For anyone who has some of the budget RF f1.8 primes, I think one of the key things is to shoot it at around f2.2-2.5 if you want to get better sharpness and contrast while still retaining a good amount of background separation. This is especially true when shooting against bright lights.
As Katelyn pointed out - if you can't afford the fancy version of any lens...don't stress about it. You can certainly grow your business with a 1.8 or a 2.8 or even a kit lens, really. Don't go into debt buying gear. Work on being a better photographer, on how to create a sustainable business, how to appeal to your market, etc, etc, rather than the quick dopamine payoff of gear acquisition. I'm just entering year 3 as a wedding photographer, and while my business has grown quite a bit, I still pay cash for everything - well, I put it on my CC, but I pay it off in its entirety. ;) A nice rule to consider if you're not sure if you can afford a product is whether you can buy it twice; if you can't buy it twice, then it might be worth holding off so you're not riding the line all day, every day. Because you never know when something might suddenly break and you'll be glad you have some cash to help cover the unexpected costs of running a biz.
I’m a 45 yr corporate and advertising pro. Buy the best gear and raise your rates. You don’t want to be the cheap guy with inappropriate gear that hinders your work. Being a photographer is about making great images- success will follow. I only looked for work for the first 3 months of my career, the rest was repeat and referrals. If you’re always marketing, you aren’t putting the work first. If your work is low-light or available light, or you need the isolation of fast glass, you should buy fast glass-the right tool etc., and your tools shouldn’t hinder your vision. If someone is paying for your best, bring it. That said, the 1.8 version is a good lens at f4. The 1.2 lens is made to shoot at 1.2-2.0. At f4, buy either. I own both, and many 50mm for different rendering. I prefer to manual focus a Zeiss (or Leica) than any AF Canon. I’d recommend getting a used Milvus 1.4 and adapting- it’s optically better, lighter and ⅓ the cost on the used mkt.
The RF glass from Canon is honestly so sharp and they have fantastic autofocus. I have the RF 35 f1.8 and the RF 85 F2 and paired with my R6, the results are often sharper than even some of their older EF L lenses. You really can't go wrong with RF glass, even on the budget end.
So happy to listen to this video. I'm shooting with an R5 and the 50 mm 1.8 and have been so happy with the images I'm getting during family sessions. I can't afford the money for the 1.2 right now and my clients have been super happy with their images as well. This made my day!
I spent the majority of my first year and a half in business on my ef 50 1.8 and I love it! I just got the Sigma 28-70 2.8 this summer and am in heaven lol. I’m very happy with these two (I have a 70-300 4.0 that I hardly ever use unless personally for landscape) and will probably save for another year or two to get the 70-200 🥰
I really like the fact you are concerned about someone over extending themselves financially. The advice you gave is solid gold. My firm rule is I NEVER buy anything that isn't going to appreciate in value on time. A house would qualify a camera, a lens, a car? Absolutely not. Better to work harder, save up and then own it. As you so aptly pointed out, having the less expensive lens is not going to hurt one's ability to produce an acceptable product. And besides, we both know, that most clients could never, will never, be as picky as are we. They will naturally know that we are doing our best we can die them and love us for caring about them the way we do. Your daughter and nephew are incredibly cute! Incidentally.
@@KatelynJames You are very welcome Katelyn. I have a question though I am hoping you can help me out with. I am going to buy the new Sony a7R V in about 6 months after all the as yet undiscovered bugs are exterminated! I want to buy a good, high quality lens for it. One that will produce excellent closeups, median range (portraits) and handle landscapes serviceably but not particularly high priority. My work revolves around my taking images I shoot, putting them through the arcane processes I have figured out and producing digital images that bear little actual resemblance to their progenitor photos, but which sell as giclee prints on canvas for about a thousand or so. This likely will be the last actual "real" camera I will invest in as, let's face it, the quality the Sony a7R V yields? Who really needs more? Yes, some my dear! I am sure - that that is so - but not, yours truly. I can take a 13 megapixal RAW image right now, shot with my phone and turn it into a 24 x 36 inch print file that at 16 bits and 300 DPI is around 600 MB that's amazing and tack sharp. So, I think I will maybe be able, with the Sony a7R V, to somehow muddle through! If you have a suggestion for a really good lens, even if expensive, I would welcome very much your help and counsel. Thank you in advance!
L lenses do bring presence, I find it important because it makes my clients feel secure that my prices are justified just looking at the hardware, it might be shallow, but is very relevant
I had a wedding a weekend from August until October 1st and found the RF 50 1.2 for $500 less than retail on eBay and decided to purchase as sort of a long term rental and I’d sell it once the wedding season was over. It’s fall mini and senior session season and I still can’t let it go. It never leaves my camera. I often debate whether it’s worth it, as it’s sometimes too sharp for some of my clients, but I still love it.
@@breannamedek9186 sorry for the late reply, didn't get a notification on this. It really has to depend on what you do most. If events and groups, the 35mm is probably best for flexibility, and can still do decent if you need to move close for individual shots. The 85mm is GREAT if you mostly do headshots and portraits, but will struggle with anything wider or with more than 1 or 2 people. The 50mm is the best all-rounder, and if I could only have one it would be that.
😊When I bought my R5 I was pretty much tapped out. I bought the Control Ring EF-RF adapter for $199 and used my EF 50 f1.8 (note the are two versions of the EF 50mm f1.8. One has a plastic mount and the newer one has a metal mount which is the version I have). I slapped on my 50 and when shooting to learn all the functions of the R5. I was able to purchase the $3,000 dollar Canon RF 28-70 f2 on B&H credit card and its what I'm using now. 🤗 That said, I still love 🥰using my Nifty Fifty (aka 50mm f1.8) when I go out street shooting. The idea is, it's lighter weight and I get more candid shots because I don't have my huge 28-70 that makes people a bit nervous. The adapter makes the lens a bit longer which I kind of like because I can use the length to rest my camera on my hand. I also prefer the control ring near the back like film camera lenses did. I really wanted to just buy the RF version of the 50 but decided my current adapted EF works fantastic. Something that's a little interesting. 🧐My EF 50mm has a starting focusing point of 0.35m/1.1ft. Whereas my 28-70mm starts at 0.39m/1.28ft. Now that's splitting hairs but the Nifty Fifty is slightly ahead for starting focus point. I have a hand full of filters for my EF 50 which are very affordable. I have a basic UV filter not that I need UV as the sensor doesn't care about UV light like the old film days, but it makes it easier to clean. I don't get any dust or dirt on the inner sides of the lens. Just a simple wipe of the filter and it's spotless. Since the filter is cheap, I don't even use the lens cap because if you are like me, you keep losing them. I like to call my UV filter my Glass Lens Cap. It's always on and ready to go. I also have a CPL, and two ND fiters to go with it. I didn't buy the expensive Canon petal-type lens hood which I think petal-types are pointless. I went with JJC LH-68 cylindrical lens hood. It does a way better job because it blocks out more light from the sides. Even though it's plastic, there are metal parts for the button for removal from the lens. You can even reverse it to make it more compact for storage. Like my freaking front pocket! 🤓So how good is the Nifty Fifty? Yes its a little softer if you are pixel peeping. There is a slightly a little more color aberration but that's a easy fix in post if needed. My 28-70 also has the same issue just not as pronounced. So could I shoot an wedding with the Nifty Fifty? Absolutly! With the power of the new R series bodies the nifty fivty is a good choice for a first lens. Even when you start building your collection of L-series lenses, the 50mm f1.8 still has its uses. Even had I had a collection of L lenses, I still would run out and buy the Nifty Fifty. Its really that good! Light weight, fast, and affordable which makes it a no brainer. 🚫🧠 🤗
I have the RF 50 1.8 for low light shooting (and the 85mm 1.4L IS as well). I had the EF 50 1.8 for my DSLR but you still had a bottom shutter limit - if I was real careful I could get down to 1/8th HH and get reasonably sharp images. Although the RF 50 1.8 is unstabilised the IBIS makes a big difference - I can comfortably shoot at 1/8th with it on my R7 - and lower if I have to. To me the 50mm 1.8 is a much better lens on an R series camera than it was on a DSLR.
R5 has given my old EF 50 f1.2 a new lease of life. Fast autofocus and now nails focus 100% of the time. Less digitally crisp as the newer RF glass but still a beautifully sharp portrait lens.
Awesome comparison video! I've used the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 with my R6 and the results are incredible-way better than with my DSLR. Probably because mirrorless cameras need no lens calibration, and focusing was perfect!
@@thayes21364 the RF 85 f1.2 is faster than the EF version. If you are only shooting subjects that stay perfectly still then the EF version is fine, but if you know your subject is going to be moving around get the RF
For me, the nifty 50 is a great lens for the price and a lot of pros have made a lot of money shots with them over the years. The main benefit of the f1.2 is the edge to edge sharpness, where the f1.8 clarity drops off on the edges noticeably. Personally, I'd prefer to spend the money on the f1.2 85 or the f1.8 135, and take the nifty fifty over the f1.2.
@@tylerherrinton funny thing! I was typing this as she showed the picture of the video rig. I have that same set up. The c70 and rs2. Such a great camera!
