performance.

I'd make a friendly suggestion that you add that extra context in future then. Initially, it sounded as if you were holding it to expectations far in excess of it's price point.

In other words: it's so affordable it's not very useful as a portrait lens for rule of third compositions. In fact it's so affordable it's not useful as a portrait lens at all as the bokeh is really poor.

For me this makes the value of this lens close to zero, but for others it will be worth it's price or more.

When I'm using the words "not good enough" it can't be anything but a subjective thing. I'm absolutely sure this is a great lens when you're on a budget and want a second lens next to your RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 is stm in stead of both the rf 35mm f/1.8 and the rf 85mm f/2.0. At the same time there's a chance this lens will leave you wanting, and will turn out to be an incremental upgrade that could have been skipped.

-- hide signature --

victory

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A Sigma 105mm F1.4 DG HSM Art +17 more
noggin2k1
noggin2k1 Senior Member • Posts: 2,742
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

thunder storm wrote:

noggin2k1 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

noggin2k1 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Not a real test, but we do have mtf charts.

It's sharp in the center, however, sharpness drops too soon when going to the border. The EF is worse, but the RF still isn't good enough.

Any suggestions on an autofocussing $199 lens that performs better, on any mount...?

I'm not saying it's bad for it's price. It's just not good enough for me. Oh, and the RF mounts allows for a better performance.

I'd make a friendly suggestion that you add that extra context in future then. Initially, it sounded as if you were holding it to expectations far in excess of it's price point.

In other words: it's so affordable it's not very useful as a portrait lens for rule of third compositions. In fact it's so affordable it's not useful as a portrait lens at all as the bokeh is really poor.

If you're unable to get an outstanding portrait with this lens, the hardware isn't the issue.

For me this makes the value of this lens close to zero, but for others it will be worth it's price or more.

When I'm using the words "not good enough" it can't be anything but a subjective thing. I'm absolutely sure this is a great lens when you're on a budget and want a second lens next to your RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 is stm in stead of both the rf 35mm f/1.8 and the rf 85mm f/2.0. At the same time there's a chance this lens will leave you wanting, and will turn out to be an incremental upgrade that could have been skipped.

 noggin2k1's gear list:noggin2k1's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS USM Canon RF 85mm F1.2L USM Canon RF 50mm F1.2L USM Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM +3 more
tkbslc Forum Pro • Posts: 15,759
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

thunder storm wrote:

In other words: it's so affordable it's not very useful as a portrait lens for rule of third compositions. In fact it's so affordable it's not useful as a portrait lens at all as the bokeh is really poor.

A bit over the top, wouldn't you say?

If the EF version could take portraits, then the RF surely can.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Canon%20EF%2050mm%201.8%20portrait&view_all=1

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads