I was too until I did this review ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-w8-kSTHoq4g.html and then I figured if I changed my mind the RF lenses would sell for about 90% of their new value. A friend of mine bought a refurbed RF70-200 and I figured that he changed his mind too he could probably sell his lens used on ebay for about 100% what it cost him.
Hi John. Your friend from over the pond again. Thank you for this video. I've never used the EF 35 (unbelievably having been a Canon shooter for 38yrs) and always used the 50, so this video was extremely informative. I recently said I was going out for the first time in months to get my vaccine and took the RF35 with me. As you mentioned, the chromatic aberration on this lens (RF) is very well controlled and I was pleasantly surprised with the results I got with it. Like you, I found that around f2.8-3.2 was where it started to shine. It is a great lens if you want something light to carry around all day while wondering the city streets. I have heard that there is an RF35 1.2 on the way, so something to wait for. Thank you for the time to make a great comparison video here. Take care fella and looking forward to you next video
Thanks mate! I think the next time I go to the UK and visit Manchester and Glasgow for the first time (I have been to London 3x) I'll have this little 35 hanging off my shoulder. A 1.2 would be great. It'll also will probably cost almost as much as the 85 1.2!
For those heavily invested in EF L glass, selling all of it and buying expensive RF glass is a financial disaster. Professionals have the option of writing it off. Despite the slight inconvenience with the EF-RF adapter, it makes a lot of sense to go that route. You're not always saving weight buying RF glass either. Consider as an example both the RF 50 1.2 & 85 1.2. Both those lenses are substantially heavier than the EF mount glass.
The biggest concern I have with holding on to EF lenses is not the cost of upgrading but the falling resale value. The best thing about lenses is that they normally don't drop below 80% of their new value, but the more time goes by, the EF lenses are going to be worth a lot less and were all going to lose the invest we made in our old lenses if we don't switch over somewhat quickly. But there are some strong exceptions. I remember looking at some test data for the 70-200s and the EF lens was actually sharper so I find the general argument that RF lenses are superior to be false. www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1197&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=1417&CameraComp=1221&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0 But in this instance where there isn't an RF L series 35, the EF lens is going to be your best bet overall. I also ended up buying the RF 85mm 1.2 when I saw how sharp it was compared to other options. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-w8-kSTHoq4g.html
I honestly think that the RF lens covers most cases for most people. Architectural photography wide open is super unusual. Important, sharp details in the corner of a macro shot is super unusual. Having to shoot wide open is rarely good for any lenses on a full frame camera as most will give average to poor sharpness. Speed to focus difference is so small it is negligible, but its visual smoothness should've been acknowledged as the L lens has a more pleasing smooth transition from one focus point to the next, which can be important for video. The only good reason to wait for a RF L 35 mm is the possibility of having a 1.2 (improbable) or a great IS if you shoot videos hand held. Again, to me those are edge cases.
I find the difference in visual results very little. As a C300iii / C200 owner the EF is much more versatile. If you own it I don't see the need for a second 35mm. If you are new to Canon the RF is a great catch for a small price. Thanks for the review, John.
I know it’s not related to the lenses in this video, but my vote goes for the Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4 40th anniversary lens. It has an EF mount, but I use it with the EF/RF adapter on my EOS R.
I have the Sigma 35 1.4 and I have had my eyes on that Tamron lens. How is the AF sound and behavior when doing videos, if you do that kind of work? I found the Sigma 35 1.4 gives double bokeh on distant branches and leaves on large aperture openings - have you observed how your Tamron is doing on that?
Good video, John! I have both lenses and agree with your observations. The EF 35mm f/1.4 L II is an amazing lens, but it's big and heavy. I reach for the RF 35mm f/1.8 for gimbal use and travel/hiking.
I'm lucky, I have both of these I use the RF for travel and run and gun video and the EF for paid jobs. The EF mount also fits away more cameras, like black magic, Arri and RED cameras, which can be handy.
I don’t know where you find the time to do this but your content is so useful. I bought the RF35 simply because I wasn’t sure I could get ahold of an adapter at the time I bought my camera. I knew I would go crazy if I had to wait on using it. It is so small and light and image quality is ok for me.
