Chrisopher Frost: RF 50mmf1.8 STM review

Started Dec 7, 2020 | Discussions
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 8,542
Re: Chrisopher Frost: RF 50mmf1.8 STM review

It's compact and as far as I can see from this review it will be usable for most pictures at f/4.0, and all pictures at f/5.6. I can imagine it does a better job than the RF 24-105mm stm at 50mm.  It also gathers lots of light for your AF-system.

I've got me a used ef-m 32mm f/1.4 for my M50, as I think the price of the M6mkII will drop the coming years. I'm not exited with the idea of a compact too cheap lens on a chunky R or R5 body.

-- hide signature --

I love 50mm (equivalence)

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Canon EOS 6D Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A Sigma 105mm F1.4 DG HSM Art +20 more
KEG
KEG Veteran Member • Posts: 4,022
Re: Chrisopher Frost: RF 50mmf1.8 STM review
5

sportyaccordy wrote:

Basically no improvement from the EF version for twice the money. Thanks Canon

I am still getting one.

-- hide signature --

KEG

 KEG's gear list:KEG's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS RP Canon EOS R Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM Canon EF-M 32mm F1.4 +19 more
Ferazzzz_2011 Regular Member • Posts: 244
Re: Chrisopher Frost: RF 50mmf1.8 STM review
1

thunder storm wrote:

It's compact and as far as I can see from this review it will be usable for most pictures at f/4.0, and all pictures at f/5.6. I can imagine it does a better job than the RF 24-105mm stm at 50mm. It also gathers lots of light for your AF-system.

I've got me a used ef-m 32mm f/1.4 for my M50, as I think the price of the M6mkII will drop the coming years. I'm not exited with the idea of a compact too cheap lens on a chunky R or R5 body.

If you have the EF-M 32 there is no need for this lens. The 32 is in a different class man. More like the quality of the 35 L II on APS-C...

Love my 32.

 Ferazzzz_2011's gear list:Ferazzzz_2011's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS M5 Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +13 more
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 8,542
Re: Chrisopher Frost: RF 50mmf1.8 STM review
1

Ferazzzz_2011 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

It's compact and as far as I can see from this review it will be usable for most pictures at f/4.0, and all pictures at f/5.6. I can imagine it does a better job than the RF 24-105mm stm at 50mm. It also gathers lots of light for your AF-system.

I've got me a used ef-m 32mm f/1.4 for my M50, as I think the price of the M6mkII will drop the coming years. I'm not exited with the idea of a compact too cheap lens on a chunky R or R5 body.

If you have the EF-M 32 there is no need for this lens. The 32 is in a different class man. More like the quality of the 35 L II on APS-C...

Love my 32.

I really don't see why Canon has chosen for a compact design over great IQ for this RF 50mm. We already have M for compactness.....  For the non f/1.2  we should have gotten something on par with the RF 85mm IS f/2.0.

-- hide signature --

I love 50mm (equivalence)

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Canon EOS 6D Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A Sigma 105mm F1.4 DG HSM Art +20 more
pdqgp
pdqgp Forum Pro • Posts: 10,776
Agree, perhaps not worth the difference
1

MikeJ9116 wrote:

I am not that picky over an inch extra length and four ounces added to a lens that is already very small and lightweight. Especially on a body the size/weight of the R/R5/R6. I can see where RF lens might be worth the added cost of replacing the EF lens on a camera like the RP.

I mean we can have this same argument for just about every RF vs EF lens in the lineup, I guess. Most EF lenses are pretty good and adapt just fine. Many will not see the need to switch to RF native mount.

If I didn't have three other EF 50mm lenses I would buy the RF versions.

Agree.   The extra bit of heft and size on EF Lenses doesn't bother me.   Optically speaking the newer lenses are indeed better but even still, are they worth buying them all over again for slight bumps?    I still run MK1 versions of several L lenses even and they perform great still.    In the case of the 50mm it's a small amount of money and I barely could justify it let alone on some of my larger ones that are thousands of dollars.

 pdqgp's gear list:pdqgp's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F717 Fujifilm FinePix 1300 Panasonic FZ1000 Canon PowerShot SX40 HS Fujifilm FinePix F20 Zoom +19 more
(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 333
Re: Agree, perhaps not worth the difference

pdqgp wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

I am not that picky over an inch extra length and four ounces added to a lens that is already very small and lightweight. Especially on a body the size/weight of the R/R5/R6. I can see where RF lens might be worth the added cost of replacing the EF lens on a camera like the RP.

