What can you do with a cheap lens? 1: outdoors

Quite a bit, actually. This post is for those who are curious about the results from Canon's cheapest, smallest, and lightest RF prime (tied with the 16 F2.8 in the latter two categories): the RF 50 F1.8 STM. For those who just like to sneer at the lens (at least a few on this forum), mostly without owning or using it, there's nothing here for you to see. You can go back to other threads, complaining about Canon not producing exactly what you want. If you're someone who is wondering whether it's worth spending just under $200 for a lens that you can take anywhere, while barely noticing the weight or bulk, you might find these pictures informative (maybe they'll convince you it's not worth it). I use the 50 mostly pretty close to wide open (F1.8-2.8), and mostly for people shots. My subjects are usually within the rule of thirds points, sometimes a little outside them, but never in the extreme corners. I don't use this lens for landscapes, though I could if I wanted to. I use it in a variety of different lighting conditions, more often indoors than out, but not always. I also try to keep the shutter speed at least at 1/125, and preferably faster, but that's mostly because I'm shooting people, and they move, even when they're trying not to. 1/100 would be fine for genuinely stationary subjects (I try to use a minimum of 1/2*focal length for lenses without IS on my R, which doesn't have IBIS). I'll post these pictures in three posts, so as not to put too many in any one post, and split them up into (i) outdoor shots; (ii) indoor shots; (iii) theatre shots (also indoors). I took a lot of shots of rehearsals of a show I directed last December. Some of them were of dancers, including one very fast-moving Irish dancer. The much-derided (but not by me) STM focus mechanism had no trouble keeping up with movement. So here are some outdoor shots, in both good and bad light:

With DXO Deep Prime, I'm happy to go all the way to ISO 25,600 on my R.

Indoor shots in the next post.

Now some indoor shots:

Lastly, some theatre shots in the next post.

Finally, some shots from theatre rehearsals:

She was moving pretty fast here

The ritual death of St. Patrick (don't worry, he comes back to life, with the help of beer).

An enraged Scottish giant, ranting about freedom and whisky (no 'e' the way the Scots spell it).

So. my thoughts about this lens are that it is a no-brainer to buy. I've owned three versions of the Canon 50 F1.8, and the 50 F1.4. This is the best of them. It's also tiny, light, and cheap. I can fit it in the outside pocket of the sling bag I use to carry my R with 24-105L attached (I can also fit the equally tiny 16 F2.8 in an inside pocket of that bag). It's sharp wide open at least as far out as the rule of thirds points, and maybe a bit beyond (the main improvement over the EF 50 F1.8 STM). In good light, it's very sharp indeed. So much so, that I find myself sometimes softening pictures of people (the ones I know will complain about too much detail in their faces!). I'm very glad that it is available for the RF mount. If I were restricted to something like the optically better (but would I ever actually see the difference? almost certainly not), but bigger, heavier, and more expensive Nikon 50 F1.8, I would probably not have bought it, and if I had, I would almost certainly not use it anything like as much. Why? Because I can take this tiny RF 50 with me anytime I take my R. The extra size and weight is simply negligible. If I had to either take a bigger bag, or choose between my 24-105 and a 50, I probably just wouldn't have the 50 with me nearly as often.

Different people have different priorities. Some hate the fact that Canon has this 50 and the big heavy and expensive 50 F1.2, and no 50 in between. I'm fine with it, because I would have bought this one, and not the in between one anyway. I hope, for the sake of those whose lives are blighted by the lack of the in-between option, that Canon comes out with what you want at some point. I'm happy with this one. And with the other affordable RF primes. Live and let live.

A few recent examples:

As I said, nothing for you to see here.

I agree. Nice sharp images, though in fairness the lighting of all of them was excellent, particularly of the stage shots. That said, I am amazed at the low light, high ISO photos I have taken, even with the RP.

I also “make do” with the “cheap, entry level” R lenses, and I and my bank account are very happy with them. I am not a fan of 50mm lenses generally — I prefer 35mm, but the point has been well made here for its use.

