Canon RF 35mm F1.8 Macro IS STM sample gallery

Thanks for the update.
Generally good images, but unimpressive macros.
I do not know if that is due to the lens itself or the photographer (with all due respect).

Oct 25, 2018permalink

LeicaBOSS

It's likely the images. Setting aside that 35mm is not a great macro focal length, this lens (I own it) holds up nicely. I've had a number of macro lenses and this 1:2 ratio is just really helpful in general photography. Most importantly - around 2-3ft, where other lenses can be pretty weak, this lens feels very comfortable and "in the zone"

Mar 10, 2019permalink

OK good to know, and thanks for feedback.

Mar 10, 2019permalink

Sardonic G

I'll stick with my Sigma 35 art for now.

Oct 18, 2018permalink

Good luck adapting that brick to your EOS R and getting the same shooting experience as this lens.

Oct 25, 2018permalink

Sardonic G

Since I own a Nikon, I'll not worry about it

Oct 26, 2018permalink

Benjamin Jehne

The bokeh in the edges looks a bit nervous but the rest looks really good, nice contrast and colours.

Oct 18, 2018permalink

Johans81

Nice set of photos.

Oct 18, 2018permalink

Fergus Ferguson

Now we know why it is 'cheap'.

I was down my local camera store picking up some bits for my 'new' AE-1 Program retro film fetish, and they had a couple of EF-s 24mm f2.8's second hand for $99. One of them had circular scratches when I held it up to the light, but the other was pristine. The image quality that I have seen briefly today is remarkable.

I would strap on one of those before I bought one of these things.

Oct 18, 2018permalink

Vobluda

I am curious how will you mount EF lens to AE-1 that has FD mount🤔

Nov 16, 2018permalink

Fergus Ferguson

@Vob, I don't remember saying that I tried to stick an EF-s on an AE-1. I said I was shopping. I have so much camera stuff scattered around my wife is starting to hide things from me. I just noticed that two SLR's, and a 135mm f3.5 and a 200mm f2.8 have disappeared from where I had left them. FML.

Nov 20, 2018permalink

Mac McCreery

Fussy lot. I bet you're fun to go out photographing with!

Oct 17, 2018permalink

People get fussy at $500.

Not a problem for everyone, of course.

Perhaps you're one of those cigar chompers, with a Bugati for your daily driver, who doesn't bother looking at the price of things.

Oct 17, 2018*permalink

The close-up-subject bokeh looked marvellous, then I saw the medium distance bokeh.

Disaster. What is this, the 80s?

There is no excuse in this day and age. The trade-off of sharpness vs bokeh was solved by modern lens tech, aspherics etc. And Nikon have had the 35/1.8G doing marvels for a few years now.

What's going on at Canon?

Oct 17, 2018*permalink

TomCodyPleasedToMeetYa

What is medium distance bokeh? Please point to an image to explain what you are saying is a disaster. Thanks.

Oct 17, 2018permalink

All the photos with bad bokeh.

Oct 17, 2018permalink

robproctor83

Ah yes I think I see what you mean actually, it reminds me of Tamron bokeh which I don't particularly care for, the kind of hard edged bokeh.i don't think it's that bad though, and for the price it's pretty good.

Oct 18, 2018permalink

Bjrn SWE

Wide angle lenses does not have a lot of bokeh at "medium distance".

Oct 18, 2018permalink

Sure, but 35mm at f1.8 still has plenty.

Oct 18, 2018permalink

I was lusting after this lens, because of its price, size, stabilization and half-macro abilities (and being 35mm, which is a focal length that I've learned to love).
But I see plenty of CA, and not the kind of bite in resolution that I expect from 35mm cameras. Of course, Canon (stupidly) put an AA-filter on the EOS R, and that robs the photos of acuity, but still, the lens is only truly sharp stopped down to f/2.8 or at close distances. I'm somewhat disappointed, actually :/
It takes wonderful photos of peanuts, though :D

Oct 17, 2018permalink

Benjamin Jehne

Sorry, but the amount of CA is really low for that type of lens.

Oct 18, 2018permalink

Was that assessment determined by an authoritative source, or was it pulled from your nether regions?
Also, Canon for some reason haven't forced DLO to switch on the EOS R, which is pretty absurd when most of the competition is doing it - the IQ loss is minimal, while the gain in apparent quality is much larger.

Oct 18, 2018permalink

Kelly M Jones

And from which authoritative source was your assessment pulled?

Oct 18, 2018permalink

I said: "...I see plenty of CA..."
You said: "Sorry, but the amount of CA is really low for that type of lens."
One of us was sharing a thought, the other stating a fact (without backing evidence). Can you guess which is which? :D

Oct 18, 2018permalink

Kelly M Jones

I don't think anyone is disputing you saw CA.

Oct 18, 2018permalink

Kelly: Oops, it wasn't you who said it, sorry.
My point still stands, however - to me, the amount of CA visible in some samples is high enough to be bothersome, but I'm not making any claims versus other lenses, unlike Benjamin.

