The greatest lens costs $200???

Photography isn't all about specs and product performance, tools must mold with the user to create, and even ergonomics don't sum up the whole.

The 50mm f1.8 is a BAD lens optically when compared to the RF lineup, BUT it is one of, if not THE, greatest RF lens on the market, and considering it's price, I think everyone in the system must have one.

the saying goes: "the best camera is the one that's on you", this sums it all, when I first pulled my R5 out of the box I was amazed and almost disappointed by how small and light this highly capable body was, but only for some moments until I popped on my 28-70mm f2, and it felt camera-like as anything.

But that initial impression got me thinking that this camera can play 2 personalities, the obvious DSLR-like performance orientated persona, and the Leica-like all-day-carry just-because-you-can persona.

I got this lens with just that in mind, I don't mind hauling around a 3kg camera combo, IF I know there'll be what to shoot, if not I would probably just leave the camera at home, and at best pull out my good old G7x just in case, but with this lens, why not take it? this combo can be jammed in a jacket pocket or a small bag, or dangle off a shoulder or wrist strap effortlessly, why leave it at home?

I just got to give this lens a proper use in Old City Safed, and it allowed me to capture moments that would've been missed, at least at this level of glory, if not for it.

If a good lens is defined by results, this may be the best lens I ever bought.

I'm not a huge fan of the 50mm focal length for my personal work - I use it a lot for portraiture for my paid work, and the EF 50mm f1.2 is perfect for that, but for personal stuff, I don't use it enough to carry around all day. Which is where this lens comes in. Small, light, fairly solid (certainly compared to the EF Mk II lens I had that literally fell apart) and quite decent optically, this lens really can fit in my kit for almost any circumstance.
You could argue that for someone who doesn't like 50mm, having two of them is real overkill, and you wouldn't be wrong - but I use them far more this way than I would if I just had either one of them.
Good review.

DannH wrote:

I use to own the 50mm 1.8 stm which I believe is similar optically to the RF version. For the price it's great value for money but I was always disapointed with the results compared to some of my other lenses.

In the end I sold the 50mm 1.8 and switched to a sigma 50mm 1.4 art which performs much better. Its bigger, heavier and more expensive than the 50 1.8 stm but a far better option imo.

I never really should have bought the lens, but old habits die hard. Had a 50mm available for all of my cameras for over 45 years. I also don't really care for the FL. I felt the RF was ok, but after a while never really saw the point in attaching it to the camera. Thus I sold the lens.  I still have an EF 50 1.8 kicking around somewhere.

DannH wrote:

Kokopelli_Rocks wrote:

DannH wrote:

I use to own the 50mm 1.8 stm which I believe is similar optically to the RF version. For the price it's great value for money but I was always disapointed with the results compared to some of my other lenses.

In the end I sold the 50mm 1.8 and switched to a sigma 50mm 1.4 art which performs much better. Its bigger, heavier and more expensive than the 50 1.8 stm but a far better option imo.

I never really should have bought the lens, but old habits die hard. Had a 50mm available for all of my cameras for over 45 years. I also don't really care for the FL. I felt the RF was ok, but after a while never really saw the point in attaching it to the camera. Thus I sold the lens. I still have an EF 50 1.8 kicking around somewhere.

I also owned the older non STM versions and the construction has improved over the years. It was one of those recomendations that lots of people make because it's small, really cheap and offers good value for money. It was almost always in my camera bag due to it's size but I rarely used it. My Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art has got more use in the last 6 months than my Canon 50mm 1.8's did in the past 10 years.

It's certainly capable of some decent photo's but if you're spending thousands on a camera body, I think it's worth spending a bit extra for a better 50mm to put on it.

Yes, Canon needs a "prosumer" RF50f1.4. Something akin to the RF80f2 optically, but PLEASE give it USM focusing. The RF50f1.8 is pretty dreadful wide open.

