Dustin Abbot has completed his full review of the Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM, Canon's most affordable RF lens. Sometimes dubbed the “nifty fifty” or “thrifty 50”, it usually finds its way into ever Canon shooters bag at some point in their photographic journey.
For the $199 USD price tag, you really are getting a lot of lens for your money. However, don't confuse it with the RF 50mm f/1.2L USM, it's definitely nowhere near as good optically or autofocus wise.
Even with some caveats, Dustin came away quite impressed by Canon's newest little lens.
So, in conclusion, the Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM is not only worth buying because it is cheap, but also worth buying because it is competent. No, it’s anywhere near the class of the RF 50mm F1.2L, but that’s to be expected. But, because of its affordability, there will be more great photos taken with the cheap F1.8 version than the expensive F1.2 lens. The RF 50mm F1.8 will not be a credible impediment to producing top-notch photographs. It’s the photographer, after all, who makes the images. A lens is just a tool…and, in this case, it’s a pretty good tool, and one most anyone can afford. More of this, please, Canon! Read the full review
I never really used the EF version very much but with the new R6 and R5 having IS built in I think this lens appeals more now. I’m also hoping Canon do bring out a more compact RF body that will be good for holidays and a backup camera, that would be good for the RF Nifty Fifty.
Of course, my (not so) secret wish is the RF 50L in EF mount...
Using my EOS R with the webcam software for online teaching (up to 40 hours a week) gives me a reason to add the RF 35 f/1.8, as the focal length is perfect for my needs, and the bokeh is noticeably better than I can get at f/4 when using the kit RF 24-105 f/4L.
The 24-105 is my default lens for when I am not shooting portraits, half-macro with the 85, or something requiring more reach. Going through my photos, I don't see very many that I have taken at or around 50mm at f/4 that would have been better at a wider aperture. For those that could have been good with a wider aperture, it is a toss-up whether the additional light or speed or improved bokeh would have been worth the potential reduction in sharpness due to the lack of IS and potential difference in IQ due to the budget glass.
Even with my impending switch to an R6 with IBIS, I still don't see the size and weight benefits of the RF 50 as compelling enough to use it as a primary lens rather than the 25-105 f/4L. If small and light are my primary considerations, and the quality only needs to be good enough for social media, my iPhone does fine most of the time at that focal length. If I need better quality, I'll continue to use a bigger, more versatile lens with better IQ under most circumstances than the RF 50.
I agree that the RF 50 is a compelling combination of size, price, and quality for use with the RP, and especially for upcoming low-end models with IBIS, but that is not where I am right now.
"It’s the photographer, after all, who makes the images."
Sure, go and do some BIF with this 50mm... The lens is *everything* in photography, at least if you're doing something more than arty impressionism.
The RF50 f/1.8 is also the lens I wasn't afraid to bring onto the ice to take pictures of my kids flailing about on the frozen pond. At noon on friday almost everyone was at work or in school, I used the RF100-500 to take pictures of my 2yo, no need for bright apertures and no collision hazards.
I'm not sure I would've brought an f/1.2 L onto the ice if I owned one. The RF50 f/1.8 was lightweight, provided good quality pics and was cheap enough to risk breaking. It also doesn't scream "EXPENSIVE, STEAL ME" :)
Owning that lens is the only reason I'm if-ing and um-ing about buying this 50