how good is the RF 50 1.8 STM ?

I am wondering either to buy the 50 1.8 but does any one know how good it really performs? I mainly shoot in Manual Focus so the main point is sharpness across the whole from and how sharp is the peak ?

Dustin Abbott, Christopher Frost, The Digital Picture, Optical Limits, Flickr, etc.

Daan de Groot wrote:

I am wondering either to buy the 50 1.8 but does any one know how good it really performs? I mainly shoot in Manual Focus so the main point is sharpness across the whole from and how sharp is the peak ?

Good but not exceptional.

On the upside, the value for money is exceptionally good.

I liked mine, but there wasn't anything special about it.  So I swapped it out for the RF 35 1.8; which, as it turned out, is sort of special.

MMACory wrote:

I liked mine, but there wasn't anything special about it. So I swapped it out for the RF 35 1.8; which, as it turned out, is sort of special.

I agree with MMACory, I found the lens ok, nothing great. Plus, I personally find 50mm pretty boring, this is a personal preference. I generally don't like changing lenses and I find a 50mm prime pretty limiting for my needs. I sold mine after I had not used it for a year (generally my rule for unused lenses). I hear others like the lens, put if I wanted smaller primes I would probably be more interested in the RF 35 or RF 85, but personally for my shooting needs I like the RF 24-105 F4 as my main walk around lens.

How sharp do you need it to be (what is your display size and medium)? Would you want to shoot it wide open or stopped down? I like mine. It's small, light, cheap, and plenty sharp enough for what I use it for. But what I use it for is mostly low light shots of people, so I don't need or want ultimate sharpness to the corners. It's pretty sharp at least as far as the rule of thirds points even wide open, and very sharp by about F2.2. For the price, I'd say it's an excellent lens. But if you want almost perfect sharpness right across the frame wide open, you're probably going to have to pay a lot more money. The RF 50L is supposed to be amazing, but big and heavy and almost $2000 more expensive. You could also adapt the Sigma 50 F1.4 Art EF version. But that would also be a lot more expensive (about $800 more) and much much bigger and heavier. If you are only using manual focus, there are probably quite a few sharp manual focus lenses that you can use on an R with an adapter, that also won't break the bank. My advice, though, is to get the RF 50 F1.8 and try it out. It might be fine for you, and if it isn't, you can sell it without losing too much money (it's so cheap in the first place), or even return it within the return period.

Edit: I see you live in the Netherlands. I don't know how the prices of the lenses I mentioned compare for you. I'm sure the RF 50L is still a lot more expensive than the F1.8 version, though, and I would think the Sigma Art is a lot more expensive too.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Edit: I see you live in the Netherlands. I don't know how the prices of the lenses I mentioned compare for you. I'm sure the RF 50L is still a lot more expensive than the F1.8 version, though, and I would think the Sigma Art is a lot more expensive too.

In the Netherlands we use "Marktplaats" to trade used stuff, and there's currently a Sigma f/1.4 Art available for as little as 360 euro.  A new RF f/1.8 will cost you around 220 euro. That's not apples to apples of course, but that's the way to get your IQ pretty close to the IQ of the RF 50mm f/1.2 from f/2.0 or so for a very small price.

https://www.marktplaats.nl/v/audio-tv-en-foto/fotografie-lenzen-en-objectieven/m1905265680-sigma-50mm-f-1-4-art-canon?correlationId=56be70d7-9533-4a3e-8ea7-6bf4236f131a

A used one from a shop with 12 month warranty is only 600 euro.

https://www.marktplaats.nl/v/audio-tv-en-foto/fotocamera-s-digitaal/a1450188181-sigma-50mm-1-4-dg-hsm-art-canon?c=08c285449651fa109c354bbabe740c1b&casData=E7D4N8firLM4Nt8uJqxmpSDydHyDiM8DBa_KWdCYPHiXw7hyx3C1ibBIYMDpsPbY1XzG3abFM7bXXSSEtuNXuRGp-vDay2HcoTNEuN6hwRCagGGgv05dxh2ABtx24qqxuWa9zPQmA-VY2bHamnw_Eii3uI-cLWCDQMwLyvQBZQHPq75-12RzBmeIQpmWm8jEWBLYhoCTo1_FNJFXh2WriYwvGZi6vob1HLvy7RWqE_zBEgkYo1zY3J4xprezMM9rbkMEyAd1KuWKmXHM-34QEsS055pPd5iLB_f9mY1En_Z-26I7i_ZpCrvROj9b8NuJD1xETcIPknCueBi3Ii2AU6mmr4GDMr7nemw3_Iu6f4kOAVlH33Zo2WA7EbHEoPfUkAIoI6qtdMLp4w4y_-jhzE9ypx3nvUhOtcr8rvIrG4VlgdffwpAUxyJv0ycDJvsQWHdvbjQno4yYuY3Eb_mGRiVYbTUla5u_Xq2M2e--lJe_AQLdOCxXHB_Jk-IVeusDqVkosILAO4UGHPNQfyw8W6lfwAbdxsd6RZilcU5kyl9O5cw_XHOXb8FioOPj_FhkTqF5508xRUa2v49RWKg8U_7n5JV4nTW2XQtiHB1XpGRi84Dkatl5kpoRMFhI19bf&correlationId=56be70d7-9533-4a3e-8ea7-6bf4236f131a