I fully agree with you and Dan. I might be interested in a  RF 50 1.4 USM, but maybe rather have a little bit wider 1.4 and like you said with USM. I like the Sigma Art primes. Beautiful lenses. I have a EF 14 f/1.8, great IQ but it is  big and heavy. I can see why people would like the RF 50 1.8. The lens is very small and very light. For prime shooters Canon offers some affordable options. For me I am no longer a fan of primes except in specialty shooting situations like Astro.

For those who like to shoot with primes I am sure the RF 50 is a nice option.

I think the RF50f1.8 is a great $200 50mm f1.8 lens.   I own both it and the RF50f1.2mm.   The RF50mmf1.2 is clearly the best, sharpest, great IQ 50mm Canon has ever made.   I have owned many EF50mm lenses.  Some were prosumer and some were L grade lenses.  They were not great IQ lenses when shot wide open.  Even the $2000 models.  In my opinion Canon had weak 50mm prime offerings over the 30 years I have been buying them.   Maybe they had character but ultra sharp wide open none of them were.

When I saw the Sigma 50mmf1.4 Art lens several years ago I was blown away.   That lens in sharp edge to edge.   I bought one and though big and heavy it is sharp!.    I sold off several of my Canon 50mm EF mount primes.

I find the RF50mmf1.8 acceptably s sharp and particularly so if stopped down to f4 or so.  It is not in the league of the EF mount adapted Sigma 50mm Art though but this RF 50f1.8 weighs a lot less and it is much smaller.    I was happy with it until I saw the RF50mmf1.2. which is an amazing lens and the best lens I have owned IMO.   It is sharp at f1.2!!   It was expensive the the very good adapted Sigma 50mmm Art is competive when you consider the enormous price difference.   The adapted Sigma lens is bulky and heavy so I bought the RF50mmf1.2 and I love that lens but I still bring the RF50f1.8 along with the RF35mmf1.8 when traveling out a suitcase.   I will keep my Sigma and use it on my 5D4 but the RF50mmf1.2 will be there when I want the very best.   However, the lens is a very expensive and too expensive for many budgets. It is not a $200 lens like the RF50f1.8 that still has a place in my suitcase when traveling.

Historically the 50mm prime is my favorite FL.   Then I got the three f2.8 trinity zooms which took many of the subjects I used to shoot with the 50mm primes.

RDM5546 wrote:

I think the RF50f1.8 is a great $200 50mm f1.8 lens. I own both it and the RF50f1.2mm. The RF50mmf1.2 is clearly the best, sharpest, great IQ 50mm Canon has ever made. I have owned many EF50mm lenses. Some were prosumer and some were L grade lenses. They were not great IQ lenses when shot wide open. Even the $2000 models. In my opinion Canon had weak 50mm prime offerings over the 30 years I have been buying them. Maybe they had character but ultra sharp wide open none of them were.

When I saw the Sigma 50mmf1.4 Art lens several years ago I was blown away. That lens in sharp edge to edge. I bought one and though big and heavy it is sharp!. I sold off several of my Canon 50mm EF mount primes.

I find the RF50mmf1.8 acceptably s sharp and particularly so if stopped down to f4 or so. It is not in the league of the EF mount adapted Sigma 50mm Art though but this RF 50f1.8 weighs a lot less and it is much smaller. I was happy with it until I saw the RF50mmf1.2. which is an amazing lens and the best lens I have owned IMO. It is sharp at f1.2!! It was expensive the the very good adapted Sigma 50mmm Art is competive when you consider the enormous price difference. The adapted Sigma lens is bulky and heavy so I bought the RF50mmf1.2 and I love that lens but I still bring the RF50f1.8 along with the RF35mmf1.8 when traveling out a suitcase. I will keep my Sigma and use it on my 5D4 but the RF50mmf1.2 will be there when I want the very best. However, the lens is a very expensive and too expensive for many budgets. It is not a $200 lens like the RF50f1.8 that still has a place in my suitcase when traveling.

Historically the 50mm prime is my favorite FL. Then I got the three f2.8 trinity zooms which took many of the subjects I used to shoot with the 50mm primes.

I have a specific use for mine: shooting spur of the moment portraits between f2.2 and 2.8.  Here is one of my daughter, shot across the table at a local diner.