Oct 18, 2018permalink

Kelly M Jones

Kharan - Sorry I wasn't clear in my comment. In your response you said, "Was that assessment determined by an authoritative source, or was it pulled from your nether regions?" Which I took as disputing what was said of other fast, wide primes by Benjamin. If you dispute something, then maybe you have a source that shows it to not be true. Otherwise I just took your response as an opinion with no more weight than Benjamin's statement. I guess I didn't understand the rudeness of your comment.

Oct 19, 2018*permalink

Michael Ma

Bokeh is not smooth so the high contrast out of focus areas are a bit more attention-grabbing. The colors are a little flat. Pics where saturation was bumped, it's missing gradation of colors....colors seem posterized and lack detail. It has that purple CA everywhere, even in non-high-contrast areas, giving it that budget lens look. $500 for this lens.....I'd rather save my money for a used 35mm 1.4 L Mark I.

Oct 17, 2018permalink

Zvonimir Tosic

If this was a car, it would be another Toyota Yaris.
As unimaginative as it gets. But Canon, like Sony, like Nikon, know their audience.

Oct 17, 2018permalink

MayaTlab0

Making the photographic equivalent to a Toyota Yaris is what Canon does far better than anyone else in my opinion. So not a bad thing.

Oct 17, 2018permalink

Mike99999

Mediocre, just like the Nikon. I guess at $500, that's ok.

LoCa is outrageous. Bokeh in unpleasant. The Sony FE 28/2 does better.

Oct 17, 2018permalink

I doubt that. I had the 28mm f2. Wide open performance was pretty mediocre with heavy distortion. F2.8 onwards it was decent but I was never extremely happy with that lens. The 35mm f2.8 was very sharp but that costs more than even this lens.

Oct 17, 2018permalink

How does the Sony 28mm f/2 perform at 35mm?

Oct 26, 2018permalink

D7000ShooterUK

Not too many macro shots here

Oct 17, 2018permalink

Digital Imaging Technician

I've added some more near the end of the gallery, all taken at minimum focus distance.

Oct 25, 2018permalink

Sony/Zeiss/Tamron/Samyang — I'm looking at you. Make this happen in FE mount (with AF) NOW! Enough with the gigantic f/1.4 lenses and slow f/2.8 lenses. Sell me the sweet spot f/1.8 or f/2.0 lens.

Oct 17, 2018*permalink

Mike99999

Tamron already did it with the Batis 40/2.

Oct 17, 2018permalink

Sigh its a Zeiss lens. Just the lens design is based on a Tamron patent. However the type of glass used and coatings is all Zeiss. I used 2 of them and they were both fantastic lenses.

But I think what the OP was referring to was a cheaper 35mm f1.8 lens like around $600.

Oct 17, 2018permalink

Is there any evidence that the Batis 40 is a Tamron designed lens?

The Sony FE 28/2 is a similar lens, just a bit wider.

Oct 17, 2018permalink

^^ Actually its quite common knowledge that Tamron has sold Zeiss most of the Batis lens patents. However they are manufactured by Zeiss with their quality and coatings.

While its not confirmed the 40mm f2 is also a Tamron design its not a big stretch.

That said Batis lenses are wonderful sharp contrasty lenses and whether the patents were in house or from Tamron is irrelevant to the final product. Tamron doesn't use any of those patents for their own lenses.

Oct 17, 2018permalink

lawny13

Now I am surprised and a little disappoint. The Batis line is awesome, and you are saying the designs came from tamron? Seriously, tamron!!

All this time I have placed zines followed by OEM lenses on top, followed by sigma and then Tamron last, and yet they seem to have the optical design prowess for the whole batis line but don’t use it themselves??? Shoot what are they thinking?

Oct 22, 2018permalink

^^ My thinking is that I don't care too much who makes what but the final output that matters most. My favourite lens is my Sony Sony 85mm Gm. Wonderfully sharp wide open and has a beautiful bokeh. Now if tomorrow i find out that its actually a vivitar lens design I wouldn't be bothered.

I have used two of the Zeiss Batis lenses and both had fantastic optics. Color contrast and sharpness were excellent even wide open.

Tamron also makes some wonderful optics but maybe they I use less expensive glass and or coatings to minimize cost while Zeiss builds such lenses without such restrictions

Oct 22, 2018permalink

lawny13

I am not bothered that the zeiss is a tamron design. That isn’t the issue. The point is paying zeiss premiums for it. If tamron were to use their design it would have resulted in some nice and affordable lenses (maybe). They might not have the T coating of course, but still.

Kinda like finding out that the average scoring student in you class is in fact a genius not applying him/herself. Just a waste of talent then (not that he/she won’t go to achieve great things, but I think you know what I mean).