I mean we can have this same argument for just about every RF vs EF lens in the lineup, I guess. Most EF lenses are pretty good and adapt just fine. Many will not see the need to switch to RF native mount.

If I didn't have three other EF 50mm lenses I would buy the RF versions.

Agree. The extra bit of heft and size on EF Lenses doesn't bother me. Optically speaking the newer lenses are indeed better but even still, are they worth buying them all over again for slight bumps? I still run MK1 versions of several L lenses even and they perform great still. In the case of the 50mm it's a small amount of money and I barely could justify it let alone on some of my larger ones that are thousands of dollars.

That’s very true for a lot of RF lenses, but I would say the RF 50 1.2 and RF 85 1.2 are night and day better than their EF counterparts...

pdqgp
pdqgp Forum Pro • Posts: 10,776
Just like the human eye....
1

Chris_Chapterten wrote:

pdqgp wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

I am not that picky over an inch extra length and four ounces added to a lens that is already very small and lightweight. Especially on a body the size/weight of the R/R5/R6. I can see where RF lens might be worth the added cost of replacing the EF lens on a camera like the RP.

I mean we can have this same argument for just about every RF vs EF lens in the lineup, I guess. Most EF lenses are pretty good and adapt just fine. Many will not see the need to switch to RF native mount.

If I didn't have three other EF 50mm lenses I would buy the RF versions.

Agree. The extra bit of heft and size on EF Lenses doesn't bother me. Optically speaking the newer lenses are indeed better but even still, are they worth buying them all over again for slight bumps? I still run MK1 versions of several L lenses even and they perform great still. In the case of the 50mm it's a small amount of money and I barely could justify it let alone on some of my larger ones that are thousands of dollars.

That’s very true for a lot of RF lenses, but I would say the RF 50 1.2 and RF 85 1.2 are night and day better than their EF counterparts...

I would imagine on most really good primes that would be the case.   Overall from a design stand point lenses here are just like glasses and contacts/lenses for the human eye.   The closer they are to the eye they better the optics will be.  moving the lenses closer to the sensor should improve things all around.

 pdqgp's gear list:pdqgp's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F717 Fujifilm FinePix 1300 Panasonic FZ1000 Canon PowerShot SX40 HS Fujifilm FinePix F20 Zoom +19 more
StefanD Contributing Member • Posts: 559
Re: Chrisopher Frost: RF 50mmf1.8 STM review
2

JustUs7 wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

Basically no improvement from the EF version for twice the money. Thanks Canon

CONTROL RING!!!😁

I've got a control ring on all my EF lenses. Costed me €100,- extra compared to the plain adapter.

Sittatunga Veteran Member • Posts: 4,232
Re: Chrisopher Frost: RF 50mmf1.8 STM review

thunder storm wrote:

Ferazzzz_2011 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

It's compact and as far as I can see from this review it will be usable for most pictures at f/4.0, and all pictures at f/5.6. I can imagine it does a better job than the RF 24-105mm stm at 50mm. It also gathers lots of light for your AF-system.

I've got me a used ef-m 32mm f/1.4 for my M50, as I think the price of the M6mkII will drop the coming years. I'm not exited with the idea of a compact too cheap lens on a chunky R or R5 body.

If you have the EF-M 32 there is no need for this lens. The 32 is in a different class man. More like the quality of the 35 L II on APS-C...

Love my 32.

I really don't see why Canon has chosen for a compact design over great IQ for this RF 50mm. We already have M for compactness..... For the non f/1.2 we should have gotten something on par with the RF 85mm IS f/2.0.

It's so Canon has something for everybody.  The RF 85mm f/2 is likely to be better, but it is more than three times the price of this lens and ⅓ of a stop slower.  The EF-M 32mm lens is more than twice the price and effectively ⅔ of a stop slower.  Again, it's likely to be better in a lot of situations, but, if me, it's too expensive for a crop format lens.

I can see that RF 50mm f/1.8 selling to those who want something compact without buying an M outfit as well, or to those who want more quality stopped down or more low-light capacity than the 24-105mm STM without spending a fortune.  I would consider it, when it's time to replace my EF 50mm f/1.8.  It won't stop Canon making an f/1.4 lens later on that's more to your taste.  You don't have to like everything in Canon's catalogue, but choice is good.

MikeJ9116 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,052
Re: Chrisopher Frost: RF 50mmf1.8 STM review
2

thunder storm wrote:

Ferazzzz_2011 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

It's compact and as far as I can see from this review it will be usable for most pictures at f/4.0, and all pictures at f/5.6. I can imagine it does a better job than the RF 24-105mm stm at 50mm. It also gathers lots of light for your AF-system.