DannH wrote:

I use to own the 50mm 1.8 stm which I believe is similar optically to the RF version. For the price it's great value for money but I was always disapointed with the results compared to some of my other lenses.

In the end I sold the 50mm 1.8 and switched to a sigma 50mm 1.4 art which performs much better. Its bigger, heavier and more expensive than the 50 1.8 stm but a far better option imo.

that is exactly the point i wanted to make, i agree that the sheer quality of this lens, while acceptable, isn't up to RF standards, i also agree that the sigma is a better lens (even than this RF version), BUT this lens makes a great camera one that you can (and want to) carry around even when you don't plan on seeing anything worth a click, which is often when the best shots come to be.

the sigma, and for that matter even the amazing RF 50mm f1.2, would miss those shots, and i think this advantage is well worth the $200.

CWaterston wrote:

yerach wrote:

But that initial impression got me thinking that this camera can play 2 personalities, the obvious DSLR-like performance orientated persona, and the Leica-like all-day-carry just-because-you-can persona.

To each his own, I guess, but I don't consider the r5 an all-day carry-around camera, even w/ a small lens (I prefer the 35 f/1.8). If I want a carry-around camera, I have one in my phone, which slips easily into a pocket. You can't beat that portability with a DSLR of any size.

I'm not into kidding myself that the r5 is what it isn't.

they're dying out, but there was once a tribe of "Leica-Men", guys dressed in "adventurous" designer clothes, leather boots, that you know will be thrown out as soon as dust touches them, at their feet, something like Indiana Jones the day he got his cloths...

off these men's shoulder or wrist dangled a Wetzlar-crafted beauty that must have set them off north of 10k$ (camera and lens), but the "Leica-Man" doesn't see that as a cost, would it see use? maybe... but most likely not, "Leica-Men" prefer pictures of themselves taken rather than them shooting pictures of others...

they were fine with hauling around a similar (but more beautiful and expensive...) setup "just because", so the load seems fine to me to actually serve a purpose.

i still use a feature phone (yep, you read right!...) so i can't compare, but even with my old G7x i feel i'm missing out compared to this, the 35mm is also a little larger (though a better lens hands down).

SteveinLouisville wrote:

RDM5546 wrote:

I think the RF50f1.8 is a great $200 50mm f1.8 lens. I own both it and the RF50f1.2mm. The RF50mmf1.2 is clearly the best, sharpest, great IQ 50mm Canon has ever made. I have owned many EF50mm lenses. Some were prosumer and some were L grade lenses. They were not great IQ lenses when shot wide open. Even the $2000 models. In my opinion Canon had weak 50mm prime offerings over the 30 years I have been buying them. Maybe they had character but ultra sharp wide open none of them were.

When I saw the Sigma 50mmf1.4 Art lens several years ago I was blown away. That lens in sharp edge to edge. I bought one and though big and heavy it is sharp!. I sold off several of my Canon 50mm EF mount primes.

I find the RF50mmf1.8 acceptably s sharp and particularly so if stopped down to f4 or so. It is not in the league of the EF mount adapted Sigma 50mm Art though but this RF 50f1.8 weighs a lot less and it is much smaller. I was happy with it until I saw the RF50mmf1.2. which is an amazing lens and the best lens I have owned IMO. It is sharp at f1.2!! It was expensive the the very good adapted Sigma 50mmm Art is competive when you consider the enormous price difference. The adapted Sigma lens is bulky and heavy so I bought the RF50mmf1.2 and I love that lens but I still bring the RF50f1.8 along with the RF35mmf1.8 when traveling out a suitcase. I will keep my Sigma and use it on my 5D4 but the RF50mmf1.2 will be there when I want the very best. However, the lens is a very expensive and too expensive for many budgets. It is not a $200 lens like the RF50f1.8 that still has a place in my suitcase when traveling.

Historically the 50mm prime is my favorite FL. Then I got the three f2.8 trinity zooms which took many of the subjects I used to shoot with the 50mm primes.

