Canon RF 50mm f1.8 REVIEW vs EF 50mm f1.8
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 июл 2024
- The first 1000 people to use the link will get a free trial of Skillshare Premium Membership: skl.sh/gordonlaing01211
My review of Canon's new thrifty-50, the RF 50mm f1.8 vs the EF version!
Check prices at B&H: bhpho.to/3oTGu92 // WEX: tidd.ly/2XiYuND
Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs
Gordon's In Camera book: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ
Cameralabs merchandise: redbubble.com/people/camerala...
Sample images: www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-5...
Music: www.davidcuttermusic.com / @dcuttermusic
#canon #rf #50mm 
Наука
The first 1000 people to use the link will get a free trial of Skillshare Premium Membership: skl.sh/gordonlaing01211
My review of Canon's new thrifty-50, the RF 50mm f1.8 vs the EF version!
Check prices at B&H: bhpho.to/3oTGu92 // WEX: tidd.ly/2XiYuND
Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs
Gordon's In Camera book: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ
Cameralabs merchandise: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop
Sample images: www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-50mm-f1-8-stm-review/
Music: www.davidcuttermusic.com / @dcuttermusic
#canon #rf #50mm
Something you don't mention that is visible in your video here is that the EF model has less contrast and more spherical aberration than the RF model. In the center at f/1.8 you can see the ghosting on the EF model in areas of high contrast. This is something I noticed when I did shoot Canon, the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM is actually extremely sharp when stopped down, but wide open it looks dramatically different (worse).
High quality and very helpful review. You deserve more subscribers.
Thanks, I wish I had more subs too! I can't figure out why my growth is so much slower than many channels doing similar content, especially since I've been doing it for 14 years!
I am waiting for the Canon RF 50 f1.4.
That could be a while, unfortunately... but I would love to see that also.
I hope they make one...
Could you also make a comparison between the RF 50 vs the EF 50 f1.4? I'd really appreciate it because I'm wondering if it's worth exchanging to the RF for any reason.
Hoping for IS (and maybe macro) in the 1.4 to match the 35 and 85 midrange lenses.
@@tigewilson6209 that would be brilliant, although I suspect not an f1.4 if it's similarly-priced to those other two. Who knows?!
Thank you for encouraging both lenses as both have their place and you gave ample justification for choosing either lens based on what I would value. I was leaning towards one of these two and you convinced me to get one to my kit as I bought the RP with the 24-240 lens kit and the adapter but wanted a shallow DOF lens and.... as I watched it again... I see you gave ample merit had I chosen the other lens. Each has its merit. I will be back to see your other reviews now.
Thanks, glad you're enjoying them!
I always appreciate your equipment reviews - thanks
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoy them!
Great job on the review and the very detailled comparison to the EF lens. I have seen a couple of reviews so far, none of which noticed the difference in the mid-frame sharpness. Regarding the lens itself, I would think that with the price level of current EOS RF mount bodies, a lens on par with the image quality (and price) of the RF 35 and 85 1.8 would have been a better choice for Canon at this point. The EF 50 1.8 always comes to my mind as the typical second or third lens to get for a relatively inexpensive APS-C EOS, not really for a body on EOS 5D level.
Thanks, it was a fun bit of investigation comparing the mid-point sharpness.
My guess is that the 'crop' sharp framing on the EF was done to make it a very good video lens, as 4K video on the EOS R bodies is shot with a 1,6-1,7 crop, making it a sharp frame all the way through.
Regarding the manual focus setting in menu, you can use the "Lens Electronic AF" setting set to e.g. One-Shot->enabled which means you can manual focus with a shutter button half pressed whilst still having the Focus Mode set to AF. It's weird but I've started to like this setup on my EOS-R. I wouldn't have found the combo without this lens though, maybe Canon will firmware update to make it a slightly more obvious setup?
That's a good tip and I'll give it a go next time I have it...
Always great videos! Thanks, Gordon!
Thankyou!
I bought my first 50mm thanks to your review of the m3 that showed how much better the DoF was, and when I bought my R6, this was the only lens I bought with it. I depend on your reviews for everything photography! Thanks Gordon!
You're very welcome David, glad to be of help!
I just discovered the channel. What a fantastic review! Exquisite and careful. Thanks!
Hi Gordon, being a thrifty nifty-50+ amateur photographer I appreciate respected reviewers like yourself giving time to reviews of budget gear. Thank you.
You're very welcome!