I wonder too sometimes. Thank you so much! I think the RF 35 is so good that now I want to try the 50 1.8. Although one commenter said his RF35 went down in light rain. I looked back at my RF 85mm 1.2 review and realized that the Bokeh from that lens is just like this one. The edge bokeh looks elliptical until you stop down one stop.
Great video and very good work showing the bokeh on different apertures! I noticed that the EF 1.4 has 1/2 stop softer bokeh on all f-stops compared to the RF at the same given aperture, I don't think many are aware of that. I guess that´s also worth the extra money for the EF-lens. The RF is surprisingly sharp from f2.5 and up. Great work : )
Thanks! Interesting observations. I started doing my tests at every aperture because I noticed most reviewers only show the lenses wide open and I need to know what they look like at other apertures since I don't shoot wide open in the studio.
@@JohnGress Thanks for your answer! When I saw your video about the three 85mm lenses you tested I just couldn't see the bokeh differences that clearly between them. Anyhow thanks for all the work you put into these videos because I get a lot of questions answered when I look at them : )
Thanks Martin! I looked back at that 85mm video a few days ago and I realized I should have split the bokeh side by side frames horizontally like I did in this video, not vertically, so you could see the bokeh on the edges. When I looked over the frames from the RF 85f2 I noticed that the bokeh on the edges was elliptical until I stopped down one stop, just like the bokeh from this RF lens.
I love the 35mm focal length. I have the EF 35 f/1.4L II, and it is an awesome lens. I plan to ALSO pickup the RF 35 1.8 simply because of the size. I want to have a small setup to use either for casual photos or for use on gimbal for video. One of the reasons I'm holding on to several EF lenses if for outdoor video, where the EF/RF Variable Neutral Density filter is a game changer! Shooting outdoors with the 35 f/1.4L II wide open (with the ND) looks amazing! I also use the VND adapter with my EF 85mm f/1.4L IS. I would like to be able to use the RF 50mm f/1.2 for video, but that will probably mean I need to buy a specific VND for that filter size. Bummer if you have a bunch of RF lenses with different filter diameters!
I feel the same way about the RF35 form factor and gimbal use. As for NDs, I think there are two things to consider. I bought a Variable ND used on ebay form my RF35mm cheap! Second you could buy step-up rings and use the same filter on multiple lenses.
Great test! It’s very tough to justify the EF. I thought the RF was very close and the loss of detail in the corners wide open wouldn’t be an issue in real pictures. Bokeh balls on the RF look like the bokeh balls on the most expensive RF L primes in other focal lengths and there everyone seems to be ok with them. The RF pictures were consistently a little darker than the EF, maybe 1/6-1/3 a stop. Any idea why? Did you try compensating in post to see what the blacks look like after they are adjusted to the same exposure? The L lenses in general have superior contrast which shows up as blacker blacks, something that you can immediately see at any magnification. The RF lenses in general have taken this up a notch and give their images that characteristic crisp RF look. The newest EF L lenses, such as the 35/1.4L II already have this, too. It’s impressive that the non-L RF achieves such good contrast at the lower price point. I am looking forward to seeing what Canon offers in their premium RF 35 (1.2.) when it eventually ships.
Thanks Ken! I think the EF would really be for people who need the brightness but it’s not that much and I am with you about the corner sharpness of the RF not being a big deal in the real world. No component photographer would shoot an outdoor architectural images at 1/5000 f1.8 ISO 100. The ghosting though might bother me in other applications. I neglected to mention that I adjusted the exposure globally of the outdoor shots so that one brick in the center of the frame was the same brightness by measuring it in C1, but other than that the images were straight out of the camera. I’m not sure why the RF lens would be darker, but I know that f-numbers aren’t always true. Now you’re making me want to compare the bokeh in the RF 85 1.2 to this lens from a review I did a few months ago. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-w8-kSTHoq4g.html
@@JohnGress Absolutely! Canon just got it right with RF lens system! The reason I switched back to Canon in 2020, exciting to see what comes next! Cheers
Always enjoy your videos John! Love the B-roll drone shots too! When you mentioned that you’d use the RF 35mm for vacations, it made me think - will you take your R5 on vacations, or do you have another camera?