I have a specific use for mine: shooting spur of the moment portraits between f2.2 and 2.8. Here is one of my daughter, shot across the table at a local diner.

Even the pundits like the RF50f1.8 at f2.8.   I think you may really love this compact light weight lens. For this shots the sharpness of the corners do not matter and the RF50f1.8 is not got my eyes horrible the corners so there no problem   The one difference of the RF5-f1.2 is the extreme bokeh.   Bokeh is more of photographer thing than a typical person thing.  Many people do not want or expect the ultimate bokeh.   I when I use the 50f1.8 I have never been unhappy with the images I got.

yerach wrote:

DannH wrote:

I use to own the 50mm 1.8 stm which I believe is similar optically to the RF version. For the price it's great value for money but I was always disapointed with the results compared to some of my other lenses.

In the end I sold the 50mm 1.8 and switched to a sigma 50mm 1.4 art which performs much better. Its bigger, heavier and more expensive than the 50 1.8 stm but a far better option imo.

that is exactly the point i wanted to make, i agree that the sheer quality of this lens, while acceptable, isn't up to RF standards, i also agree that the sigma is a better lens (even than this RF version), BUT this lens makes a great camera one that you can (and want to) carry around even when you don't plan on seeing anything worth a click, which is often when the best shots come to be.

the sigma, and for that matter even the amazing RF 50mm f1.2, would miss those shots, and i think this advantage is well worth the $200.

In my opinion $200 is nearly free for this lens.  It darn convenient which is worth the use.

In my opinion $200 is nearly free for this lens. It darn convenient which is worth the use.

I agree with that 100%.

RDM5546 wrote:

SteveinLouisville wrote:

RDM5546 wrote:

I think the RF50f1.8 is a great $200 50mm f1.8 lens. I own both it and the RF50f1.2mm. The RF50mmf1.2 is clearly the best, sharpest, great IQ 50mm Canon has ever made. I have owned many EF50mm lenses. Some were prosumer and some were L grade lenses. They were not great IQ lenses when shot wide open. Even the $2000 models. In my opinion Canon had weak 50mm prime offerings over the 30 years I have been buying them. Maybe they had character but ultra sharp wide open none of them were.

When I saw the Sigma 50mmf1.4 Art lens several years ago I was blown away. That lens in sharp edge to edge. I bought one and though big and heavy it is sharp!. I sold off several of my Canon 50mm EF mount primes.

I find the RF50mmf1.8 acceptably s sharp and particularly so if stopped down to f4 or so. It is not in the league of the EF mount adapted Sigma 50mm Art though but this RF 50f1.8 weighs a lot less and it is much smaller. I was happy with it until I saw the RF50mmf1.2. which is an amazing lens and the best lens I have owned IMO. It is sharp at f1.2!! It was expensive the the very good adapted Sigma 50mmm Art is competive when you consider the enormous price difference. The adapted Sigma lens is bulky and heavy so I bought the RF50mmf1.2 and I love that lens but I still bring the RF50f1.8 along with the RF35mmf1.8 when traveling out a suitcase. I will keep my Sigma and use it on my 5D4 but the RF50mmf1.2 will be there when I want the very best. However, the lens is a very expensive and too expensive for many budgets. It is not a $200 lens like the RF50f1.8 that still has a place in my suitcase when traveling.

Historically the 50mm prime is my favorite FL. Then I got the three f2.8 trinity zooms which took many of the subjects I used to shoot with the 50mm primes.

I have a specific use for mine: shooting spur of the moment portraits between f2.2 and 2.8. Here is one of my daughter, shot across the table at a local diner.

Even the pundits like the RF50f1.8 at f2.8. I think you may really love this compact light weight lens. For this shots the sharpness of the corners do not matter and the RF50f1.8 is not got my eyes horrible the corners so there no problem The one difference of the RF5-f1.2 is the extreme bokeh. Bokeh is more of photographer thing than a typical person thing. Many people do not want or expect the ultimate bokeh. I when I use the 50f1.8 I have never been unhappy with the images I got.

Sharp in the eyes is the only thing that matters, in re: portraits, imo.