Not too happy with RF 35mm f1.8 lens

[draacor]

So i have had the RF 35mm for quite some time now, about 2 years, and its never been a lens i gravitate to. The chromatic abberation is atrocious and it never really gives me the optical quality im used to from my other lenses. If i am shooting the kids i usually grab the 24-105 f4 i have or the 70-200 f2.8. However the one thing the 35 has going is the 1.8. I am thinking about selling the 35mm and the 24-105 and splurge for the 50mm 1.2 to replace both. Anyone go this route? Should i instead opt for the 24-70 f2.8?

I currently have this as my setup:

R5

RF 15-35 2.8

RF 24-105 f4

RF 35mm 1.8

RF 70-200 F2.8

RF 100-500 F4.5-7.1

RF 1.4 Extender

Obviously id have to kick in some money to get the 50mm f1.2 but im thinking this would be a good fit for portraits, walk around, kids, etc. If i got the 24-70 2.8 instead it may be a tad more versatile but i would lose the extra stops of light and dof.

 

[thunder storm]

If you're thinking to replace a 35mm with a pretty expensive 50mm, the 40mm f/1.4 Art comes to my mind.

The only downside is weight. The 50mm is 950 grams, the 40mm Art is 1200 grams and that's without adapter.

Although the Sigma doesn't offer f/1.2, at same apertures the sigma is sharper than the RF 50mm f/1.2 L. 40mm is also more flexible than 50mm. Last but not least the Sigma 40mm has an easy to swallow price tag. I got mine used for only 850 euro. New ones usually cost 1250 euro, but it's easy to find deals being a bit better. The RF 50mm f/1.2 was 2300 euro, and nowadays it's 2500 euro....

 

[draacor]

If you're thinking to replace a 35mm with a pretty expensive 50mm, the 40mm f/1.4 Art comes to my mind.

The only downside is weight. The 50mm is 950 grams, the 40mm Art is 1200 grams and that's without adapter.

Although the Sigma doesn't offer f/1.2, at same apertures the sigma is sharper than the RF 50mm f/1.2 L. 40mm is also more flexible than 50mm. Last but not least the Sigma 40mm has an easy to swallow price tag. I got mine used for only 850 euro. New ones usually cost 1250 euro, but it's easy to find deals being a bit better. The RF 50mm f/1.2 was 2300 euro, and nowadays it's 2500 euro....

interesting thought actually but im not too keen on the adapter. I had an adapter and vowed to only get RF glass so i wouldn't have to mess with one anymore. However if its my only lens that could be an option as it would just live on the lens.

 

[Johnbro]

In terms of adapted EF glass, the Sigma 35 Art is also a brilliant lens, albeit not as sharp as the fabled 40mm, but it's MUCH smaller and you get one used for quite a bit less than the RF 50 1.2.

 

[JustUs7]

If you’re looking for a simple walk around solution, consider complementing your full frame rig with an M6 MKII and the EF-M 32mm f/1.4. Both body and lens can be had for a bit over half the cost of the RF 50mm f/1.2 and it’s an impressive high resolution set up. You could even get the EVF and a decent zoom with it for less than one 50mm lens.



Then you’ve got a small light weight set up for family stuff that’s far more discreet and a nice back up. The 32 is 50mm equivalent and much sharper than the RF 35mm.

I know it’s not what you asked about, but it’s an interesting idea that could be one possible solution.

 

[Aetherhole]

Not sure if this is a feasible option, but the 28-70 f/2 is something I'd like to suggest.

I agree with your assessment and noticed the same chromatic aberrations on the 35mm when I had it. I have the 24-105 also, but am looking to get rid of it now after using the 28-70 for a bit. I think the 28-70 would be a great addition to the 70-200 you already own and have a wide range of focal range covered. You're getting the extra light capability with the constant f/2, but nearly the versatility of the 24-70 f/2.8.

Just a thought...

 

[Chris_Chapterten]

If you're thinking to replace a 35mm with a pretty expensive 50mm, the 40mm f/1.4 Art comes to my mind.

The only downside is weight. The 50mm is 950 grams, the 40mm Art is 1200 grams and that's without adapter.

Although the Sigma doesn't offer f/1.2, at same apertures the sigma is sharper than the RF 50mm f/1.2 L. 40mm is also more flexible than 50mm. Last but not least the Sigma 40mm has an easy to swallow price tag. I got mine used for only 850 euro. New ones usually cost 1250 euro, but it's easy to find deals being a bit better. The RF 50mm f/1.2 was 2300 euro, and nowadays it's 2500 euro....

I didn’t like the AF of the RF 35mm 1.8… my copy was very unreliable and hunted a lot.

