That's a bit disappointing. I had expected the RF lens would be a significant improvement over the old "nifty fifty" but given I had an adapter "thrown in" with my RF mount camera purchase, I can't justify the cost of the newer lens - I might as well continue to use my "old" EF 50 mm. This review has saved me £200 though, so thanks!
The adapter is a must, i can't comprehend why Chris considered the price in the comparison, it opens the lens selection greatly, so it is actually better to have the adapter than only buying RF lenses.
@@Al.j.Vasquez Not to mention the aftermarket adapters. You can have one for around £35 which makes me use my old lens :) (Initially I was tempted to get the RF version but not after this review :) Thanks!)
I think this explains the idea of the Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8, which is very good and better than either of these lenses, while also being significantly more expensive.
So yeah basically the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM is just an EF 50mm f/1.8 STM for RF mount without the need of adapter. I was expecting the image quality to be much better than the EF version, but yeah I guess it'd be cost more than $200 if that happens. Great review and comparison as always Chris.
My biggest hope was a noticeably better bokeh compared to the EF version. Well, just like Gary Oldman I am very disappointed. At least Canon could put in 8 or 9 blades instead of 7, but as I see even this nuance was too much to expect :(
Faced with the choice, I’ll sell the EF cheap and by the RF.. the hassle of carrying /using the adapter makes the RF worth switching. Alas, I’m not able to replace all the EF glass. If I win the lotto...
Not 100% same.. the RF has PMo aspherical lens that helps to reduce chromatic aberration and provides high-image quality even at the periphery of the image. That's why the RF is better in the corner, making the new nifty-fifty more awesome for compact setup.
@@vinvanid Personally, it is not worth buying the RF since I already own the EF STM and I'm really happy with it. My corners are super sharp and have not noticed any noticeable chromatic aberration on my 50mm EF STM.
I preordered from B&H the day it went up and it didn't ship on the released date as promised. Found a small camera store in Utah with a bunch in stock, ordered one and canceled my B&H order. Got it two days later.
@@robjamesvideo I'm probably gonna get it too... I miss shooting with my 50mm on a APS-C sensor, that makes an effective 80mm. I'm sure the 85mm is going to feel like home with my RP! With IS, good wide-open acutance/sharpness, compactness, RF mount, feels like a no brainer!
Hi Chris, thanks? It‘s much appreciated! The slight difference you mentioned is visible on the 45 mpx sensor of the R5. But on the R6 with its 20 mpx the lenses are even more indistinguishable regarding image quality, aren’t they? Best wishes, Ralf
Hey, just a remark on the adapter... its basically unavailable at this point, you cant get it anywhere in switzerland its like canon ran out of a hollow tube :O
@@gabrielmaria2762 especially since TIL - its really just a tube with connector forwarding, apparently the EF "information" is stored in the cameras firmware, not in the adapter.... sigh... oh canon
@@Koi-Koi-Koi thanks, but ... its also not availably, not only does no retailer in CH stock that adapter or even offer it, but even amazon wont ship it to switzerland TT
Very interesting and professional comparison as usual. It would be good to see other EF/ RF comparisons: EF 24-105 F/4 vs RF 24-105 f/4, EF 16-35 f/4 vs EF 16-35 f/2.8 vs RF 15-35 f/2.8. To see how they perform in the R5
Well, this lens is without a doubt a welcome addition into the RF system, though losing MF/AF switch is a bit sad decision, also my EF-M 22mm don't have one, and I miss that very often.
I bet that Canon prices the RF nifty fifty almost exactly the same as EF nifty fifty + (1st party) EF-RF adaptor just to make people who are new to the system eventually choose the newer lens. I think it should be cheaper. Tbf, there are some quality improvements, the control ring, and the smaller overall package. But still, the IQ improvements are almost negligible for casual users, the focus ring/control ring (the same goes for any cheaper RF lenses) as being the same knob is rather counterintuitive and slows you down. In the end I settled with EF 50mm f1.8 and 3rd party adaptor. Eat that Canon.