@@jwanger142 I use all my own equipment for RUclips filming! Technically a write off for my own business I suppose but isn't all equipment a write off?
So much fun to see you taking pictures of the kids having fun! I completely lost focus on testing the lenses and had to review everything! Much better than those very serious technical reviews
Admittedly, I just bought the 1.8 50mm lens, its my second lens ever. My first lens was the kit one, the 24-105mm f4-7.5 zoom lens and I have to say, the 50mm is BLOWING ME AWAY! I'm so excited!
i am honestly considering getting the 1.8 , and i already have the 1.2. Main reasons are weight and I heard great things about it . if i want the best clarity i use my GFX
I do like my nifty 50 and have captured some beautiful shots with it. I've taken the plunge and ordered the 1.2 (be here on Monday). I'm really excited to see what it can do. The nifty 50 is very prone to soft photos and I feel lucky when I get a good one. I found that the best way to get more sharp pictures than less with the nifty 50 is to stop down to 2.8 and set your shutter to a min of 1/100s (1/250s is the sweet spot on my lens). But Katelyn is spot on with her assessment on it. Make sure you have one in your bag and test your creativity and skill with it. It is a great investment for the RF cameras.
Thanks for that. It was really helpful. For me, another big decision factor besides the price is the weight. I hate lugging huge heavy lenses, so if something light and plastic works decently, that's a big plus.
Good review. I got the 1.8 because RF glass is so expensive and for $159, it almost seems free compared to that $2K+ glass. Having fun with it. Thanks. I really enjoy all your RUclips vids. Please keep them coming.
I own the R6 and the RF 35 1.8, 50 1.8, and 85 2. I’m not a huge fan of the 85 for some reason. I adapt the EF 135 2 when I want the magic look for portraits. The RF 50 1.8 is a great lens that gets tons of use on my R6. Would highly recommend it, not even because of the cost.
@@KatelynJames From what I remember about the EF 85 1.8, I used to enjoy that lens back in the day. But the RF 85 2 just doesn’t seem to render with that “it” factor. Maybe I haven’t spent enough time using it? I usually reach for the 50/135 combo.
I have the 85mm 1.4L and it's amazing. I don't know if it's as sharp as the RF 85 f2 but it is pretty sharp. I got it for my DSLR because it's image stabilised. Now I'm using it on an R7 it's very accurate and wide open it murders the background nicely. think it would be pretty damn good on an R6.
Hello. Your review and advice is very apt and encouraging to all the budget oriented photographers. I like the way you have compared these 2 lenses. You seem quite considerate for the photographers who face the financial strain unlike some youtubers who are constantly praising the new stuff companies manufacture. It all boils down to our needs, our clients, and our financial status. Of course if everybody had the budget he or she would go for the best expensive stuff. Kindly continue making such useful informative videos for the photographer community. ❤
Nice comparison, though you should consider that the f/1.2 is stopped own to f/1.8 - while it's very good at f/1.2 it would have some image improvement at f/1.8 and that's a little over 1-stop difference. 50mm f/1.8 however you used it at f/1.8 - it's already a cheap lens, and usually they don't perform their best at widest. Stopping down 1 or 2 stops (to f/2.8 - f/4 range) could make a lot of difference in the image quality. Your conclusion however is correct. I build my photography career with the EF 50mm f/1.8 and EF 50mm f/1.4 and they're not issue to me as I photograph stills and often stop down to f/5.6 - f/8 range. Those EF lenses are far inferior compared to RF glass, and that EF 50mm f/1.8 was so annoying as it hunts too often.
I had the 50mm 1.8 first and it was ok for this price. But what i really hated was the dust inside the lens. I tried always to keep my equipment clean and dust free, but the 50 got after few weeks always dust inside. That alone is a big reason, why i use only L lenses in the future. But for beginner, is the cheaper 50mm great.
I use Canon lenses on my R5 and also Zeiss Planar and Zeiss Milvus. I was shooting at a advertising agency's studio recently and it was overhead food. I went from the 24-105 Canon to the 50mm Macro Zeiss and when the image with the Zeiss lens change popped up on the screen my assistant said "Dude. That is insane". He meant, specifically, how sharp and in focus the Zeiss lens felt compared to the R5. I don't mind a bit of softness to a lens but usually on commercial jobs clients want everything sharp and everything in focus. The more expensive lenses tend to bring that to the table.
I just got an R6 and this was the lens I got with it! Gotta get a few more shoots in before I can go for the bigger lenses 😅 I was also pleasantly surprised at how crisp and fast it is. It works great for me right now! Good to hear a second, more professional opinion on what it’s like ☺️
For people who ACTUALLY want and honest idea of what these 2 lenses really are: The F1.2 lens is FAR superior, in every way. It isn't just sharpness, it is color rendering and everything else. Yes, it is worth it. If you can't afford it, the 1.8 is just ok. But for nit-picks like me, the 1.2 beats everything else.....
@@Tzunami07 ROI is one thing, and artistic vision and the creative process are a totally different thing. Pros need to consider the final product, and THAT will contribute to their returns. Of course though, customers are the final and true judge.
I've watched different videos on lenses, and yours was recorded with some much love. Thank you for the comparison. I can't afford the $2000 lens, but I'll be gifting myself with the $200 one today as my Mother's Day gift.
Nice. Shot with the 1.8 for a hot minute last year, similar results. The size/weight is one of its advantages, especially one-handed eg street work etc.
To me, there is a fairly big difference in sharpness. Is it worth $2K more? If you are a professional, absolutely. If you have that much spare cash... sure. I can't see spending that much for a prime lens but knock your socks off if you can. I have the RF 50 /1.8 on my R7 and think it's wonderful for the hobby purposes I use it for (1.6X crop so it equals an 80mm)
Great video! Just stumbled on it after purchasing a 1.8. I wanted to grab it as a low dough 50 mm. I have more money invested in my sport lenses. I love your presentation you say what you’d prefer but also show strong points of the lesser lenses. Great job
I have been struggling with this exact question! I am just starting to take my photography from hobbyist to professional and this information is exactly what I have been looking for! I LOVE your teaching style and will definitely be following you! I really look forward to taking your classes very soon.
You get some really cool imagery if you flip the 50 back to front, it then becomes a macro lens. Try it out, but make sure camera is locked down other wise its just a big blur. And thanks for doing this.
Thank you for this video! It's incredibly helpful to see pro-level results with higher- and lower-quality lenses. I'm shooting with a 50mm 1.8 on a Sony Alpha a7III and am locking in on the closest eye with single-point focus; I'm seeing similar results to what you demonstrated here, KJ--looks crisp, but that eye isn't ultra-sharp when I zoom in with Lightroom. I so appreciate this video and all you do to encourage budding photographers! ♥️ Loved the kid-toy sound effects, too!
I just Sold my EF USM 50 f/1.2. But I do have my 85 f/2. STM macro, and ordered the 50 f/1.8 right now. Refurbished for only $130 from canon. Most clients, if not all with the exception of product photography cannot tell the difference.
Yay! This was awesome. Please, please, please do the RF 35mm macro against the RF 100mm macro next!!! I would be so interested to see the pros/cons of the cheaper vs the expensive.
I own both RF 35 and 100, if you’re looking for a macro lens then definitely go with the 100. I use the 35 for everyday photos and not for macro use since the quality just doesn’t compare to the 100
As a new photographer starting my business, the RF 50mm 1.8f lens is tiny but works great for me until I can afford higher quality. It also works well with my beginner Canon EOS RP, and I’m sure it’ll work well with the next camera body.
Just wanted to say, your thoughts on this lens and your consideration of the people who aren't established yet in a business and can't afford the top dollar lenses is refreshing... many photographers would have talked down on the lens and somewhat making others feel like they shouldn't even try if they can't just afford the lens. It's frustrating sometimes to watch lens reviews on lenses that are in a more affordable price bracket for hobbyist or starting out wanting to earn money, hearing the reviewer that is use to using expensive stuff just looking for the worst aspects of the lower end glass and not even giving it a chance or saying like you said this lens won't hinder your from growing and you shouldn't go into debt and cause hardship when the 1.8 will do just fine till you can earn money and step up. Thank you for a refreshing quick view and honest look at this lens and as a parent with moving kids I found it useful that you shot examples with moving kids. Gave me a real life view. And didn't get super technical with test screens and and jumping threw all the aprutres to see where the lens fails and so on. You shot it took great everyday photos and didn't look to beat down the lens at every point.👍👍👍👍
Hi Katelyn, thank you for this very straight-to-the-point video about the RF 50 / 1.8 lens. I am planning on getting this lens very soon. I really appreciate the simplicity you put in sharing your personal and budget-wise thoughts from a professional point of you. It makes me want to ask you a question; based on your long experience as a photographer, where do you put your limit in terms of sacrifice between a very sharp image (pixel-wise) and a very nice photo (moment)? What I am trying to say in fact is how do you establish the limit between these two when it comes to sending your final work to the client. I know it might be very suggestive but as I am at the dawn of a professional career, I would like to know from your long experience what pleased more your clients (weddings and events) between a very sharp crispy pixel image and a very good image that captures the moment / the glance of special memory? I hope my question does sound stupid🤦♂. Thank you
I have just realized that ever since I bought these non-L RF lens, I have not touching my L lens as they are too large, heavy in comparison. I think L lens are properly reserved for professional work that required very large print size. Anything else, these lens are more than capable. Clients would be equally happy with the results from both L and non-L RF
I really want that 1.2, that thing is GORGEOUS! I have the RF 24-105 f4L and shoot everything around 50mm anyway, definitely looking at getting the 50mm 1.2
@@KatelynJames Having both, let's not underestimate the 24-105's bokeh at 105 and 4.0 - it's my go-to lens, and I made many nice headshots with fully blurred background with it at 105mm. For significantly more bokeh (if not locked to 50mm with the 24-105), it would require the RF 50 1.2.