A batis is a batis is a batis, regardless who makes it. However... hmmm wish tamron will release some batis like lenses of their own for the RF mount seeing that with the R we are back to zeiss glass not having AF (probably)

Oct 22, 2018permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/9958447403/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-macro-is-stm-sample-gallery/6240454707 phone

Well they did release a 85mm f1.8 VC for DSLRs which has similar specs as the Batis and thats a fine lens. But not as good as the high standards set by the Batis.

And they have launched a 28-75mm f2.8 for Sony which is better than the 24-70mm f4 Zeiss and just a little bit short of the 24-70mm f2.8 GM . That lens is woefully out of stock so hopefully that will encourage Tamron to release more lenses for the E mount and consequently R and Z mount.

Oct 23, 2018permalink

oldtimes

Really nice colors, might be camera or lens. Lots and lots of ca, huge vignetting open, pretty stressed oof.... about expected for the price, although ca could have been better controlled imho. 1.8 is nice but seems pretty useless except maybe for BW. Macro IQ will probably leave a lot to desire, more of a bonus feature, which isn't a bad thing.

Oct 17, 2018permalink

oldtimes

for those not seeing all this, here's a couple places to look

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/9958447403/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-macro-is-stm-sample-gallery/7925004466 left side bridge

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/9958447403/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-macro-is-stm-sample-gallery/7286518499 trees

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/9958447403/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-macro-is-stm-sample-gallery/9869231480 everywhere

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/9958447403/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-macro-is-stm-sample-gallery/4629681341 vignetting, stressed oof and ca, all-in-one demo

Oct 17, 2018*permalink

😅 dear oh dear. It must be like finding gold. Extreme examples...Take your Sony with a 35/1.8 and the exact same shots. Then we’ll talk...

Oct 17, 2018permalink

seloo

Where did you see huge amount of CA? Even under extreme condition at f22 CA seems moderate which can be easily corrected. Do you expect a top level Canon L or Zeiss glass for the price?

Oct 17, 2018permalink

hioe04

Good post. Thanks for pointing it out. Really needed those directions and lots of zooming to see them. Maybe I’m just not that diligent in scoping the pictures.

Oct 17, 2018permalink

lawny13

I guess I can see what you mean when I zoom in, but correcting it is pretty much turning on CA correction in lightroom.

The 55 ZA and the 28-75 f2.8 Tammy also shows CA. I was disappointed with then when I first saw it but I got over it... and the 55 was about 1k euros or so when I first got it.

Oct 22, 2018permalink

Larawanista

Marginally better than the current EF35mm f/2 IS USM

Oct 17, 2018permalink

Okay. Not bad but I am not impressed. For movie it's a very good offer but for photography my Sigma 35mm Art is just better lens but also more expensive. Fortunately I can still use it with adapter ;)

Oct 16, 2018permalink

How is the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 better in terms of size? Plus you need to add an adapter that makes it even bigger and heavier.

Oct 17, 2018permalink

Did I say smaller or better?

Oct 17, 2018permalink

Yes.

Oct 18, 2018permalink

oldtimes

No... he did not. How is your thinking critical? He said better, not smaller... you brought up the size. It's called projecting.

Oct 25, 2018permalink

^ Because size is the main advantage of this lens and systems. There are plenty of lenses better than this, but none with this footprint. It makes sense to assume hes comparing apples with apples, not oranges. The only one projecting is him for bringing his lens into this. Most likely justifying his purchase and make himself feel better. Like what youre doing.

Oct 25, 2018permalink

Oct 25, 2018*permalink

@Critical Thinker I've said - for photography my Sigma 35 Art is better lens. "For photography" means for TAKING PHOTOS not for carrying in pocket.

Oct 25, 2018permalink

So then why compare it to this lens? Someone buying this lens is not going to get a gigantic DSLR designed Sigma 35/1.4 as an alternative. It's like pointlessly saying a 70-200/2.8 has better reach than this lens.

Oct 25, 2018permalink

@ Critical Thinker
That's a nonsense. This is end of this pointless discussion for me.

Oct 26, 2018*permalink

TN Args

Am I wrong to think you guys at DPR publish a lot of sample galleries from a new lens, then don't go on to publish a formal test of that lens?

If I'm right, may I ask you to publish more tests of those lenses that you sample?

cheers

Oct 16, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

Gorgeous results!

Oct 16, 2018permalink

jackspra

A very fine camera and lens and sample gallery.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

wats0n

Is it me or is the color worlds better than the 5D Mark IV ?

Oct 16, 2018permalink

They are...

Oct 17, 2018permalink

Decent images, but wheeeeeeeeeere is the Macro? No macro images.

Image 15 (the peanuts) is terribly blown up, though.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

Plenty of macro images just added to the end of the gallery, all taken at minimum focus distance.

Oct 25, 2018permalink

Thanks Carey.

Oct 25, 2018permalink

Sure thing.

Oct 25, 2018permalink

jay jay02

Looking very good, goes to show that "cheap" doesn't always mean rubbish!