What adapter? just the basic 40-60$ adapter or a proper Filter Adapter? I got the Meike... 140€ with ND and clear insert and another 45€ for the polarizer insert. Under 200€ for EVERY filter, In canon terms this would have been 500€ ND + adapter, 180€ polarizer and 99€ clear insert (nearly 800€ for even WORSE FILTERS) What makes the "in between lens and sensor" Filters of ANY kind so interesting even as a mount or lens clip... they are optically not as demanding as filters for the front of the lens, so even the 45€ polarizer or the "cheap" V-ND are pretty good, no need for 400€+ filters and they work with EVERY EF lens But i also have to say - i use mostly just the polarizer or the clear insert as sensor protection when changing EF lenses, absolutely worth it
If they had made the autofocus motor silent I could have happily bought the new one. But as it's just as loud and the front extends when focusing, no thanks. Also to my eyes the image quality is basically the same as the old EF STM-version. Thanks for the comparison tho, as always your video was spot on. Shame on Canon for trying to sell us basically the same old lens with a different mount.
Rf looks a little warmer in color too oddly. I typically prefer cooler colors. But, for portraits this should be a welcomed change. Thanks for all you do!
I would like to be very clear when I say that the corner performance of the new RF lens is tremendously improved over the EF version. Your chart only shows the tip of the iceberg here. When you take that lens outside and start to capture some street photography and wish to use f/1.8-2.8 on the EF lens, the ghosting causes unsightly edge bleeding and streaking that truly makes the shots unusable for many photographers. The RF version has done a magnificent job - within reason of its price - at cleaning this up. The lens is certainly a useable lens at f/1.8-2.8 now. It's not without its obvious shortcomings shown in your previous video, but my biggest complaint with the EF version was how smeary the lens was in the corners. Glad this is improved so much when it's your "everyday" lens you toss in the bag for vacation and leisure.
Disappointing performance from this new RF at double the price. Any differences will be explained by sample variation and the only advantage is the size with an adapter on the older lens. I'd save my money and stick with EF
It’s worth nothing that you can get an adapter with a control ring built into it which would effectively give the old lens a focus and control ring simultaneously.
remarkably similar IQ. and the adapter cost gets spread across the use of all EF lenses, so it's not really 100 for the adapter if you take other lenses into consideration
So all in all the bottom line is: comparing an EF and an RF lens both mounted on an RF camera is obviously the test that makes sense to have the closest comparison in theory. However if we would go about comparing the EF lens on the Canon DSLR, comparing let's say 10 copies of it, or conversely 10 different camera DSLR body copies, on the same EF 50mm lens, we would most likely find visible and fairly significant differences, in cases, due to the inherent flaws of the DSLR AF system. And then in real life the direct consequence would be: most people would perceive the RF lens as vastly superior to the EF version. Again testing the EF on a DSLR not on a mirroless R camera body. Most people especially amateur photographers, Which do not have the luxury of testing many copies or many camera bodies, would get substantial better result with their EF lenses on a Mirrorless body, this would open their eyes suddenly. So yes this is how far scientific comparisons of lenses can go in the real world again this is my opinion that the RF system improves things in many aspects. And when it comes to specific lenses so far the RF lenses have tested our consistently either a little, to very, superior sharpness, compared to their EF counterpart equiv zoom focal range of prime focal distance.
Nice review but IMO why bother with another nifty! I already have the adapter for my RP and use the EF nifty with it though I did purchase the RF 35 since at $499 it's the most affordable lens for the Canon RF mount!
Thanks for the comparison. I think Canon really should bring back the 50mm f/1.4 lens or if they want to make an exclusive distinction - *_a 45mm f/1.4 at a price of say $499 or $599._*
I would appreciate that as well a bit, but coming from a 50 1.4 USM (over 10 years used) and using later the SMALLER and noticable lighter 1.8.... just NO, a more affordable 1.2"non L" or better not at all. i would rather hope for a compact, optically simple 35mm 1.4 APS-C even without stabilizer (as a pseudo 50 prime)
I think RF 1.8 is the best old design 50mm lens now. I would really like to see 50 1.4 performed in the same style. Just update of EF 50 1.4 with all modern technologies, but fundamentally in the old design and not a 12-13 elements monster like Zeiss Otus/Sigma Art (Moreover, canon already have such a monster in the form of 50 1.2).
