Canon needs a compact walk around RF 35mm

JayJee wrote:

Dave King wrote:

From the reviews I've read, the f/1.8 is not it !

This is the problem with reviews and why you need to try lenses for yourself.

I find that a lot of reviewers are so far down the technical rabbit hole, and feeling like they need to say something interesting for the YouTube algorithm, that they lose all perspective about what is a good lens in practice.

I'm seeing this more and more, even from reviewers that I trust, like Christopher Frost and Dustin Abbott.

I have the 35mm F1.8, and while I hate the physical focusing motor that resembles a zoom in operation, it's a fast, stabilized walk-around lens with excellent sharpness.

It's excellent value for money as well, which is unusual for Canon RF.

I mean, this kind of says it all lol. 35 1.8 STM was my favorite RF lens, but it was a standout rather than the standard, and it still had some flaws (aforementioned slow AF, big vignetting)

Canon needs to ditch STM and move to the same quick linear motors the rest of the industry is using.

Would I shoot super fast sports action with it? Probably not. But it's just about perfect for the street!

jwilliams wrote:

Dave King wrote:

From the reviews I've read, the f/1.8 is not it !

A lot of complaints about focus hunting....it needs a switch to lock out the macro range.

The 40mm f2.8 pancake is my favorite walk around EF lens....how bout one for the RF mount?

Or a standard 35mm compact "street" lens, f/2.8 would be fine.

Either would make the RP body a killer street combo.

Why did Canon leave such an essential "use type" out of it's RF lineup?

Dave

35 or 40mm and f2.8 with IS at $400 or less and I'm in. Also DO NOT make a 'macro' lens. I don't want the extra size/weight just to get a feature I'll never use.

In-lens IS is likely to increase the length of the lens to an unpalatable level. If you want a stabilized small 35mm prime, we've had one since 2018. While it's all right optically, and much smaller than the EF counterpart, it's still thick enough to be disqualified from a pancake-like use case. For this form factor, I'd gladly forgo IS for a more svelte body.

This has been a very useful discussion. The RF 35mm f/1.8 has received at least one less than very enthusiastic review from a respected reviewer, but numerous forum participants have taken the time to praise the lens. When forum discussions go well, it is as good as this. It may be September before I get the lens, but I think it will be my first RF.

Dave King wrote:

dmartin92 wrote:

This has been a very useful discussion. The RF 35mm f/1.8 has received at least one less than very enthusiastic review from a respected reviewer, but numerous forum participants have taken the time to praise the lens. When forum discussions go well, it is as good as this. It may be September before I get the lens, but I think it will be my first RF.

I agree this thread has been useful, but I'm still not convinced on the 35 1.8. Reviews like the one below (on the Canon web site) give me pause. This photographer uses the lens in a way similar to how I would.

I wouldn't give too much weight to the views of someone who hasn't worked out the "Lens retract on power off" option... especially as what he's saying doesn't match my experiences with the lens over 4 years. But hey, if you're not sure, don't do it.

Dave King wrote:

dmartin92 wrote:

This has been a very useful discussion. The RF 35mm f/1.8 has received at least one less than very enthusiastic review from a respected reviewer, but numerous forum participants have taken the time to praise the lens. When forum discussions go well, it is as good as this. It may be September before I get the lens, but I think it will be my first RF.

I agree this thread has been useful, but I'm still not convinced on the 35 1.8. Reviews like the one below (on the Canon web site) give me pause. This photographer uses the lens in a way similar to how I would.

The lens I love to hate

Pros - This lens takes great photos that are very sharp and the colors are great. It is lightweight and a good size.

Cons - It is so noisy! And that noise is exacerbated by the fact that it has to hunt for focus way more often than any of my other RF lenses. Also, when it looses focus it retracts all the way back so it takes a maddeningly long time to find it again. I shoot documentary and I don't know how many moments I've been waiting for just the right expression or gesture and the lens just loses focus at the wrong moment and by the time it's finally back I've missed what I was looking for. My RF 28-70 never does this, and also never hunts in low light the way this lens does. I find this lens very frustrating to use and not on par with the rest of the RF lenses.

https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/rf35mm-f1-8-macro-is-stm?color=Black&type=New

Far too little info to draw basic conclusions. Significantly there is no mention of AF mode/setup which is far more important than you seem to think.