The lack of M/AF focus switch might be the $2000 difference, but it shouldn't be (just include the switch!!!). Also, Katelyn your light and color in your video is some of the best on RUclips period.
That's a great and very down-to-earth comparison. Great work! I hated the EF 50 1.4 - it had so many problems optically and technically. I'd have loved to get a good, somewhat compact and somewhat affordable RF 50 1.4 with new tech. I'm sure they could make one, but they would sell less RF 50 1.2s then. Kind of a bummer .But then - I got a RF 50 1.2 and it's just soo good. The thing is - as obvious as it's advantages are to a photographer, if you work well, the client won't notice...
I have had this debate in my head a great deal. I agree about the issue of price. The reality is that I do not believe I have ever heard anybody saying "If only you would have taken that picture with an f 1.2 lens or f 1.4 lens instead of the f 1.8 lens. The other question is the performance at f 1.8 from both lenses. The finished project will likely be a printed photo in a frame or album. I have an f 1.8. I think it would be great if there was a compromise like an actual RF f 1.4 50 mm lens in an L-series.
Thanks you! Now I can focus on getting the RF 85mm f/1.2 L. Side note could you rent a couple of Lensbaby do a piece on the unique lens affects. Thanks in advance. 🧏🏾♂️👍🏿🇯🇲🇯🇲🇯🇲
Been singing the praises of the Nifty Fifty since I bought my first EF version in 2014!! The RF version is that much better! My clients LOVE what I get with this humble beast! Won't be upgrading anytime soon.
An affordable compromise between the RF lenses would be a used (or even new) Sigma Art 50mm f1.4. It's fantastic on my R6 with a very professional look. Total cost for the EF-RF adapter and my used copy was $600. Also recommended: the Canon EF 70-200 F4 IS. I picked up one for $400 and it works like a charm with the mirrorless R series, despite being a lens originally released in 2006.
I had the 50 1.2 and took it back after I got the 50 1.8. I agree with everything you said, but I shoot a lot of video too and the 1.8 is WAY lighter! Plus I had the 28-70 2.0. If I were to pick up another lens for photo only, I’d go 85 1.2 or 70-200.
I shot my very first ever wedding with the 50mm 1.8 last weekend and it was a trooper. Thanks for this perspective! I’ve done several family portrait sessions with it and it’s fantastic as well. Saving up for the big boy lens LOL!
13:30 good thing you are honest. one can tell just by the sound of your voice that it's not worth $2000 more. if one has to zoom in to 200% to see the slight sharpness increase then a client will never ever experience that difference. Maybe outdoors with a busy background the 1.2 will really shine by blowing out the background other than that it's a hard no from me. If I had a little $$$ I'd invest in the sigma 50mm 1.4 art which is $650 new or about half that used.
Katelyn, you always have sound reasoning and judgment. I agree to shoot with the cheap lens until your finances and business model change, so that you can upgrade, but I do know what you mean the first time I shot an event in very, very low light, mostly stage lighting and I pulled out a Sony 24mm 1.4 Gm and the 135 1.8 GM on two bodies and I was locking in on focus, I knew that I had made the right choices. Try and stay out of the weeds with a lot of lens reviews and think about what is primarily important to you and the client. Also, try and rent these lenses first if you can before you make a major purchase so that you can see for yourself if it's worth the final purchase. My situation was different and I changed systems from Nikon and Fuji to Sony, so I had a ton of trade-in value and poured most of it into the lenses because I had two Sony bodies already. This was a two-year decision, which wasn't taken likely, but in the end, it will be well worth it. Remember during trade-ins you will take a beating, so be prepared. I added a Sony A9 and traded in an A7III towards an A7IV to the mix and it has been great for me because my end game was to get into the Sony Fx6 or Fx9 for video (currently we use Blackmagic) and to have one system be responsible for it all with huge third-party support in case I couldn't afford to buy GM glass. Our local mayor was at one of my events and there were absolutely no do-overs and no flashes could be used when the lights went down low and we were working with mostly the stage lighting. Two of my photos were used for the media and their website. We had three shooters total for the coverage. Katelyn, you and your husband, keep bringing the wonderful work and bringing us the fantastic and realistic content that you do.
Thanks for the video! I am a newbie and just purchase a R6 mkII and the RF 15-35 2.8… One day I would love the 50mm 1.2 but after spending everything I had just to get started, I think I will start with the 1.8 now so I can play with the 50mm focal length!
Great comparison, I still shoot with the 1.2 EF, it's my love, but for budget users If the RF is better than the 1.8 EF get it, for the price you will still have amazing images. Besides only gear junkies ask what lens you used to take that photo, it's the shot that counts get that right the first time and the rest is history. 😁
In the Nikon Z world you pay more for the 1.8 lens than for the Canon, but the image quality would likely be much closer to the f/1.2. Only mentioning to note this 1.8 vs 1.2 comparison applies to Canon and less so to Nikon, where the 1.8 lenses involve even less compromise.
Great comments. I had a similar discussion in person with someone trying to decide between a new Sony A-series or canon R-series camera. He noticed I had brought in my RP to try out some used EF lenses and asked me my thoughts. Though i didnt stick around to find out his selection, I bet the salesman was mildly disappointed I brought up the same point on diminishing returns in photography that most of experience. Unless you have a true use case or are swimming in money, its hard to make an argument the extra $ for that incremental performance makes sense for a hobbyist.
When I started, I only used primes. This was in the 80's, zooms were not fast nor any good. I have the 85, 50, 35 and 16mm. I also have the ZOOMS at f2.8. For my next wedding I'm leaving my zooms home, let's see how that goes. PS...I am liking the 24mm, this has my interest.
Back in the dark, dark days of film and paper I used to have the FD 50mm f1.8, the 135mm f2.8, a Zeiss 24mm f2.8. and a 17mm f4. I also had a FD 100-300 f5.6 which was no where near as sharp.
This is why I went with Nikon instead of Canon. The Nikon 50/1.8S at about $530 and 415 grams delivers absolutely stellar results with very little compromise over their 50/1.2. I realize that your channel is Canon centric, but if someone is new to photography, in the area of 50mm lenses, it might be in their best interest to look outside of Canon. On the other hand, I have been intrigued by your comments on the 28-70 f2 lens which is unique to Canon. But, I'm not sure that I could walk around all day with such a heavy lens. Overall, as someone new to your channel, I am enjoying it very much. Thank you.
The 1.8 50, is the best value for money in the canon line up. Not all cheap lens are that good. I invested in the 1.2 85mm rather than the 50mm. As i prefer this compression. These lighter lens are idea for flying on a gimbal or steady cam.
Great video. Your financial advice at the conclusion is spot on. Also we need to keep in mind the KJ audience is largely photographers (aka pixel peepers). The average, everyday client won’t see or notice a difference in IQ. I would also venture to say all the camera brands heavily market to photographers. 😊
Thank-you really Katelyn for this nice video. I will share my experience here being a wedding photographer. So I started as a landscape photographer 9 years ago, then 4 years later I wanted to switch to portrait. I discovered the 50 mm 1.8 STM with the Canon EOS 1200D (Rebel T6) and this was a whole new world for me. A wide aperture and a sharp image, anyway compared to the kit lens (18-55). In 2018 I bought a EOS 1300D (Rebel T6) and 2 years later I started to get paid for assignments, mainly for beauty portraits. And then, I got hired for a first wedding, then a second, then a 3rd one. All of them with one single camera, switching between the 18-55 mm and the 50 mm 1.8 STM. And trust me, even though I was struggling some times shooting with one single body, it worked fine for me. And wow, the 50 mm 1.8 was so ... I mean, the image quality has nothing to do compared to the 18-55 kit lens. Recently, I bought the EOS RP with the RF 50 mm 1.8 STM lens. I shot my first weddings just with the 50 mm, it worked fine for me and the RP being a FF, I could have wider pictures with this lens. Since a few, I'm using additionally a 18-55 lens mounted on the NIKON D5600 of a friend. And the image quality difference is REALLY noticeable between the 18-55 and the 50 mm. Anyway for me. All this to say what ? That my customers are actually pretty happy with the deliveries. They won't notice any difference between the cameras or lenses, especially after retouching. As a photographer, I do notice these differences, but usually customers won't. It might be the same between the RF 50 mm 1.8 vs 1.2. A lot of photographers won't notice any difference, so customers. STILL, once you have some experience (with more accurate eyes), and that you experimented the 1.2 LENS, it would be hard to go back to the 1.8. Exactly the same as go back for me, to the EOS 1300D (rebel t6), or even the 18-55 lens kit. So, you will do fine with the 1.8 lens. Don't never ever worry about it. It's a great lens, delivering sharp pictures, nice bokeh, it's a must have when you start as a portrait / wedding photographer, especially if you're on a budget. It's what I use, and if the RF 35 mm 1.8 has the same image quality, I will go for it and then, mount it on a second EOS RP after saving some money. So yes, you will have great pictures with the 1.8, but the 1.2 will be sharper, with a better bokeh, and even faster for the focus. If you have enough money, go for it. If not, the 1.8 will be GREAT too. You can check some pictures here : igorvisuals.wordpress.com/
There's something "magically sufficient" about the 1.8 + the R6. I commonly use my 1.8 professionally with the R6 and whereas money will always find its way back to you if your work ethic is solid, the WEIGHT and size of the 1.2 usually isn't worth what a civilian can discern in quality. That said, if any of you want to bequeath your 1.2 to me in your will . . . 😁 Thanks, Katelyn. Yet another no-BS wise investment of my time to watch.