Oct 16, 2018permalink

kevin_r

Looks like a great lens and camera combo. Since Sony refuses to make a 35mm f/1.8 I bet a lot of others might be tempted by this combo.....

Oct 16, 2018permalink

Rick Knepper

Either the DPR staff have become better photographers and image processers or the EOS R et al lenses are making them look good. Can't decide.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

Satch Riani

This lens has terrible CA! I am quite shocked I expected it to be better.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

NZ Scott

CA looks quite well controlled to me.

Where are you seeing it?

Oct 16, 2018permalink

Bobapingu

You may be right but I wouldn't expect great CA from a f1.8 lens let alone one for only $500.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

RF mount. I think this was mentioned below already, but RF makes me think of rangefinder. I wish Canon would re-introduce some of their wonderful compact lenses in Leica 39mm mount or introduce a new series in Leica M. These could also be used in the L cameras with an adapter.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

badi

well... the lenses can't be that small because of the big mount :) ... but yes, having some small and good glass, with a smaller body would be amazing. Some will love a huge and no compromise 50/1.2L ... some will love a tiny and well crafted 50/2 :)
Let's hope more manufacturers are going to build more lens lines.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

mxx

I think the days of wonderful small lenses were numbered the day focus motors moved from the bodies into the lenses. But interesting, Pentax made their compact FA 43mm in a Leica mount also.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

badi

@mxx true that, but i was rather thinking about an approach similar to fuji: have relative parallel lines up: 23mm F1.4/F2, 35 F1.4/F2 .. etc. Have a class where you pack as much glass and sharpness (and price) as you like, but also a smaller class, but quite bright, well built but with a strong control on size, also good quality optics (of course, with some acceptable compromises).
And a third line with cheap glass would also be appreciated ... like the plastic fantastic 50/1.8 and o on :) but probably cheap third party options will popup anyway.

Oct 17, 2018permalink

Thoughts R Us

This is a very intriguing lens. It's a very useful focal length, nice max aperture, it's pretty small, has macro capability, and is pretty reasonably priced.

Like others here, though, I wish that DPR had included some macro shots in the gallery. Perhaps they are saving that for another featured article on this lens?

Oct 16, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

56 image samples of a macro lens and not one macro sample?

Oct 16, 2018permalink

peterwr

Agreed - they’re not making it look much of a macro. That was the main reason I trawled the whole gallery; a 35mm f1.8 macro would be a very useful walkaround lens indeed.

That said, though, it’s still a nice lens. And the gallery is otherwise good.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

Edgar Matias

IMO, the main benefit of it being a macro lens is not having to worry about running up against the minimum focus distance.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

'tis a nice lens indeed. But yeah, 3-4 macro shots would have been good.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

SafariBob

@edgar that tends to be The thing about macro lenses..

Oct 17, 2018permalink

I've added some macro shots to the end of the gallery, all taken at minimum focus distance.

Oct 25, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

Awesome. Thanks for listening.

Oct 26, 2018permalink

Edgar Matias

@SafariBob yes, but most people think of macro lenses in terms of photographing bugs.

I do a lot of product photography of larger objects. You wouldn't think they'd need a marcro lens, but they do.

Oct 31, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

So do I, a lot of product shots that are much larger than bugs.

Currently using the amazing 2.8/90 Sony G.

Nov 1, 2018permalink

Edgar Matias

I use the 30mm/2.8 Panasonic (60mm-e). Great lens but still wish it was smaller/lighter.

Prior to that I used the Olympus 45mm/1.8, which is an awesome lens, but sadly not macro.

Nov 1, 2018permalink

grock

Can ACR 11 open the CR3 files from the EOS R? I can't.

Oct 15, 2018permalink

Thoughts R Us

New Adobe update, I believe it even came out today, enables this.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

Kukla

Hmm...I just updated to the latest Adobe LR/PS versions today, and it still doesn't open CR3 files.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

Kukla

Please ignore my comment above. I updated my laptop, but forgot to update my desktop. Enough said...

Oct 16, 2018permalink

grock

Ah thanks. Man, coulda used this two days ago when I took the R to a music festival for a spin...

Oct 16, 2018permalink

bluevaping

From good lens to very good lens considering it's that half pixel imaging! The other half part of the Dual Pixel. If you shot manual focus would get full pixel imaging?

Oct 15, 2018*permalink

When the camera takes photo and video, it reads both sides of every pixel. It has separate channel to read just one side of the pixels. This channel has a pretty poor quality, but it is enough to drive the focus system.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

See here, DPAF explained https://youtu.be/lgqB6VlslBY

Oct 16, 2018permalink

The Sony 35mm f/1.8 lens is just as good. Oh wait ... never mind.

I love how a few Sony people have already declared this lens a failure. So predictable.

Oct 15, 2018permalink

4sofnature

One thing Canon beats Sony is making lenses. They have priced an important 35mm below Nikon ($600), Sony ($700), Sigma ($900), Tamron ($600), and even their DSLR version ($600).