I bought the EF 50 MM MK 1 VERSION AS I see a few on eBay with AF faults including The MK2 which the front of the lense comes loose the fact that the MK 1 is a old lens and the £30 in mint condition I don't mind the AF noise of a older design or the longer focus travel but it's s 32 year old design so I accept it as such but the whole reason it's built like a brick latrene and weight quite heavy but then when you have had older film SLRs you are used to it being the the norm the manual control ring feels tight this is because the focus ring is part of a clutch and turns gears by hand but this is not a design fault just part of the way it is .
The main reason also is the distance scale in a window and stainless steel bayonet which is quite thick the body has of more thicker construction and internal more heavily built a bit agricultural but it's built to last unlike the cheapo MK2 flimsy construction If you don't care about the smooth quite STM version then The MK 1 is good
There are unfortunately sellers of The MK 1 who has a ego inflated opinion as regards to o The MK 1 luckily I bought mine from somebody who was moving house and did not know that camera gear had gone up.
I paid £30 for The 50 m MK 1and a EOS 650 film body plus a Sigma 70-210 all in mint condition especially The 50mm mk 1
This is the lens that I will not sell its one of the classic EF lenses that is well sought after the 1.4 version is built to the same design but it not worth the £300 pound when the 1.8 version does basically the same job
I would imagine the perceived magnification comes from the adapter spacing the optics further away from the sensor
I swapped the EF out for the RF last week, and shoot mainly street w/ the EOS R. Handling is great, nicely balanced, very small and light. I'm happy to carry this and the RF 35mm around all day. I don't shoot video, so lacking IS isn't a big deal for me. A separate control ring would be nice, but would also add heft and cost. I would have preferred some weather sealing, though. As is, it's near perfect for what I wanted: a small, fast, relatively sharp and inexpensive 50.
Sounds great!
How does image quality compares to the RF 35?
@@ingo2835 the 35 is better, especially at close range. See my review of it
Superb as always Gordon, cheers!
Thanks!
Nifty Thrifty Fifty - it just rolls off the tongue! I use the Olympus system and that lens reminds me of some of the great compact micro 4/3 lenses!
Hi Gordon! Excellent review!
I’m an owner of a RP with the 35mm following your recommendations.
I love this focal length as a beginner, because I can use it for different purposes, including great portraits!
Having that one, is the 50mm 1.8 recommend?
I don’t see too much difference in the frame (because of the distance difference) and quality seems worse. But let me know your opinion! Thanks!
I think if you already have the 35, I'd skip the 50 and maybe consider the 85
Great review - I do miss living in Brighton :(
Love your reviews! Thank you!
Cheers!
Great comparison, Gordon. As a side note: have you done any smartphone camera comparisons? and what are your thoughts on the current advances in computational phone photography?
I have tried posting some smartphone reviews, but they always fo really badly on this channel. So I'm thinking of also starting a general tech channel.
Great review, thanks for sharing.
You're very welcome!
Awesome video, Gordon! Your reviews and comparisons are so wide-ranging and rigorous. Thank you very much!!
Thanks, and you're very welcome!
Just purchased one in preparation of getting the r7.
Just got this lens for Christmas and gave my buddy my old EF 50mm. Amazing how tiny it makes the EOS R feel.
Yes, without the need for an adapter it looks and feels really compact. Are you noticing any differences in quality or handling?
@@cameralabs I haven't done much more than pester the cats around the house with it yet to be able to tell for sure. It does feel a little better built. I mostly wanted to trade up from the EF version so I don't need the adapter any longer, as well as I plan on getting the R5 in the near future, and wanted the better IBIS support this lens offers.
Still waiting for mine, ordered before Christmas. Thx Gordon
Hope you get it soon - I don't know of more than a couple being sent out last year.
@@cameralabs I ordered the lens and an extra battery for my R5, funny when I ordered it they didn’t say it was out of stock, until after I bought it...HaHaHa
6:09 maybe is the diference of distance by the adapter?
Thanks for another great review!
Glad you liked it!
Excellent review. I presently own the Tamron 45mm f1.8 and using it on my r5. How does the image quality of the canon rf 50mm 1.8 compare with the Tamron 45? Size and weight favour the rf 50 but is the image quality on par?
The Tamron should be better, but it's also a more expensive lens. There's an in-depth review of it on my cameralabs website at www.cameralabs.com/tamron-sp-45mm-f1-8-di-vc-usd-review/
Hi Gordon! My lens change to manual focus when I half press for metering and play with the focus ring. Same with the 24 105
True, but it's not ideal for technical shots like astro
I always wait for your review when I want to buy new lenses, thanks Gordon!
You're very welcome!
