Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

       2       3       end
  

My opinion on all of Canon's non-L RF primes

  
 
kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · My opinion on all of Canon's non-L RF primes


I now own or have owned all of Canon's non-L RF prime lenses:


  1. 16mm f/2.8 STM
  2. 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
  3. 28mm f/2.8 STM
  4. 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
  5. 50mm f/1.8 STM
  6. 85mm f/2 IS STM Macro


I've used them all enough to have formed some opinions on them from regular use. Here's my completely subjective opinions on each one. Ask me anything.

RF 16mm f/2.8 STM
This lens is probably one of the more amazing prime lenses I've ever used. Back in the days of yore, the widest (non-fisheye) primes that Canon released were the EF 20mm f/2.8 and the EF 14mm f/2.8. The former was an OK lens, but it was pretty large and its performance pre-auto correction was pretty iffy and the 14mm f/2.8 was an exotic and expensive lens. Both were large and relatively heavy. Meanwhile, the 16mm f/2.8 is as large as the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM (one of the smallest EF lenses out there) and provides image quality as good, if not better than any UWA EF prime. It's cheap, small, performs well and removes the necessity to get a larger zoom just to get ultra wide. I really like this lens for any wide or ultra wide application. It focuses close enough that composition is hardly going to be a problem. The only thing missing is IS, but at 16mm and f/2.8, you probably aren't going to have a huge problem in low-light. I intend on keeping this lens for a while.

RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
The RF 24mm f/1.8 is an excellent lens...BUT it's also a terribly unexciting lens to me. 24mm Is a great focal length at the wide end of a normal zoom, but 24mm as a focal length isn't terribly "exciting". It's wide enough to start distorting, but not wide enough that it produces an interesting ultra wide shot (like the 16mm does). The macro and IS are both welcome, but this lens is not the lens I would use for taking macro shots and IS on this lens has limited utility. The IS & Macro are probably best served when you want to get photographs of things in suboptimal light and you don't want min focusing distances to ruin your composition. That said, it's a good selfie/vlogging lens. It is somewhat large and heavy for carrying around on a self stick, but otherwise, it should do the trick. I am probably going to sell this lens in the near future when the 28-70 f/2.8 is released.

RF 28mm f/2.8 STM
The RF 28mm f/2.8 STM is the most boring lens I wanted to love. I admit I fell in love with the EF 28mm f/1.8. It had a perfect combination of wide-enough for most wide photos I wanted to take, but the super wide aperture made the lens really versatile. The RF 28mm gives up the super large aperture for being a super tiny lens. The biggest reason to get the RF 28mm f/2.8 is because it's super tiny. Paring down size and weight was EXACTLY what I wanted when I got this lens. The problem is that even with the Canon RP, the body / lens combo just wasn't small enough over other lenses to warrant keeping it. It took good pictures and it was definitely small and light-weight, but the f/2.8 aperture was ho-hum to me and it wasn't small enough to use over other lenses. In the end, I was trying to get the Canon RP and RF 28mm f/2.8 to be kind of like a Fuli X100 series, but it just wasn't that small. I just sold this lens as I couldn't justify keeping it around.

RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
The RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro is, by far, my favorite of the cheapie Canon primes. I've come to really like the 35mm focal length. Even though it's obviously a successor to the EF 35mm f/2 IS, this lens felt like the spiritual successor to the EF 28mm f/1.8. The RF 35 and EF 28 share a similar size, weight and aperture. The EF 35mm f/2 IS is slower, larger and heavier. Ultimately, with the 35mm f/1.8 I can photograph a TON of what I usually would photograph without having to concern myself with anything else. Macro allows me to compose as close or far as I would need to. IS and f/1.8 means that I will rarely be wanting for more light. The RF35mm is light and small enough that I can carry it around without noticing it, which IMO, makes it far superior to the RF 28mm f/2.8. I definitely am keeping this lens.

