Talk me into or out of the RF 50/1.8

For a while, I planned to get the the RF 50/1.8 stm. lately however, I’m leaning away from it. Against it is some sub par reviews, mushiness away from center, and it not being a zoom*. For it are cost and aperture **.  So talk me into or out of it…

*Been shooting primarily primes on Fuji for the last decade. Being in a wheel chair while shooting, I’ve found zooms much more convenient. I currently have the RF 24-105L & RF 100-400.

**It’s hard to beat $200 but if I never use it then it’s still a waste. However, having nothing less than f4 is new to me.

Texchappy wrote:

For a while, I planned to get the the RF 50/1.8 stm. lately however, I’m leaning away from it. Against it is some sub par reviews, mushiness away from center, and it not being a zoom*. For it are cost and aperture **. So talk me into or out of it…

*Been shooting primarily primes on Fuji for the last decade. Being in a wheel chair while shooting, I’ve found zooms much more convenient. I currently have the RF 24-105L & RF 100-400.

**It’s hard to beat $200 but if I never use it then it’s still a waste. However, having nothing less than f4 is new to me.

It is certainly the worst of the RF lenses I have tried (both "consumer" and "L"). It is sharp in the center and mushy in the outside areas. Unlike even the RF24-240, keeps better contrast in the corners. The RF85f2 is very good compared to it.

Here is a link to some comparisons I ran using the Canon RP (similar in resolution to the R6) comparing the RF50f1.8 to the RF24-240 and RF80f2. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64790334 These tests are rather harsh and you may not notice the issues as much in real-world photos.

On the other hand, it is only $200 and you don't have any fast lenses. If you want to shoot in existing light and the subject is somewhat centered, it will probably do OK.

1. Texchappy wrote:

For a while, I planned to get the the RF 50/1.8 stm. lately however, I’m leaning away from it. Against it is some sub par reviews, mushiness away from center, and it not being a zoom*. For it are cost and aperture **. So talk me into or out of it…

*Been shooting primarily primes on Fuji for the last decade. Being in a wheel chair while shooting, I’ve found zooms much more convenient. I currently have the RF 24-105L & RF 100-400.

**It’s hard to beat $200 but if I never use it then it’s still a waste. However, having nothing less than f4 is new to me.

What sort of shooting do you do? Do you think you would not use it because it is soft in the corners, or do you think you would not use it because you rarely shoot at 50mm? If the latter don’t buy it. If the former, do you really need corner sharpness at wide apertures? If so, don’t buy it. Otherwise it’s a good lens at a good price. The RF 85mm f/2 IS is significantly better at $599.

It's very good for the money. It's certainly the best of the three Canon 50 F1.8 that I have had (the EF 50 F1.8 II, EF 50 F1.8 STM, RF 50 F1.8 STM). It's sharp wide open in the center, and out to a bit beyond the rule of thirds points. It's only really soft wide open in the extreme corners (unlike the previous two iterations of the lens). If you use DXO Photolab (or even just the Deep Prime NR with lens corrections), even the corners are reasonably sharp (the DXO lens corrections are by far the best I've used). But the main thing is that it is small, light, and cheap. If you use it mostly for people shots, like I do, it's unlikely that the soft extreme corners wide open are going to matter.

Go to the Canon refurb store and get one. $139 plus tax.

If you don't like it, you can sell it and justify it as an "as long you want" rental.

Imo, the lens is just fine. I had the RF 50 1.2, have the EF 50 1.2 and will be keeping the RF  50 1.8.

Only if you shoot 50mm. I bought one last year when I bought my R5. I think I used it once and sold it a few weeks ago. I just don't use primes anymore.  Even if I did personally I don't have a lot of use for a 50mm. Used 50mm on my AE1 for years, I also used the EF 50mm 1.8 but infrequently.  For me the lens was a bad purchase.  I have finally built my RF kit to meet my needs. Used the proceeds from 4 lenses to get my final RF zoom the 15-35, great deal on a like new used copy.

You're going to get almost every response possible regarding this lens. I think the comments are the same for all 50mm 1.8 lenses.  The lens is bad but also good for the money at the same time.