Interesting 🤔 i actually thought there was a manual focus switch on the RF, usually when you shoot you don't want to be navigating in the menus ... Is the little more sharpness worth the trade ? Humm canon will always be playing with us 😅. Nice video
The RF isn't enough of a jump in quality for me to justify buying it, I don't think. I'm fairly happy just adapting my EF version for now. If anything, this just demonstrates how great of a job Canon did with the EF version.
I just ordered this lense, actually as my first lense for my RP that is in the mail, and considering the low cost it was a no brainer to choose the RF over the EF. Another feature that separates these to lenses, and one i will be using a lot, is using the focus/control ring for ISO settings or exposure.
Did canon really deliver an improved product and not just a rebrand? wow!
Great affordable lens!
It's definitely a bit different!
i returned mine-got it at launch. didn’t really like it. i’ve owned the older EF and newer stm version as well as 1.4 as well as the Fuji 35 1.4... the fuji blows it away wide open at closer distances. curious how your tests would’ve gone if you included close distance objects
I don't do a formal test at close range for non-macro lenses, but as a fan of closeups, I included a lot of sample images taken at close range in this review. As you've discovered, it's not great at very close range and becomes quite soft. The RF 35 f2 macro is much better at this.
Just a question about audible focusing motor in video: would that be audible with a flash mounted external mic, like the zoom H2N or similar?
Less audible, but if it's on the hotshoe, you might pick it up a little
Great review! Will this fit on my Canon T6i?
No, this is an RF lens for mirrorless cameras. You need the EF 50mm f1.8 STM
Awesome review!
I was looking at the EF 50mm 1.8 and come across the newer RF. I see the comparison in shot but I’m just trying to figure out... which will fit my canon eos rebel 3ti without an adapter?
If I get a newer camera like a 8ti, will either lenses fit?
I do see a mention of an adapter for the EF but no detail on what models would require one.
I hope I can get an answer as I am in between decision making on getting this lens but may get a newer camera.Thanks.
The RF lenses are ONLY for EOS R mirrorless cameras. If you have a Canon DSLR, you have to use EF lenses only!
@@cameralabs thanks so much for the response and saving me some trouble and money. Much appreciated.
@@locketsNcharms you're welcome!
You're the man Gords!
*Switching to MF in body sucks!* It's nice I'm fond of vintage lenses which are manual focus only and no body can force them the other way 😀 BTW those lenses from 1960-1990s have much smoother bokeh than 50 1.8 STM and 50 1.4 USM that I own (never tried 1.2, which is said to be better). And cost around half the price. If interested, I got a separate playlist dedicated to vintage lenses: ruclips.net/p/PLe50EL-YQBscjnVgTQlwmlHmLqPCdAXVd Next, really surprised with the AF noise on RF one. It seems worse then on EF version. Isn't it?
You should re-do the video noise test with movie servo AF speed slowed down to -4 for both the EF and RF lenses. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
I'll try that
Tnks for the great review
You're welcome!
Do you think that the RF 85 F 2.0 is better for a portrait?
Yes
I gave my son my old 7D, It was the perfect excuse for me to get the RF50 stm for my R, so I let him have the EF50 stm as part of the package :-)
Everyone's a winner!
Hi!
How could this be?
If I close aperture in EF 50mm 1.4 USM to 1.8 it gives much shallower DOF than RF 50 1.8.
Brightness is the same.
That shouldn't happen. But the dof wont be much different
@@cameralabs Bokeh in RF 50 1.8 at 1.8 is equiavalent of EF 50mm 1.4 at 2.8-3.2. I tested it at close and far distances. Corners at that apertures signficantly sharper with older lens...
the EF 50mm f1.8 appears more zoomed in because of the convertor, it was that hard to understand?
The converter is simply placing the lens at the distance it's designed to focus on the sensor. It is in effect becoming the missing insides of a DSLR body, where the mount is further from the sensor than on mirrorless. It's not acting like an extension tube in this instance to deliver greater magnification. Is that hard to understand?
Hi there. I need an urgent help, I bought this RF-50mm f.1.8 STM for my Canon M50. I was got so excited that I didn’t hear that it can be mounted directly to “R” series, not on my Canon M50. Which adaptor should I buy to use this? I’m so confused as there are adaptors only and adaptor with speedbooster (I need the cheapest one to use this 50mm lens) maybe in the future I can buy the speedbooster. I’m just beginner and still trying to get around my camera. Thank you. A link will be highly appreciated.
Bad news John I'm afraid. RF and EF-M are completely incompatible with each other and there are no adapters to make one work with the other or vice versa - at least none that I know of. So there's no way the RF 50mm will work on an EOS M body, which is why I said it's designed for the EOS R system in the video. What you're looking for is the EF 50mm f1.8 STM, which is designed for Canon DSLRS BUT which can be adapted to either of Canon's mirrorless systems: www.cameralabs.com/canon-ef-50mm-f1-8-stm-review/ - for this to work, you will need the Canon EF to EOS-M adapter.