RF 50mm f/1.8 STM
The RF 50mm f/1.8 STM is a serviceable, nondescript 50mm prime. It does nothing wrong, but doesn't do anything to stand out from any other 50mm lens that has been released, past and present, for any body for the last 100 years. It's neither the smallest, nor the lightest 50mm out there and its image quality is unlikely to be any better or worse than most other 50mm f/1.8 lenses out there. That means that if you want a 50mm lens, it will work just fine for you and nothing about this lens will get in your way. I've bought and sold more 50mm lenses than I care to count and it's hardly my favorite focal length, but there's a certain je ne sais quoi about the focal length that keeps me coming back for more. I like this for photographing every day objects and head & shoulder portraits. I'm keeping this lens, I've bought and sold 50mm lenses way too many times and it's best to just keep it, IMO.

RF 85mm f/2 IS STM Macro
The RF 85mm f/2 IS STM Macro is a tough lens for me to review. Try as I might, 85mm on just doesn't interest me very much. I've owned many prime lenses in the 85mm-135mm range and I just can't seem to find much I like using them for. Obviously this lens will shine for portraits. Its 0.5x macro makes it a great, fast alternative to dedicated macro lenses for the non-serious macro shooter. And the thing is that it does both of them very well. But, considering it's not my jam, it ends up just sitting around most of the time. It's also big and heavy. It's bigger and heavier than the old EF 100mm f/2 and EF 85mm f/1.8 lenses and its macro ability pales in comparison to the EF 100mm f/2.8 USM. This lens requires a desire to carry and use; a desire that I usually lack. In most situations, I'd probably opt to use a 50mm lens and take a step back or forward and crop rather than worry about bringing the 85mm. I'm probably going to sell this (as I have with every 85mm-135mm lens I've owned over the past 15 years).

Edited on Sep 19, 2024 at 10:11 AM · View previous versions



Sep 19, 2024 at 09:20 AM
mdvaden
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · My opinion on all of Canon's non-L RF primes


RF 16mm 2.8

I'm presently shopping for the RF 16mm. There's one in my cart on Ebay but I'm watching a few other listings. It's inexpensive even at normal price. Several established photo gear reviewers speak very well of that lens.

RF 85mm 2.0 (the one I had was f/2, not f/1.8)

That's another I owned a few years ago, and bought to keep as a spare 85mm. The photos were clear, but as an extra, it didn't provide a certain something the same way as lenses like a Tamron 85mm 1.8. But the RF 85mm f/2 is good enough, that I would consider another one. The RF 85mm macro would probably be an ideal choice for a start-up wedding photographer that can't afford the f/1.2 or f/1.4 L primes whether RF or EF adapted. The one lens could cover the 85mm portraits and detail photos.

...



Sep 19, 2024 at 10:03 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · My opinion on all of Canon's non-L RF primes


Referencing the original post, I’ve never understood the notion of a lens being “boring.” A lens isa lens. It does what it does. Every 28mm FF lens does more or less what the other 28mm FF lenses do, accounting for functional differences (e.g. aperture) and possibly optical performance.

Perhaps instead of attributing the quality of “boring” to the lens it would be more accurate to say that particular users are or are not fond of the focal length? It is an entirely subjective thing rather than an attribute of the lens.

Makes sense: I find the 28mm focal length boring.

Does not make sense: This lens is boring.

;-)



Sep 19, 2024 at 10:12 AM
kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · My opinion on all of Canon's non-L RF primes


85mm f/1.8 was a typo on my end (too many f/1.8 lenses. What a world to live in where THAT is my problem )

gdanmitchell wrote:
Referencing the original post, I’ve never understood the notion of a lens being “boring.” A lens isa lens. It does what it does. Every 28mm FF lens does more or less what the other 28mm FF lenses do, accounting for functional differences (e.g. aperture) and possibly optical performance.

Perhaps instead of attributing the quality of “boring” to the lens it would be more accurate to say that particular users are or are not fond of the focal length? It is an entirely subjective thing rather than an attribute of the lens.

Makes sense: I find the 28mm focal length boring.

Does not make
...Show more

I can understand where you're coming from, but hear me out. The EF 28mm f/1.8 (and before that, I had an Olympus OM Zuiko 28mm f/2) had a ton of neat optical characteristics that made the photographs I took more interesting than the ones I got out of the f/2.8 STM version. This was especially present when I took close-up photographs. Once you narrow the aperture and make more things in focus, I found that my vision was a lot more difficult to capture and I had trouble getting 28mm to work for me.



