steamtrain
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
kakomu wrote:
I now own or have owned all of Canon's non-L RF prime lenses:
- 16mm f/2.8 STM
- 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
- 28mm f/2.8 STM
- 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
- 50mm f/1.8 STM
- 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.
...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 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.
...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 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.
...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 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)....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.
|
)
Thanks for posting.