I did a preview video of the new lens and people did not like that I said there's not much a difference. I will share your video link so they can see from a pro lens reviewer.
I will keep my EF 50mm 1.8 and adapt it for now. If it breaks I will get a new RF mount one, but this sucker has been on and off my cameras for the last decade and still doing its job well, so we will see.
It’s a smaller and lighter lens setup for RF Mount. That reason alone is why I got it. Looks great on my RP. And on my R6 it had IBIS as a bonus. If you just care about IQ then I agree with a lot of y’all for not getting it.
I like it but you can get the Tamron 45mm f1.8 VC USD for like $100 more and for people with shaky hands like me, it would be better. Not to mention it is sharper that these.
The new RF is a good improvement. Although more expensive, the RF system is new and the converter costs money. I think it looks better than just reusing the old EF glass.
This is not even to mention, the numerous AF, micro adjustment issues inherent to the Canon EF DSLR AF cell being separate from the sensor on EF DSLRs. How many times did I use lenses on my 6D, that were looking absolutely soft, until I realised if I was using another copy of the same lens or boring another canon DSLR with the same copy I would get completely different results. This is really in my opinion @Christopher Frost, The elephant in the room of the Canon cameras and how sometimes one can spend thousands on an amazing lens and as long as you don't get to finally and very tediously adjust AF, on the Canon DSLR then you will never get good results and never leverage the full power of that lens. A single fact that the RF mount using mirrorless AF integrated to the sensor is taking all of these burden away is a revolution. I'm not a fanboy the same goes with Sony Mirrorless same thing AF is the sensor not a separate cell. It's an absolute change of paradigm and my god it needs to be shouted loud and clear, to newcomers that they need to be very aware of this flaw on DSLR systems. Not to mention that third party lenses on Canon DSLRs are doing even worse in terms of AF micro adjustments, This is my experience although it's not a scientific proof in general. This is widely shared opinion when talking with fellow photographer friends or professionals. For that reason alone it's worth it moving to Mirrorless, the AF is just so much more precise and does not suffer from one lens copy to the other it always deliver 100% of the lens sharpness! I have been a photographer since 1997 when I was a teenager, starting passionate and then turning semi professional getting paid for gigs and selling prints. I never made a full-time living out of it but I did make money and a lot of experience. And I can tell and I insist the RF system just like the Sony mirrorless system by design in terms of auto focusing and leveraging the power of every single lens copy are a revolution. I am not a Canon fan boy or a Sony fanboy I'm just saying the AF system integrated to the sensor is an absolute revolution. It's a fact
Hi Christopher, Again following up on my comment, on your other video reviewing the RF f1.8 by itself, The message is pretty much that the RF, It's not noticeably better than the old EF. Like i mentioned, I quite disagree, for having owned the EF and having rented the RF for a few months with a Canon R8, my feeling without doing scientific tests was that really the RF was so much better, again not scientific a personal opinion. However I really have the feeling that your review of it was pretty tough and make this lens sound like hardly an improvement. They are a number of other reviews that pretty much share my opinion, and this one here is doing a very square and scientific comparison of both lenses. At 8 minutes 45, there is a very nice side-by-side comparison of centre and side of images sharpness. I really do think it's worth a look especially because the subject is a landscape from a far distance which is a really good candidate to compare those lenses even though they are not aimed at landscape photography. Anyhow, for the sake of comparison and because I really really believe that this lens is worth it I am sharing this other review here. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xFYeLqaIWPA.htmlsi=h07KZEPt1T3s7J1T I have been watching your videos for years Christopher and I really love them to bits. Your process is very square and very scientific and it gives such a good insight on how good lenses are. In so many years I really do believe that this comparison and review of the RF is not making it justice. Again this is my personal experience and opinion comparing those two lenses. But I cannot insist enough to me it's like day and night the RF is much better by your landslide and so much fun to use and the AF is spot on pretty much all the time for street photography not to mention high speed spot photography of course because this is a cheap lens...