But it is not just about the R lenses, as others have remarked about the Canon EF series paired with R cameras through the adaptor. I conclude that the sensor and other design features of the camera itself play an important role. There is a clarity about the R cameras that exceeds what I got with the Canon SLRs (the EOS 5D was the only digital one I had), and the colours have a quality that I like but cannot describe adequately in words. I also have less need to fiddle with white balance now.

David

davidwien wrote:

I agree. Nice sharp images,

Thanks.

though in fairness the lighting of all of them was excellent, particularly of the stage shots.

I agree for the most part. The outdoor shots lit only by my gas fire were a bit challenging, though (I needed ISO 25,600 for one of them), and a couple of the indoor shots only had fairly dim overhead light. Also, several of the theatre shots were taken with pretty dim lighting (not the lighting used for the actual performances, because the lighting people were still trying things out). I had to use ISO 10,000 and 8,000 for some of them.

That said, I am amazed at the low light, high ISO photos I have taken, even with the RP.

Yes, the sensors in the R cameras do very well at high ISO, and using DXO Deep Prime makes them even more impressive. I think you can't tell how dim the light was in a few of the shots, because of the performance of the sensor.

I also “make do” with the “cheap, entry level” R lenses, and I and my bank account are very happy with them. I am not a fan of 50mm lenses generally — I prefer 35mm, but the point has been well made here for its use.

But it is not just about the R lenses, as others have remarked about the Canon EF series paired with R cameras through the adaptor. I conclude that the sensor and other design features of the camera itself play an important role. There is a clarity about the R cameras that exceeds what I got with the Canon SLRs (the EOS 5D was the only digital one I had), and the colours have a quality that I like but cannot describe adequately in words. I also have less need to fiddle with white balance now.

David

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Given the shutter speed this is excellent timing. Well done.

Some hate the fact that Canon has this 50 and the big heavy and expensive 50 F1.2, and no 50 in between.

Some do, and others are deeply disappointed.

I'm fine with it, because I would have bought this one, and not the in between one anyway. I hope, for the sake of those whose lives are blighted by the lack of the in-between option, that Canon comes out with what you want at some point.

That's just so nice. In the name of "all of those whose lives are blighted": Thanks for your hoping.

I'm happy with this one. And with the other affordable RF primes.

I love happy people.

Live and let live.

Somehow I do not feel entirely free to express my own opinion on this lens completely in this topic, but let me say I agree with you it's value for money and it's performance lives up to what you might expect from it given it's size and weight. The lens is small, light and affordable. You could even argue it punches a bit above it's price point even if the same is true for some other lenses for other systems.

The probably in this topic forbidden thing to say is I do not entirely agree with everything you're stating about it's image quality, so let me just say that's probably forbidden to say here. There's also no need to say it as it's discussed before in another topic in a - in my opinion - pretty constructive manner, and I have no problem to continue the debate there if I feel the need to do so.

unhappymeal wrote:

You know that Nikon makes a 40mm f/2, right? Its list price is within 50 Euros of the RF 50mm f/1.8 and it weighs a whopping 10g more. That extra 50 euros buys you silent autofocus (I've played with the RF 50mm f/1.8 at our local store, it audibly chatters), weather sealing and nicer (imho of course) bokeh.

I'm glad you like the lens, but some of us want Canon to do better. I feel the same way about Canon's entry-level bodies. The RP, in a vacuum, is a fine camera, but the Z5, which was selling for nearly the same price, is just so much better it's ridiculous. It feels like outside of Canon's top tier bodies and lenses that they are regressing.

In many ways I completely agree with you. I was thinking about replacing my 40mm f2.8 stm with the 35mm RF. Over 500 pounds. Plastic construction and no weather sealing.  At that price point. No thanks.

I am absolutely no lens snob, but the non-L RF lenses really don't appeal. For the price of that 35mm, Sigma offer an f2 (but not for Canon of course) in full metal construction, metal lens hood, weather sealing gasket at the mount and an aperture ring.

thunder storm wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Given the shutter speed this is excellent timing. Well done.

Some hate the fact that Canon has this 50 and the big heavy and expensive 50 F1.2, and no 50 in between.

Some do, and others are deeply disappointed.