It's not Sony can't make a cheap 35 f/2. They, like Canon, wants to protect the sales of RX1R2.

Oct 15, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

Sony have a 2/35, which is gorgeous.
I use it almost daily.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

The 35/2 for Sony ILC's is the Zeiss Loxia — manual focus only and super pricey.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

fmian

Dexter, many people prefer the Canon cameras for handling, colour output and good support. For those people 2 or 3 stops extra dynamic range from a Sony sensor isn't so important.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

lélé

A 35mm f/1.8~2.0 with AF is definitely something missing in Sony lenses line.

That said, your post just seems here to feed that sterile brand war...

I'm not a Canon shooter, but I'm happy they bring a reasonnably priced, compact, lightweight optically good, mirrorless dedicated 35mm lens on the market. Close focus is just the cherry on the cake. I hope this will stimulate competitors. As a Fujifilm and Sony shooter, I would be happy Fuji to refresh their 23mm f/1.4 or Sony to bring something similar .

Oct 16, 2018permalink

peterwr

<< It's not Sony can't make a cheap 35 f/2. They, like Canon, wants to protect the sales of RX1R2. >>

Are you saying Canon have an equivalent to the RX1? First I’ve heard of it.

And I doubt Sony need to protect the RX1 anyway. It’s a *very* niche and almost unique product - people who want one are probably not in danger of buying anything else.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

@lélé I'm responding to a handful of Sony users who come to rain on every new Canon product, no matter how good it is. They are very consistent about it, throwing negative comments under many Canon articles and threads, and dropping regular mentions about some perceived Sony advantage.

Oct 16, 2018*permalink

(unknown member)

lol, the A9 embarrasses the flagship Canon.

Also, Sony have se VERY nice lenses, admittedly Canon do too, as do Nikon.

The 24GM, 85GM, Sony 55, 12-24, all masterpieces.
Nikon's 58G, 1.4/105 are best in class.

Every system has its benefits, shame Canon make a camera with a powerful button on the other side of the cera still, dynamic range from 2012 and they are more expensive than anything from Sony and Nikon.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

kevin_r

Yake-NAH!!! I'm a Sony shooter and I have been lamenting about the lack of a 35mm f/1.8 for yonks already. I reckon this lens is a stunning lens especially looking at the bokeh and the lovely contrast. I'd really like to own this camera and lens combo.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

@DamianFl There you go, raining on Canon on a page about a new Canon lens, and talking up your Sony (& Nikon).

As for the A9 "embarrassing" Canon's flagship, that is classic Sony fan exaggeration. The A9 has a mediocre 5fps mechanical shutter, worse than the A7III. If Canon made a 5fps "flagship" it would be laughed at. The A9 only offers high 20fps frame rates if you risk your photos on the electronic shutter, which can result in irreparably banded photos in artificial light. The A9's color is a step down from any Canon, worse than even Sony's own A7III.

No recent Canon, especially not the R, has "dynamic range from 2012". That's another wild Sony fan exaggeration.

Oct 16, 2018*permalink

@kevin_r You are one of the reasonable Sony shooters. But there are a few who see every article about something from Canon as an opportunity to rain on Canon and talk up their Sony.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

Mike99999

The Sony FE 28/2, Zeiss Loxia 35/2, and the Zeiss Batis 40/2 CF are quite a bit better than what is shown in this gallery, that's for sure.

Oct 17, 2018permalink

The images look simply oversaturated to me. Is this the magic of the „Canon colors“, or the magic of the Adobe software engineers? I can’t say it’s very pleasant to look at for me.

Oct 15, 2018permalink

abruzzopat

I'm pretty sure the saturation level has very little to do with the lens.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

naththo

Its the JPG output from camera. Its the camera process the image and save to JPG if you shoot JPG.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

It looks reasonably saturated on a SRGB screen, nothing wrong. If you got neon colors then your color management or the lack of it is the problem.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

Michael_13

They are quite saturated, yes. Be aware, though, that these pics are not OOC.
It is Adobe's & Dpreview's interpretation of the RAW files.

Besides, I am sure that the camera also offers a more natural setting. It is basically a matter of taste.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

I opened one the RAWs in ACR 11 (on my hardware calibrated Eizo), and it was far less saturated than in this gallery. The colors are purely the taste of the DPR editor and have nothing do to with Canon, the EOS R, the lens or Adobe. Not useful at all for a sample gallery.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

@joe - the default Raw profile on ACR 11 is Adobe Color, but we used the Camera Standard profile for this gallery. That should address the difference in saturation you're seeing. I don't recall manipulating the saturation or vibrance sliders for any image in the gallery.

Oct 25, 2018permalink

@Carey Thanks again, I know that now that you showed me the edits. ;-)

I’m still amazed at the vast difference between the „Adobe Standard“ and „Camera Standard“ profiles.

