Back in September I made the decision to purchase a 35mm prime to finally round out my primes which already consisted of a 24, 50, 85, 100, and 135. I got my hands on the EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM lens as a rental and it was pretty easy to fall in love with that big guy. While I make a living using my gear, I am also realistic when it comes to priority of spending money. As a 50mm shooter through and through, I didn't think too keenly about the price tag for a lens that I already knew wouldn't see the level of action I get from my 50mm and 85mm on a weekly basis. The new RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro seemed like it might be a good idea for keeping the costs down and the macro capability might be really useful when I shoot food for local restaurants I work with. I rented the lens in early December and started messing around with it - bringing it with me to NYC on my vacation last week. My findings were...disappointing to say the least.
Results:
Before I left for NYC I was already messing around with the RF 35mm around the house and was really shocked how ugly I thought the photos were looking. The bokeh falloff was honestly very sloppy and was distracting in some shots. It was very clear that this lens is designed with shorter focus distances in mind, so images taken of closer subjects honestly look really nice. It isn't until about mid-range and general walk-around photography subjects are captured that you see what this lens does...and that is create some really harsh bokeh. Sadly, this performance has me shying away from buying the lens at this time, as I don't think I would personally have much use for it beyond food photography - which I'm sure this lens will excel at greatly. If you want a beautiful walk-around lens for portraits, events, weddings, and travel, I don't think this is a very good lens for that because of the bokeh quality. It's honestly some of the worst I've ever seen and it makes me sad. It's a pretty darn sharp lens great for grabbing details and shorter range subjects...but it can really create some dud shots.
Samples all shot wide open at f/1.8 on EOS R.
View attachment 182094
After taking this image walking my dog, I instantly knew I wasn't going to like this lens. The subject isolation is extremely poor and the backgrounds preserve a LOT of detail and have too much busyness going on.
View attachment 182095
100% crop shows that the lens performs very well in terms of sharpness and aberration control, but WOW...this is really ugly falloff for an f/1.8 prime.
View attachment 182096
When grabbing detail shots, this lens really does an excellent job creating a beautiful and sharp image. THIS is where the lens shines.
View attachment 182097
100% crop shows how nice the background is rendered and how sharp it is at shorter focusing distances.
View attachment 182098
Globally, to my eye, this image doesn't look very good at all. There is a nerviousness to the transition areas out of the depth of field and it doesn't look horrible, but it doesn't look smooth either. Look toward the top of the frame how the buildings and tree branches look in spite of being much further away from the chair I focused on.
View attachment 182099
100% crop shows the sharpness once again. It's a pretty sharp lens - no surprise - but at f/1.8 and this distance to focus on the subject I would have expected a smoother background.
View attachment 182100
This photo was the nail in the coffin for me with this lens as I think it tuns in an absolutely ugly performance. I'm focused on the sign and the falloff is not only poorly defined, but it doesn't look like an f/1.8 shot and the background is incredibly busy and messy looking. It honestly looks like a "portrait" mode shot from a cell phone.
View attachment 182101
I don't think bokeh performance can get much worse than this. THIS IS f/1.8!!! Instead of creating a nice blur we have image doubling. Everything looks hazy and distracting no matter how far away from the subject things in this shot get. Move your eyes from the ropes on the right, to the garbage ca, to the two people next to the parking meter. There is a solid 10-15 feet distance in depth between each of them and they are all roughly represented.