It's a wonderful bad lens.

Very sharp and weird rendering.

If you never plan to use it because of the IQ issues, then it really is a waste of money regardless of the price tag.  Save up for the 50/1.2L instead, or just stick with your 24-105.

I don't find it's a bad lens at all, and certainly better than EF version, good in the center at F1.8 (except with very close subject) but very soft in the corners, at F4 it's very good everywere.

For sure if you want sharp border to border lens at F1.8 it's not the good lens but it's probably the best RF lens for price/performance

Interpol wrote:

If you never plan to use it because of the IQ issues, then it really is a waste of money regardless of the price tag. Save up for the 50/1.2L instead, or just stick with your 24-105.

That’s the way I’m thinking, at the moment at least. If I don’t get it, it’s slightly sooner to get a 70-200.

The weak corner performance was the reason I send it back. The images below are 100% cornerpics of a xmas chain at different apertures. The RF50/1.2 row is for reference.

Well, you must know the best how you would value this lens...

Personally I quite like it (I have the EF STM version which is optically virtually the same). Nifty fifty was always in my camera bag. It costs nothing, measures nothing, weights nothing but if you learn how to use it, it makes very nice pictures. R6 with its lower resolution flatters this lens. I would not choose it for R5.

Since I own it for ages, I did learn to accept its pros and cons and can easily live with them.

But if you know the lower IQ up to f/2.8 would distract you, then look for something else.

The RF 50 f1.8 is very good if you need your model close, and accept the fact that the focus plane is not flat across the frame (soft corners). Expect the wide-open shots to be a bit hazy too, lacking a bit of contrast.

Decent post-processing can hide these problems to a certain extent.

On balance, its a very good lens, and if you know what you are doing, you can do pro work with it in some circumstances.

Notice the eye lashes:

The RF 35mm f1.8 is a lot better, and the RF 85 f2 even better.

BE CAREFUL WITH COPY TO COPY VARIATIONS!!

Texchappy wrote:

For a while, I planned to get the the RF 50/1.8 stm. lately however, I’m leaning away from it. Against it is some sub par reviews, mushiness away from center, and it not being a zoom*. For it are cost and aperture **. So talk me into or out of it…

*Been shooting primarily primes on Fuji for the last decade. Being in a wheel chair while shooting, I’ve found zooms much more convenient. I currently have the RF 24-105L & RF 100-400.

**It’s hard to beat $200 but if I never use it then it’s still a waste. However, having nothing less than f4 is new to me.

As a landscapes lens it's good. So the question is rather simple:  do you need a 50mm for landscapes?  If yes, buy it.

Of course you can buy it because it's affordable, but if you don't need it spilled money is spilled money, even if it's not a whole lot.

If you want a portrait lens being capable to render your backgrounds beautifully it's not worth it imo.

thunder storm wrote:

Texchappy wrote:

For a while, I planned to get the the RF 50/1.8 stm. lately however, I’m leaning away from it. Against it is some sub par reviews, mushiness away from center, and it not being a zoom*. For it are cost and aperture **. So talk me into or out of it…

*Been shooting primarily primes on Fuji for the last decade. Being in a wheel chair while shooting, I’ve found zooms much more convenient. I currently have the RF 24-105L & RF 100-400.

**It’s hard to beat $200 but if I never use it then it’s still a waste. However, having nothing less than f4 is new to me.

As a landscapes lens it's good. So the question is rather simple: do you need a 50mm for landscapes? If yes, buy it.

Of course you can buy it because it's affordable, but if you don't need it spilled money is spilled money, even if it's not a whole lot.

If you want a portrait lens being capable to render your backgrounds beautifully it's not worth it imo.

Your blanket statement is false. The RF 50 f1.8 can render awesome backgrounds...it depends on the background, the distance from the model, and the skill of the photographer. You also said the same thing about the RF 35mm f1.8 some weeks ago, but that was false too.

Awesome backgrounds from the lowly cheap RF 50mm f1.8:

If you need convincing that you need it - you don't need it.

I'm not going to talk down your pictures, and I'm glad you're happy with it, but I like better bokeh.

This lens also works quite well for video.