sencarna wrote:
...yet their f/1.8 options leave much to be desired.
I get that some people dislike STM focusing or digital corrections, but I'd like to play the devil's advocate and disagree with this. I rather think Canon's line of STM primes are all solid improvements over prior Canon non-L primes.
Optically, they are all better than their EF counterparts, usually being sharper across the field and having lower CA. They offer features that older lenses did not have, including (some combinations of) higher speed, IS, close focusing, or unique focal lengths and form factors (i.e., the 16 and 28). They all feature smooth, silent focusing for video. Due to either the focal lengths offered or the increased maximum apertures, these lenses also make more sense as prime choices for APS-C cameras than older lenses.
And while this is subjective, I think that the RF 35 f/1.8 IS has substantially better rendering than the EF f/2.0 IS. As someone who prefers lighter f/1.8 or f/2 primes, this lens has filled a real gap for me, as I was never very happy with Canon's non-L 35mm options in the past.
These are very good lenses for the money, IMO.
Jan 18, 2024 at 11:03 AM
Previous versions of garyvot's message #16446980 « Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use? »
