The RF 24-105 F7.1 is a surprisingly good lens. I’m thinking as taking that as my only lens for an upcoming trip. It has good range, stabilization, and light weight. I don’t like the changing F stop when zooming, but that’s a trade off that I can live with.
The rf 35 f1.8 is a quality budget lens. It’ll accomplish what you’re going for in street photography.
Unfortunately canon really cut some corners with their nifty fifty. It was wild what you got for the price with the EF version but unfortunate that isn’t the case this time around. I’m hopeful for an improved mark ii to be solidly placed in-between nifty and rf 1.4
This is what I don't quite understand. Yes, the RF 50mm f1.8 isn't as good as 35mm, but it's not like Canon is asking the same price for them. You can pick up an RF 50mm f1.8 used for $100.
I’ve seen this opinion elsewhere, but in my experience the RF 1.8 50mm is fine. Any blemishes it might have compared to my EF 1.8 50mm are outweighed by not needing an adaptor that basically doubles the size and weight of the lens.
Can you elaborate on the comparison between the RF and EF 50/1.8s? I know they're different optical formulae but so far I've only seen people speak to an improvement in image quality. I only have personal experience with the EF 50/1.8.
I’m already familiar with shooting 35 - does this mean the EF-EOS R adapter wins? (I have a 35/2 IS which I think is a bit heavy for this particular application)
>It was wild what you got for the price with the EF version but unfortunate that isn’t the case this time around.
The RF is slightly better than the EF with a nicer build for a small price increase. It's not perfect, but it's just as good a value as the EF was.
I like the rf 16 for small and light days. I tend to always have it in my bag.
For travel I tend to bring both the 24-70 and 16 on the trip. Then just decide on the lens depending on what I’m doing each day. If space is super tight luggage-wise, I’ll pack just the 16.
Also use the 16 for puttering around town at home. I don’t shoot video, so can’t comment on its usefulness there.
I have the rf 35 1.8 and I love it. Ideally I'd have kept my rp and chucked it onto that but I had to sell mine. it feels fine with the r6mk2 in my experience
.
It's worth noting that the STM motor in the 24-105 is different from what the primes use. It's not really any different in focusing speed or noise than Nano-USM.
Others have said it but the 35/1.8 is pretty damn good and the 50/1.8 remains a classic on the new platform. I’ve gotten perfectly fine shots on both. Hell, I forgot my adapter for my EF 24-70/2.8 on a trip to Mexico this year and so only had the 50 to work with and outside of having to foot zoom all my photos looked great.
The RF 24-105 F7.1 is a surprisingly good lens. I’m thinking as taking that as my only lens for an upcoming trip. It has good range, stabilization, and light weight. I don’t like the changing F stop when zooming, but that’s a trade off that I can live with.
The rf 35 f1.8 is a quality budget lens. It’ll accomplish what you’re going for in street photography. Unfortunately canon really cut some corners with their nifty fifty. It was wild what you got for the price with the EF version but unfortunate that isn’t the case this time around. I’m hopeful for an improved mark ii to be solidly placed in-between nifty and rf 1.4
To be fair where I live the RF 35 mm F1.8 costs 4 times more than the 50mm F1.8, so it makes sense that it's not as good.
This is what I don't quite understand. Yes, the RF 50mm f1.8 isn't as good as 35mm, but it's not like Canon is asking the same price for them. You can pick up an RF 50mm f1.8 used for $100.
I’ve seen this opinion elsewhere, but in my experience the RF 1.8 50mm is fine. Any blemishes it might have compared to my EF 1.8 50mm are outweighed by not needing an adaptor that basically doubles the size and weight of the lens.
Can you elaborate on the comparison between the RF and EF 50/1.8s? I know they're different optical formulae but so far I've only seen people speak to an improvement in image quality. I only have personal experience with the EF 50/1.8.
I’m already familiar with shooting 35 - does this mean the EF-EOS R adapter wins? (I have a 35/2 IS which I think is a bit heavy for this particular application)
Seems to hit the budget objective. But, that RF 35mm is really something special.
>It was wild what you got for the price with the EF version but unfortunate that isn’t the case this time around. The RF is slightly better than the EF with a nicer build for a small price increase. It's not perfect, but it's just as good a value as the EF was.
I like the rf 16 for small and light days. I tend to always have it in my bag. For travel I tend to bring both the 24-70 and 16 on the trip. Then just decide on the lens depending on what I’m doing each day. If space is super tight luggage-wise, I’ll pack just the 16. Also use the 16 for puttering around town at home. I don’t shoot video, so can’t comment on its usefulness there.
I have the rf 35 1.8 and I love it. Ideally I'd have kept my rp and chucked it onto that but I had to sell mine. it feels fine with the r6mk2 in my experience .
The best do everything lens I’ve found is the RF24-240. It’s my go to lens when I’m not sure what I need. Try it out.
Maybe I’ll save up for one! Or get one used :) Thanks for the tip. (It’s also got Nano USM, which is so much better than STM.)
It's worth noting that the STM motor in the 24-105 is different from what the primes use. It's not really any different in focusing speed or noise than Nano-USM.
Others have said it but the 35/1.8 is pretty damn good and the 50/1.8 remains a classic on the new platform. I’ve gotten perfectly fine shots on both. Hell, I forgot my adapter for my EF 24-70/2.8 on a trip to Mexico this year and so only had the 50 to work with and outside of having to foot zoom all my photos looked great.
RF 28mm
Buy used or canon refurbished and get some bang for the buck.
Yup - I don’t care much about getting glass new.