I'm fine with it, because I would have bought this one, and not the in between one anyway. I hope, for the sake of those whose lives are blighted by the lack of the in-between option, that Canon comes out with what you want at some point.

That's just so nice. In the name of "all of those whose lives are blighted": Thanks for your hoping.

I'm happy with this one. And with the other affordable RF primes.

I love happy people.

Live and let live.

Somehow I do not feel entirely free to express my own opinion on this lens completely in this topic, but let me say I agree with you it's value for money and it's performance lives up to what you might expect from it given it's size and weight. The lens is small, light and affordable. You could even argue it punches a bit above it's price point even if the same is true for some other lenses for other systems.

The probably in this topic forbidden thing to say is I do not entirely agree with everything you're stating about it's image quality, so let me just say that's probably forbidden to say here. There's also no need to say it as it's discussed before in another topic in a - in my opinion - pretty constructive manner, and I have no problem to continue the debate there if I feel the need to do so.

Tactfully stated. Of course, I'm basing my opinion of the lens on my copy of it. For all I know, there may be some variation. One interesting thing I've discovered with my use of this lens is that I find myself using it a lot more than I originally thought I would. I bought it mostly because it was cheap, thinking that I much preferred the 35 and 85 focal lengths. If I had been faced with spending $500 on a 50, especially one that was much bigger and heavier (but even one that wasn't), I almost certainly wouldn't have bothered. But, I thought, for $200 I might as well buy it. You never know. But the small size and light weight of it mean that I take it with me pretty much every time I take my R. It's such a small addition to whatever I'm already carrying that I think I might as well have it with me. If I don't use it on that occasion, it's no big deal. It's not like lugging my 70-200 F2.8L IS II with me and not using it. So I actually use it quite a bit, because I have it with me most of the time. If someone gave me a considerably bigger 50mm, even if it was optically excellent, I almost certainly wouldn't use it nearly as much as I use this nifty fifty, because I just wouldn't have it with me nearly as much. As for that small Nikon 40 F2 that someone mentioned, I'd never buy that, simply because it's so close to 35, which I also have. I still have my EF 40 F2.8 pancake, which is a very nice lens, but there is simply no occasion when I can see myself thinking "you know what? 35mm isn't right, but 40mm would be perfect, so I'll slap on the 40". The difference between 35 and 50 is clearly big enough, as you know, to justify having both in the bag at the same time. I was never a great fan of the 50mm length. Even though the EF-M 32 F1.4 is terrific, I use my 22 F2 and 56 F1.4 a lot more with my M6II. I've become a fan, not of the 50mm focal length as such, but of this particular 50mm lens on my R. If I were a big fan of the 50 focal length all along, I can see how I might be willing to devote more space in my bag to it, and to want one that maybe did some things that this nifty fifty doesn't. So, I hope you get your wish eventually. Maybe when Sigma releases some RF primes?

G Dickson wrote:

unhappymeal wrote:

You know that Nikon makes a 40mm f/2, right? Its list price is within 50 Euros of the RF 50mm f/1.8 and it weighs a whopping 10g more. That extra 50 euros buys you silent autofocus (I've played with the RF 50mm f/1.8 at our local store, it audibly chatters), weather sealing and nicer (imho of course) bokeh.

I'm glad you like the lens, but some of us want Canon to do better. I feel the same way about Canon's entry-level bodies. The RP, in a vacuum, is a fine camera, but the Z5, which was selling for nearly the same price, is just so much better it's ridiculous. It feels like outside of Canon's top tier bodies and lenses that they are regressing.

In many ways I completely agree with you. I was thinking about replacing my 40mm f2.8 stm with the 35mm RF. Over 500 pounds. Plastic construction and no weather sealing. At that price point. No thanks.

I am absolutely no lens snob, but the non-L RF lenses really don't appeal. For the price of that 35mm, Sigma offer an f2 (but not for Canon of course) in full metal construction, metal lens hood, weather sealing gasket at the mount and an aperture ring.

Having the option to adapt the 40mm f/2.8 pancake is great.  Due to IBIS the ILIS advantage of the RF 35mm isn't huge. It's still more than a stop brighter being as compact as the 40mm+adapter on your camera though.  But at that price point.....  I'm sticking with my EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM.

