RF 50mm f1.8 stm review.

quiquae wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

pawn wrote:

Swerky wrote:

The digital picture have finished the review of the RF 50mm 1.8. Wasn't the larger mount diameter supposed to bring, among other things, less vignette to the image? Perhaps I'm wrong.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=1528&Camera=1508&LensComp=989

Thanks Swerky for sharing

I know that vignetting can be corrected in software. What are issues in doing this correction in software? Some people even add some vignettes to their images.

It can add noise and/or lead to loss of detail (no free lunch). It also takes more time and processing cycles.

R2

The processing cost is negligible--it's just one of many corrections that go into RAW processing.

It certainly slows down my workflow (DPP).  I keep all NR, Sharpening, DLO, etc turned off in-camera and apply later in post when needed.  DPP is a dog even with a new PC (but I like its output  ).

It may not impact your own workflow (and I put up with it), but I was just answering Pawn's query above.

The noise problem is real, though.

That too, although it may or may not be impactful.

R2

Wow, really no improvement from the mediocre EF version.

I guess if size a huge deal then it's an upgrade. But I'd rather have the adapter + 50 STM for the same money as I have other EF glass. Just such a disappointment. I think Canon could have really upgraded the optics while maintaining the small size everyone is going insane over. Oh well. Waiting for Samyang.

sportyaccordy wrote:

I guess if size a huge deal then it's an upgrade. But I'd rather have the adapter + 50 STM for the same money as I have other EF glass. Just such a disappointment. I think Canon could have really upgraded the optics while maintaining the small size everyone is going insane over. Oh well. Waiting for Samyang.

Well, at least the newer one gets sharp across the frame at some point. So compactness is a reason to get the RF 50mm f/1.8.

At the same time a lot of zooms do a very good job at 50mm, so compactness is the only reason to get it.

thunder storm wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

I guess if size a huge deal then it's an upgrade. But I'd rather have the adapter + 50 STM for the same money as I have other EF glass. Just such a disappointment. I think Canon could have really upgraded the optics while maintaining the small size everyone is going insane over. Oh well. Waiting for Samyang.

Well, at least the newer one gets sharp across the frame at some point. So compactness is a reason to get the RF 50mm f/1.8.

At the same time a lot of zooms do a very good job at 50mm, so compactness is the only reason to get it.

exactly

thunder storm wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

I guess if size a huge deal then it's an upgrade. But I'd rather have the adapter + 50 STM for the same money as I have other EF glass. Just such a disappointment. I think Canon could have really upgraded the optics while maintaining the small size everyone is going insane over. Oh well. Waiting for Samyang.

Well, at least the newer one gets sharp across the frame at some point. So compactness is a reason to get the RF 50mm f/1.8.

At the same time a lot of zooms do a very good job at 50mm, so compactness is the only reason to get it.

And f1.8 even though it's not sharp there

Claire Dupuis wrote:

shawnphoto wrote:

Claire Dupuis wrote:

Swerky wrote:

The digital picture have finished the review of the RF 50mm 1.8. Wasn't the larger mount diameter supposed to bring, among other things, less vignette to the image? Perhaps I'm wrong.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=1528&Camera=1508&LensComp=989

I LOVE vignetting in a lens, I find modern optics clear edge to edge wide open sad enough to make me cry. A little darkened corners give depth and character to a lens, I'm so glad this one exhibits some !

I find heavy vignette to be the realm of cornball photography. A small amount of vignette is pleasant and adds a subtle depth to the image. 1-2 stops max in the corners. Even then it will look stupid against a clear sky and require removal.

I agree with you, we don't need heavy vignetting, but a slight amount of darker corners create a visual natural "frame" to the image, which I find pleasant. No vignetting whatsoever makes me think of medical use glass, cold and sterile and brrrrr... don't like it. I turn pheripheral correction OFF on ALL my cameras when I first get them

You can add vignetting and other "character" qualities (aberrations) in post