RF 16 mm f/2.8 or 35 mm f/1.8 for EOS RP user ?

ggasquecc wrote:

Hi there,

I've been using a canon EOS RP since 6 months and I'm very happy with it. I bought it as part of an offer with RF 24-105 STM, RF 50 mm STM and a spare battery. Photography is one of my passion but I'm far to be a "pro" and I'm not ready to spent k€ in gears.

I really enjoy using the RP and I'm thinking of buying a new lens. I spent a lot of time reading reviews and forums, trying to figure out what the best lens is for my needs.

I ended up choosing two prime lenses: the Canon RF 16 mm f/2.8 and the Canon RF 35 mm f/1.8. I want a good quality lens for indoor shooting (mainly portraits of my family or friends) and the RF 50 mm is not wide enough for that. So 35 mm seems perfect for me. But it is 35 mm, a focal length already "covered" by my 24-105. Is the quality gap between 24-105 STM and 35 mm really worth it ?

Quality gap is f1.8 vs f4.5 at that focal length.  So yes, that is a HUGE difference.   Big DOF control change and almost 3 stops of ISO (and noise) difference.   However, 35 and 50 are fairly close.  Compare those on your 24-105mm and see if you think it will make sense to have both a 35 and a 50.   I have both 35 and 50mm f1.8, and they often feel redundant.

On the other side, although it is not a portrait lens, the RF 16 mm will open up new possibilities to me (I've never used such a wide angle), such as landscape or astrophotography.

That is true.  You just have to decide what matters more to you.

So please, based on your experience which one would you choose ?

Doesn't matter what lens I would choose, because you have to use them and you probably have a different photographic style and needs than I do.  They are very different focal lengths, so you should pick based on that alone, really.

You may consider picking up a flash for indoor photos.  Bounced flash is a game changer for indoor photography.   In your case, if I had to choose something for you, I would pick up a flash.

The 35 f/1.8 is similar to your 50 f/1.8, but adds Image Stabilization and greater field of view. So the 35 will work better for inside photos of multiple people at a time, and the IS will also allow slower shutter speeds and/or numerically larger f stops (for greater depth of field if desired). But if the light is reasonably good, it won't do much that the 24-105 IS STM can't do except offer a shallower depth of field and do it in a somewhat smaller package.

The 16mm f/2.8 is a dramatic difference in field of view, even over the 24-105 at 24mm. It can be used for people pics inside, but the wide angle will generally not produce a true representation of the scene. However, it can be a fun lens for various creative photography challenges.

The quick thoughts from someone who owns of all the gear mentioned in the OP.

ggasquecc wrote:

Is the quality gap between 24-105 STM and 35 mm really worth it ?

The gap is significant, but whether it's 'worth it' is entirely subjective and I don't offer an opinion on that. Fortunately you have the 50/1.8 to help you decide. Do you like what it allows you to do, and do you think you would use it more and to better effect if it was a 35 mm?

The 35 mm angle of view is about 40% more than the 50 mm, which is very useful but not night and day. Think of it this way - it's much less than the difference in width between one person and two. Back in the days before zoom lenses were commonplace and most people had a selection of primes, 35 mm was the smallest step up in width from a 50 mm standard lens. If you wanted wide, a 28 mm gave you a lot more - that was a proper wide angle. You can see all this by experimenting with your 24-105 of course.

On the other side, although it is not a portrait lens, the RF 16 mm will open up new possibilities to me (I've never used such a wide angle), such as landscape or astrophotography.

Others have been quick to favour this lens because it offers you something completely new and this is of course true. On the other hand this is firmly in the ultrawide bracket and compositionally much more difficult to use than an ordinary wide angle. At 16 mm everything more than a few feet away is tiny in the frame. You might love it, or you might just find it frustrating as dramatic landscapes become a vast expanse of sky.

Personally I have always had zooms for very wide angle - the EF-S 10-22 on crop (which is equivalent to 16-35 on full frame), and now the EF 16-35/4L IS which is phenomenal on the R5 with an adapter. This way I have the full ultrawide experience when I want it, but I can ease off to a more modest ultrawide when I need to, which can be quite often depending where I am.

I've seen the RF 16 mm described as a 'no brainer' in at least one review, because it's cheap and decent, but 'the poor man pays twice'... as you will if you end up deciding that what you really needed was an ultrawide zoom.

Once again no opinions offered, just thoughts to provoke.

ggasquecc wrote:

Hi there,

I've been using a canon EOS RP since 6 months and I'm very happy with it. I bought it as part of an offer with RF 24-105 STM, RF 50 mm STM and a spare battery. Photography is one of my passion but I'm far to be a "pro" and I'm not ready to spent k€ in gears.

I really enjoy using the RP and I'm thinking of buying a new lens. I spent a lot of time reading reviews and forums, trying to figure out what the best lens is for my needs.

I ended up choosing two prime lenses: the Canon RF 16 mm f/2.8 and the Canon RF 35 mm f/1.8. I want a good quality lens for indoor shooting (mainly portraits of my family or friends) and the RF 50 mm is not wide enough for that. So 35 mm seems perfect for me. But it is 35 mm, a focal length already "covered" by my 24-105. Is the quality gap between 24-105 STM and 35 mm really worth it ?

The 35mm is a great people lens, but if you buy it, your 50mm will probably end up gathering dust. It's not as intimidating as the 24-105mm and quite a bit faster, though that's not always an advantage if you want a group of people in focus.