G Dickson wrote:

unhappymeal wrote:

You know that Nikon makes a 40mm f/2, right? Its list price is within 50 Euros of the RF 50mm f/1.8 and it weighs a whopping 10g more. That extra 50 euros buys you silent autofocus (I've played with the RF 50mm f/1.8 at our local store, it audibly chatters), weather sealing and nicer (imho of course) bokeh.

I'm glad you like the lens, but some of us want Canon to do better. I feel the same way about Canon's entry-level bodies. The RP, in a vacuum, is a fine camera, but the Z5, which was selling for nearly the same price, is just so much better it's ridiculous. It feels like outside of Canon's top tier bodies and lenses that they are regressing.

In many ways I completely agree with you. I was thinking about replacing my 40mm f2.8 stm with the 35mm RF. Over 500 pounds. Plastic construction and no weather sealing. At that price point. No thanks.

You know there's nothing wrong with plastic construction. In some respects it's a lot more durable than metal. It sounds like you're in the UK, so perhaps weather sealing is more important to you (I grew up there). We don't get a lot of rain in Colorado, but we do get quite a bit of snow. I'm happy enough using non weather sealed lenses for a while in snow. In pouring rain, I prefer to be inside pouring something for myself. If I were a pro, I'd be more concerned about weather sealing. The RF 35 is a truly excellent lens, though. I got the EF 35 F2 IS when it dropped in price from its initial $899 (yes) to a more reasonable $599. I loved that lens for many years. I even sold my EF 35 F1.4L after I got the 35 F2, because I was always choosing the smaller lens, and it was optically pretty much on a par with the L lens. The RF version is better than the EF version. And it focuses really close. And it's 1/3 stop faster. And it's cheaper (many years later). If it's just the plastic versus metal thing holding you back, you're missing out on a great lens. If you really need the weather sealing, of course, you'll have to wait. But the 40 F2.8 doesn't have that either, and the 35 is just so much better than that.

I am absolutely no lens snob, but the non-L RF lenses really don't appeal. For the price of that 35mm, Sigma offer an f2 (but not for Canon of course) in full metal construction, metal lens hood, weather sealing gasket at the mount and an aperture ring.

I haven't had an aperture ring on a lens since my days of shooting manual focus film SLRs. For me, that would be a waste of space. But if you don't like using one of the many controls you can program on the camera body to adjust aperture, I suppose you could use a ring on the lens. Of course, with an RF lens (or the control ring adapter), you can program the control ring to control the aperture. I have mine programmed for ISO. I agree that it would be nice to get a lens hood with the lens. Here again I actually prefer a plastic hood. It's a pet peeve of many, including me, that Canon only gives lens hoods with L lenses. But it's a minor peeve. I always buy the cheap Chinese versions for around $10, and they work perfectly.

thunder storm wrote:

G Dickson wrote:

unhappymeal wrote:

You know that Nikon makes a 40mm f/2, right? Its list price is within 50 Euros of the RF 50mm f/1.8 and it weighs a whopping 10g more. That extra 50 euros buys you silent autofocus (I've played with the RF 50mm f/1.8 at our local store, it audibly chatters), weather sealing and nicer (imho of course) bokeh.

I'm glad you like the lens, but some of us want Canon to do better. I feel the same way about Canon's entry-level bodies. The RP, in a vacuum, is a fine camera, but the Z5, which was selling for nearly the same price, is just so much better it's ridiculous. It feels like outside of Canon's top tier bodies and lenses that they are regressing.

In many ways I completely agree with you. I was thinking about replacing my 40mm f2.8 stm with the 35mm RF. Over 500 pounds. Plastic construction and no weather sealing. At that price point. No thanks.

I am absolutely no lens snob, but the non-L RF lenses really don't appeal. For the price of that 35mm, Sigma offer an f2 (but not for Canon of course) in full metal construction, metal lens hood, weather sealing gasket at the mount and an aperture ring.

Having the option to adapt the 40mm f/2.8 pancake is great. Due to IBIS the ILIS advantage of the RF 35mm isn't huge. It's still more than a stop brighter being as compact as the 40mm+adapter on your camera though. But at that price point..... I'm sticking with my EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM.