@@cameralabs Aww. I’m so frustrated right now, just received it from B&H today from the USA to Saudi Arabia and had to pay huge amount of money, plus shipping and another for the custom/import fee. It really breaks my heart (and my wallet) that I have to return this (another payment for return shipping).
I got so excited thinking RF 50MM was just a latest version of the EF 50MM and is compatible with my Canon M50, which apparently not. Anyway, thank you so much and that answered my question. *sobbing in tears*
@@johnhenrysimonvlogs sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Did you watch my video before ordering it? Maybe I should be clearer, but I do say it's for EOS R cameras in my RF reviews! PS - maybe it would be cheaper to sell it in SA versus local prices, and just buy yourself an EF 50 1.8 locally.
If only it would finally be available here in Switzerland. Sh*t Covid
I'd love an rf 50mm f1.4
I can't help feeling that most people don't need this lens if they already have a stabilized zoom that covers it. If you really like this single focal length the Canon EF 50/1.4 USM is a better choice, and they're readily available used for around US $200.
You mean second hand? It's closer to 400 new, and of course needs to be adapted. I agree the aperture is brighter, but I've found that lens also suffers from corner softness. Interesting alternative though.
@@cameralabs Second-hand, yes, plus the EF/R adapter if you don't already have it. The lens has 2735 five star and 863 four star reviews out of 3788 total on the B&H Photo Web site, so I'd say it's a proven performer. Of course it's always possible to get a lemon.
Hello. I did some tests yesterday afternoon with my Canon RP + my RF-Ef adapter ring and I used my 40mm f 2.8 stm as well as my 35 f2 is usm. And, I confirm that even with my Ef lenses, for Portraits in Jpeg it smoothes faces a lot! Is there some other way or setting of the device to keep it from getting too smooth? On the other hand of course I did not have this problem on the RAW, but here the RAW of my RP I find them less beautiful than what I had with my 6D Mark II, yet they have the same sensor, is this normal ! Thank you in advance for your answers,
Sincerely,
Philgood ...
you could try adjusting the jpeg parameters in the menus, like sharpening and noise reduction if available. I also find some Canon JPEGs to be lacking bite.
@@cameralabs Thank you very much for your answer. I'll see if we have that possibility.
Sincerely,
Philgood ...
@@cameralabs Well, I just checked all the menus on my Canon RP, and unfortunately there isn't the ability to adjust the sharpness. I am very disappointed ! I'll have to find another way to solve this problem, because the jpeg portraits are really too smooth, and the Raw are less beautiful than what I did with my 6D Mark II ...
@@cameralabs Sorry this is for me. In fact I just found to adjust the Sharpness! You have to go to the Image Style, then go into it and there you can adjust the strength etc. But it is not in the traditional menus, you have to do it in shooting mode and press the "Q" key! I have just redone a few attempts at portraits and there it is already better! Yesssssss
@@PHILGOODOK1 excellent! Try experimenting with the other settings too, and make sure you're in one of the PASM exposure modes too in order to see all the options.
Looks pretty impressive to me. Would love to own the RF 50mm 1.2, but this is entirely more in my budget at this time.
Exactly! 10 times cheaper!
The only body this lens makes sense for is the RP and future APS-C RF bodies. I want to see a new 50mm f1.4. The EF 50mm if1.4 USM is well over twenty years old and there has never been a better time than now for canon to update it. An RF 50mm f/1.4 IS nano-USM for sub $500 would be an insta-buy for me.
I agree, I think a LOT of people would want something between the 1.8 and 1.2 models...
hopefully they make much improved mark ii
good one
Wow.
why is the photo skewed ?
you mean my test photo? So that detail runs into the corners.
It is not a thrifty fifty but a thrifty review. How about to compare it with a EF 1.4 50 mm and with the RF/EF 4.0 24-105 to make thoughts better up and realistic. But thanks so far. Friendly Greetings from an older experienced photographer. :-) We all get grey in the end.
If you’re not drunk during this pandemic then you’re doing a lot better than me 😁
Ha ha, good point! I've gone the other way and have been virtually dry the past year, but it could have gone the other!