It is almost impossible to get nice people pictures with the 16mm as it's far too wide for that when you factor in the rectangular projection.  (It's easier to do that with a stereographic projection fisheye.) You would need to view an A3 print from the 16mm from 280mm (11") away to avoid the perspective distortion that will stretch heads in the corners of the image into rugby balls and make people on the edges of a group look very fat. It's a wonderful focal length for dramatic landscapes and architecture, but it takes a lot of learning how to use it. I chose the 16mm, even though I have the better and more versatile EF 16-35mm f/4, which is 3× the price but nowhere near as portable.

I sent the 35mm back as I wanted it for astro and couldn't live with the bird-like stars in the corners. The 16mm isn't as bad, but it wouldn't be my first choice for astro.

On the other side, although it is not a portrait lens, the RF 16 mm will open up new possibilities to me (I've never used such a wide angle), such as landscape or astrophotography.

So please, based on your experience which one would you choose ?

Thanks a lot.

JustUs7 wrote:

That said, in addition to what others have said about the 35, the 0.5x macro for close up flowers and other stuff is a lot of fun. It got me to explore the focus bracketing feature of the RP. Also a lot of fun.

The OP's 24-105 STM also offers 0.5x macro, though at 105 mm obviously. For many applications that's a more useful focal length, and it's one of the reasons why I bought one myself. I'm surprised Canon doesn't make a bigger deal of this.

ZX11 wrote:

ggasquecc wrote:

...

I can easily see you putting the RF 35mm on your camera and seldom if ever taking it off. It is a good focal length for scenes with multiple people in it. To capture the whole thing. It is IS and macro. Lots of uses. I think the RF 35 is one of the few lenses that still go on sale.

In my Kodachrome days I wandered around with a Minox 35EL in my shirt pocket and perhaps an SLR with a 100mm lens. My first zoom lens was a 35-70mm that never got zoomed off the 35mm end, so I sold it after 6 months. 35mm is the lens I would take if I were restricted to one focal length.

The 16 seems a lens you put on and try a bit then remove forever unless you are into artistic landscape type shots.

Ultra-wide angle is an acquired taste that can prove highly addictive. My EF-M 11-22mm is my most used APS-C lens by quite a long way, and my fisheye comes second or a very close third. I was out with my 24-105mm this weekend and was getting quite frustrated because it wouldn't go wider than 24mm. But the most effective way to use ultra-wide angle lenses is to get too close for comfort and then move in a bit and around a lot. Not a recipe for good people shots.

JustUs7 wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

JustUs7 wrote:

That said, in addition to what others have said about the 35, the 0.5x macro for close up flowers and other stuff is a lot of fun. It got me to explore the focus bracketing feature of the RP. Also a lot of fun.

The OP's 24-105 STM also offers 0.5x macro, though at 105 mm obviously. For many applications that's a more useful focal length, and it's one of the reasons why I bought one myself. I'm surprised Canon doesn't make a bigger deal of this.

But a focus bracket at f1.8 with an obliterated background is cool!

Haha yes it is

Serious note for anyone thinking of doing this - for macro, if we're still talking about that, I'd normally shoot the whole stack at around f/4 because the lens is a lot sharper, there is still no discernable diffraction, and the stack is more likely to succeed. But for maximum background blur you could take a frame or two (or several) at f/1.8 purely for the purpose of retouching in the background.

For my EOS R (i.e. without IBIS), I have an EF 35mm f/2 with OIS and - now since 3 weeks - the RF 16mm f/2.8.

The 35mm is a great, solid tool for many purposes. Town, street, indoor, landscape, public and family events and so on. IQ is pretty fine and OIS is solid. It's my most frequently used prime lens.
If you do a lot of indoor shooting (without flash ?), the fast aperture and the IS is helpfull.
And yes, 35mm f/1.8 is a big difference to the 35mm just covered by your kit zoom lens.

The 16mm is a complete different thing from my point of view. For me, I wouldn't consider to use this lens for indoor family photography - but that's my personal view. (I don't like UWA portraits ...). It might be different if the shot should cover a dozen people around a table in the living room...
It's great for any purpose where ultra wide makes sense. However, as just mentioned above by another forum member, you will have to go through some learning curve concerning the composition of your photo. A lot of fun - so never stop learning in our life.

If you are planning to take the 16mm indoors - without a tripod, maybe without a flash (I don't like flashes during family events), maybe in some cozy but not too bright lighting - then you should think about the fact that the RF 16mm has no OIS (and your RP has no IBIS).
I like taking shots in the interior of churches or museums (without tripod) and here it was important for me to find out which shutter speed is my personal handheld limit. Not just having the 16mm, I took the 24-105mm, switched off the OIS and took shots at 24mm with decreasing shutter speed. What's still ok for 24mm should give you an acceptable keeper rate at 16mm.
So living people require a faster shutter speed than a statue in a church - for the price of a higher ISO.
If you look to ISO, the difference between the 16mm and the 35mm could be somewhere in a ratio of ISO 200/3200 (wide open, max. handheld exposure time).
(I made this section a bit more detailed because having no IS at all for indoors is - for me - more challenging the being outside ...)

With 16mm, the effect of abberant lines can become much more distinct compared to 35mm. If you can crop that out of your photo or if you have a good post processing tool, it should be ok, but it's worth to think about that effect.

I didn't feel that - for me - the 16mm is a fine 'all day walk around' lens. But it's small and got its place in my bag.

My - very personal - feeling would be that the 35mm could be a fine lens for you.