Dave King wrote:

From the reviews I've read, the f/1.8 is not it !

A lot of complaints about focus hunting....it needs a switch to lock out the macro range.

The 40mm f2.8 pancake is my favorite walk around EF lens....how bout one for the RF mount?

Or a standard 35mm compact "street" lens, f/2.8 would be fine.

Either would make the RP body a killer street combo.

Why did Canon leave such an essential "use type" out of it's RF lineup?

Dave

Yes I just bought my first MILC, a lightly used EOS R6, and have been disappointed, partly because I want an R3 viewfinder with OVF simulation, but partly because my just about small enough set of primes, 35 non is, 85 usm and 20 usm, are so much bigger with the RF adapter. My 35L is even bigger, obviously!

For walkaround /travel etc, I would love a 35 f2.8 the same size as Sony's lens. In fact, I am even beginning to think about switching systems because of it.

Needless to say, if Canon had licensed its lens mount to Sigma, Samyang and Tamron, there would be less frustration, and I'd be sticking around to buy an R6 II, R5 II, or perhaps even an R1.

While I'm ranting about Canon, the thing they need to do most of all, is release an R2-D2, I mean an R2 model, which is an R1 without built-in vertical grip, similar to the Sony A1.

Dave King wrote:

cnyphotoguy wrote:

Dave King wrote:

dmartin92 wrote:

This has been a very useful discussion. The RF 35mm f/1.8 has received at least one less than very enthusiastic review from a respected reviewer, but numerous forum participants have taken the time to praise the lens. When forum discussions go well, it is as good as this. It may be September before I get the lens, but I think it will be my first RF.

I agree this thread has been useful, but I'm still not convinced on the 35 1.8. Reviews like the one below (on the Canon web site) give me pause. This photographer uses the lens in a way similar to how I would.

The lens I love to hate

Pros - This lens takes great photos that are very sharp and the colors are great. It is lightweight and a good size.

Cons - It is so noisy! And that noise is exacerbated by the fact that it has to hunt for focus way more often than any of my other RF lenses. Also, when it looses focus it retracts all the way back so it takes a maddeningly long time to find it again. I shoot documentary and I don't know how many moments I've been waiting for just the right expression or gesture and the lens just loses focus at the wrong moment and by the time it's finally back I've missed what I was looking for. My RF 28-70 never does this, and also never hunts in low light the way this lens does. I find this lens very frustrating to use and not on par with the rest of the RF lenses.

https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/rf35mm-f1-8-macro-is-stm?color=Black&type=New

Far too little info to draw basic conclusions. Significantly there is no mention of AF mode/setup which is far more important than you seem to think.

Ok that is interesting, and makes sense. Which AF setting?

and which camera - the R6II and R8 provide subject tracking stickiness that is amazing

Inhave no,problems using the RF 35mm lens. Other than the RF 24-240mm, which is heavier, it it is my go to lens for street photography, and I have no complaints about it. I also like the RF 16mm lens.

if you cant take decent photos with the RF35mm, it’s not the fault of the lens.

David

Goodmeme wrote:

Dave King wrote:

From the reviews I've read, the f/1.8 is not it !

A lot of complaints about focus hunting....it needs a switch to lock out the macro range.

The 40mm f2.8 pancake is my favorite walk around EF lens....how bout one for the RF mount?

Or a standard 35mm compact "street" lens, f/2.8 would be fine.

Either would make the RP body a killer street combo.

Why did Canon leave such an essential "use type" out of it's RF lineup?

Dave

Yes I just bought my first MILC, a lightly used EOS R6, and have been disappointed, partly because I want an R3 viewfinder with OVF simulation,

But you knew that when you bought it, right? Just read one of the many reviews of the camera. The OVF simulation feature was introduced after the R5/6. My R6II has it. I haven't tried it yet, because I'm happy with the exposure simulation feature, which is, in my opinion, a massive advantage over the optical viewfinders of DSLRs. If you really wanted that feature, you should have bought the R6II instead.

but partly because my just about small enough set of primes, 35 non is, 85 usm and 20 usm, are so much bigger with the RF adapter. My 35L is even bigger, obviously!