Thanks! I think I will. 😁 When you could go on vacation I had an M50 and I hated the noise on the sensor so I figured I could live with a bigger footprint for better performance, plus using an R5 will mean I won’t need to own another camera.
There is a difference in contrast between the two lens. Was/is the difference in post editing? Contrast wasn’t mentioned so not sure if the unedited images were also showing contrast differences?
35mm is that focal length that I want to love but always feels a little too jarring for me. Maybe because I tend to use it when my 50mm is too tight in a smaller space, and for best results I should be shooting it with ample space between the model and myself. I am interested to see if Canon decides to comes out with a RF 35 1.4 or if they will go for the rumoured 1.2.
I was trying to decide how to test it because I would rarely shoot a portrait with a 35 so I am with you. Canon Rumors just posted about a patent for another 35mm f1.8 www.canonrumors.com/patent-rf-prime-lenses-including-an-rf-24mm-f-1-4l-usm-and-rf-50mm-f-1-4-usm/
Thanks for this information-packed video, John. These comparisons based on both real world and environmentally-controlled, like-for-like images are really useful.
Have the RF 35. It is perfectly usable wide open at 1.8, and the macro capabilities makes it more versatile. Yes, the EF L should deliver better image quality, but I can't justify the ekstra cost, and don't want the added size/weight for everyday shooting. So unless you need weather sealing, are shooting for clients, or use it for EF-mount video cameras aswell, I see little reason to go for the expensive EF version.
I'm thinking of buying the Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM Lens for my Canon EOS RP. My question is the lens has a f/1.8 which will give me a nice shallow depth of field... but what about the maximum depth of field? I take pictures and videos of outdoor products (product reviews) and many times in the video I want to show the beautiful surroundings so I don't want the shallow depth, I want to take in everything behind me or the product. Why don't they list what the maximum depth of field is for any particular lens?
Depth of field is determined by a formula that combines focal length, aperture and distance to the subject. It doesn’t matter what the manufacture is so long as you have those three pieces of information. The manufacturer can’t provide you with this maximum DOF or any DOF for that matter, because it requires that they know the distance from your camera to your subject.
I have canon R10 with RF 50mm 1.8, shooting in tattoo studio. I need more wideangle lens. Not sure which one would be better for indoor tattoo shots(both photo/video). 35 or 24 ?
Honestly, the RF looks sharper and more contrasty in a lot of these images. I see it at the 10:18 mark, but also... are those swastikas on the church? :o
I photographed a congressional campaign using the RF 35 1.8. If it is good enough for grip and grins with Bill Clinton, it’s good enough for anything. Is it the best, no. Is the EF 35 1.4 II the better option, maybe. I preferred the lighter lens I had in the RF 35 1.8. Nonetheless great video, I was interested to see how the compared!
Kudos for having the cleanest keyboard I’ve ever seen! When canon does finally update the 35mm f/1.4 it’ll probably cost around $2600. At least that’s trend we’ve seen so far with the RF L primes! 🤔
Ha. I cleaned it right before with windex and then I tried blowing off the paper towel fibers with compressed air. 😁😁😁 I think you’re right about the price!
Thank you for the video. Actually own both but really only carry the EF 35/1.4L II in my bag. Kept wondering if I should sell my RF 35/1.8 because I now have the RF 100/2.8L Macro and typically reach for that for macro work. May still keep the RF 35 because it’s so small and inexpensive but we will see. Thank you for your effort. Any word on when a RF 35L will show up?
Thanks a lot, John for this great review. I have the 35 lens and the biggest issue for me is the weather sealing - few water splashes on the lens and the service center had to change the IS block of the lens. So, I'm waiting for the L version - I've heard about the Canon RF 1.2, but it will be extremely expensive. My conclusion - RF lens with nice neoprene cover for my street photography:-).
@@JohnGress you're welcome. That's also the reason, why I chose Tamron 85/1.4 RF instead of the Canon RF 85/2.0. Anyway 35/1.2 and/or 24/1.4 would be amazing😬
Not surprising. EF L series is canon’s best glass for Dslrs. Usually a larger aperture opening than non L lenses. Good quality for the money. L series lenses are more for Pros.
Hello John, In your opinion, which of these lenses performs better without the use of Flash in low light environments such as weddings and night parties? thank you for your answer Thank you very much