As I just responded to G Dickson, I used to have the 35 F2 IS. It's an excellent lens. But the RF 35 is better in every way (and much smaller than the EF 35 on the adapter). Maybe if you were shooting racing cars with your 35, you'd notice a slight difference in AF speed. I have yet to miss a shot with my RF 35 because of the STM focusing. There's always a first time, perhaps.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Given the shutter speed this is excellent timing. Well done.

Some hate the fact that Canon has this 50 and the big heavy and expensive 50 F1.2, and no 50 in between.

Some do, and others are deeply disappointed.

I'm fine with it, because I would have bought this one, and not the in between one anyway. I hope, for the sake of those whose lives are blighted by the lack of the in-between option, that Canon comes out with what you want at some point.

That's just so nice. In the name of "all of those whose lives are blighted": Thanks for your hoping.

I'm happy with this one. And with the other affordable RF primes.

I love happy people.

Live and let live.

Somehow I do not feel entirely free to express my own opinion on this lens completely in this topic, but let me say I agree with you it's value for money and it's performance lives up to what you might expect from it given it's size and weight. The lens is small, light and affordable. You could even argue it punches a bit above it's price point even if the same is true for some other lenses for other systems.

The probably in this topic forbidden thing to say is I do not entirely agree with everything you're stating about it's image quality, so let me just say that's probably forbidden to say here. There's also no need to say it as it's discussed before in another topic in a - in my opinion - pretty constructive manner, and I have no problem to continue the debate there if I feel the need to do so.

Tactfully stated.

Thank you.

Of course, I'm basing my opinion of the lens on my copy of it. For all I know, there may be some variation. One interesting thing I've discovered with my use of this lens is that I find myself using it a lot more than I originally thought I would. I bought it mostly because it was cheap, thinking that I much preferred the 35 and 85 focal lengths. If I had been faced with spending $500 on a 50, especially one that was much bigger and heavier (but even one that wasn't), I almost certainly wouldn't have bothered. But, I thought, for $200 I might as well buy it. You never know. But the small size and light weight of it mean that I take it with me pretty much every time I take my R. It's such a small addition to whatever I'm already carrying that I think I might as well have it with me. If I don't use it on that occasion, it's no big deal. It's not like lugging my 70-200 F2.8L IS II with me and not using it. So I actually use it quite a bit, because I have it with me most of the time. If someone gave me a considerably bigger 50mm, even if it was optically excellent, I almost certainly wouldn't use it nearly as much as I use this nifty fifty, because I just wouldn't have it with me nearly as much.

It's making your full frame small, while you're still benefiting from the sensor of the R. That's the charm of the RF 50mm f/1.8.

As for that small Nikon 40 F2 that someone mentioned, I'd never buy that, simply because it's so close to 35, which I also have. I still have my EF 40 F2.8 pancake, which is a very nice lens, but there is simply no occasion when I can see myself thinking "you know what? 35mm isn't right, but 40mm would be perfect, so I'll slap on the 40". The difference between 35 and 50 is clearly big enough, as you know, to justify having both in the bag at the same time.

It's more about increments imo. My Tamron 17-35 has nice IQ up to 28mm, so I'm effectively using it as a 17-28mm. If that one is combined with an 85mm I prefer a 40mm in the middle in stead of 35mm. That said, next to a 50mm I still prefer a 40mm over a 35mm.  35mm is too far from normal perspective and not wide enough at the same time. Sometimes compromises are good, but 35mm isn't a good compromise for me.

I was never a great fan of the 50mm length. Even though the EF-M 32 F1.4 is terrific, I use my 22 F2 and 56 F1.4 a lot more with my M6II. I've become a fan, not of the 50mm focal length as such, but of this particular 50mm lens on my R. If I were a big fan of the 50 focal length all along, I can see how I might be willing to devote more space in my bag to it, and to want one that maybe did some things that this nifty fifty doesn't. So, I hope you get your wish eventually. Maybe when Sigma releases some RF primes?