Again, you obviously knew this in advance. The information about the size of the adapter is readily available. If you wanted a smaller 35, you could have bought the RF 35, which is smaller than the old 35 with adapter, and much smaller than the IS version of the EF 35 with adapter.

For walkaround /travel etc, I would love a 35 f2.8 the same size as Sony's lens. In fact, I am even beginning to think about switching systems because of it.

Again, all this information is readily available. If you want a compact 35 on your R6, the RF 35 is excellent. It is much much better than the old non-IS EF 35, and better (though not by as much) than the EF 35 F2 IS. If you want something even smaller, you might have to wait. But if you want a lens that's even smaller, I'm not sure why you would buy the R6 in the first place. If you're going for ultra-compact, crop or M43 is probably the way to go. My M6II with 22 pancake is a wonderful small walk around combination (that's a lot of what I use it for). The IQ is as good as, or better than, a full frame with a 35 F2.8.

Needless to say, if Canon had licensed its lens mount to Sigma, Samyang and Tamron, there would be less frustration, and I'd be sticking around to buy an R6 II, R5 II, or perhaps even an R1.

While I'm ranting about Canon, the thing they need to do most of all, is release an R2-D2, I mean an R2 model, which is an R1 without built-in vertical grip, similar to the Sony A1.

No, that's not the thing they need to do most of all. Perhaps it's what you most want them to do. That's not at all the same thing. A natural part of human development occurs when children realize that their own wants are not the universal standard for human needs. It seems that many posters on DPR are developmentally stuck.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

No, that's not the thing they need to do most of all. Perhaps it's what you most want them to do. That's not at all the same thing. A natural part of human development occurs when children realize that their own wants are not the universal standard for human needs. It seems that many posters on DPR are developmentally stuck.

Wow. You didn't like the R2-D2 joke then. Apparently you also take things very literally. Fair enough, so do I most of the time. Yes, I meant: 'this is what I would like them to do" which is as valid as anyone else's desires or frustrations the world over.

You have a point however, and I should have bought the R5 or R6II, I was just hoping to save money while waiting for the R5II, thinking I would get used to the R6.

The R3 is close to an ideal camera for me. But as a non-full-timer whose main desire in a camera is great family snaps, sometimes with large lens, sometimes lighter, I cannot justify hauling an R3 / 1DX size camera around.

It is my hope that Sony's A1/A7R5 may encourage Canon to make a high-end small camera, with an amazing viewfinder. Even at 5.76m dots with the OVF /HDR simulation, I'm sure it would be excellent, but the competition from Sony will potentially result in a  better camera.

Goodmeme wrote:

Dave King wrote:

From the reviews I've read, the f/1.8 is not it !

A lot of complaints about focus hunting....it needs a switch to lock out the macro range.

The 40mm f2.8 pancake is my favorite walk around EF lens....how bout one for the RF mount?

Or a standard 35mm compact "street" lens, f/2.8 would be fine.

Either would make the RP body a killer street combo.

Why did Canon leave such an essential "use type" out of it's RF lineup?

Dave

Yes I just bought my first MILC, a lightly used EOS R6, and have been disappointed, partly because I want an R3 viewfinder with OVF simulation, but partly because my just about small enough set of primes, 35 non is,

I would update that one anyway, and there is a compact RF f/1.8 IS stm option available.

85 usm and 20 usm, are so much bigger with the RF adapter. My 35L is even bigger, obviously!

It's partly a mindset. Your camera is smaller than a DSLR because it's mirrorless. Your adapter is taking away that advantage, but it's not making your lens bigger. And a mirrorless camera + adapter still weights less than a DSLR.

For walkaround /travel etc, I would love a 35 f2.8 the same size as Sony's lens. In fact, I am even beginning to think about switching systems because of it.

The FE mount has smaller primes available. Canon makes better bodies these days though.

Needless to say, if Canon had licensed its lens mount to Sigma, Samyang and Tamron, there would be less frustration, and I'd be sticking around to buy an R6 II, R5 II, or perhaps even an R1.