Sep 19, 2024 at 10:12 AM
Pixelpuffin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · My opinion on all of Canon's non-L RF primes


I think this proves that we are all different. I have all the lenses you mentioned except the 24mm….

The 16 is just too wide for me, but in crop mode it’s 25mm hence why I haven’t bought the 24!!

The 28 is brilliant in that it’s small, light and moderately wide, yet doubles up as a very useful 45 in crop mode.. very versatile.

The 35 is my least favourite I find it either not wide enough or not long enough and too big and heavy, still have the EF35/2 IS, neither gets use ever.

The 50 is great, and in crop mode 80/1.8 makes a great candid set up

The 85 is my favourite - yet I hated the EF 85 due to the poor MFD likewise the 100/2 as well. The 85 in crop mode is 135 /2 with IS.

I usually pair the 28 with the 85 which gives me 28, 45, 85 and 135, the others I leave behind. I’ll probably pick up another second cheap RP body then will no longer need to change lenses when out.




Sep 19, 2024 at 11:19 AM
comotionfilms
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · My opinion on all of Canon's non-L RF primes


gdanmitchell wrote:
Referencing the original post, I’ve never understood the notion of a lens being “boring.” A lens isa lens. It does what it does. Every 28mm FF lens does more or less what the other 28mm FF lenses do, accounting for functional differences (e.g. aperture) and possibly optical performance.

Perhaps instead of attributing the quality of “boring” to the lens it would be more accurate to say that particular users are or are not fond of the focal length? It is an entirely subjective thing rather than an attribute of the lens.

Makes sense: I find the 28mm focal length boring.

Does not make
...Show more

I don’t know, I probably have more than 10 35mm lenses, and some are definitely more boring than others, even if they are all the same focal length.



Sep 19, 2024 at 08:00 PM
comotionfilms
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · My opinion on all of Canon's non-L RF primes


Wow, I was surprised how much I agreed with your observations on pretty much all of these lenses, other than the 16mm, which I never really got into.

The 35 is definitely my favorite, especially from 10 feet in. The 85 is topped by the Samyang 85, for the lucky few who own one, so it’s a pass for me as well. The 50 and 28 are both just what you said they are. Bravo for a nice little list.



Sep 19, 2024 at 08:03 PM
Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · My opinion on all of Canon's non-L RF primes


I have all these lenses except the 28 and 50. I've found no need for them.

The 16 is the wide lens I take with my R5. With the R5's cropping ability it covers 16-24 easily. The R5 has IBIS so no IS is not an issue. If I have an opportunity for night sky it will serve. The 14-35 is a wonderful lens but the 16 is a much easier carry in my backpack.

The 35 f1.8 does indoor, near macro (flowers etc), and nightscapes. It is sharp. A recent addition to my travel kit but too handy to leave home.

The 24 is the 35's equivalent for the R7 - bought it on deep discount.

The 85 is well, 85 if I need it. Not a travel lens.

The other two lenses for my R5 kit are the 24-105 and 100-500 Ls. With the two primes a pretty universal kit.

Kakomu's opinions generally confirm mine. Thanks for posting.



Sep 19, 2024 at 08:06 PM
rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · My opinion on all of Canon's non-L RF primes


IMO the lens that's missing is a 20/2.8 the same size as the 16 and 50, both of which I have. Neither of those lenses are optically stellar at the edges, the 50 particularly at wider apertures. Clearly it's only a minor tweak of an old, basic 50mm optical design than something like the Nikon mirrorless 50/1.8. It needs to be stopped down to optimize across-frame performance. But given the price point, shouldn't be a surprise. I feel completely the opposite about the 28/2.8. It's a low-price lens that optically punches way above its price point. I also used to think 28 was boring until 10 years and counting with the Leica M system changed my mind. 21, 28, 50 and 90mm is my go-to there, hence a reason I'd like a 20/2.8 RF, which I'd use a lot more often than the 16 (but when I need the 16, I NEED it). Another missing lens is the RF successor to the often overlooked EF 100/2. Sure, there's the RF 100/2.8 macro, but it's an L lens (a different category) and IMO macro makes it larger than I prefer. I'd rather give up that feature for a stop more speed and smaller size (with internal focusing!).


