Planetwide
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: RF 50 1.4L VCM | |
comotionfilms wrote:
RustyRus wrote:
comotionfilms wrote:
jj1804 wrote:
I haven't seen a thread about this new lens yet. Is anyone interested in this lens for photography at all? I have the RF 50 1.2L and am considering switching to the lighter 1.4L version. With two young kids the 1.2L hardly leaves the house with me/us, which is a shame. The 1.4L is both lighter and smaller and hopefully handles flares better than the 1.2L when shooting into the sun.
RF 50 1.4L VCM
76,5 x 99,37 and 580g
vs
RF 50 1.2L USM
89,8 x 108mm and 950g
what are your thoughts on this new lens? Do you consider switching (downgrading?)?
I have two young kids, and when I want to keep things light, I usually stick with the 35mm f/1.8.. I do occasionally use the 50mm f/1.2, but the 35mm is so easy to pack and shoot that I pretty much have it on me whenever we leave the house for the playground, a walk, or ice cream and such. I find the 50mm to be a bit too tight to chase the kids with, unless I’m looking for more of a special portrait moment, in which case I don’t mind the extra size of the 1.2. If you love the 50mm focal length, this isn’t much help, sorry, just speaking about my experience since we’re both chasing similar-aged subjects.
I’m not wild about the images I’m seeing from the 35 VCM, so I’m a little cautious about the new 50mm, and I really dislike the 50 1.8… so it’s the rf 1.2 or sigma art for me. Good luck!
What don't you like about the pictures with the 35 1.4 RF? I think its fantastic!!!
Beautiful colors, very pleasing OOF backgrounds, insanely fast AF, - I can't find a single nit pick with the lens in practical use for video and stills.
Is it just the stigma that a lens correction profile was used on it?
I was one of the few who were hoping for more of a statement 35mm, not a hybrid lens that seems like a nice lens, but one full of compromises. I own a lot of 35mm lenses, as it’s what I most often shoot, and I’m just not that excited about this one, honestly. Everytime I think I’ll warm up to it, I see an image like this that gives me pause.
The photographer (96whiteknight) did a nice job, but I don’t like the field curvature, the way the outside edges that approach infinity, seem more sharp than the center (look at the brick wall and the palm trees). I also typically turn off corrections with my lenses, and this one is a bit of a mess without them. To each their own, I’m just not a fan, yet. The closest lens I have to a perfect 35mm is actually the sigma 40mm, but it’s not a 35, so… the next closest is the Tamron 1.4, though I also don’t hate my sigma art 35 (it’s obviously softer, but in a nice way). I occasionally still shoot with the v1 of the L 35 1.4 when I’m interested in a bit of a look. But when it comes to chasing kids, it’s the 1.8 for me, shot at a t2. It’s really nice from about 10 feet in, and it’s very easy to carry without being in the way of all of the dad stuff.
Shooting Canon RF with corrections off is what created the framing problem with this image. Is that with the corrections on, the image was simply just not wide enough? I am just trying to understand the logic of shooting with corrections off, is it due to correction warping and distortion close in?
As we know, this lens is at about 32mm uncorrected, framing for 32mm and then blaming an uncorrected lens that is designed to be used with electronic corrections might be the problem here. I suggest shooting RF corrected, and then you can always turn off corrections in Lightroom when needed.
The warp tool in photoshop will allow an acceptable correction of this image in photoshop BTW, but you probably already know this.
|