A new one is only 769 euro:

https://www.kamera-express.nl/sigma-50mm-f-1-4-dg-hsm-art-canon?channable=003655696400313231393633363784&hic_camp=google_ads:18020961772::&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxr7SveyS-wIVR-J3Ch01gQxKEAQYASABEgIlePD_BwE

Daan de Groot wrote:

I am wondering either to buy the 50 1.8 but does any one know how good it really performs? I mainly shoot in Manual Focus so the main point is sharpness across the whole from and how sharp is the peak ?

From what I've seen the sharpness of the RF 50mm f/1.8 is pretty acceptable from f/2.8 for portraits and f/4.0 or f/5.6 for sharpness across 99% of the frame. Stopped down the RF f/1.8 lens is crazy sharp, so if you're looking for a walk around lens for shooting at landscape apertures the RF f/1.8 is simply perfect.

If you're not a true pixel peeper portraits at f/2.2 will be o.k.  The lens doesn't handle complex backgrounds very well though, so you might want to use it with a bit of care in that regard.

If you really are a pixel peeper and you want to do portraits at f/1.8 the Sigma Art will be a better choice, and the same is true if you don't want to worry about complex backgrounds. Note: You will need the adapter, and this lens is bigger and 800 grams. It's the same weight as an f/2.8 standard zoom. That said, at f/2.0 it's also sharper than an f/2.8 standard zoom will ever get, and at f/1.8 it's still significantly sharper than the RF f/1.8.

For manual focus the Sigma has a mechanically coupled focus ring. This might be plus for you.

If you want better sharpness than the Sigma, there's also the Samyang 50mm f/1.2.  That lens is sharper than the Sigma, opens up to f/1.2, is manual focus only, although it will give you focus confirmation on the R (that nice focus assist feature) and even eye recognition when manual focusing (I love this, it's just so cool to have this in manual focus mode).  If you love both sharpness and manual focus this is your lens. I'm thinking of selling mine, so PM me if you're interested. The Dutch language is no problem for me.

I like 50mm.  It is maybe my old school thinking from the film days.  So have three 50mm that I use with R, R5 and R7.  I have the Sigma 50mmf1.4 ART, RF50mmf1.2L and the RF50mmf1.8.   This 1.8 is much smaller and lighter than other two.  Ideal for carrying to a shoot where you think you probably do not   need it.   I shoot a lot with the RF24-70f2.8.

Which one is best?  The vary in price and utility.   The RF50f1.8STM is good enough unless you are pixel peeper. The RF50f1.2L is astoundingly good and sharp everywhere.  More than you need in most cases but still amazing.  The Sigma ART is inexpensive and very sharp but has some CA in the corners if that matters.   The Sigma and the RF50f1.2 are big and heavy if that matters.

The RF 50f1.2 is the best of these three lenses and very good.  It is by far the best 50mm lens Canon has made in the last 40 years. Buy you may not need that tool at that price since the RF50f1.8 STM is good enough most of the common uses IMO.

For the RF mount, I like having the 35 f/1.8 and the 85 f/2 for my primes. I also have the 16 f/2.8 for the occasional travel ultra-wide. I feel no draw toward the 50 f/1.8.

Helps that my wife has the M6II and the EF-M 32 f/1.4, which is an exceptional lens for the same field of view.

If you need a 50, one could argue the 50 f/1.8 is the best value in the RF system.

Kokopelli_Rocks wrote:

MMACory wrote:

I liked mine, but there wasn't anything special about it. So I swapped it out for the RF 35 1.8; which, as it turned out, is sort of special.

I agree with MMACory, I found the lens ok, nothing great. Plus, I personally find 50mm pretty boring, this is a personal preference. I generally don't like changing lenses and I find a 50mm prime pretty limiting for my needs. I sold mine after I had not used it for a year (generally my rule for unused lenses). I hear others like the lens, put if I wanted smaller primes I would probably be more interested in the RF 35 or RF 85, but personally for my shooting needs I like the RF 24-105 F4 as my main walk around lens.

I have the 50 1.8 because, well I've always had one since my first SLR. It is what it is, a cheap, light, versatile lens with ok image quality. But I have found myself using the 35 & 85 far more often.

I have the RF 50/1.8 and the Sigma Art adapted to my EOS R as well. I bought the RF as a small option when I want to go lightweight and it's fantastic for that.

The image quality at f1.8 is fine but definitely not as good as my Sigma. I use DxO PhotoLab to develop my raw images which compensates some weaknesses.

If you are no pixel peeper and on a budget then the small RF is definitely a great option and worth the money. Even if you don't like it in the end, it's not breaking the bank.