Great content. Also bought your „Presets“. RF 50 1.8 is an ok lens, but the colors and bokeh (as you mentioned ) are the reasons I have sold it again and stick with my EF 50L which gives much nicer tones and colors and bokeh . With the R8 it is like a new lens, very accurate and fast enough
I like how you light your video... so soft on your skin... and your hair looks great.... 😍😍😍😍😍😍 And your voice is sooooo calming... so soothing.... I am definitely subscribing. 👌
Bang on advice i was in dilemma if to buy 1.8 version coz was pretty impressed with its performance. But still doubtful as 50 1.8 ef version is known for notoriously bad build quality and focussing ring. I have thrown at least four of them. Thank for this review and advice @katalyn
Both should do the job. Also a 50mm is not a good close portrait lens regardless of the price. If you can afford the lens and you have a need for a faster lens. Yeah I might get it. But for general photography use the 1.8.
I have that lens. I just got it about 10 days ago. i tested it in an open shade situation, and I arrived to the same conclusion: It is a pleasant surprise. Not as sharp as an "L" lens, but it is going to remain in my camera bag from now on, because it takes no place in my bag, and doesn't add a lot of weight to it. And if you consider the money we pay for it, it is a no brainer. Thanks for this video!
The speed of these lenses is the primary difference, therefore it seems to me that either depth of field concerns or low light concerns (or perhaps some mix of both) are going to be your emphasis. Seeing how you really didn’t explore the low light capability of these lenses, I’m going to guess your primary concern must be bokeh. It would be nice to see some more objective evaluations, such as target resolution at different aperture settings and perhaps objective side by side target comparisons. In any case, I appreciate your strong work in this video, thank you.
thn for the honest info. My son wants to start taking pics. thus I am trying to figure out what to get from a starter camera to lenses. that I won't lose my mind over if it ends up on a shelf in a year LOL thus this helps greatly knowing I can get 150-200 lense it will be good till he shows commitment. Now to finish up figureing up a starter camera that won't break the bank and do a decent job.
I bought the rf 50 1.8 to travel with because traveling with my L lenses makes me nervous, but then I don't even bring it because I just can't get myself to love it. I've actually found it to be slower than my 35 1.4 (I decided 28-70 over the 50) even with the EF-RF adapter on the 35mm and I have two little ones that like to move, so the focus drag on the 50 1.8 a little frustrating. I also get annoyed editing with it because it renders blacks much heavier. But it's soooooo light!!
I’m not sure if you’ll see this or not but one of the things that you missed is that the calibration DOES matter. How it performs on one camera body compared to another is sometimes slightly to very different just because each camera mount is different regardless if it’s on the same camera body model or not, so yes, you would most definitely have to calibrate this particular lens to your camera body to see the actual quality difference in the images and performance with accuracy.
The video just popped into my feed, watching her reaction for first time. I am now interested to leave a comment as I have used both lenses on a Canon R6, I own the RF 1.8 ( STM) lens. And I have rented the 1.2 (usm) lens. I am not a wedding or portrait photographer. And I don’t want to spend 2.5 k on a 50mm, I would surely do it for a telephoto lens ( wildlife) but I also want to take casual home portraits , of me of my friends and capture beautiful bokeh during a Christmas fun family shoot( yes just as courtesy for friends) For something that casual you would totally love it, effortless lens. I also hand it over to my non photographer friends by setting what I need and they take great pics. Just one thing, it always makes a noise and a little motor pops in and out. Probably because the lens is made for video. I loved the 1.2 as well, but I would not be buying a 2.5 k for fun & free photoshoots. If it was my job/making money out of it I would invest in the sharper lens no doubt. Thank you 😊 for reading 🥂🙏🏼
I’ve been collecting old Canon FD lenses and I was surprised how good the 50mm 1.8 FD was compared to the famously good 50mm 1.4 SSC! Canon seems to have 50mm lenses dialed in and it’s not surprising that their new RF lenses are following the same trend. Even for video, F1.8 is fine and I’ve heard people being happy with the entry RF set for video use as well.
That also applies to Nikon, Minolta, Contax, Leica, Hassleblad etc. The only difference between f1.8 and f1.4 or f1.2 is the speed in most cases, optically speaking of course there is minute difference which you probably can hardly detect. However in some lighting conditions when you just need that little extra speed, then you will have no choice but to spend the extra money to get the job done.
Absolutely Your word is accurate and honest there is no $2000 difference in picture quality between two lenses actually we know this . but we believing many thinks blindly ! very useful Video This is a matter something to think about before buying any expensive lenses thank you .
For anyone who has some of the budget RF f1.8 primes, I think one of the key things is to shoot it at around f2.2-2.5 if you want to get better sharpness and contrast while still retaining a good amount of background separation. This is especially true when shooting against bright lights.
Thanks for watching!
What if I use the prime with APSC? Do i just leave it at 1.8?
Totally agree as well as there is no this or envy greenish outline on a body thinking f2.5-3.5 gets rid of it for me
Agree. I rarely shoot on 1.8 or 2 as its too soft.
@@2darki I think you may still have issues with sharpness/contrast in certain situations. Overall you can still get some nice results though!
As Katelyn pointed out - if you can't afford the fancy version of any lens...don't stress about it. You can certainly grow your business with a 1.8 or a 2.8 or even a kit lens, really. Don't go into debt buying gear. Work on being a better photographer, on how to create a sustainable business, how to appeal to your market, etc, etc, rather than the quick dopamine payoff of gear acquisition.
I'm just entering year 3 as a wedding photographer, and while my business has grown quite a bit, I still pay cash for everything - well, I put it on my CC, but I pay it off in its entirety. ;)
A nice rule to consider if you're not sure if you can afford a product is whether you can buy it twice; if you can't buy it twice, then it might be worth holding off so you're not riding the line all day, every day. Because you never know when something might suddenly break and you'll be glad you have some cash to help cover the unexpected costs of running a biz.
Great tips, thanks for sharing!
I’m a 45 yr corporate and advertising pro. Buy the best gear and raise your rates. You don’t want to be the cheap guy with inappropriate gear that hinders your work. Being a photographer is about making great images- success will follow. I only looked for work for the first 3 months of my career, the rest was repeat and referrals. If you’re always marketing, you aren’t putting the work first.
If your work is low-light or available light, or you need the isolation of fast glass, you should buy fast glass-the right tool etc., and your tools shouldn’t hinder your vision. If someone is paying for your best, bring it.
That said, the 1.8 version is a good lens at f4. The 1.2 lens is made to shoot at 1.2-2.0. At f4, buy either. I own both, and many 50mm for different rendering. I prefer to manual focus a Zeiss (or Leica) than any AF Canon. I’d recommend getting a used Milvus 1.4 and adapting- it’s optically better, lighter and ⅓ the cost on the used mkt.
The RF glass from Canon is honestly so sharp and they have fantastic autofocus. I have the RF 35 f1.8 and the RF 85 F2 and paired with my R6, the results are often sharper than even some of their older EF L lenses. You really can't go wrong with RF glass, even on the budget end.
Love it!
because r6 only have 20mega pixel
It's true but the 35 is way sharper than the 50.
@@four-kings😂 „only“…you can print big enough
I have a RP that doesn’t have Sensor Shift in body like your R6.. is that make much difference in the final shoot or could be same.
So happy to listen to this video. I'm shooting with an R5 and the 50 mm 1.8 and have been so happy with the images I'm getting during family sessions. I can't afford the money for the 1.2 right now and my clients have been super happy with their images as well. This made my day!
As long as your clients are happy, that's all that matters! Glad to hear you enjoyed the video, thanks for watching!
This is the content we're looking for, unbiased,, straight froward and honest. Thanks
Thanks!
I spent the majority of my first year and a half in business on my ef 50 1.8 and I love it! I just got the Sigma 28-70 2.8 this summer and am in heaven lol. I’m very happy with these two (I have a 70-300 4.0 that I hardly ever use unless personally for landscape) and will probably save for another year or two to get the 70-200 🥰
Thanks for watching!
I really like the fact you are concerned about someone over extending themselves financially. The advice you gave is solid gold.