I've got me a used ef-m 32mm f/1.4 for my M50, as I think the price of the M6mkII will drop the coming years. I'm not exited with the idea of a compact too cheap lens on a chunky R or R5 body.

If you have the EF-M 32 there is no need for this lens. The 32 is in a different class man. More like the quality of the 35 L II on APS-C...

Love my 32.

I really don't see why Canon has chosen for a compact design over great IQ for this RF 50mm. We already have M for compactness..... For the non f/1.2 we should have gotten something on par with the RF 85mm IS f/2.0.

The reason is that Canon likely had to leave space for a future RF 50mm f/1.4 at around $800.

sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 19,381
Re: Chrisopher Frost: RF 50mmf1.8 STM review

Jx9 wrote:

Does anyone know if there's noise when recording video like there is on the EF version? He usually does that test but didn't here.

He did and it's much worse.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Sony a7 III Sony FE 24-70mm F4 OSS Samyang AF 35mm F1.8 FE Samyang AF 45mm F1.8 FE Sony FE 85mm F1.8
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 8,542
Re: Chrisopher Frost: RF 50mmf1.8 STM review

Sittatunga wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Ferazzzz_2011 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

It's compact and as far as I can see from this review it will be usable for most pictures at f/4.0, and all pictures at f/5.6. I can imagine it does a better job than the RF 24-105mm stm at 50mm. It also gathers lots of light for your AF-system.

I've got me a used ef-m 32mm f/1.4 for my M50, as I think the price of the M6mkII will drop the coming years. I'm not exited with the idea of a compact too cheap lens on a chunky R or R5 body.

If you have the EF-M 32 there is no need for this lens. The 32 is in a different class man. More like the quality of the 35 L II on APS-C...

Love my 32.

I really don't see why Canon has chosen for a compact design over great IQ for this RF 50mm. We already have M for compactness..... For the non f/1.2 we should have gotten something on par with the RF 85mm IS f/2.0.

It's so Canon has something for everybody. The RF 85mm f/2 is likely to be better, but it is more than three times the price of this lens and ⅓ of a stop slower. The EF-M 32mm lens is more than twice the price and effectively ⅔ of a stop slower. Again, it's likely to be better in a lot of situations, but, if me, it's too expensive for a crop format lens.

I can see that RF 50mm f/1.8 selling to those who want something compact without buying an M outfit as well, or to those who want more quality stopped down or more low-light capacity than the 24-105mm STM without spending a fortune. I would consider it, when it's time to replace my EF 50mm f/1.8. It won't stop Canon making an f/1.4 lens later on that's more to your taste.

I'm afraid that one will never come.

You don't have to like everything in Canon's catalogue, but choice is good.

-- hide signature --

I love 50mm (equivalence)

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Canon EOS 6D Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A Sigma 105mm F1.4 DG HSM Art +20 more
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 8,542
Re: Chrisopher Frost: RF 50mmf1.8 STM review

MikeJ9116 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Ferazzzz_2011 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

It's compact and as far as I can see from this review it will be usable for most pictures at f/4.0, and all pictures at f/5.6. I can imagine it does a better job than the RF 24-105mm stm at 50mm. It also gathers lots of light for your AF-system.

I've got me a used ef-m 32mm f/1.4 for my M50, as I think the price of the M6mkII will drop the coming years. I'm not exited with the idea of a compact too cheap lens on a chunky R or R5 body.

If you have the EF-M 32 there is no need for this lens. The 32 is in a different class man. More like the quality of the 35 L II on APS-C...

Love my 32.

I really don't see why Canon has chosen for a compact design over great IQ for this RF 50mm. We already have M for compactness..... For the non f/1.2 we should have gotten something on par with the RF 85mm IS f/2.0.

The reason is that Canon likely had to leave space for a future RF 50mm f/1.4 at around $800.

I'm afraid we won't ever see a lens like that from Canon......

-- hide signature --

I love 50mm (equivalence)

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Canon EOS 6D Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A Sigma 105mm F1.4 DG HSM Art +20 more
JustUs7 Senior Member • Posts: 3,391
Re: Chrisopher Frost: RF 50mmf1.8 STM review

StefanD wrote:

JustUs7 wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

Basically no improvement from the EF version for twice the money. Thanks Canon

CONTROL RING!!!😁

I've got a control ring on all my EF lenses. Costed me €100,- extra compared to the plain adapter.

I was being a bit facetious about the true value add, but the fact is, it’s added tech and parts that the EF version doesn’t have and it adds cost.  Nobody has to buy it. Many will. In the world of Canon lenses, it doesn’t get much cheaper and new is new.

