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

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,506
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

noggin2k1 wrote:

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.

I saw some preview pictures from this lens from Irene Rudnyk, and she didn't manage to get outstanding portraits with this lens. It wasn't anything but the lens it's fault.

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 M6 II Canon EOS R5 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
RDM5546
RDM5546 Senior Member • Posts: 2,350
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

tkbslc wrote:

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

It is really the RF 50 vs the RF35 for potraits when travelling.  I will read everone's opinion if the have hands on experience with both lenses.  It would nice to include the RF 24-105mm and the RF 24-240mm in any comparisons too.  They are all good/great travel lenses IMHO.

 RDM5546's gear list:RDM5546's gear list
Canon G5 X II Canon EOS 70D Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R +38 more
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,506
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

tkbslc wrote:

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

Chances are the bokeh of the RF lens is worse compared to the EF lens.  If you don't need bokeh, there's no need to use a prime at all, so.....  that's what i call "not useful".

-- hide signature --

victory

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 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
JustUs7 Senior Member • Posts: 1,838
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

thunder storm wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

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

Chances are the bokeh of the RF lens is worse compared to the EF lens. If you don't need bokeh, there's no need to use a prime at all, so..... that's what i call "not useful".

I don’t use a prime for bokeh in most cases. The 35 I use when light is limited and I have no flash. Using something that starts at f/4.5 isn’t fine in those cases. Or f/5 as the consumer RF zooms hit at 50 mm.

I’m trying to capture a subject in those cases. A pleasing background can be a bonus, but the background isn’t why I’m using the prime.

 JustUs7's gear list:JustUs7's gear list
Canon EOS 1000D Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS RP Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III +7 more
tkbslc Forum Pro • Posts: 15,777
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

thunder storm wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

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

Chances are the bokeh of the RF lens is worse compared to the EF lens.

Based on what?

If you don't need bokeh, there's no need to use a prime at all, so..... that's what i call "not useful".

You are just full of absurd arguments today.

thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,506
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

RDM5546 wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

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

It is really the RF 50 vs the RF35 for potraits when travelling. I will read everone's opinion if the have hands on experience with both lenses. It would nice to include the RF 24-105mm and the RF 24-240mm in any comparisons too. They are all good/great travel lenses IMHO.

The RF 50mm f/1.8 needs the RF 85mm f/2.0 next to it for portraits. The RF 85mm is also better for most half way macro stuff than the 35mm.... so I'm not sure why the 85mm is ruled out for traveling.

In my case i would prefer my adapted sigma f/1.4 Art for traveling over the RF 50mm f/1.8, as the Sigma art allows me to leave the RF 85mm f/2.0 at home for portraits. This lens and a 24-70mm f/2.8. Both lenses are big and heavy, but just these two lenses allow you to leave other primes at home.

Just one 35mm is often too wide (for portraits) and often not wide enough (interiors, city scapes), forcing you to choose (at least) a third lens to take with you. An f/4.0 zoom isn't bright enough for indoors where a 50mm can be a bit too long. Just one f/2.8 standard zoom next to a good 50mm solves everything.

-- hide signature --

victory

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 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
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,506
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

tkbslc wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

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

Chances are the bokeh of the RF lens is worse compared to the EF lens.

Based on what?

The available sample pictures. And the logic more contrast and sharpness in a budget lens design comes at the risk of more busy bokeh. But if you don't believe me, just have a look at the pictures of Irene, and see how harsh that bokeh looks.

If you don't need bokeh, there's no need to use a prime at all, so..... that's what i call "not useful".

You are just full of absurd arguments today.

I would rather have a detailed background than a background with a lot of busyness in it's blur.  At the end of the day you can do your portraits just with your kit zoom.

-- hide signature --

victory

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 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
Aldaia Junior Member • Posts: 47
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:

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.

Agreed. The crossing points for rule of thirds are placed exactly 9 millimeters from the center of the sensor. Assuming as an exercise a circular subject that projects a 10 mm diameter image on the sensor, if we center it according to rule of thirds the relevant part spans from 4 to 13 mm.

Also notice that the top and bottom of the sensor are at 12 mm from the center, while the left and right side are at 18 mm from center. In practical terms, anything beyond 18 mm is irrelevant for most uses (other than pixel peeping and bragging rights), and certainly there is virtually nothing left beyond 20 mm (the extreme corners of the sensors are at 21.6 mm from the center).

 Aldaia's gear list:Aldaia's gear list
Canon RF 24-105mm F4.0-7.1 IS STM Canon EOS RP Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM +2 more
davidwien Forum Member • Posts: 84
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

RDM5546 wrote:

I will read everone's opinion if the have hands on experience with both lenses.

That is the most sense I have read in this thread so far! To judge the quality of a new lens when it has not yet hit the stores makes no sense to 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
JackHa2006 Junior Member • Posts: 35
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

tkbslc wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

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

Chances are the bokeh of the RF lens is worse compared to the EF lens.

Based on what?

If you don't need bokeh, there's no need to use a prime at all, so..... that's what i call "not useful".

You are just full of absurd arguments today.

It's subjective and you have to look at pictures on both f1.2 and f1.8 to decide which one is better value for you. For me I was considering both and then I saw sample images of the f1.8 on Youtube from Canon Explorers of Light at 1080p and I did not like the f1.8 bokeh.  I went to purchase the f1.2.

 JackHa2006's gear list:JackHa2006's gear list
Canon G9 X Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 10D Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS R6 +7 more
noggin2k1
noggin2k1 Senior Member • Posts: 2,743
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:

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.

I saw some preview pictures from this lens from Irene Rudnyk, and she didn't manage to get outstanding portraits with this lens. It wasn't anything but the lens it's fault.

Ah, the old "I've seen a sample gallery, so I know it isn't good enough."

I don't know who associated with the RF 50/1.8 has offended you, but your absurd and baseless criticism towards it is a bit embarrassing.

I've not seen a single comment or photograph from you on these forums that adds gravitas to your opinions as a photographer, and this is simply compounding that.

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 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
davidwien Forum Member • Posts: 84
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?

... in the meantime, this site provides some interesting comparisons between the RF50mm f/1.2 and f/1.8 lenses;

https://petapixel.com/2020/11/11/photographer-reviews-the-rf-50mm-f-1-8-stm-on-the-canon-eos-rp/

The images call into question the value of the f/1.2 lens, which sells at 10x the price of the f/1.8 version. 2k is a lot to pay for about 1 stop more aperture.

The most signifcant advantage appears to be better bokeh, but if that is what you want, why use a 50mm lens for portraits?

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: 6,506
Re: Does the new RF 50mm make the (heavy and expensive) RF 35mm redundant?
1

noggin2k1 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

noggin2k1 wrote:

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.

I saw some preview pictures from this lens from Irene Rudnyk, and she didn't manage to get outstanding portraits with this lens. It wasn't anything but the lens it's fault.

Ah, the old "I've seen a sample gallery, so I know it isn't good enough."

I don't know who associated with the RF 50/1.8 has offended you, but your absurd and baseless

What's wrong with basing criticism on examining pictures? I don't see why that would be baseless.  You have a suggestion of a better source?

criticism towards it is a bit embarrassing.

I've not seen a single comment or photograph from you on these forums that adds gravitas to your opinions as a photographer, and this is simply compounding that.

That's a very polite way to say you disagree with me, however, without any counter arguments. Talking about baseless....

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 M6 II Canon EOS R5 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
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads