RF 50mm F1.8 STM review
- Thread starter ajfotofilmagem
- Start date
I received my copy yesterday and I struggled to get sharp pictures out of it. I couldn't really tell if that was due to motion blur at 1/125th (both EFCS and ES) or the ISO 12800 I used. This morning I had slightly better results, but eye-AF seemed to reliably front focus. Then I added a hefty flash, a Godox V860IIC, and suddenly everything comes out crisp and sharp at 1/60th and 1/80th.
I need to do more tests, but I'm starting to suspect that the IBIS needs extra mass added to work properly. I wonder if adding the grip will do the trick. More and better testing is needed before I'm ready to blame the camera instead of my technique
It's sharper than my copy of the EF50 STM, but not by a lot.
I need to do more tests, but I'm starting to suspect that the IBIS needs extra mass added to work properly. I wonder if adding the grip will do the trick. More and better testing is needed before I'm ready to blame the camera instead of my technique
It's sharper than my copy of the EF50 STM, but not by a lot.
Upvote
0
It's maybe unfortunate that we only have the choice between an excellent super-expensive RF 1,2/50 and a very average 1,8/50 STM.
What's missing is a 1,4/50 L , or, better, a 50 macro L.
So, for the time being, I'll keep using my optically superb 1969 M Summicron or the Zeiss 50 m Macro Planar.
What's missing is a 1,4/50 L , or, better, a 50 macro L.
So, for the time being, I'll keep using my optically superb 1969 M Summicron or the Zeiss 50 m Macro Planar.
Upvote
0
My take on the video. Sharpish in the middle, wide open, very sharp at f/4. Corners take a while get sharp and extreme corners never do. Longitundinal CA until f/4. Bad coma in corners until f/2.8 or 4. Flare and ghosting with bright lights in frame. Extreme focus pulling. Seems to be a good 50mm f/4.
I'd spend a bit more for better wide open open performance, but not the insane price of the 50L.
I've been spoilt by an adapted Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art, which is quite sharp at f/1.4 and very sharp at f/2. But with adapter, its as heavy and large as my RF 24-105 f/4. Will wait for the Sigma in RF mount
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 381342
Guest
If it has the performance characteristics we expect from a L or S lens, I don't see why not. This RF 50mm f/1.8 might as well be a f/2.8 or a f/4.0 by the sounds of it, which is expected for the price. The Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 S is excellent at f/1.8, there is room for Canon to make a competing lens and not another 50 f/1.8 or f/1.4 that is great but only once you stop it down.
Upvote
0
Damn, that’s a shame about the eye-AF... how did the focus work when you were controlling it manually?I received my copy yesterday and I struggled to get sharp pictures out of it. I couldn't really tell if that was due to motion blur at 1/125th (both EFCS and ES) or the ISO 12800 I used. This morning I had slightly better results, but eye-AF seemed to reliably front focus. Then I added a hefty flash, a Godox V860IIC, and suddenly everything comes out crisp and sharp at 1/60th and 1/80th.
I need to do more tests, but I'm starting to suspect that the IBIS needs extra mass added to work properly. I wonder if adding the grip will do the trick. More and better testing is needed before I'm ready to blame the camera instead of my technique
It's sharper than my copy of the EF50 STM, but not by a lot.
Upvote
0
I haven't tried manual focus yet, but with the flash mounted AF seems to behave better as well. I haven't seen other people complaining about it, so I'm starting to think it's just me
Upvote
0
Well I hope you figure it out and it isn’t a problem with the lens. My EF 50mm 1.8 and EF 50mm 1.4 were both always so hit and miss with auto focus. I would hope Canon wouldn’t make the same mistake with the RF mount versionI haven't tried manual focus yet, but with the flash mounted AF seems to behave better as well. I haven't seen other people complaining about it, so I'm starting to think it's just me
Upvote
0
Well it's better if you want something smaller and lighterHas anyone compared primes against a zoom at the same focal length? I'm wondering if buying a prime offers any advantages beyond a stop or so against an L zoom lens? It's hard for me to believe that a prime is better than my RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L?
When comparing budget prime lenses to top end L zooms like the 24-70/2.8II it's swings and roundabouts; where one might be slightly better than the other swapping and changing depending on area of the frame, f stop etc. I'd say generally speaking, if comparing the RF50/1.8 to your 24-70/2.8 the zoom might be a tiny bit sharper in the centre at the f/2.8 to 5.6 mark, but slightly worse in the extreme corners at the f/8 to 11 mark. Higher end primes will match or exceed the 24-70/2.8II in the centre and spank it in the extreme corners.
Upvote
0
I guess that pretty much matches my thinking. I've had several people tell me that I need to get a prime but I just can't see it. The only prime I'd consider would be an 85mm for portraits. Another thing about primes is that you are almost forced into hanging multiple cameras around your neck to be able to cover what you need. I remember the "good ole days" with 3 Canon F1 Motor Drives and I really don't miss that. If I can shoot a full length RAW shot of a model and then crop in to the point her eyelashes are tack sharp then that's good enough for me. If I run out of things to buy, I might consider another R5 body for my 15-35mm f/2.8L and keep it in my wagon for the few times I need something wider than 24mm but that's hard to justify. Thanks for you input. Happy New Year!Well it's better if you want something smaller and lighter
When comparing budget prime lenses to top end L zooms like the 24-70/2.8II it's swings and roundabouts; where one might be slightly better than the other swapping and changing depending on area of the frame, f stop etc. I'd say generally speaking, if comparing the RF50/1.8 to your 24-70/2.8 the zoom might be a tiny bit sharper in the centre at the f/2.8 to 5.6 mark, but slightly worse in the extreme corners at the f/8 to 11 mark. Higher end primes will match or exceed the 24-70/2.8II in the centre and spank it in the extreme corners.
Upvote
0
I will make a small note at the outset. I forgot that in my photographic equipment box I still have an EF 50mm f/1.4 USM lens, and I took the comparison photo a few days after the previous ones. Unfortunately, the weather conditions have worsened (I have had a slight mist outside the window for several days) and air pollution has increased (people have started to heat their homes), which makes the photo not as contrasting and sharp as the previous ones.
The camera was mounted on a Pedco UltraPod II Lightweight Camera Tripod. Slight shifts of the central AF point result from the need to adjust the camera on a tripod, caused by changes in the weight of the attached lenses with an adapter. All image enhancers in the camera have been turned off. I used a 2 second electronic shutter release delay.
The whole scene looks like this:
RF 50mm f/1.8 STM vs EF 50mm f/1.8 STM
RF 50mm f/1.8 STM vs EF 50mm f/1.4 USM at f/1.8
RF 50mm f/1.8 STM vs EF 50mm f/1.2L USM at f/1.8
RF 50mm f/1.8 STM vs Yongnuo YN 50mm f/1.8 II with firmware version 1.0.6
RF 50mm f/1.8 STM vs Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 ZE at f/1.8
What does it look like when you move away from the frame center?
RF 50mm f/1.8 STM vs EF 50mm f/1.8 STM
RF 50mm f/1.8 STM vs EF 50mm f/1.4 USM at f/1.8
RF 50mm f/1.8 STM vs EF 50mm f/1.2L USM at f/1.8
RF 50mm f/1.8 STM vs Yongnuo YN 50mm f/1.8 II with firmware version 1.0.6
RF 50mm f/1.8 STM vs Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 ZE at f/1.8
This is probably the best YouTube review of this lens model. Why? Because its author shows probably as the only one difference in speed between the version with the RF mount and the version with the EF mount. The relevant passage starts at 2:18.
I was also able to take some photos with this lens.
The camera was mounted on a Pedco UltraPod II Lightweight Camera Tripod. Slight shifts of the central AF point result from the need to adjust the camera on a tripod, caused by changes in the weight of the attached lenses with an adapter. All image enhancers in the camera have been turned off. I used a 2 second electronic shutter release delay.
The whole scene looks like this:
RF 50mm f/1.8 STM vs EF 50mm f/1.8 STM
RF 50mm f/1.8 STM vs EF 50mm f/1.4 USM at f/1.8
RF 50mm f/1.8 STM vs EF 50mm f/1.2L USM at f/1.8
RF 50mm f/1.8 STM vs Yongnuo YN 50mm f/1.8 II with firmware version 1.0.6
RF 50mm f/1.8 STM vs Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 ZE at f/1.8
What does it look like when you move away from the frame center?
RF 50mm f/1.8 STM vs EF 50mm f/1.8 STM
RF 50mm f/1.8 STM vs EF 50mm f/1.4 USM at f/1.8
RF 50mm f/1.8 STM vs EF 50mm f/1.2L USM at f/1.8
RF 50mm f/1.8 STM vs Yongnuo YN 50mm f/1.8 II with firmware version 1.0.6
RF 50mm f/1.8 STM vs Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 ZE at f/1.8
This is probably the best YouTube review of this lens model. Why? Because its author shows probably as the only one difference in speed between the version with the RF mount and the version with the EF mount. The relevant passage starts at 2:18.
I was also able to take some photos with this lens.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Hi mikamelg, thanks for the comparison. Can you provide a summary of your thoughts of the difference.
The first video is useful, but I think the reviewer mixed up the coma images as the RF seems much worse, but he explains it as being much better. Overall, he seems to find a bigger improvement in performance than most reviewers.
The first video is useful, but I think the reviewer mixed up the coma images as the RF seems much worse, but he explains it as being much better. Overall, he seems to find a bigger improvement in performance than most reviewers.
Upvote
0
Summary of my thoughts of the difference?
The RF 50mm f/1.8 STM lens is slightly less sharp than the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM lens in the frame center, but the sharpness outside the frame center has definitely improved (but not in its extreme corners). If you want to have sharpness in the center of the frame like in the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM lens, you need to close this lens aperture to f/2.2.
None of the lenses used by me for comparison has a start to the EF 50mm f/1.2L USM lens with the lens aperture closed to f/1.8 when it comes to sharpness, clarity and contrast of the image in the frame center. This may be due to having a very good copy of this lens. Mine was chosen by the previous and at the same time the first owner of this lens (who was a wedding photographer) among the many copies available in the photo store.
The RF 50mm f/1.8 STM lens is slightly less sharp than the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM lens in the frame center, but the sharpness outside the frame center has definitely improved (but not in its extreme corners). If you want to have sharpness in the center of the frame like in the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM lens, you need to close this lens aperture to f/2.2.
None of the lenses used by me for comparison has a start to the EF 50mm f/1.2L USM lens with the lens aperture closed to f/1.8 when it comes to sharpness, clarity and contrast of the image in the frame center. This may be due to having a very good copy of this lens. Mine was chosen by the previous and at the same time the first owner of this lens (who was a wedding photographer) among the many copies available in the photo store.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
For a few days now you can buy a replacement for the original Canon ES-65B lens hood, namely JJC LH-ES65B. You can buy it from the official JJC store on AliExpress (with larger orders, you can still take a little off the price), or on eBay.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)