Sep 19, 2024 at 09:38 PM
Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · My opinion on all of Canon's non-L RF primes


I really like the RF 24 1.8 Macro IS STM on my R7—not boring—but a great snapshot, casino, museum, flower and dinner lens. I don't like it as much on my R6 MK II. Oddly, I really like the RF 85 2.0 Macro IS STM for, well, macro, and landscapes, especially twilight landscapes. It's just the just focal length for sweeping view of the mountains and harbor near me, so it gets lots of use. It's crap for servo so luckily servo isn't needed for my subjects. My only real yawn is the RF 28 2.8 STM. I loved Canon's earlier pancake lenses but this one is mediocre optically and lacks close focus ability.


Sep 19, 2024 at 10:27 PM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

AmbientMike
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · My opinion on all of Canon's non-L RF primes


kakomu wrote:
I now own or have owned all of Canon's non-L RF prime lenses


I have a couple questions. How are the corners on the 16? I've read lens tests, and it is very sharp in the center, (probably better on aps), but most of the issues happen in the corners (probably don't need extreme corners, but past the edge.)

The opticallimits test of the 28 looks really good, what are your thoughts on this lens, does this lens need to be stopped down and how is the vignetting? I've been using 18mm a lot on aps, so it could be good, is it 28mm after corrections?

Is a lens boring, idk, if I need a 28 or 50mm these look good, excellent. I try to find more excitement in the lighting etc





Sep 20, 2024 at 11:37 AM
jayoco
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · My opinion on all of Canon's non-L RF primes


Great write-up, kakomu.


Sep 20, 2024 at 01:44 PM
kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · My opinion on all of Canon's non-L RF primes


AmbientMike wrote:
I have a couple questions. How are the corners on the 16? I've read lens tests, and it is very sharp in the center, (probably better on aps), but most of the issues happen in the corners (probably don't need extreme corners, but past the edge.)


I'll preface everything by saying that my standards are pretty low. I don't accept junk, but in the past, I was OK with the images I got from my 17-40 f/4L or 20-35 f/3.5-4.5. I also don't spend any time reviewing images without the in-camera automatic correction, meaning that I cannot speak to how well the lens handles distortion or vignetting prior to that.

With that said, I think the RF 16mm f/2.8 lens is excellent. I looked at the last 75 or so images I took with 16mm and I think that some of the corners look a little iffy at f/2.8 if you zoom in at 100%. There's some stretching and resolution drops, but it's no where near as bad as the effects you got from the EF 17-40 f/4L. It's also pretty far into the corner (1% or less of the frame in each corner). Stopping down to f/4 improved corners and resolution markedly. One of my photos was published in the local newspaper, so I imagine it wasn't all bad.

Most of my photos were actually up close. The cicada brood came out in force, so I took a ton of photographs of those bugs (and the piles of corpses and shells they left behind).

AmbientMike wrote:
The opticallimits test of the 28 looks really good, what are your thoughts on this lens, does this lens need to be stopped down and how is the vignetting? I've been using 18mm a lot on aps, so it could be good, is it 28mm after corrections?


I cannot speak to actual focal length (and if Canon is pulling some shenanigans to push off a slightly higher FL as 28mm).

I went through 60 or so photos I took of the kids at a science museum for a birthday. The biggest issue I had was that the lighting sucked and because I was getting camera close to the kids' faces, 1/60 sec wasn't fast enough to not produce blur. That said, the bokeh (at full size), was pleasing enough. What I got in focus (when I didn't have motion blur) was pretty darn sharp. When I had most of the frame in focus, the corners showed some softening, but it was very far into the corner, (like 1% of the frame in each corner).

If the lighting is good, the lens is unlikely to hold you back.

Edited on Sep 20, 2024 at 03:33 PM · View previous versions



Sep 20, 2024 at 02:28 PM
Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · My opinion on all of Canon's non-L RF primes


AmbientMike wrote:
I have a couple questions. How are the corners on the 16? I've read lens tests, and it is very sharp in the center, (probably better on aps), but most of the issues happen in the corners (probably don't need extreme corners, but past the edge.)