I don't think it will happen.  And it's probably not an issue for me anymore as I simply sacrificed compactness. I've moved in the other direction, I was a 50mm shooter, but the 40mm Art changed this a little bit. Now it's 40mm + 85 Art indoors or 40mm + 105mm Art outdoors or 40mm + 70-200mm f/2.8 outdoors. Actually, having finally a good rendering 70mm in that zoom (unlike the 70mm of the EF 24-70mm mkII) makes the 40mm a better combination than a 50mm.

If I'm forced to bring one prime it's a 50mm, but, well, nobody is forcing me.

For M  I'm going with just the 32mm as my prime. That's the simplicity kit.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

G Dickson wrote:

unhappymeal wrote:

You know that Nikon makes a 40mm f/2, right? Its list price is within 50 Euros of the RF 50mm f/1.8 and it weighs a whopping 10g more. That extra 50 euros buys you silent autofocus (I've played with the RF 50mm f/1.8 at our local store, it audibly chatters), weather sealing and nicer (imho of course) bokeh.

I'm glad you like the lens, but some of us want Canon to do better. I feel the same way about Canon's entry-level bodies. The RP, in a vacuum, is a fine camera, but the Z5, which was selling for nearly the same price, is just so much better it's ridiculous. It feels like outside of Canon's top tier bodies and lenses that they are regressing.

In many ways I completely agree with you. I was thinking about replacing my 40mm f2.8 stm with the 35mm RF. Over 500 pounds. Plastic construction and no weather sealing. At that price point. No thanks.

I am absolutely no lens snob, but the non-L RF lenses really don't appeal. For the price of that 35mm, Sigma offer an f2 (but not for Canon of course) in full metal construction, metal lens hood, weather sealing gasket at the mount and an aperture ring.

Having the option to adapt the 40mm f/2.8 pancake is great. Due to IBIS the ILIS advantage of the RF 35mm isn't huge. It's still more than a stop brighter being as compact as the 40mm+adapter on your camera though. But at that price point..... I'm sticking with my EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM.

As I just responded to G Dickson, I used to have the 35 F2 IS. It's an excellent lens. But the RF 35 is better in every way (and much smaller than the EF 35 on the adapter).

Not debating this, but it's small enough for me and I always had other priorities for my budget so far.  It also fits the recently purchased 6D very well.

Maybe if you were shooting racing cars with your 35, you'd notice a slight difference in AF speed. I have yet to miss a shot with my RF 35 because of the STM focusing. There's always a first time, perhaps.

I have different needs for AF speed, but at 35mm stm could be fine for my needs.

-- hide signature --

As the length of a thread approaches 150, the probability that someone will make the obvious "it's not the camera, it's the photographer" remark approaches 1.
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

Many thanks Alastair for your reply. I hear what you are saying, I am not against plastic per se, and the 35mm does sound good and gets great reviews. Weather proofing at times is really important as I live in a country that at the right time can be really wet - Zambia. But am from the UK originally. You demonstrated the ability of the 50mm for sure. And you made a great case for the 35mm.  I just hope we get more options and more choices soon.

G Dickson wrote:

Many thanks Alastair for your reply. I hear what you are saying, I am not against plastic per se, and the 35mm does sound good and gets great reviews. Weather proofing at times is really important as I live in a country that at the right time can be really wet - Zambia. But am from the UK originally. You demonstrated the ability of the 50mm for sure. And you made a great case for the 35mm. I just hope we get more options and more choices soon.

Agreed. And good luck keeping your equipment dry! I lived in Houston for five years, which is one of the most humid places in the US, and gets massive quantities of rain. There were three floods in the five years we lived there. During the first one, I saw people paddling a canoe down the street that intersected with ours. Luckily for us, our house was a little higher up, so the the water only covered our front lawn, but not the actual house (very few houses in Houston have basements, for obvious reasons). One of my colleagues at Rice University (where I was teaching at the time) had his whole house raised three feet after the third time it got flooded. It cost a fortune, but luckily for him, he had a joint appointment at the medical school (which has pots of money). One of our former neighbours finally abandoned their house, after the fourth time it flooded, and now lives on the 20th floor of a downtown apartment building. They might be just about safe.