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.
I have both EF and RF. I have no use of this lens except for very far objects. It could be portrait lens for thin people. Depth of field : F2.0 Subject distance 5 ft Near limit 4.83 ft Far limit 5.18 ft Total 0.35 ft For fat people either face will be in focus or his tummy !!!!. I brought this lens because its cheap and everybody is saying that it is very good.
Classic RF "canondrum" (badum tsss). Brand new, if you already hace the EF, dont bother getting the RF. However, if you have neither, RF are better but most expensive and EF used market murky the decisions water.
Really helpful. I’m a registered blind guy who’s just got a 2nd hand EOSR. Would you be willing to answer a couple questions about lens choices please? Can I DM or email or ...
Great review ! Waiting for comparision Canon RF 24-70 & EF 24-70
3 года назад
In this case EF is better in almost every area. Lighter, cheaper, same resolution plus less vignetting (RF vignetting is huge - 1 EV higher vignetting).
@ www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1415&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=1221&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0 in this test, RF version, looks much better, especially in corners...
Please help me out!! If I have the canon EOS Rebel T3 what lens should I buy, and be able to use without the adapter with my type of camera? Would the RF still be able to work without the adapter.. or do you think I’d still need an adapter either way.. I’m having trouble! I’m also kind of confused because of how old my camera is!?
Well, the adapter works for all EF lenses, so many people will have it anyway. I suspect no one would invest in it just for the "nifty fifty", as it would make no sense of course.
Thanks for this comparison I’m still an amateur and I goofed up and bought the RF when I should’ve bought the EF so now I’m exchanging them and while I’ll be sad that the control ring is gone seeing that the image quality isn’t crazy different makes me feel better about getting it and I’ll still be getting good quality equipment for a decent price
recently bought the canon R8 to get back into photography, already had the EF 50mm lens + multiple other EF lenses so for me it made sense to get an EF-RF adapter and save a tiny bit of money at least until I can afford some nicer RF lenses!
2 Items, please: 1- the EF is not a 30 year old design. It was redesigned 5 years ago, which is when they got rid of the plastics lens mount, replacing it with a metal one, and when i got the STM motor, replacing the USM motor. 2- in the graphic comparing the 2, shouldn't you also list that the RF has no adapter for the EF-class DSLRs? If you're going to ping the EF for needing an adapter for RF, then shouldn't you also ping the RF for not being able to fit an EF? Otherwise, you're implying that the EF class has somehow gone away, yet there's an awful lot of us that are happy with our DSLRs and have no intention of switching over. Thanks, ..Joe
So nearly identical image quality, but approximately twice the price.. Stupid decision by Canon. The low price of the Ef 50mm surely made a lot of people buy Canon cameras instead of cameras from competitors.
They should repacked 1.4 this way and make it little simpler and smaller and sell that at around 350$ instead. It is almost 30 years old and should been updated long time ago. This one is just too little for double the cost and you can use it just on RF mount and nothing else. I wouldn't ever buy this unless i get in kit with the new camera or something. Not even over old plastic nifty 50.
If i have the old 50mm 1.8 II there should be more differnces betwen the lenses. The Sigma 50 1.4 Art is pretty big and with the Adapter even bigger. If the Sigma was a native rf it would be a no brainer
Minor improvements aside, Canon is using the R cameras to sell new lenses, which is the opposite of what makes sense. R lenses are already the future, and will remain better, but not yet in a way that's just astoundingly better ... especially when cost is considered. There's no reason why this lens should cost what it costs.
Hello Christopher! I don't know if you intend to test the RF 85mm f/2 macro, but if you will, could you please do some kind of comparsion with the Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC and the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 (EF or RF, doesn't really matter)? Also, I don't know if you own it or not, but an EF 100mm f/2 revisit would be a great addition too.
No, the EF 50 1.8 is a full frame lens. All EF lenses are. It's EF-S lenses that are for APS C sensors/cameras. All EF lenses can be used on APSC cameras like canon 400d/rebel, 80d, 7d and so on. But EF-S lenses should not be used on full frame cameras like 6d, 5d and 1d. Because they are designed to be closer to the sensor they could potentially damage a full frame camera.