The opticallimits test of the 28 looks really good, what are your thoughts on this lens, does this lens need to be stopped down and how is the vignetting? I've been using 18mm a lot on aps, so it could be good, is it 28mm after corrections?

Is a lens boring, idk, if I need
...Show more

I own the RF 16 2.8 STM and it's okay but not great. Its main attributes are the small form factor and price. I leave it in my bag as a backup since it's so light and small. The RF 16 2.8 STM is an extreme example of computational optics design. If you turn off the profile, coverage is close to 14mm but with heavy barreling. Extreme corners are 100% blacked out. The visible parts of the corners are sharp. With profile engaged, the image is cropped to 16mm and corrected for barreling but the corners are grossly stretched and lightened. Because of the heavy handed corner stretching, there is noticeable loss of sharpness and details look smeared and cartoon-like.

For some images, I disable the profile and crop manually. The remains of the corners are dark but not black, and sharp. I manually correct the vignette and the result is much nicer than Canon's profile so long as no straight lines are involved.



Sep 20, 2024 at 03:21 PM
jmckayak
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · My opinion on all of Canon's non-L RF primes


600mm f11 DO is a lens that I like a lot. Not a superb image lens but definitely good in the right (bright) light. It is a good choice for a birder to use on walks. It's small, light and is easy to handle. The IS works well. And I've taken some good BIF shots of larger birds. MFD is a major weakness. And it needs a hood, flare can be troublesome. Had one but sold it to a friend who is a birder. It's great for 'record shots'. It's easier to handle than the 800mm f11 lens, especially for less experienced photographers. You can regularly find a used one or a refurbished one in the $400 to $500 range.


Sep 21, 2024 at 03:49 PM
garyvot
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · My opinion on all of Canon's non-L RF primes


I own or have owned all of these.

IMO, all are above average for their price. All outperform their EF counterparts. The 24 and 35 are usably faster without an overall increase in weight or size. Many also have unique features such as a 1:2 magnification and image stabilization.

They are all let down by relatively slow focusing motors, and fiddly, front-focus designs.

Depending on your perspective and experience, they can either be viewed as great values and excellent step-up lenses (coming from kit zooms), or as "merely" decent lenses compared to the best primes.

I am glad that we have them in the lineup personally.



Sep 21, 2024 at 04:28 PM
steamtrain
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · My opinion on all of Canon's non-L RF primes


kakomu wrote:
I now own or have owned all of Canon's non-L RF prime lenses:


  1. 16mm f/2.8 STM
  2. 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
  3. 28mm f/2.8 STM
  4. 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
  5. 50mm f/1.8 STM
  6. 85mm f/2 IS STM Macro


I've used them all enough to have formed some opinions on them from regular use. Here's my completely subjective opinions on each one. Ask me anything.

RF 16mm f/2.8 STM
This lens is probably one of the more amazing prime lenses I've ever used. Back in the days of yore, the widest (non-fisheye) primes that Canon released were the EF 20mm f/2.8 and the EF 14mm f/2.8. The former was an OK
...Show more
I have no opinion on this one. I don't have any experience with it, and I don't care so much for wide angle. I have a Viltrox 20mm f/2.8 for my Sony, and that's definitely (more than) wide enough for me. I think it serves the same kind of purpose: having a small just-in-case lens in your bag for those emergency cases you need wider than expected.

kakomu wrote:
RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
The RF 24mm f/1.8 is an excellent lens...BUT it's also a terribly unexciting lens to me. 24mm Is a great focal length at the wide end of a normal zoom, but 24mm as a focal length isn't terribly "exciting". It's wide enough to start distorting, but not wide enough that it produces an interesting ultra wide shot (like the 16mm does). The macro and IS are both welcome, but this lens is not the lens I would use for taking macro shots and IS on this lens has limited utility. The IS & Macro are
...Show more
I think you described well why it's also not my favourite focal length in a prime. In my 24-70mm it's nice to have, but in a prime you'll need another body next to it or accept a lot of lens changes.
You're mentioning the 28-70mm, but next to that one I would say it adds a wider perspective in cases 28mm doesn't cut it.