Oct 30, 2018permalink

mxx

I like the images very much. And good shooting, except for a few angled horizons. And who leaves their peanut debris on the floor?

Oct 15, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

Billions of people.
There's even a famous hotel where you are encouraged to leave them on the floor.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

It's at the Diamond Knot brewery in Mukilteo, WA - as Damian says, it's one of those places where you're encouraged to throw shells on the floor.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

Michael_13

Funny, never heard of this. What's the point of doing so?
The noise it produces when walking over it?

Oct 16, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

The hotel I alluded to was the Raffles in Singapore, but obviously there's one in WA, which I'm guessing isn't Western Australia. The more the merrier!

Oct 16, 2018permalink

@Carey Rose: I simply have to go there...

Oct 16, 2018permalink

mxx

Thanks for your reply, Carey. Interesting!

Oct 16, 2018permalink

jackspra

Me.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

#MeToo

Oct 18, 2018permalink

Sardonic G

Loved that place when I live in Mukilteo, heck even when I lived in Langley I'd go there while waiting for the ferry to show up.

Oct 18, 2018permalink

@mxx no prob! @Henrik you should, it's a great place. We were there for brunch and so I got a root beer instead of a boozy beer, but it's a charming old-school brewery and restaurant with a vast beer selection. The two-minute walk over to the lighthouse and beach nearby is also encouraged!

Oct 22, 2018permalink

fmian

Great shots and the contrast is really punchy. I'm sure this gallery will entice many to buy this lens.

Oct 15, 2018permalink

so-what-17

Nice gallery and a very nice camera, making the ten year old Sony youngster a little jealous of canons new baby...:)

Oct 15, 2018permalink

kevin_r

Especially since there isn't ANY 35mm f/1.8 for Sony. I like this combo. And I'm a Sony shooter!

Oct 16, 2018permalink

Vit Adamek

Nice gallery, nice IQ and nice sun-stars :-)

Oct 15, 2018permalink

Embarrassing that Sony still hasnt got a 35mm f/1.8 FE prime lens after all these years, yet Canon and Nikon get it on day 1 of their release.

Oct 15, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

Sony do have a 2/35, it's gloripus too, it's just attached to a body permanently, unfortunately.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

Sutlore

35/2?
you mean Zeiss Loxia? It is MF, that is not count :(

Oct 16, 2018permalink

@Sutlore DamianFl refers to the Sony RX1 cameras (several versions). They have a great 35mm f/2 lens, but it is a fixed lens, cannot be changed. Cannot be mounted on an A7III, etc.

Oct 16, 2018*permalink

Juzam

100 % agree! Only huge 1.4 and slow 2.8 ...

Oct 17, 2018permalink

Flashback

This is getting really annoying, seeing yet another impressive lens for the EOS R. I'm trying so hard not to like this damn camera, but these alluring images keep comming!

Oct 15, 2018permalink

SkynetTX

It seems to be a habit not to take real macro/close-up photos with a macro/close-up lens.

Oct 15, 2018permalink

Thoughts R Us

I agree...I would like to see some macro shots with this lens.

Oct 15, 2018permalink

OvinceZ

Send me the lens and I will take plenty of close up flower photos. Almost summer here in Sydney.

Oct 15, 2018permalink

MrBrightSide

Fear of intimacy.

Oct 15, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

It's been summer in Melbourne for some time.
Take that Sydney! haha

Oct 16, 2018permalink

Merida

What, 18 degrees summer for you?

Oct 16, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

And if you don’t like the weather in Melbourne, come back in 10 minutes. :-)

Oct 17, 2018permalink

I've added some macro shots to the end of the gallery, all taken at minimum focus distance.

Oct 25, 2018permalink

Awesome color reproduction. Nice gallery.

Is it just me or are these colors slightly different compared to previous Canons? I can't put my finger on it but they seem more vivid. I like it..

Oct 15, 2018permalink

Vit Adamek

Deducting this from DXO Optics Pro software where you can change color profile of raws by assigning different cameras' bodies as a baseline, some older Canons bodies color profiles are grouped together and some stand alone. So yes, color profile changes time to time, here and there... :-)

i.e.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/4iLBVgHwvi86nByx5

Oct 15, 2018permalink

walker2000

I really like the color of these samples, great micro contrast, proper saturations. What contributes more to these pleasing colors? This lens or EOS R body?

Oct 15, 2018permalink

EOS R sensor and the profiles

Oct 15, 2018permalink

walker2000

I saw the notes said 'ACR 11 and Camera Standard profile", which means this is Adobe profile trying to mimic Canon general profile, not EOS R profile, right?

I have an impression that Canon Colors are their secret sauce, not easy to mimic.

Oct 15, 2018permalink

Each Canon model has its own Camera Standard look and it can be quite different. What Adobe does is to replicate each camera specific profile as close as possible to the original camera profile. IMO they are pretty close but DPP handles WB, subtle tones and roll-offs.
slightly better.