 JustUs7's gear list:JustUs7's gear list
Canon EOS RP Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS 1000D Canon EOS M6 II Canon RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 +7 more
Sittatunga Veteran Member • Posts: 4,232
Re: Chrisopher Frost: RF 50mmf1.8 STM review
3

thunder storm wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Ferazzzz_2011 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

It's compact and as far as I can see from this review it will be usable for most pictures at f/4.0, and all pictures at f/5.6. I can imagine it does a better job than the RF 24-105mm stm at 50mm. It also gathers lots of light for your AF-system.

I've got me a used ef-m 32mm f/1.4 for my M50, as I think the price of the M6mkII will drop the coming years. I'm not exited with the idea of a compact too cheap lens on a chunky R or R5 body.

If you have the EF-M 32 there is no need for this lens. The 32 is in a different class man. More like the quality of the 35 L II on APS-C...

Love my 32.

I really don't see why Canon has chosen for a compact design over great IQ for this RF 50mm. We already have M for compactness..... For the non f/1.2 we should have gotten something on par with the RF 85mm IS f/2.0.

The reason is that Canon likely had to leave space for a future RF 50mm f/1.4 at around $800.

I'm afraid we won't ever see a lens like that from Canon......

Canon produced 50mm f/1.4 lenses for their S range (1952), FL range (1965, 66 & 68), FD range (1971 & 73), New FD range (1979) and EF range (1993).  Why wouldn't they produce an RF version?  Ok, the EF version took six years to arrive, but never say never...

KEG
KEG Veteran Member • Posts: 4,022
Re: Chrisopher Frost: RF 50mmf1.8 STM review

Ferazzzz_2011 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

It's compact and as far as I can see from this review it will be usable for most pictures at f/4.0, and all pictures at f/5.6. I can imagine it does a better job than the RF 24-105mm stm at 50mm. It also gathers lots of light for your AF-system.

I've got me a used ef-m 32mm f/1.4 for my M50, as I think the price of the M6mkII will drop the coming years. I'm not exited with the idea of a compact too cheap lens on a chunky R or R5 body.

If you have the EF-M 32 there is no need for this lens. The 32 is in a different class man. More like the quality of the 35 L II on APS-C...

Love my 32.

Even though they where completely equal I think I would need both, also I think that RF 50/1.8 will be the easier one to use.

-- hide signature --

KEG

 KEG's gear list:KEG's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS RP Canon EOS R Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM Canon EF-M 32mm F1.4 +19 more
MikeJ9116 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,052
Re: Chrisopher Frost: RF 50mmf1.8 STM review

thunder storm wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Ferazzzz_2011 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

It's compact and as far as I can see from this review it will be usable for most pictures at f/4.0, and all pictures at f/5.6. I can imagine it does a better job than the RF 24-105mm stm at 50mm. It also gathers lots of light for your AF-system.

I've got me a used ef-m 32mm f/1.4 for my M50, as I think the price of the M6mkII will drop the coming years. I'm not exited with the idea of a compact too cheap lens on a chunky R or R5 body.

If you have the EF-M 32 there is no need for this lens. The 32 is in a different class man. More like the quality of the 35 L II on APS-C...

Love my 32.

I really don't see why Canon has chosen for a compact design over great IQ for this RF 50mm. We already have M for compactness..... For the non f/1.2 we should have gotten something on par with the RF 85mm IS f/2.0.

The reason is that Canon likely had to leave space for a future RF 50mm f/1.4 at around $800.

I'm afraid we won't ever see a lens like that from Canon......

Canon seems to be mirroring the EF lens catalog to a great extent. They will fill the gap between the high and low end 50mm lenses. If they don't third party makers will. They won't let this happen without a challenge.

MikeJ9116 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,052
Re: Chrisopher Frost: RF 50mmf1.8 STM review

Sittatunga wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Ferazzzz_2011 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

It's compact and as far as I can see from this review it will be usable for most pictures at f/4.0, and all pictures at f/5.6. I can imagine it does a better job than the RF 24-105mm stm at 50mm. It also gathers lots of light for your AF-system.

I've got me a used ef-m 32mm f/1.4 for my M50, as I think the price of the M6mkII will drop the coming years. I'm not exited with the idea of a compact too cheap lens on a chunky R or R5 body.

If you have the EF-M 32 there is no need for this lens. The 32 is in a different class man. More like the quality of the 35 L II on APS-C...

Love my 32.

I really don't see why Canon has chosen for a compact design over great IQ for this RF 50mm. We already have M for compactness..... For the non f/1.2 we should have gotten something on par with the RF 85mm IS f/2.0.