Note the new nifty 50 is ONLY for the RF version. That means it's rear element can be closer to the sensor. This is a big deal for lenses < 65mm or so. It's why, back in the day, the 50s for the Leica M were better than any 50 an SLR manufacturer could produce. In other words, the fewer constraints on a lens design, the better the lens. Why primes are better than zooms... Given the aspherical element and "better coatings", I would have thought it would be significantly better than the older, constrained, SLR design. It wasn't. That said, any version of the the nifty 50 is *almost* as good at f/6.3 as the atmospherically priced Zeiss Otis 55mm f/1.4 at f/6.3. You don't always get what you pay for!
I used for over 2 years a Canon EOS RP, damn good (stills) camera. For a while i still had my EF 50 1.4 "USM", but its unreliability and flaws annoyed me too much and i got the RF 50 1.8 instead. BEST PURCHASE EVER... 50 1.8 in full frame isnt possible cheaper and smaller. There is a good reason for the RF/mirrorless mounts, but im actually also prefering EF(S) lenses via a Meike EF RF Filter Adapter, but small primes or even zooms you are better off with the native mount.
just take for example the RF 600 & 800 F11, if you can afford the 100-500 etc, there is no way around a EOS R camera and actually they deliver a pretty good performance for its size and weight, but i think canon is a bit off the way with their "light and small is everything, who cares about aperture" way...
Since you can adapt Canon EF mount lenses to multiple mirrorless camera brands and sensor sizes, Canon EF lenses retains its value better than Canon RF lenses.
I already had an EF 50 1.8, but this last black Friday, refurbs were on sale. I bought an RP body for $600, RF24-105 f4-7.1 IS for $120, and the RF 50 1.8 for $80. The EF 50 1.8 was selling for same amount. I also bought an EF 85 1.8 for $180 and a EF 55-250 IS for $100. Everything basically new condition. It was a good day.
RF 50 1.8 for 80$? WOW! Like this i think about buying one again lol. I sold some months ago my EOS RP for 750€ with rest warranty and my RF 50 1.8 for 160€, both used but with little bit rest warranty. Luckily i lost within about 2 years "only" 200€ with the purchase of the RP + RF 50, the actual 2nd hand prices are a lot worse.
The STM was designed to fill the Full Frame sensor and must have a larger optical area in order to cover the 5d and 6d models. The mirrorless sensor is just ridiculous. The fact is: the mirrorless sensor covers only the CENTER of the lens (sweet spot).
Very good and short comparsion with the most important things. Well, I don't know which one will I chose. This little extra performance seems nice to have, but I don't know if it is worth double price. It would be truly double price in my case, since I bought my RP with the adapter in kit, so it would be nice to use some day instead of leaving it to the dust. On the other hand I really want to buy a Canon EF 100mm f/2 next year, so the adapter won't be unused anyway. Meh, I really need a few more sleeps...
This is a bummer. Now I don't know how the results would be, say, on the R6 or even the R, but I was hoping for more. But hey, at least Canon are keeping their value among their nifty fifty users/first-time manual shooters.
So if you already have the EF version of the lens and are moving over to the mirrorless body then, for 1/2 the price of the new lens you can get the adapter and have about 90%-95% of what the new lens offers. Thanks 👍🏾
Quite a different result to the Nikon Z mount 50mm, then, where the new Nikkor is a significant improvement over the F mount version. Of course, Canon and Nikon priced their new lenses with that in mind.
@@bharathghanta Thanks for the heads up. Haha, it’s literally the only lens on that list of unsupported adapted on RF-system. And I already ordered it. Dammit
For people already have EF other lenses and Adapter, the EF lens works out to be an advantage. I have a tight lens carry bag for 100-400L without the adapter. When I am using EF 50mm, the adapter stays on camera. But if I upgrade to RF 50mm, I have to find space for my 100-400L with the adapter. The smaller size on camera makes very little real world difference.