People like to say that it is ”Adobe color” which isn’t true unless you are using the generic profiles, like ’Adobe Standard’ for example. But even then the output can be quite different depending on sensor design.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

LR and ACR have very distinctive color and noise characteristics. You don't realize this until you don't use other raw converters. Sony and fuji opted for Capture One as the "default" raw converter. My personal experience is that i can get easily nice results with Capture one.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

dtibi:: True. And the ACR sharpening algorithm feels a bit tired. I compared it to Luminar and the difference was quite spectacular.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

4sofnature

One thing Canon is good at is making lenses. They have priced an important 35mm below Nikon ($600), Sony ($700), Sigma ($900), Tamron ($600), and even their DSLR version ($600).

Oct 15, 2018permalink

Akgbkd

really appreciate canon to make this relatively cheap 35mm lens with good performance but this lens is not even close to Nikon 35mm z lens wide open. I even think that Nikon 35mm is sharper in corners than canon in the middle at f1.8

Oct 15, 2018permalink

CaPi

A beautiful gallery made with a lense I am sure many customers will buy.

Oct 15, 2018permalink

VenezuelanRebel

No Macro pics with a macro lens....???

Oct 15, 2018*permalink

SkynetTX

Note that the lens has only a 0.5x maximum magnification so it's only a close-up lens, not true macro. On the other hand there are no photos that really can be called close-ups including the ones with the spider and the mushroom. So I'm waiting for some real close-ups and macros (with extension tubes added).

Oct 15, 2018permalink

Azathothh

Who cares, lots of really amazing macro shots are not even shot with "macro lenses" but obscure stuff like very cheap projector lenses.

Oct 15, 2018permalink

I've added some macro shots to the end of the gallery, all taken at minimum focus distance.

Oct 25, 2018permalink

Georgescanvas

The photos in the gallery are well taken. I especially like # 10...

Oct 15, 2018permalink

In my opinion, Carey takes the best shots for the DPR galleries.

Oct 15, 2018permalink

TORN

Maybe I need to see more pictures especially of close portraits but so far I am not especially impressed. Not a fan of the extending tube either, but that of course is required for the macro feature. Seems to work well against light and the sun stars are not too shabby. Solid but nothing to rave about. It seems I am in the minority here.

Oct 15, 2018*permalink

MyReality

For a combination close-up and distance usage lens, it is a very good lens for the money. I have the Canon EF 50mm/2.5 1:1 macro. I used it for macro and distance. It is extremely sharp and sells for less than $300, but no IS.

Oct 15, 2018permalink

TORN

Since I am totally not interested in macro abilities at 35mm this construction just means the lens is less sturdy. In addition the rendering is nothing to write home about. Does not motivate me to use it above my 35mm 2.0 IS, Fuji 23mm 1.4 or even buy a Canon R.

Spending 3000 Euro on a camera and lens has to be awesome in my book and this lens is rather not. Not bad either, but that should not be seen as archievment for this price.

The new 50L is superb but it is beyond 2000 Euro for a standard prime.

Oct 15, 2018*permalink

woof woof

"For a combination close-up and distance usage lens, it is a very good lens for the money. I have the Canon EF 50mm/2.5 1:1 macro. I used it for macro and distance. It is extremely sharp and sells for less than $300, but no IS."

The Canon 50mm f2.5 macro isn't a 1:1 macro, it'll only go to half life size unless you use the life size adapter.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

MyReality

@woof woof - Thanks for the correction, I used it a lot, but forgot it was only1:2. . Great lens, but I will buy either the life-size converter EF, $200 or 60mm/2.8 macro for $470.

Oct 17, 2018permalink

Portrait photo #31. Is that the famous Canon color?

It looks like the infamous second generation Alphas' to me.

Since photo colors depend a lot on the ambient light, I am starting to think that we see a lot more photos with pleasing colors that are made with Canon cameras simply because there are more professional and experienced photographers using Canon (for historical reasons). These photographers know how to use the light to their advantage. And if they were given a 3rd generation Sony, their results would be very similar. (That is only my guess, so stay civil, please.)

Tony Northrop plans to do a blind color test with the stated intent of proving that there isn't an inherent gap between the cameras' colors. I wish DPReview beat him to it and applied their more rigorous methodology to such a test.

Oct 15, 2018permalink

ozturert

So out of 10s of photos you don't like one photo and suddenly Canon's colours are bad?

Oct 15, 2018permalink

That is shot in a very bluish light (download the RAW).

So TN pans to do a test and he already knows what the outcome would be? That is interesting...

Oct 15, 2018permalink

Tony Shilltrop could do whatever tests he wants, but at the end, Sony RAW files can be adjusted to match anyone color tastes. JPGS are another story.

Oct 15, 2018*permalink

ozturert, I gave an example from this set where it was most obvious, in my opinion. I have seen thousands of Canon photos where I didn't like the colors and thousands where I liked them a lot.

Sheesh, the defensiveness of Canon users alone makes me want to switch away from it, more than any other technical reason...