My firm rule is I NEVER buy anything that isn't going to appreciate in value on time. A house would qualify a camera, a lens, a car? Absolutely not.
Better to work harder, save up and then own it.
As you so aptly pointed out, having the less expensive lens is not going to hurt one's ability to produce an acceptable product.
And besides, we both know, that most clients could never, will never, be as picky as are we. They will naturally know that we are doing our best we can die them and love us for caring about them the way we do.
Your daughter and nephew are incredibly cute! Incidentally.
Thanks for sharing Erik!
@@KatelynJames You are very welcome Katelyn. I have a question though I am hoping you can help me out with.
I am going to buy the new Sony a7R V in about 6 months after all the as yet undiscovered bugs are exterminated!
I want to buy a good, high quality lens for it. One that will produce excellent closeups, median range (portraits) and handle landscapes serviceably but not particularly high priority.
My work revolves around my taking images I shoot, putting them through the arcane processes I have figured out and producing digital images that bear little actual resemblance to their progenitor photos, but which sell as giclee prints on canvas for about a thousand or so.
This likely will be the last actual "real" camera I will invest in as, let's face it, the quality the Sony a7R V yields? Who really needs more?
Yes, some my dear! I am sure - that that is so - but not, yours truly.
I can take a 13 megapixal RAW image right now, shot with my phone and turn it into a 24 x 36 inch print file that at 16 bits and 300 DPI is around 600 MB that's amazing and tack sharp.
So, I think I will maybe be able, with the Sony a7R V, to somehow muddle through!
If you have a suggestion for a really good lens, even if expensive, I would welcome very much your help and counsel. Thank you in advance!
L lenses do bring presence, I find it important because it makes my clients feel secure that my prices are justified just looking at the hardware, it might be shallow, but is very relevant
Thanks for watching!
I had a wedding a weekend from August until October 1st and found the RF 50 1.2 for $500 less than retail on eBay and decided to purchase as sort of a long term rental and I’d sell it once the wedding season was over.
It’s fall mini and senior session season and I still can’t let it go. It never leaves my camera. I often debate whether it’s worth it, as it’s sometimes too sharp for some of my clients, but I still love it.
Thanks for watching!
I find that reducing clarity in Adobe camera RAW can soften skin and subtly reduce detail. It also softens highlights.
@@TonyGrant.duplicate the layer, mask the background and blur the one underneath, then lower the opacity of the upper layer.
YES!! When I switched to the Canon R6 this past June, I bought this exact 'trifecta' of budget lenses: the 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm (all together for
Thanks for watching!
Which one is your favorite out of all? I’m really torn on spending the extra money up front just so I don’t regret not going all in…
@@breannamedek9186 sorry for the late reply, didn't get a notification on this. It really has to depend on what you do most. If events and groups, the 35mm is probably best for flexibility, and can still do decent if you need to move close for individual shots. The 85mm is GREAT if you mostly do headshots and portraits, but will struggle with anything wider or with more than 1 or 2 people. The 50mm is the best all-rounder, and if I could only have one it would be that.
😊When I bought my R5 I was pretty much tapped out. I bought the Control Ring EF-RF adapter for $199 and used my EF 50 f1.8 (note the are two versions of the EF 50mm f1.8. One has a plastic mount and the newer one has a metal mount which is the version I have). I slapped on my 50 and when shooting to learn all the functions of the R5. I was able to purchase the $3,000 dollar Canon RF 28-70 f2 on B&H credit card and its what I'm using now. 🤗
That said, I still love 🥰using my Nifty Fifty (aka 50mm f1.8) when I go out street shooting. The idea is, it's lighter weight and I get more candid shots because I don't have my huge 28-70 that makes people a bit nervous. The adapter makes the lens a bit longer which I kind of like because I can use the length to rest my camera on my hand. I also prefer the control ring near the back like film camera lenses did. I really wanted to just buy the RF version of the 50 but decided my current adapted EF works fantastic.
Something that's a little interesting. 🧐My EF 50mm has a starting focusing point of 0.35m/1.1ft. Whereas my 28-70mm starts at 0.39m/1.28ft. Now that's splitting hairs but the Nifty Fifty is slightly ahead for starting focus point.
I have a hand full of filters for my EF 50 which are very affordable. I have a basic UV filter not that I need UV as the sensor doesn't care about UV light like the old film days, but it makes it easier to clean. I don't get any dust or dirt on the inner sides of the lens. Just a simple wipe of the filter and it's spotless. Since the filter is cheap, I don't even use the lens cap because if you are like me, you keep losing them. I like to call my UV filter my Glass Lens Cap. It's always on and ready to go. I also have a CPL, and two ND fiters to go with it. I didn't buy the expensive Canon petal-type lens hood which I think petal-types are pointless. I went with JJC LH-68 cylindrical lens hood. It does a way better job because it blocks out more light from the sides. Even though it's plastic, there are metal parts for the button for removal from the lens. You can even reverse it to make it more compact for storage. Like my freaking front pocket!
🤓So how good is the Nifty Fifty? Yes its a little softer if you are pixel peeping. There is a slightly a little more color aberration but that's a easy fix in post if needed. My 28-70 also has the same issue just not as pronounced. So could I shoot an wedding with the Nifty Fifty? Absolutly! With the power of the new R series bodies the nifty fivty is a good choice for a first lens. Even when you start building your collection of L-series lenses, the 50mm f1.8 still has its uses. Even had I had a collection of L lenses, I still would run out and buy the Nifty Fifty. Its really that good! Light weight, fast, and affordable which makes it a no brainer. 🚫🧠 🤗
Thanks for watching!
I have the RF 50 1.8 for low light shooting (and the 85mm 1.4L IS as well). I had the EF 50 1.8 for my DSLR but you still had a bottom shutter limit - if I was real careful I could get down to 1/8th HH and get reasonably sharp images. Although the RF 50 1.8 is unstabilised the IBIS makes a big difference - I can comfortably shoot at 1/8th with it on my R7 - and lower if I have to. To me the 50mm 1.8 is a much better lens on an R series camera than it was on a DSLR.
R5 has given my old EF 50 f1.2 a new lease of life. Fast autofocus and now nails focus 100% of the time. Less digitally crisp as the newer RF glass but still a beautifully sharp portrait lens.
Love it!
Awesome comparison video! I've used the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 with my R6 and the results are incredible-way better than with my DSLR. Probably because mirrorless cameras need no lens calibration, and focusing was perfect!
Thanks for watching!
Exactly. No more autofocus problems.
Solid advice. I would like to see a similar comparison between an ef 1.2 and an Rf 1.2
We made a video comparing the EF and RF versions! Here is the link: ruclips.net/video/DFjIsn52sTo/видео.html
I was actually going to ask this because I trust her judgment over most. I have an EF 85 1.2 but can’t afford the Rf yet and would love the truth.
@@thayes21364 the RF 85 f1.2 is faster than the EF version. If you are only shooting subjects that stay perfectly still then the EF version is fine, but if you know your subject is going to be moving around get the RF
@@cjm8160 or just learn photography and use a faster shutter speed would be a lot chepaer and smarter
@@southbridgeforestHOA faster shutter speeds don't compensate for slow focus on the ef version....
For me, the nifty 50 is a great lens for the price and a lot of pros have made a lot of money shots with them over the years. The main benefit of the f1.2 is the edge to edge sharpness, where the f1.8 clarity drops off on the edges noticeably. Personally, I'd prefer to spend the money on the f1.2 85 or the f1.8 135, and take the nifty fifty over the f1.2.
I’m kind of more blown away by the even exposure inside of your house to the outside. This video looks amazing. Great work on the whole thing!
Gotta love the 16 stops of dynamic range on the C70!
@@tylerherrinton funny thing! I was typing this as she showed the picture of the video rig. I have that same set up. The c70 and rs2. Such a great camera!
Thank you so much!
Ya their video set up for RUclips is insane. Probably more accessible when it can be a write off for a business.
@@jwanger142 I use all my own equipment for RUclips filming! Technically a write off for my own business I suppose but isn't all equipment a write off?
So much fun to see you taking pictures of the kids having fun! I completely lost focus on testing the lenses and had to review everything! Much better than those very serious technical reviews
Admittedly, I just bought the 1.8 50mm lens, its my second lens ever. My first lens was the kit one, the 24-105mm f4-7.5 zoom lens and I have to say, the 50mm is BLOWING ME AWAY! I'm so excited!
That second will turn into a third, fourth, fifth…… 😂
I really respect the honesty, practicality and reasonableness of your advice. I think it's spot on!
I appreciate that!
i am honestly considering getting the 1.8 , and i already have the 1.2. Main reasons are weight and I heard great things about it . if i want the best clarity i use my GFX
Definitely will recommend especially if you can get it for under $160.
If size and weight are a big factor for you then the 1.8 is a great option for those circumstances!
I do like my nifty 50 and have captured some beautiful shots with it. I've taken the plunge and ordered the 1.2 (be here on Monday). I'm really excited to see what it can do. The nifty 50 is very prone to soft photos and I feel lucky when I get a good one. I found that the best way to get more sharp pictures than less with the nifty 50 is to stop down to 2.8 and set your shutter to a min of 1/100s (1/250s is the sweet spot on my lens). But Katelyn is spot on with her assessment on it. Make sure you have one in your bag and test your creativity and skill with it. It is a great investment for the RF cameras.