My RF 50mm has been perfect, really love that lens… personally I would sell the 35 and 24-105 like you were planning to do and go for the 50mm. But I am a bit bias because I only use primes… 35, 50, 85 pretty much covers everything I would ever need and I don’t usually miss the in between focal lengths much at all… YMMV

 

[draacor]

Not sure if this is a feasible option, but the 28-70 f/2 is something I'd like to suggest.

I agree with your assessment and noticed the same chromatic aberrations on the 35mm when I had it. I have the 24-105 also, but am looking to get rid of it now after using the 28-70 for a bit. I think the 28-70 would be a great addition to the 70-200 you already own and have a wide range of focal range covered. You're getting the extra light capability with the constant f/2, but nearly the versatility of the 24-70 f/2.8.

Just a thought...

love the idea but not sure i can swing the extra price gap id love to give that lens a whirl sometime though.

 

[Karl_Guttag]

So i have had the RF 35mm for quite some time now, about 2 years, and its never been a lens i gravitate to. The chromatic abberation is atrocious and it never really gives me the optical quality im used to from my other lenses. If i am shooting the kids i usually grab the 24-105 f4 i have or the 70-200 f2.8. However the one thing the 35 has going is the 1.8. I am thinking about selling the 35mm and the 24-105 and splurge for the 50mm 1.2 to replace both. Anyone go this route? Should i instead opt for the 24-70 f2.8?

I currently have this as my setup:

R5

RF 15-35 2.8

RF 24-105 f4

RF 35mm 1.8

RF 70-200 F2.8

RF 100-500 F4.5-7.1

RF 1.4 Extender

Obviously id have to kick in some money to get the 50mm f1.2 but im thinking this would be a good fit for portraits, walk around, kids, etc. If i got the 24-70 2.8 instead it may be a tad more versatile but i would lose the extra stops of light and dof.

First, I am not trying to say you might be wrong or suggesting what you should do. But your saying you have chroma aberrations problems with the RF35.f1.8 lens does not make sense to me.

I don't have the RF35f1.8, but I have seen reviews of it (such as by Christopher Frost )

I do have R5 with the RF50f1.8, RF85f2, RF24-240, RF15-35f2.8, RF24-70f2.8, RF70-200f2.8, RF100f2.8 macro, and RF100-500. While I see issues with the non-L's, I have never seen significant chroma aberrations after digital correction, and I have tested all my lenses looking for issues.

People seem to like the RF35f1.8 in general. It has also been reviewed favorably. I wonder if you are using out-of-camera JPEGs without corrections enabled or processing them with software that is not doing the right lens correction. I do see that the RF35f1.8 is the one non-L lens in your bunch, and maybe it needs a bit more "help" from the software.

For the record, the RF50f1.8 I find very soft in the corners wide open, which obviates my use for it. Unlike any other RF lens I have, the 50f1.8 is the only one with low contrast in wide-open corners and has to be stopped down to f4 for the contrast to be good. The 85f2 is just a little soft in the far corners wide open and much better than the 50f1.8. The 24-240 is pretty soft in the corners at the two ends of the zoom range, but there is no chroma problem. The L lenses are all very good, with the 70-200f2.8 being amazingly good (it looks like a prime wide open from 100 to 200mm), and the 100f2.8 is also beyond sharp.

If you had said you don't like the STM motor, I'm right there with you. I can believe it is a little soft in the corners. But I have a hard time believing it is basic/simple chroma aberrations.

I can find (often minor) faults with all my RF lenses, but I have not seen significant chroma aberrations. I have seen "purple fringes" (a type of chroma problem) with backlit tree branches, but good software can correct for it (DPP4 does a very good job on the purple fringe). It might help if you can post a photo that you think has a problem.

 

[Croomrider]

So i have had the RF 35mm for quite some time now, about 2 years, and its never been a lens i gravitate to. The chromatic abberation is atrocious and it never really gives me the optical quality im used to from my other lenses. If i am shooting the kids i usually grab the 24-105 f4 i have or the 70-200 f2.8. However the one thing the 35 has going is the 1.8. I am thinking about selling the 35mm and the 24-105 and splurge for the 50mm 1.2 to replace both. Anyone go this route? Should i instead opt for the 24-70 f2.8?

I currently have this as my setup:

R5

RF 15-35 2.8

RF 24-105 f4

RF 35mm 1.8

RF 70-200 F2.8

RF 100-500 F4.5-7.1

RF 1.4 Extender

Obviously id have to kick in some money to get the 50mm f1.2 but im thinking this would be a good fit for portraits, walk around, kids, etc. If i got the 24-70 2.8 instead it may be a tad more versatile but i would lose the extra stops of light and dof.