@@cameralabs ...same here, stopped completely and added exercising instead....👍✌️
Thanks. 7:44 is exactly why Im selling this lens. Unacceptable quality for a portrait shooter who shoots faster apertures in portrait orientation. Soft and crappy looking. Agree with 13:41 I am replacing the RF 50 with the 85 f/2. Its too bad Canon couldn't make this a more quality lens for an extra $100 or so, I would have gladly paid it. Oh well, maybe we will see a better quality 50 f/1.4 at some point.
Does your subject fall outside the APSC area? If you want sharp results across the frame wide-open you won't get it from a 200 dollar lens. Try the RF 85mm f2
@@cameralabs Yes, I updated my reply. Just ordered the 85 f/2 last night, finally found one in stock. I tend to frame my models right at or very near the top of the frame in portrait orientation. So the far corners are where their face is generally. I also do not like the way the 50 renders bokeh against trees or bushes, its very harsh looking. The 85 f/2 bokeh is harsh as well but a bit better at least. The f/1.2 lenses render beautifully, not harsh in the slightest, but Im not spending $2,300-$2,700 on a lens, that's close to medium format territory. The 85 f/2 is the best compromise.
@@michaelbell75 good choice.
How about the massive focus breathing?
You can see it in the numerous clips where it pulls focus
@@cameralabs yes, but it was not mentioned as a specific weakness for video.
@@NVIK5 did it bother you in my example videos? Also remember this is a $200 lens and those buying it have little choice at this end of the market and typically different expectations. How many others have mentioned the significant improvement in APSC circle sharpness?
@@cameralabs this review was more comprehensive than most, definitely. What I would like people to understand that it is not a „free lunch“ prime, i.e., it has many compromises and performs according to standards in this price bracket. Many do not appreciate that there is a reason why higher quality primes are more expensive. Thanks for your reviews, they are a joy to watch.
I would’ve preferred to see a comparison against the RF 1.2 lens, to determine what the real world advantages of it are.
I was going to do that, but it would have been more academic or entertainment than actually useful as I can't imagine many people prepared to spend 2000 on a lens would consider a 200 model, or vice versa - it's like comparing a ford fiesta and a ferrari - fun, but not practical buying advice. That said, I may still do a comparison to see what it is you'd get just for fun.
@@cameralabs I hear you on that, but I actually fall into this category of people. Basically, I technically have the two grand to spend, but if the 1.8 is sharp enough wide-open and creates pleasing enough background blur to the point where I’m comfortable delivering the photos to clients, then why would I choose to waste $1800 for a significantly bulkier/heavier lens? Unlike a Ferrari which provides an exhilarating user experience compared to the Fiesta, the experience of shooting the the expensive lens isn’t necessarily better, and may actually be worse to some due to the bulk/weight. That’s why with lenses, it’s more of a pragmatic question: does this cheaper lens reach the threshold of reliability & IQ for my photography? I suspect many have this question but the threshold is obviously going to be different for everyone-which is why I think a comparison clearly showing the differences would be valuable.
@@Seanonyoutube me too, I think I will do it, but present it differently.
@@cameralabs looking forward! I trust your presentation will be perfect as it always is. Thanks!
I have owned the RF 50 f1.2 for some time. It is great, but large and heavy. My question is: should I buy the RF 50 f1.8 in addition, for point-and-shoot use. I think not. I think that I will use my RF 35 f1.8 as my point-and-shoot lens.
Kinda funny how one thinks when it comes to assessing trustable sources. I was looking for reviews for the Sony 50mm 1.8 for a very affordable lowlighter instead of my 2.8s and my youtube search says "sony 50 1.8 gordon laing"
Nice!
5:25 this is not a correct analysis, because it assumes the difference is on the EF side.
Unless you have compared to a true 50mm, both EF and RF might be off.
The RF could be short, the EF could be long and in an extreme both can be short or long.
So back to my initial comment, how true to the 50mm focal length is the new RF really?
How would you measure this practically speaking? I guess we could try to measure the distance between the focal plane and subject and the subject width to see if they match the mathematical calculation, BUT be aware focus breathing significantly alters the FOV at different focusing distances, so if you were to place them on a level playing field, focused at infinity, then measuring those distances becomes more difficult. Do you see anyone else test for this or even compare two lenses like I do to say one is coincidentally delivering a wider or narrower FOV?
not having a quick toggle for af/mf seems like a bad omission,
I know, that annoyed me.
@@cameralabs did the lens switch to manual if you half press the shutter and twist the focus ring?
@@messylaura that's a good question and sadly I didn't try it. Annoyingly the lens was returned today too! But I can check again soon on another sample.
I’m only here because the 50mm 1.2 is a metric tonne. Please canon a 50mm 1.4,1.7 or pro 1.8 please.
Lots of dust on You're lens 📸👈🏼😉