Oct 15, 2018permalink

JACS, "That is shot in a very bluish light" - that is exactly the point I was making.

I believe Mr. Northrop said that color differences were a bunch of BS and he'd like to do a test to prove it. He didn't say that he knew what the outcomes of the test would be.

Oct 15, 2018*permalink

ZeBebito, I even explicitly asked to stay civil. Is it that hard?

Oct 15, 2018permalink

@PhotoDiod You said "It looks like the infamous second generation Alphas' to me." Seems it was hard for you to stay civil right from the start.

Oct 15, 2018permalink

ZeBebito, it appears that we have different understanding of what "civil" means. Mine is along the lines of, "Civil discourse is engagement in discourse (conversation) intended to enhance understanding… it requires respect of the other participants, such as the reader. It neither diminishes the other's moral worth, nor questions their good judgment; it avoids hostility, direct antagonism, or excessive persuasion.” (Wikipedia) What's yours?

You responded with a personal attack on, and slander of, Mr. Northrop. That is not civil. In what way, "It looks like the infamous second generation Alphas' to me" is uncivil?

Oct 15, 2018permalink

If you start a conversation referring to something as "infamous" which means "well known for bad quality, shameful, disgraceful or unworthy" that's a generalization and personal opinion, so yes, I can say you are being a little uncivil from the start.

In another matter, I rather trust the images that real photographers make with those cameras and I don't care too much about what youtube reviewers have to say about any camera. Why?

For example, that "expert" trashed the Canon 6Dii when released, pretty much like any other blogger around. A few weeks later he comes out with another video saying it is the best thing since PB and jelly. Steve Huff for years trashed DSLR and then he bought a Canon 1Dx saying how amazing it is, so go figure, do you really trust whatever YouTube guys say?

Oct 15, 2018permalink

ZeBebito, opening my post with a “generalization and personal opinion” means that I was “being a little uncivil”?

Northrop saying that Canon 6Dii was very good specifically for vlogging because of the articulating screen and DPAF was the same as saying that 6Dii was “the best thing since PB and jelly”?

Stating that a youtuber wants to do a test means that I “trust whatever YouTube guys say”?

It appears that our differences run deeper than divergent definitions. In the interest of remaining civil, I will refrain from further comment.

Oct 15, 2018permalink

@PhotoDiod: Shots in bluish light are supposed to look bluish. BTW, in LR, this shots needs something like 15,000 color temp and tint 30 to get the skin colors you would expect.

About TN - that was my point. He must be color blind. It is enough to check the test scene here all cameras render colors differently, and that scene is just one scene.

Oct 15, 2018permalink

JACS, absolutely, shots in bluish light are supposed to look bluish. That is why I was wondering how often the "terrible Sony colors" are due to the shots being taken in bluish light, and conversely, how often the "magic Canon colors" are due to the shots being taken in flattering light (by more experienced photographers, perhaps?). If it was impossible to have unpleasant color in Canon pictures, or pleasant color in Sony pictures, I would be convinced that there is inherent disparity in the two brands' color science. But that is not the case, apparently. I used to love colors from all my Canons, yet in a recent blind test I picked mostly Sony: @29:12 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xo9qKPVhEk Likewise, how much of the terrible color in DPReview's EOS R video was due to Jordan Drake's Panasonic-induced habitual tinkering with the C-log?

So, the point of my post was that I would like more experienced photographers and testers to ponder those questions in a well-designed test.

Oct 16, 2018permalink

"If it was impossible to have unpleasant color in Canon pictures, or pleasant color in Sony pictures"

Camera A having better color than camera B does not mean that A never fails of even that it always wins.

All those tests (I did not click on the link) test skin colors mostly. There is much more to color than skin tones. Sony's greatest problems are with green foliage.

My point is and always has been that those tests are useless. They tell you a lot about almost nothing. There are thousands of situations, scenes, etc. I am still getting to know my newest camera which I have owned for almost an year.

Oct 16, 2018*permalink

JACS, if, as you say,
- camera A does fail color-wise, and
- camera A doesn't always win, and
- tests are useless,
how do you determine that camera A has better color?

Oct 16, 2018permalink

PhotoDiod: You tell by looking at the logo on the front. If it says Sony, then it sucks, and if it says Canon, it has a fragment of Van Gogh's soul living inside, lending it superior color powers :/
There are certainly differences in the way cameras render color, but they're subtle, influenced by the lens used, and more importantly, dependent on the actual person judging the image's merits (not all people enjoy color in the same way).

Oct 17, 2018permalink

@PhotoDiod: You need long term experience to determine that. "Better" is a statistical term here. Too nuanced?

Oct 17, 2018permalink

JACS, how long? I have been shooting for more than 30 years now. Is there still hope?
When you say, "Too nuanced?" do you mean to imply that I am too dense to understand your argument, or that your argument is way complex for an average person?

Oct 17, 2018permalink