Enjoy it! You’re going to love the 1.2, it’s amazing!
Are you using that on a mirrorless or a DSLR?
@@TonyGrant. My R6.
Thanks for that. It was really helpful. For me, another big decision factor besides the price is the weight. I hate lugging huge heavy lenses, so if something light and plastic works decently, that's a big plus.
Good review. I got the 1.8 because RF glass is so expensive and for $159, it almost seems free compared to that $2K+ glass. Having fun with it. Thanks. I really enjoy all your RUclips vids. Please keep them coming.
Will do!
I own the R6 and the RF 35 1.8, 50 1.8, and 85 2. I’m not a huge fan of the 85 for some reason. I adapt the EF 135 2 when I want the magic look for portraits. The RF 50 1.8 is a great lens that gets tons of use on my R6. Would highly recommend it, not even because of the cost.
Interesting about the 85mm! I am so impressed with the 50mm 1.8!
@@KatelynJames From what I remember about the EF 85 1.8, I used to enjoy that lens back in the day. But the RF 85 2 just doesn’t seem to render with that “it” factor. Maybe I haven’t spent enough time using it? I usually reach for the 50/135 combo.
@@KatelynJames Have you had the chance to test out the RF 85 f2? I’d be curious to see what you think.
I have the 85mm 1.4L and it's amazing. I don't know if it's as sharp as the RF 85 f2 but it is pretty sharp. I got it for my DSLR because it's image stabilised. Now I'm using it on an R7 it's very accurate and wide open it murders the background nicely. think it would be pretty damn good on an R6.
Hello. Your review and advice is very apt and encouraging to all the budget oriented photographers. I like the way you have compared these 2 lenses. You seem quite considerate for the photographers who face the financial strain unlike some youtubers who are constantly praising the new stuff companies manufacture. It all boils down to our needs, our clients, and our financial status. Of course if everybody had the budget he or she would go for the best expensive stuff. Kindly continue making such useful informative videos for the photographer community. ❤
Nice comparison, though you should consider that the f/1.2 is stopped own to f/1.8 - while it's very good at f/1.2 it would have some image improvement at f/1.8 and that's a little over 1-stop difference.
50mm f/1.8 however you used it at f/1.8 - it's already a cheap lens, and usually they don't perform their best at widest. Stopping down 1 or 2 stops (to f/2.8 - f/4 range) could make a lot of difference in the image quality.
Your conclusion however is correct. I build my photography career with the EF 50mm f/1.8 and EF 50mm f/1.4 and they're not issue to me as I photograph stills and often stop down to f/5.6 - f/8 range. Those EF lenses are far inferior compared to RF glass, and that EF 50mm f/1.8 was so annoying as it hunts too often.
Thanks for watching!
I had the 50mm 1.8 first and it was ok for this price. But what i really hated was the dust inside the lens. I tried always to keep my equipment clean and dust free, but the 50 got after few weeks always dust inside. That alone is a big reason, why i use only L lenses in the future. But for beginner, is the cheaper 50mm great.
I use Canon lenses on my R5 and also Zeiss Planar and Zeiss Milvus. I was shooting at a advertising agency's studio recently and it was overhead food. I went from the 24-105 Canon to the 50mm Macro Zeiss and when the image with the Zeiss lens change popped up on the screen my assistant said "Dude. That is insane". He meant, specifically, how sharp and in focus the Zeiss lens felt compared to the R5. I don't mind a bit of softness to a lens but usually on commercial jobs clients want everything sharp and everything in focus. The more expensive lenses tend to bring that to the table.
Of course! For commercial jobs you’d want the best of the best! But for the cost this lens surprised me!
I just got an R6 and this was the lens I got with it! Gotta get a few more shoots in before I can go for the bigger lenses 😅 I was also pleasantly surprised at how crisp and fast it is. It works great for me right now! Good to hear a second, more professional opinion on what it’s like ☺️
So smart! Glad the video was helpful for you!!
Let's not forget the RF 1.8 gets much sharper when stopped down a little - there's not always the need to shoot wide open.
I really appreciate your reviews. I don’t connect with the specs other channels get into. This down to earth comparisons are so so helpful
Thanks for watching!
For people who ACTUALLY want and honest idea of what these 2 lenses really are: The F1.2 lens is FAR superior, in every way. It isn't just sharpness, it is color rendering and everything else. Yes, it is worth it. If you can't afford it, the 1.8 is just ok. But for nit-picks like me, the 1.2 beats everything else.....
Part of the Arguments IS to justify the costs, professionals Always Look for roi.
@@Tzunami07 ROI is one thing, and artistic vision and the creative process are a totally different thing. Pros need to consider the final product, and THAT will contribute to their returns. Of course though, customers are the final and true judge.
I've watched different videos on lenses, and yours was recorded with some much love. Thank you for the comparison. I can't afford the $2000 lens, but I'll be gifting myself with the $200 one today as my Mother's Day gift.
Nice. Shot with the 1.8 for a hot minute last year, similar results. The size/weight is one of its advantages, especially one-handed eg street work etc.
Thanks for watching!
I just recently bought the RF 50 1.8 to use as my travel lens and I love how small and compact it is.
Thanks for sharing!
To me, there is a fairly big difference in sharpness. Is it worth $2K more? If you are a professional, absolutely. If you have that much spare cash... sure. I can't see spending that much for a prime lens but knock your socks off if you can. I have the RF 50 /1.8 on my R7 and think it's wonderful for the hobby purposes I use it for (1.6X crop so it equals an 80mm)
Agreed!
Great video! Just stumbled on it after purchasing a 1.8. I wanted to grab it as a low dough 50 mm. I have more money invested in my sport lenses. I love your presentation you say what you’d prefer but also show strong points of the lesser lenses. Great job
I have been struggling with this exact question! I am just starting to take my photography from hobbyist to professional and this information is exactly what I have been looking for! I LOVE your teaching style and will definitely be following you! I really look forward to taking your classes very soon.
You get some really cool imagery if you flip the 50 back to front, it then becomes a macro lens. Try it out, but make sure camera is locked down other wise its just a big blur. And thanks for doing this.
Thank you for this video! It's incredibly helpful to see pro-level results with higher- and lower-quality lenses. I'm shooting with a 50mm 1.8 on a Sony Alpha a7III and am locking in on the closest eye with single-point focus; I'm seeing similar results to what you demonstrated here, KJ--looks crisp, but that eye isn't ultra-sharp when I zoom in with Lightroom. I so appreciate this video and all you do to encourage budding photographers! ♥️ Loved the kid-toy sound effects, too!
Glad it was helpful! Thanks for watching!!
I just Sold my EF USM 50 f/1.2. But I do have my 85 f/2. STM macro, and ordered the 50 f/1.8 right now. Refurbished for only $130 from canon. Most clients, if not all with the exception of product photography cannot tell the difference.
Thanks for watching!
LOL I love the way you start off that you dont care about certain specs just how it works - that is very much me too!
Yay! This was awesome. Please, please, please do the RF 35mm macro against the RF 100mm macro next!!! I would be so interested to see the pros/cons of the cheaper vs the expensive.
I'll tell Ty! We did this once first because he already owns the 50 1.8 haha
I own both RF 35 and 100, if you’re looking for a macro lens then definitely go with the 100. I use the 35 for everyday photos and not for macro use since the quality just doesn’t compare to the 100
As a new photographer starting my business, the RF 50mm 1.8f lens is tiny but works great for me until I can afford higher quality.
It also works well with my beginner Canon EOS RP, and I’m sure it’ll work well with the next camera body.
That's a great way to approach lenses when you're first starting out!
Just wanted to say, your thoughts on this lens and your consideration of the people who aren't established yet in a business and can't afford the top dollar lenses is refreshing... many photographers would have talked down on the lens and somewhat making others feel like they shouldn't even try if they can't just afford the lens. It's frustrating sometimes to watch lens reviews on lenses that are in a more affordable price bracket for hobbyist or starting out wanting to earn money, hearing the reviewer that is use to using expensive stuff just looking for the worst aspects of the lower end glass and not even giving it a chance or saying like you said this lens won't hinder your from growing and you shouldn't go into debt and cause hardship when the 1.8 will do just fine till you can earn money and step up. Thank you for a refreshing quick view and honest look at this lens and as a parent with moving kids I found it useful that you shot examples with moving kids. Gave me a real life view. And didn't get super technical with test screens and and jumping threw all the aprutres to see where the lens fails and so on. You shot it took great everyday photos and didn't look to beat down the lens at every point.👍👍👍👍
Hi Katelyn, thank you for this very straight-to-the-point video about the RF 50 / 1.8 lens. I am planning on getting this lens very soon. I really appreciate the simplicity you put in sharing your personal and budget-wise thoughts from a professional point of you. It makes me want to ask you a question; based on your long experience as a photographer, where do you put your limit in terms of sacrifice between a very sharp image (pixel-wise) and a very nice photo (moment)? What I am trying to say in fact is how do you establish the limit between these two when it comes to sending your final work to the client. I know it might be very suggestive but as I am at the dawn of a professional career, I would like to know from your long experience what pleased more your clients (weddings and events) between a very sharp crispy pixel image and a very good image that captures the moment / the glance of special memory? I hope my question does sound stupid🤦♂. Thank you
Thanks for watching!