The reason is that Canon likely had to leave space for a future RF 50mm f/1.4 at around $800.

I'm afraid we won't ever see a lens like that from Canon......

Canon produced 50mm f/1.4 lenses for their S range (1952), FL range (1965, 66 & 68), FD range (1971 & 73), New FD range (1979) and EF range (1993). Why wouldn't they produce an RF version? Ok, the EF version took six years to arrive, but never say never...

They will make a RF 50mm f/1.4. Count on it. They  won't leave this segment to the third party lens makers.

sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 19,381
Re: Chrisopher Frost: RF 50mmf1.8 STM review

Sittatunga wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Ferazzzz_2011 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

It's compact and as far as I can see from this review it will be usable for most pictures at f/4.0, and all pictures at f/5.6. I can imagine it does a better job than the RF 24-105mm stm at 50mm. It also gathers lots of light for your AF-system.

I've got me a used ef-m 32mm f/1.4 for my M50, as I think the price of the M6mkII will drop the coming years. I'm not exited with the idea of a compact too cheap lens on a chunky R or R5 body.

If you have the EF-M 32 there is no need for this lens. The 32 is in a different class man. More like the quality of the 35 L II on APS-C...

Love my 32.

I really don't see why Canon has chosen for a compact design over great IQ for this RF 50mm. We already have M for compactness..... For the non f/1.2 we should have gotten something on par with the RF 85mm IS f/2.0.

It's so Canon has something for everybody. The RF 85mm f/2 is likely to be better, but it is more than three times the price of this lens and ⅓ of a stop slower. The EF-M 32mm lens is more than twice the price and effectively ⅔ of a stop slower. Again, it's likely to be better in a lot of situations, but, if me, it's too expensive for a crop format lens.

I can see that RF 50mm f/1.8 selling to those who want something compact without buying an M outfit as well, or to those who want more quality stopped down or more low-light capacity than the 24-105mm STM without spending a fortune. I would consider it, when it's time to replace my EF 50mm f/1.8. It won't stop Canon making an f/1.4 lens later on that's more to your taste. You don't have to like everything in Canon's catalogue, but choice is good.

I think the disappointment is still warranted. Canon didn't even take advantage of the added space from the deleted mirror box or the big wide mount. It's basically the old EF STM lens with a new element and control ring for 2x the money. I get the point of the lens but Canon seemed to put zero effort into it.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Sony a7 III Sony FE 24-70mm F4 OSS Samyang AF 35mm F1.8 FE Samyang AF 45mm F1.8 FE Sony FE 85mm F1.8
Sittatunga Veteran Member • Posts: 4,232
Re: Chrisopher Frost: RF 50mmf1.8 STM review
2

sportyaccordy wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Ferazzzz_2011 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

It's compact and as far as I can see from this review it will be usable for most pictures at f/4.0, and all pictures at f/5.6. I can imagine it does a better job than the RF 24-105mm stm at 50mm. It also gathers lots of light for your AF-system.

I've got me a used ef-m 32mm f/1.4 for my M50, as I think the price of the M6mkII will drop the coming years. I'm not exited with the idea of a compact too cheap lens on a chunky R or R5 body.

If you have the EF-M 32 there is no need for this lens. The 32 is in a different class man. More like the quality of the 35 L II on APS-C...

Love my 32.

I really don't see why Canon has chosen for a compact design over great IQ for this RF 50mm. We already have M for compactness..... For the non f/1.2 we should have gotten something on par with the RF 85mm IS f/2.0.

It's so Canon has something for everybody. The RF 85mm f/2 is likely to be better, but it is more than three times the price of this lens and ⅓ of a stop slower. The EF-M 32mm lens is more than twice the price and effectively ⅔ of a stop slower. Again, it's likely to be better in a lot of situations, but, if me, it's too expensive for a crop format lens.

I can see that RF 50mm f/1.8 selling to those who want something compact without buying an M outfit as well, or to those who want more quality stopped down or more low-light capacity than the 24-105mm STM without spending a fortune. I would consider it, when it's time to replace my EF 50mm f/1.8. It won't stop Canon making an f/1.4 lens later on that's more to your taste. You don't have to like everything in Canon's catalogue, but choice is good.

I think the disappointment is still warranted. Canon didn't even take advantage of the added space from the deleted mirror box or the big wide mount. It's basically the old EF STM lens with a new element and control ring for 2x the money. I get the point of the lens but Canon seemed to put zero effort into it.

It looks like a complete optical, mechanical and electronic redesign to me

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads