The differences in real life use are so small, I would get the RF just because of the size and weight advantage. I love my L-series lenses, but I use the 35mm RF lens just as much, maybe even more. In fact I once shot an entire wedding using only the 35mm RF! The macro range makes it an extremely versatile lens.
But don't you think for us folks who are getting an EOS R5, with no crop 8K, shouldn't we be getting the RF 35mm F1.2? It's coming out later this year. Since the F1.2 is about to become the new go-to 35mm for professionals, I'm going to have to try to snap one up. I hope the R5 isn't more than 3500.00
@@CoolhandLukeSkywalkr for sure but it's in a different category if it becomes a reality, and 3-4 times more. If you can afford it no doubt the way to go since this existing RF lens is not an 'L". I've researched this to death, half the weight, 1/3 the cost, I'm gonna get it as my grab and go... but ultimately the RF 'L" variant will be on the wish list...
@@CoolhandLukeSkywalkr Why would he or anyone else care what you "folks" should get. Why should you care what other think you should get. You are not me and I am not you. Everyone has different needs and different budgets. Get whatever you want to get and be happy with it. Cell phones are taking over so it doesn't matter anyway ;)
would be interesting to see how you'd rank them if it's all at f1.8 instead of wide open because the EF and Sigma art has a f1.4 advantage it seems, but overall this helped a lot. thank you
Yes!!! It would be good to see how the lens perform at 1.8 in terms of luminance loss as a measure of the efficiency of the lens and things like chromatic errors, sharpness, etc... that said I really appreciate you taking the time to do the review!! thanks.
Given the international audience you reach You need to start using the metric system or at least both. Unless your target audience is the USA, Liberia and Myanmar. Only 400 million use imperial and 6.5 billion metric.
I have the EF version and it’s absolutely worth it. Fantastic image quality, beautiful images. I would recommend saving money to buy it instead of getting the cheaper lenses
I intend to use this lens for street photography and an aperture greater than F5.6 and that should match the sharpness to the more expensive Ef 1.4 and do the rest in post do you agree ?.
Nice review, another point to mention is that the L and the sigma have to be used with the adapter so it makes your size and weight comparisons invalid as you haven’t included it in the comparison.Add the adapter to these 2 lenses and they are considerably bigger.
Thanks for the comparison. It would be great if you could add some real life portraits of humans ;-) In addition to all the pros and cons you already pointed out, there is one benefit of getting an EF lens, and that is that it will fit all three Canon systems, R, EF, and EF-S. I could imagine the 35mm SIGMA and/or L lens being great portrait lenses for a crop camera as well (no vignetting to worry about either)
How is bokeh a relevant factor in a review....I want to know the autofocus capabilities too. Low light performance (since only one of them has IS). A lot of these reviews aren't really in-depth and usability reviews.
I didn't see the Macro comparison part. The RF is a Macro lens first and foremost from Canon but you glazed over that and briefly mentioned it at the end. Id say that the RF 35mm MACRO held its own pretty well in the test you did using its secondary abilities against the 2 lenses dedicated for that type of work. I would had loved to have seen some samples of what the RF35 is great at.
nice review. made the switch to EOS R but I just can't see myself going from sigma 35 1.4 to the RF 35 1.8, even though not using the adapter and having a considerably smaller lens would be so nice. can't have it all I guess.
I'm now in a situation where I can't choose a lens for photography. Do you think it’s worth buying a used Sigma ART 35 1.4 or buying a new RF 1.8? Their price is the same in my region
You can’t really compare bokeh with comparing 1.8 and 1.4. This point it’s comparing more settings than the lens. In addition stopping down to 1.8 in the comparison may have clarified this more.
I’m assuming the L lens is the mark ii? I’m currently using the 35mm 1.4 L (mark 1) and I’d love to know how that compares to the sigma art and the rf 1.8
I think the RF is very viable lens for 35mm sensor cameras, you're using around 80% of the FF glass so you don't get to see the sharpness downfall in the edges of the lens, also the IS is very nice and macro capabilities are awesome. On a FF cameras it's a harder pick tho.
I think the rf 35 is good to keep no bag to make a trip, this toy is so little. The sigma ART is Heavy! Maybe when rf 35 1.2 comes in the future I Will take one and keep with the rf 35 for a while.The ef is not a good option to invest now because I think the Canon Will delivery a new lens in the future for rf mount.
Look at both the EF & RF 50mm 1.8 and 1.2 size difference, if they do make a RF 35mm 1.2 I believe it will be massive and the minimum price will sit near the 85mm 1.2 since the EF 35 1.4 II is already way more expensive than the EF 50mm 1.2 in my opinion. The RF 35mm 1.8 is great for size but doesn’t compare to the EF 35 1.4 II in image quality. If size is your bigger issue I’d go with the RF. BUT if overall images quality is more important the EF 35 1.4 adapted is massive and protrudes far out but it’s the sacrifice you’ll have to make and even when the RF 35mm equivalent releases I believe it’ll will be a chunky boy/ girl!
I appreciate your effort. I'm the EOS RP owner and confusing with whether I should change my sigma 35A to RF 35. This video totally solved my question.
Thank you for the video. Do you think it’s worth considering buying a used Sigma 35mm ART 1.4? Will it have a better image? In price it is equal to the new RF 35mm 1.8. So I wondered if it was worth using it for work? Everyone has their own opinion and is already confused
Not sure why in the title and description the 35mm EF is stated as original version. It's the Mark II 35mm 1.4 L USM, as it shows on Lightroom as well. It looks like a few letter of difference, but the original 35mm 1.4 and Mark II have substantial difference in terms of build quality, sharpness, etc. Mk II it's much better than the first one. I recognised being the second version in the video as I own the original 35mm and it wasn't matching the design from the one in the video.
I have both the EF 35 1.4L II and the RF 35 1.8 Macro IS STM. If I had to sell one lens, it would be the EF. Reasons: no IS, longer and heavier, must have adapter w/ the RF system. Does it produce great pictures? Yes. It's one of those "magic" lenses. However, the RF is also great and has IS and macro capability. It's smallish and light. Feels great. P.S. I also have the EF f/2.0 IS. Love that, as well.
Great IQ comparison! What's also important to compare is the AF speed and precission , critical aspects to consider when buying a lens. I just bough the RF 35mm mainly for video on a gimbal. Thank you for your analisys!
Late to the party... Good video and test. Your dog poses so well : ) What surprises me is that it seems to be quite hard for the lens manufacturers to make a 35 mm lens with nice bokeh and little CA and still being sharp. Yes, having an object 1-2 meters (3-6 feet) away one gets nice bokeh but when the object is 15-20 feet away the bokeh gets really "worried". Ziess has one 35mm which is really good but it's only manual. My search continues. I have the Sigma 35mm Art and it's sharp and contrasty but sometimes the bokeh isn't just calm enough same with the 50mm Art.
The L is definitely not tied to the Sigma in sharpness, not wide open, not at f4. If you’re not pixelpeeping when talking about sharpness, you’re not really saying much at all.
I was wondering, if you enable the digital fix (not sure the correct term, but the function that camera body has the lens data and fix the problems you mentioned) in the camera body when shooting these?
Very nice video and clear photograph to compare all the lenses. Thank you!
2 года назад
You should not hold lenses upside down like that. Especially RF lens, that has front focusing element that comes out of the lens. You can bend or break fragile focusing mechanisms inside it. Also wanted to see IS test for video and a another 35mm lens Argus 0.95...
This is not the ultimate 35mm shootout, it's already outdated. The RF 35mm 1.2 is getting released later this year, I hope to combine it with the EOS R5.
Although the Canon L is optically the best of the three, that's not where the price difference comes from. The Canon L is by far the best built and most durable lens of the bunch: check out the teardown of the lens: www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/canon-35mm-f1-4-mk-ii-teardown/ You pay the extra price for a much heftier interior, not for the better optical quality. The L is far more durable and robust than the other two.
Weather sealed though, but on the cost of the is. I'm going for the rf myself, because I'm learning handheld night shooting. Not going the best with 50mm stm. So I hope the is will do the trick.
Am I the only one bothered that this comparison is just not fair? Why not to compare RF 35 1.8 with it ef counterpart EF 35 2.0? Also, the price tag on RF 35 1.8 and EF 35 1.4 is quity different.
Owning 35RF and 35L EF MII: The RF is very versatile with its small size and macro capabilities. This gives you shots you will never get with the others. Sometimes the optical performance of the L counts (which is I really love), but I use the RF more often.
@@peterebel7899 I have seen other videos that praise the RF 35mm and considered buying one for the sake of travel (going light) and having a prime. I have the 24 to 105 kit lens currently so I'm not sure if I will make my money's worth for the 35mm
@@Azhang22 I have both lenses. Very different usage. The tiny 35 in cooperation with the swiveling screen and its macro capabilities enables secret shooting and very new perspectives. 24 to 105 usage is like experienced since decades.
@@Azhang22 plain YES. Experience new styles of shooting, enjoy it. Street, people, nature, .... Shoot low, close and fast like never before. As long as you just shoot with your eye at the EVF it is just a usual lens.
@MP when comparing, you use the same setup. Otherwise it isn't comparing. It's exactly the same as comparing f1 to f4. Of course you aren't able to compare, till both are f4 and up. But again, not everyone see the actual truth. Still doesn't make it right.