Looking at your other lenses I think your two choices are spot on. The 24-70 would complete your 2.8 trinity, or the 50mm would fill in the gap nicely between 35-70mm which you will have if you sell the 24-105. However, I can't really recommend which way you should go. It depends on how much you value a true fast prime for the shooting you plan on doing!

 

[Photofrankenstein]

Until Canon launches 35L RF, there will always be dilemma in choosing something else to replace 35mm f1.8. There is no replacement if 35mm fov is what you want. It is not 40mm or 28mm, let alone 50mm.

Best temperory solution is to use 35L II EF with an adaptor. If you really dislike the EF adaptor then continue to use your 35f1.8 RF is much better than selling it buying something else you didn't want.

When 35L RF launches, all these will be crystal clear. In EF era, if someone posted a question, I am not happy with my 35mm F2 IS, what shall I upgrade to? 35L is the answer. Suggesting 50mm f1.2 or 24L would be strange.

 

[axlotl]

So i have had the RF 35mm for quite some time now, about 2 years, and its never been a lens i gravitate to. The chromatic abberation is atrocious

Have you got a bad copy ? How are you viewing the files ?

I have used my copy for thousands of photos and one of the things I appreciate is the near absence of color fringing. I shoot Raw and process in Adobe Bridge/Camera Raw/Photoshop.

I have found it is possible to induce a small amount of purple fringing at f1.8-2.8 if I place a very high contrast subject edge (such as backlit foliage against a hot sky) out of the focal plane and towards the corners of the frame. This is easily corrected.

Otherwise files from this lens mounted on the R5 are commendably free from aberrations or any other visible optical problems.

Andrew

and it never really gives me the optical quality im used to from my other lenses. If i am shooting the kids i usually grab the 24-105 f4 i have or the 70-200 f2.8. However the one thing the 35 has going is the 1.8. I am thinking about selling the 35mm and the 24-105 and splurge for the 50mm 1.2 to replace both. Anyone go this route? Should i instead opt for the 24-70 f2.8?

I currently have this as my setup:

R5

RF 15-35 2.8

RF 24-105 f4

RF 35mm 1.8

RF 70-200 F2.8

RF 100-500 F4.5-7.1

RF 1.4 Extender

Obviously id have to kick in some money to get the 50mm f1.2 but im thinking this would be a good fit for portraits, walk around, kids, etc. If i got the 24-70 2.8 instead it may be a tad more versatile but i would lose the extra stops of light and dof.

 

[Phil and Karen]

So i have had the RF 35mm for quite some time now, about 2 years, and its never been a lens i gravitate to. The chromatic abberation is atrocious and it never really gives me the optical quality im used to from my other lenses. If i am shooting the kids i usually grab the 24-105 f4 i have or the 70-200 f2.8. However the one thing the 35 has going is the 1.8. I am thinking about selling the 35mm and the 24-105 and splurge for the 50mm 1.2 to replace both. Anyone go this route? Should i instead opt for the 24-70 f2.8?

I currently have this as my setup:

R5

RF 15-35 2.8

RF 24-105 f4

RF 35mm 1.8

RF 70-200 F2.8

RF 100-500 F4.5-7.1

RF 1.4 Extender

Obviously id have to kick in some money to get the 50mm f1.2 but im thinking this would be a good fit for portraits, walk around, kids, etc. If i got the 24-70 2.8 instead it may be a tad more versatile but i would lose the extra stops of light and dof.

Hi draacor,

Can you post an example? (Obviously something you're entirely happy to share on-line).

Phil

 

[Larawanista]

Not a perfect lens obviously and will not be destined to become one of the top 5 lenses for the RF mount. However, I've learned to live with it and work around its weaknesses. I found its sweet spot to be in the aperture ranges of 2.8 to 3.5.



The best option today for a 35mm it seems is an EF lenses (EF35mm 1.4L v2). Or one of the routes you described, particularly the 50mm 1.2 which is stellar.

--
"Photography is therapeutic."
https://www.pbase.com/joshcruzphotos

 

[Chris Giles]

Grab a 35mm F2 IS USM, adapt it and that will solve most of your problem.

 

[Dracones]

I always loved specialized tools or devices. They're expensive and can't do many things but the ones they can do they will always be amazing and very rewarding.

I would trade 3 zoom lenses for one or two perfect prime if I wouldn't be constrained by the professional implications.

 

[thunder storm]

If you're thinking to replace a 35mm with a pretty expensive 50mm, the 40mm f/1.4 Art comes to my mind.

The only downside is weight. The 50mm is 950 grams, the 40mm Art is 1200 grams and that's without adapter.