I have just realized that ever since I bought these non-L RF lens, I have not touching my L lens as they are too large, heavy in comparison. I think L lens are properly reserved for professional work that required very large print size. Anything else, these lens are more than capable. Clients would be equally happy with the results from both L and non-L RF
I have just gotten mine and did a shoot with it .I am very happy with it .
Thanks for watching!
I really want that 1.2, that thing is GORGEOUS! I have the RF 24-105 f4L and shoot everything around 50mm anyway, definitely looking at getting the 50mm 1.2
Either one of these 50mms will give you a nice shallow depth of field look you can't get with an f/4 lens!
@@KatelynJames Having both, let's not underestimate the 24-105's bokeh at 105 and 4.0 - it's my go-to lens, and I made many nice headshots with fully blurred background with it at 105mm. For significantly more bokeh (if not locked to 50mm with the 24-105), it would require the RF 50 1.2.
The lack of M/AF focus switch might be the $2000 difference, but it shouldn't be (just include the switch!!!). Also, Katelyn your light and color in your video is some of the best on RUclips period.
Thanks for watching!
imo it also shows much more dynamic in color. More evenness and softer in light
the r5 paired with the 50 1.2 is special
Thanks for watching!
The compactness and weight is also factor. Portability is a consideration.
That's a great and very down-to-earth comparison. Great work! I hated the EF 50 1.4 - it had so many problems optically and technically. I'd have loved to get a good, somewhat compact and somewhat affordable RF 50 1.4 with new tech. I'm sure they could make one, but they would sell less RF 50 1.2s then. Kind of a bummer .But then - I got a RF 50 1.2 and it's just soo good. The thing is - as obvious as it's advantages are to a photographer, if you work well, the client won't notice...
Thanks for watching!
I have had this debate in my head a great deal. I agree about the issue of price. The reality is that I do not believe I have ever heard anybody saying "If only you would have taken that picture with an f 1.2 lens or f 1.4 lens instead of the f 1.8 lens. The other question is the performance at f 1.8 from both lenses. The finished project will likely be a printed photo in a frame or album. I have an f 1.8. I think it would be great if there was a compromise like an actual RF f 1.4 50 mm lens in an L-series.
Thanks you! Now I can focus on getting the RF 85mm f/1.2 L. Side note could you rent a couple of Lensbaby do a piece on the unique lens affects. Thanks in advance. 🧏🏾♂️👍🏿🇯🇲🇯🇲🇯🇲
Great idea!
I love my nifty, fifty! I have used it for 8 years.
Now that's a good ROI!
Been singing the praises of the Nifty Fifty since I bought my first EF version in 2014!! The RF version is that much better! My clients LOVE what I get with this humble beast! Won't be upgrading anytime soon.
I was expecting the RF 1.8 to be more like the EF 1.8 and was surprised at how much more solid it felt!
An affordable compromise between the RF lenses would be a used (or even new) Sigma Art 50mm f1.4. It's fantastic on my R6 with a very professional look. Total cost for the EF-RF adapter and my used copy was $600. Also recommended: the Canon EF 70-200 F4 IS. I picked up one for $400 and it works like a charm with the mirrorless R series, despite being a lens originally released in 2006.
Thanks for sharing!
I had the 50 1.2 and took it back after I got the 50 1.8. I agree with everything you said, but I shoot a lot of video too and the 1.8 is WAY lighter! Plus I had the 28-70 2.0. If I were to pick up another lens for photo only, I’d go 85 1.2 or 70-200.
Also, the focus of the 50 1.2 was much louder than the 1.8
Thanks for watching!
You can get the EF 50mm F1.2 L and use the EF adapter for around $700, works great!
I purchased both or these RF lenses and I sold both of these RF lenses shortly there after. I KEPT my trusty Sigma 50mm F1.4 ART.
Definitely not a bad option if you already own a nice EF 50mm!!
I shot my very first ever wedding with the 50mm 1.8 last weekend and it was a trooper. Thanks for this perspective! I’ve done several family portrait sessions with it and it’s fantastic as well. Saving up for the big boy lens LOL!
I have the EF 50mm f1.2L and I noticed it was MUCH sharper than my 1.8 nifty fifty, was totally worth it! Yup its MUUUUUCH heavier too!
13:30 good thing you are honest. one can tell just by the sound of your voice that it's not worth $2000 more. if one has to zoom in to 200% to see the slight sharpness increase then a client will never ever experience that difference. Maybe outdoors with a busy background the 1.2 will really shine by blowing out the background other than that it's a hard no from me. If I had a little $$$ I'd invest in the sigma 50mm 1.4 art which is $650 new or about half that used.
Katelyn, you always have sound reasoning and judgment. I agree to shoot with the cheap lens until your finances and business model change, so that you can upgrade, but I do know what you mean the first time I shot an event in very, very low light, mostly stage lighting and I pulled out a Sony 24mm 1.4 Gm and the 135 1.8 GM on two bodies and I was locking in on focus, I knew that I had made the right choices. Try and stay out of the weeds with a lot of lens reviews and think about what is primarily important to you and the client.
Also, try and rent these lenses first if you can before you make a major purchase so that you can see for yourself if it's worth the final purchase. My situation was different and I changed systems from Nikon and Fuji to Sony, so I had a ton of trade-in value and poured most of it into the lenses because I had two Sony bodies already. This was a two-year decision, which wasn't taken likely, but in the end, it will be well worth it.
Remember during trade-ins you will take a beating, so be prepared. I added a Sony A9 and traded in an A7III towards an A7IV to the mix and it has been great for me because my end game was to get into the Sony Fx6 or Fx9 for video (currently we use Blackmagic) and to have one system be responsible for it all with huge third-party support in case I couldn't afford to buy GM glass. Our local mayor was at one of my events and there were absolutely no do-overs and no flashes could be used when the lights went down low and we were working with mostly the stage lighting. Two of my photos were used for the media and their website. We had three shooters total for the coverage. Katelyn, you and your husband, keep bringing the wonderful work and bringing us the fantastic and realistic content that you do.
Thanks so much!
Thanks for the video! I am a newbie and just purchase a R6 mkII and the RF 15-35 2.8… One day I would love the 50mm 1.2 but after spending everything I had just to get started, I think I will start with the 1.8 now so I can play with the 50mm focal length!
Hallo machen Sie doch mal einen Vergleich mit einer 5D IV und einem EF 50mm 1.2 oder EF 50mm 1.8 und einer R6 mit RF50mm 1.2 .
Thanks for watching!
Great comparison, I still shoot with the 1.2 EF, it's my love, but for budget users If the RF is better than the 1.8 EF get it, for the price you will still have amazing images. Besides only gear junkies ask what lens you used to take that photo, it's the shot that counts get that right the first time and the rest is history. 😁
Totally!
In the Nikon Z world you pay more for the 1.8 lens than for the Canon, but the image quality would likely be much closer to the f/1.2. Only mentioning to note this 1.8 vs 1.2 comparison applies to Canon and less so to Nikon, where the 1.8 lenses involve even less compromise.
Thanks for watching!
Great comments. I had a similar discussion in person with someone trying to decide between a new Sony A-series or canon R-series camera. He noticed I had brought in my RP to try out some used EF lenses and asked me my thoughts. Though i didnt stick around to find out his selection, I bet the salesman was mildly disappointed I brought up the same point on diminishing returns in photography that most of experience. Unless you have a true use case or are swimming in money, its hard to make an argument the extra $ for that incremental performance makes sense for a hobbyist.
This was right on time as I am currently making a decision on what RF lenses to invest in. Thank you Katelyn for great, applicable content 😊
Glad it was helpful! Thanks for watching!
When I started, I only used primes. This was in the 80's, zooms were not fast nor any good. I have the 85, 50, 35 and 16mm. I also have the ZOOMS at f2.8. For my next wedding I'm leaving my zooms home, let's see how that goes. PS...I am liking the 24mm, this has my interest.
Thanks for watching!
Back in the dark, dark days of film and paper I used to have the FD 50mm f1.8, the 135mm f2.8, a Zeiss 24mm f2.8. and a 17mm f4. I also had a FD 100-300 f5.6 which was no where near as sharp.
This is why I went with Nikon instead of Canon. The Nikon 50/1.8S at about $530 and 415 grams delivers absolutely stellar results with very little compromise over their 50/1.2. I realize that your channel is Canon centric, but if someone is new to photography, in the area of 50mm lenses, it might be in their best interest to look outside of Canon.
On the other hand, I have been intrigued by your comments on the 28-70 f2 lens which is unique to Canon. But, I'm not sure that I could walk around all day with such a heavy lens.
Overall, as someone new to your channel, I am enjoying it very much. Thank you.
The 1.8 50, is the best value for money in the canon line up. Not all cheap lens are that good. I invested in the 1.2 85mm rather than the 50mm. As i prefer this compression. These lighter lens are idea for flying on a gimbal or steady cam.