Looking at the specs of this lens I think it's somewhat disappointing there's quite some distortion, as a lot of standard zooms either start at 28mm or have a crazy distorted 24mm (which is an understandable trade of, but it takes a very have prime to get another option there with less distortion).

kakomu wrote:
RF 28mm f/2.8 STM
The RF 28mm f/2.8 STM is the most boring lens I wanted to love. I admit I fell in love with the EF 28mm f/1.8. It had a perfect combination of wide-enough for most wide photos I wanted to take, but the super wide aperture made the lens really versatile. The RF 28mm gives up the super large aperture for being a super tiny lens. The biggest reason to get the RF 28mm f/2.8 is because it's super tiny. Paring down size and weight was EXACTLY what I wanted when I got this lens. The problem is
...Show more
The 28mm f/1.8 needed a big and clunky body, and the IQ is outdated. It's f/1.8, but it's not a very usable f/1.8 if you want a decent IQ. I think there is a reason the EF 28mm IS USM was only f/2.8 >> to get a good IQ to size/weight ratio.
Now the RF pancake is even more compact, at least as good for IQ, still f/2.8, so in a way it's better than the EF IS USM. If you want a compact size + bright aperture + good IQ you're asking too much imo. If I want a good IQ + large aperture I adapt the Sigma 28mm Art. That's big. Something has to give.

My problem with the 28mm prime option is the lack of IQ. I think the pancake is a very cool lens but I'm adapting the EF IS USM version sometimes as the IS adds to the IBIS, even at 28mm. For R8/RP/R owners the lack of IS is a bigger problem.

For Sony there's a 28mm f/4.5 fixed aperture lens coming up, but I think this RF lens is more nice.



kakomu wrote:
RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
The RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro is, by far, my favorite of the cheapie Canon primes. I've come to really like the 35mm focal length. Even though it's obviously a successor to the EF 35mm f/2 IS, this lens felt like the spiritual successor to the EF 28mm f/1.8. The RF 35 and EF 28 share a similar size, weight and aperture. The EF 35mm f/2 IS is slower, larger and heavier.

slightly slower, slightly larger and heavier. The EF focuses faster and has better coatings. I'm sticking with the EF lens.

kakomu wrote:
Ultimately, with the 35mm f/1.8 I can photograph a TON of what I usually would photograph without having to concern myself with anything else. Macro allows me to compose as close or far as I would need to. IS and f/1.8 means that I will rarely be wanting for more light. The RF35mm is light and small enough that I can carry it around without noticing it, which IMO, makes it far superior to the RF 28mm f/2.8. I definitely am keeping this lens.

It's a good lens and a useful focal length. I don't like the focal length (not in a prime), but that's me.

kakomu wrote:
RF 50mm f/1.8 STM
The RF 50mm f/1.8 STM is a serviceable, nondescript 50mm prime. It does nothing wrong, but doesn't do anything to stand out from any other 50mm lens that has been released, past and present, for any body for the last 100 years. It's neither the smallest, nor the lightest 50mm out there and its image quality is unlikely to be any better or worse than most other 50mm f/1.8 lenses out there.

Well, wide open other lenses are definitely a lot better, like the Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 S or the Sigma FE 50mm f/2.0. The RF lens has a low price.

kakomu wrote:
That means that if you want a 50mm lens, it will work just fine for you and nothing about this lens will get in your way. I've bought and sold more 50mm lenses than I care to count and it's hardly my favorite focal length, but there's a certain je ne sais quoi about the focal length that keeps me coming back for more. I like this for photographing every day objects and head & shoulder portraits. I'm keeping this lens, I've bought and sold 50mm lenses way too many times and it's best to just keep it, IMO.

I can do a lot with 50mm, but sometimes you need wider, and sometimes you need some compression. The RF f/1.8 has so so bokeh, is not sharp wide open. f/1.8 would have been o.k. for head and shoulder portraits, but for full body portraits it's not a large enough aperture, and the bokeh is so so. All good enough for the low price, but not good enough for me, while the f/1.2 L is larger than it should be and the AF is not at L level.