Although the Sigma doesn't offer f/1.2, at same apertures the sigma is sharper than the RF 50mm f/1.2 L. 40mm is also more flexible than 50mm. Last but not least the Sigma 40mm has an easy to swallow price tag. I got mine used for only 850 euro. New ones usually cost 1250 euro, but it's easy to find deals being a bit better. The RF 50mm f/1.2 was 2300 euro, and nowadays it's 2500 euro....

interesting thought actually but im not too keen on the adapter. I had an adapter and vowed to only get RF glass so i wouldn't have to mess with one anymore. However if its my only lens that could be an option as it would just live on the lens.

If you don't want an adapter you're pretty limited at the 35mm focal length.

 

[hunk]

I own almost all RF lenses but the RF 50 f/1.2 is the most used one. I would rebuy it if it was twice the price.

Together with a 24-105mm f/4 you can do almost anything.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

If you're thinking to replace a 35mm with a pretty expensive 50mm, the 40mm f/1.4 Art comes to my mind.

That was my first thought too. I picked one up as a bit of an impulse purchase when I saw an exceptionally good deal, and it is truly superb. That was when I still had the 5D4, and it's even better on the R5.

The only downside is weight. The 50mm is 950 grams, the 40mm Art is 1200 grams and that's without adapter.

Yep.

Also the focusing speed doesn't compare with for example my EF 85/1.4L, but for the subjects I use it for that's not really an issue.

 

[RLight]

Not sure if this is a feasible option, but the 28-70 f/2 is something I'd like to suggest.

I agree with your assessment and noticed the same chromatic aberrations on the 35mm when I had it. I have the 24-105 also, but am looking to get rid of it now after using the 28-70 for a bit. I think the 28-70 would be a great addition to the 70-200 you already own and have a wide range of focal range covered. You're getting the extra light capability with the constant f/2, but nearly the versatility of the 24-70 f

/2.8.

Just a thought...

love the idea but not sure i can swing the extra price gap id love to give that lens a whirl sometime though.

As someone who spends most of their time photographing his kids grow up, I'm going to second this. The 28-70 f/2L is probably the most adept at this sort of shooting and gives that magic of f/2, and is sharp at that. F/2.8, although I loved my time with the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II, f/2 is f/2 and f/2.8 is f/2.8.

As a sucker of a fast 50 myself, the RF 50mm f/1.2L can't be beat. F/1.2 is f/1.2, and 50mm is a favorite of mine. I spend my time heavily at 28mm, 50mm and 35mm (in that order) on that 28-70 f/2L. 70mm itself is useful though (and outstanding performance even wide open), I just personally don't spend much time at 70...

I should warn you though, I grab the 28-70 f/2L over the 70-200 f/2.8L frequently, except, at the park, where I grab the 70-200 f/2.8L over the 28-70 f/2L...


Zoomed quickly to 70mm when momma popped in to check on us.



[ATTACH alt="28mm, is very useful, especially at f/2 where is has "pop" "]3035428[/ATTACH]
28mm, is very useful, especially at f/2 where is has "pop"




28mm; spur of the moment capture


~50mm-ish. The park bench didn't permit me to walk closer.

[ATTACH alt="At venues, the 70-200 "wins" but should be paired with the 28-70 f/2L"]3035432[/ATTACH]
At venues, the 70-200 "wins" but should be paired with the 28-70 f/2L

[ATTACH alt="And here is the 28-70 f/2L in action again, same venue as the 70-200 a shot before. 28mm @ f/2L, is pretty invaluable, even though 28mm isn't a "sexy" focal, do not underestimate having access to f/2 at wider focals on-demand."]3035437[/ATTACH]
And here is the 28-70 f/2L in action again, same venue as the 70-200 a shot before. 28mm @ f/2L, is pretty invaluable, even though 28mm isn't a "sexy" focal, do not underestimate having access to f/2 at wider focals on-demand.

It should be noted, the 28-70 f/2L, is quite a bit sharper @ 35mm than the RF 35mm f/1.8 per benchmarks, and in my book...


~35mm; deliberately stopped down to f/3.2 via DoF preview to get the olives in focus.

Now I could post some former EF 50mm f/1.2L shots, but you know the drill if you're asking about the 50mm. I've never shot the RF flavor of it, but the stuff I've seen come off it is outstanding. You're just stuck to 50mm, which depending on what you're shooting, may or may not in fact be the best fit.

The RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM gets left home a lot myself (and I've considered selling it); I do retain it though for Zoom-calls; the STM motor is silent (and more power efficient) and the lens is more appropriate on a tripod or table, etc; 35mm is perfect for Zooms too. On occasion when I'm feeling lazy and I know 35mm will do, it gets slapped on the R, but, I usually wish I'd brought the 28-70 f/2L by the end of the shooting as it's a much better lens, even though the RF 35 saves the back. An L lens is an L lens as you know...