Here is the Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Given what you've already got, this would probably be a great lens for you. While the quality won't be as high as your zooms, it's still faster than what you've got, it hits a versatile focal length that you don't have already have covered, and you can find out if you like prime lenses before blowing a couple grand on an L lens. Most of the time it's wide enough but not so wide that it would distort photos of people. That makes it a good option if you aren't sure what you are planning to photograph and maybe just want to go for a stroll and leave the heavy stuff at home. Also, it's less conspicuous and deals better with the low light of say a museum or inside a church. Combined with IBIS in the R5, you should get excellent performance from this in dark situations. The EF version is what I carry if I plan on being in a more harsh scenario, think sandy beach, or while out drinkingI have $. That's not an issue. Just talking about THIS LENS and what are the benefits if paired with a r5! That is all. I'm rich, beeyotch. So if If I pair it with my 70-200 RF and 15-35 F 2.8, just looking for the best uses of the item talked about in this thread.
Thanks!
If that cheap lens gets damaged, it's not that big a deal.
Upvote
0
I have $. That's not an issue. Just talking about THIS LENS and what are the benefits if paired with a r5! That is all. I'm rich, beeyotch. So if If I pair it with my 70-200 RF and 15-35 F 2.8, just looking for the best uses of the item talked about in this thread.
Thanks!
Well, a fool and their money are soon parted, as has been said before.
I didn't suggest not acquiring an R5 on the basis that you would be constrained in other ways by doing so, though it is certainly a valid reason to follow what I said.
If your goal is to be a camera collector instead of a photographer, and you simply want to own the best and money is no object, then go buy the RF 50mm f/1.2. It's a way better lens than this will be, almost certainly at all f-stops until at least f/2.8 or f/4 where the overall IQ will probably be very similar any smaller. It also has more rings for more utility in its use. Weight is not a factor because you already have 2 big heavy lenses and are a collector, not a photographer in the field.
A 50mm lens of any kind certainly covers a focal range you don't have. A zoom like the RF 24 - 70mm f/2.8 (or the smaller EF f/4 + adapter) more explicitly covers every focal length you don't have with minimal crossover, the RF 28 - 70 f/2 would be even better with less crossover, and a 24 - 105 (either one in RF) is probably a lens with more utility unto itself, even if it crosses into areas covered by both of your existing lenses. You may still want a 50mm fixed lens, and possibly others, even if you have zooms covering the range - I do, I have 28 f/1.4/50 f/1.2/85 f/1.4 in addition to my zooms.
But you self-identified as a n00b and your question would have revealed that even if you didn't. If you don't even KNOW whether a lens like this is a good choice for you, you have a lot to learn, because this is the most common lens type available, and as a fixed lens of a certain size and aperture, does one specific thing. And that's why I suggested a different camera body than the R5 - the R5 "is the best" but it is very complicated, and gives some very advanced tools to a knowledgeable photographer who can use them. Someone who is still learning would be better served by a simpler body, and no I'm not suggesting getting a manual-focusing film camera or anything like that. But if you were to shoot with an RP for example, you would find it much easier to work with in some ways (as well as being more compact to carry around), and then in others you would eventually run into limitations that would ideally be resolved - possibly by the R5, possibly by something else. And as a n00b, the image quality differences between the two are not yet relevant to you - there is certainly no technical reason a great shot on the RP wouldn't be able to be blown up to art gallery or billboard size, or entered into a contest. Far worse cameras than that have been used for such purposes.
This, again, assumes you want to learn how be a photographer, learn how to take good photos. You didn't ask if this would be a good lens relative to what you shoot or intend to shoot, so maybe that's a faulty assumption on my part. If you just want to be a camera collector, then continue on.
Upvote
0
You'd use this lens if you needed a small and light relatively fast prime. It's 50mm, so roughly right in the middle of the zoom range of the 24-70. It's f/1.8, so you get about a stop more light than the 2.8 24-70. If you needed a wider field of view, then step back, if you needed a tighter field of view, step forward. 50mm is the "standard prime" for 35mm full frame. For a lens of this size and price, the only time I'd use it is if I wanted/needed a smaller lighter lens than a big ole zoom, but if you have a big ole body (like the R5), it'll work, but it's really much better paired with something like an RP. Small and light body paired with a small and light lens makes for a super easy carry around.
Other than that, the RF 50 1.2 or RF 28-70 2.0 will both be optically superior, but way more expensive, and way heavier. If cost or size isn't a problem, then go for those two over this lens.
Upvote
0
I believe it won’t be a great quality lens like the RF 35mm 1.8, which is the best “bang for bucks“ imho and therefore it needs to be pretty cheap because in these times there’s nobody who spends money on a lens for nostalgic reasons only.
Upvote
0
As far as I'm aware, Canon has said nothing about DSLRs. Whether they have released their last is a matter of belief and supposition at this point.
The point of making those low end DSLRs is - they sell well even now, and capture a low end of the market. Nothing in the R range approaches their cheapness. If an APS-C R body is released, we don't know if it will be targeted at the budget-conscious, or the 7D crowd, in which case it has no bearing on 'Rebel' buyers. Also presumably low end DSLRs are inexpensive to make. Mirrorless has been 'the future' for years, though when it becomes the present is still unclear
Upvote
0
Yes, it would seem to make more sense as an apsc lens.
I was really hoping for IS on a lower cost 50mm. With no IS, no Macro, and only one ring, I simply don't see the point. Especially for anyone who has an EF to RF adapter.
The single ring is a bit puzzling. Normally a focus ring has no clicks and a programmable ring has them. A single ring would seem strange sharing those possible functions unless the clicks come and go with according to the mode selected (focus or other).
I don't see it as a good option for a kit lens. Zooms are standard on the cheapest cameras as well as phones and I think most buyers of a kit would be a bit confounded with the limitations of only one focal length. A fixed lens would likely seem strange and cumbersome to someone graduating from a point and shoot or phone.
I was really hoping for IS on a lower cost 50mm. With no IS, no Macro, and only one ring, I simply don't see the point. Especially for anyone who has an EF to RF adapter.
The single ring is a bit puzzling. Normally a focus ring has no clicks and a programmable ring has them. A single ring would seem strange sharing those possible functions unless the clicks come and go with according to the mode selected (focus or other).
I don't see it as a good option for a kit lens. Zooms are standard on the cheapest cameras as well as phones and I think most buyers of a kit would be a bit confounded with the limitations of only one focal length. A fixed lens would likely seem strange and cumbersome to someone graduating from a point and shoot or phone.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