I like the 32mm f/1.4 stm for EOS M, but that's the only Canon "50mm" I like. Canon should do an RF 50mm f/1.4 IS nano-USM L, but sad enough there's still no middle ground option.

kakomu wrote:
RF 85mm f/2 IS STM Macro
The RF 85mm f/2 IS STM Macro is a tough lens for me to review. Try as I might, 85mm on just doesn't interest me very much. I've owned many prime lenses in the 85mm-135mm range and I just can't seem to find much I like using them for. Obviously this lens will shine for portraits. Its 0.5x macro makes it a great, fast alternative to dedicated macro lenses for the non-serious macro shooter. And the thing is that it does both of them very well. But, considering it's not my jam, it ends up
...Show more

I think the RF lens is a light weight option compared to both a smaller 85mm + a dedicated macro lens.

The purpose of 85mm for me is full body portraits, and f/2.0 isn't bright enough to get enough subject separation when shooting full body a bit environmentally. That's probably why it doesn't ad much to using a 50mm and stepping closer. The 85mm is sharp wide open though, and the IS is stellar.
If stepping into any direction I prefer to step backwards and use 105mm. The more environmentally the portrait, the longer focal length I use. This kind of doubles the working distance, but I don't use the longer focal length to maintain the same working distance. I'm using it to get enough subject separation, even though a subject is smaller in the frame.




Sep 22, 2024 at 07:03 AM
ISO1600
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · My opinion on all of Canon's non-L RF primes


RF 16mm f/2.8 STM
Could not agree more. This lens is a riot. So much fun and capability for the minimal cost.

RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
Haven't tried it, but yeah I never liked 24mm primes on full frame, and don't really care for them on crop either.

RF 28mm f/2.8 STM
100% agree. I was so excited to get this lens for my R8, but wound up hating it. The 28/1.8 USM was one of my absolute favorites. Canon's old FD 28/2 was also wonderful, so they clearly know how to make a good 28.

RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
When I initially tried it a few years ago (on RP) I did not like it, and now I think that was largely due to the RP's autofocus not being so great. On my R7 I love it. I wish I would have tried it on the R8, prob would have loved it there too.

RF 50mm f/1.8 STM
It works, but yeah nothing exciting. I'm glad they have it in the arsenal, as a cheap and simple option.

RF 85mm f/2 IS STM Macro
Man this lens was disappointing to me. On paper it sounds like it would be a blast, but yeah the execution just is not great. It's big, it's plasticy, the focus is S L O W, the images are boring..




Sep 22, 2024 at 06:03 PM
tkbslc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · My opinion on all of Canon's non-L RF primes


The ones I have used:

16mm - Very cool lens. Usually fast UWA for FF are crazy expensive. Here's a tiny one that fits in your pants pocket. And for someone like me that rarely uses UWA, it's a great option. I could never justify a $2000 lens for 2% of my usage, but I certainly can a $300 one.


35mm - great lens. No complaints. Macro feature is fun. Sad I paid original MSRP though, as they are such a good bargain now.

50mm - the 35mm is better in every way, but I use the 50mm more. It's so tiny on the RP - almost X100 sized. And it's just a blast to use.

Have not used the 28mm, but will probably pick it up. I like tiny lenses.

24 and 85mm seem like great lenses, but I've had primes in those FL before, and they aren't something I use often. I'd be more likely to just use the 24-105L when I need those.


My main complaint with these lenses is I keep buying them at full MSRP and they have bad resale value. Could have save at 30-50% by going used a year later.



Sep 23, 2024 at 04:55 PM
kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · My opinion on all of Canon's non-L RF primes


steamtrain wrote:
The 28mm f/1.8 needed a big and clunky body, and the IQ is outdated. It's f/1.8, but it's not a very usable f/1.8 if you want a decent IQ. I think there is a reason the EF 28mm IS USM was only f/2.8 >> to get a good IQ to size/weight ratio.


I disagree. I shot that lens almost exclusively at f/1.8-f/2.8. I loved having all of the weird optical effects that came with a wide open lens. Very rarely did a picture suck because of the lens. The lens and its image quality weren't what held me back.



Sep 23, 2024 at 09:38 PM
       2       3       end






FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

       2       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.