Thanks for watching!
Great video. Your financial advice at the conclusion is spot on. Also we need to keep in mind the KJ audience is largely photographers (aka pixel peepers). The average, everyday client won’t see or notice a difference in IQ. I would also venture to say all the camera brands heavily market to photographers. 😊
Great point
1st time viewer. I subbed b/c of your personality and how you presented the topic. Great work. Can't wait to see what that bell will bring 😏
Awesome! Thank you!
Thank-you really Katelyn for this nice video. I will share my experience here being a wedding photographer. So I started as a landscape photographer 9 years ago, then 4 years later I wanted to switch to portrait. I discovered the 50 mm 1.8 STM with the Canon EOS 1200D (Rebel T6) and this was a whole new world for me. A wide aperture and a sharp image, anyway compared to the kit lens (18-55).
In 2018 I bought a EOS 1300D (Rebel T6) and 2 years later I started to get paid for assignments, mainly for beauty portraits.
And then, I got hired for a first wedding, then a second, then a 3rd one. All of them with one single camera, switching between the 18-55 mm and the 50 mm 1.8 STM. And trust me, even though I was struggling some times shooting with one single body, it worked fine for me. And wow, the 50 mm 1.8 was so ... I mean, the image quality has nothing to do compared to the 18-55 kit lens.
Recently, I bought the EOS RP with the RF 50 mm 1.8 STM lens. I shot my first weddings just with the 50 mm, it worked fine for me and the RP being a FF, I could have wider pictures with this lens. Since a few, I'm using additionally a 18-55 lens mounted on the NIKON D5600 of a friend. And the image quality difference is REALLY noticeable between the 18-55 and the 50 mm. Anyway for me.
All this to say what ? That my customers are actually pretty happy with the deliveries. They won't notice any difference between the cameras or lenses, especially after retouching. As a photographer, I do notice these differences, but usually customers won't. It might be the same between the RF 50 mm 1.8 vs 1.2. A lot of photographers won't notice any difference, so customers. STILL, once you have some experience (with more accurate eyes), and that you experimented the 1.2 LENS, it would be hard to go back to the 1.8. Exactly the same as go back for me, to the EOS 1300D (rebel t6), or even the 18-55 lens kit.
So, you will do fine with the 1.8 lens. Don't never ever worry about it. It's a great lens, delivering sharp pictures, nice bokeh, it's a must have when you start as a portrait / wedding photographer, especially if you're on a budget. It's what I use, and if the RF 35 mm 1.8 has the same image quality, I will go for it and then, mount it on a second EOS RP after saving some money. So yes, you will have great pictures with the 1.8, but the 1.2 will be sharper, with a better bokeh, and even faster for the focus. If you have enough money, go for it. If not, the 1.8 will be GREAT too.
You can check some pictures here : igorvisuals.wordpress.com/
Thanks for watching!
There's something "magically sufficient" about the 1.8 + the R6. I commonly use my 1.8 professionally with the R6 and whereas money will always find its way back to you if your work ethic is solid, the WEIGHT and size of the 1.2 usually isn't worth what a civilian can discern in quality.
That said, if any of you want to bequeath your 1.2 to me in your will . . .
😁
Thanks, Katelyn. Yet another no-BS wise investment of my time to watch.
Great content. Also bought your „Presets“. RF 50 1.8 is an ok lens, but the colors and bokeh (as you mentioned ) are the reasons I have sold it again and stick with my EF 50L which gives much nicer tones and colors and bokeh . With the R8 it is like a new lens, very accurate and fast enough
I like how you light your video... so soft on your skin... and your hair looks great.... 😍😍😍😍😍😍
And your voice is sooooo calming... so soothing....
I am definitely subscribing. 👌
Bang on advice
i was in dilemma if to buy 1.8 version coz was pretty impressed with its performance.
But still doubtful as 50 1.8 ef version is known for notoriously bad build quality and focussing ring. I have thrown at least four of them.
Thank for this review and advice @katalyn
Thanks for watching!
Both should do the job. Also a 50mm is not a good close portrait lens regardless of the price. If you can afford the lens and you have a need for a faster lens. Yeah I might get it. But for general photography use the 1.8.
I bought an RF50 1.2 about 6 weeks ago. This thing might not come off my camera until I get my new camera body and put it on that one.
I have that lens. I just got it about 10 days ago. i tested it in an open shade situation, and I arrived to the same conclusion: It is a pleasant surprise. Not as sharp as an "L" lens, but it is going to remain in my camera bag from now on, because it takes no place in my bag, and doesn't add a lot of weight to it. And if you consider the money we pay for it, it is a no brainer. Thanks for this video!
Thanks for sharing and thanks for watching!
@@KatelynJames Always a pleasure to me!
It's easy to say, dpp4 does wonders for perfect editing.
The speed of these lenses is the primary difference, therefore it seems to me that either depth of field concerns or low light concerns (or perhaps some mix of both) are going to be your emphasis. Seeing how you really didn’t explore the low light capability of these lenses, I’m going to guess your primary concern must be bokeh. It would be nice to see some more objective evaluations, such as target resolution at different aperture settings and perhaps objective side by side target comparisons. In any case, I appreciate your strong work in this video, thank you.
Thanks for watching!
The sigma 50 1.4 art would be the most cost-effective option adapted to RF Mount.
thn for the honest info. My son wants to start taking pics. thus I am trying to figure out what to get from a starter camera to lenses. that I won't lose my mind over if it ends up on a shelf in a year LOL thus this helps greatly knowing I can get 150-200 lense it will be good till he shows commitment. Now to finish up figureing up a starter camera that won't break the bank and do a decent job.
I sm tempted to get the rf 50 1.8 for my RP. I have had the EF 50 1.8 ii for over ten years and i have struggled with it on all my SLRs.
a good editor can bring some beautiful background effects - don’t fall for the bokeh tax or the aperture markup costs
Thanks for watching!
I bought the rf 50 1.8 to travel with because traveling with my L lenses makes me nervous, but then I don't even bring it because I just can't get myself to love it. I've actually found it to be slower than my 35 1.4 (I decided 28-70 over the 50) even with the EF-RF adapter on the 35mm and I have two little ones that like to move, so the focus drag on the 50 1.8 a little frustrating. I also get annoyed editing with it because it renders blacks much heavier. But it's soooooo light!!
There are definitively compromises but I think it performs great for the price!
Kaitlyn what’s your preset to get this super bright and airy look?
I use my own presets! Check them out here: katelynjames.com/kj-preset-process
I've found that focus accuracy of the EF 1.4 on the R6 is MUCH better than the EF1.4 on the 5D Mk IV.
I’m not sure if you’ll see this or not but one of the things that you missed is that the calibration DOES matter. How it performs on one camera body compared to another is sometimes slightly to very different just because each camera mount is different regardless if it’s on the same camera body model or not, so yes, you would most definitely have to calibrate this particular lens to your camera body to see the actual quality difference in the images and performance with accuracy.
Thanks for watching and sharing!
The video just popped into my feed, watching her reaction for first time. I am now interested to leave a comment as I have used both lenses on a Canon R6, I own the RF 1.8 ( STM) lens. And I have rented the 1.2 (usm) lens.
I am not a wedding or portrait photographer.
And I don’t want to spend 2.5 k on a 50mm, I would surely do it for a telephoto lens ( wildlife) but I also want to take casual home portraits , of me of my friends and capture beautiful bokeh during a Christmas fun family shoot( yes just as courtesy for friends)
For something that casual you would totally love it, effortless lens. I also hand it over to my non photographer friends by setting what I need and they take great pics. Just one thing, it always makes a noise and a little motor pops in and out. Probably because the lens is made for video.
I loved the 1.2 as well, but I would not be buying a 2.5 k for fun & free photoshoots.
If it was my job/making money out of it I would invest in the sharper lens no doubt.
Thank you 😊 for reading 🥂🙏🏼
Thanks for watching!
I love that you're so real. Thank you.
Haha thanks! Thanks for watching!
I’ve been collecting old Canon FD lenses and I was surprised how good the 50mm 1.8 FD was compared to the famously good 50mm 1.4 SSC! Canon seems to have 50mm lenses dialed in and it’s not surprising that their new RF lenses are following the same trend. Even for video, F1.8 is fine and I’ve heard people being happy with the entry RF set for video use as well.
Thanks for watching!
That also applies to Nikon, Minolta, Contax, Leica, Hassleblad etc. The only difference between f1.8 and f1.4 or f1.2 is the speed in most cases, optically speaking of course there is minute difference which you probably can hardly detect. However in some lighting conditions when you just need that little extra speed, then you will have no choice but to spend the extra money to get the job done.
I would love to know your opinion with the 85 1.2 VS 85 2.0 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
Thanks for watching!
For a Pro or enthusiast that wants the best, yes it's worth getting the better lens.
f1.8 and f1.4 you can't tell. but that f1.8 and f1.2 is really noticeable
Thanks for watching!
Absolutely Your word is accurate and honest there is no $2000 difference in picture quality between two lenses actually we know this . but we believing many thinks blindly ! very useful Video This is a matter something to think about before buying any expensive lenses thank you .