@@JamesReader I found your videos to be the best mix of information to help decide for or against a lens. I watch a lot of different camera TH-camrs, and some are overly critical to the point it's not real-world applicable anymore (the vignetting is a tad too strong, what a garbage lens!), some are too shallow in their review (I can just google the base info if it's just that), others do bogus comparisons (a 200$ lens vs a 3000$ lens or something). You always compare lenses I think most people would weight against and wish to know what they'd get in either case, adding some decent amount of pixel peeping but not too much and round it up with some decent real world examples and your personal opinion. Thanks for your work!
thanks james! the 50 was my first lens - but i don’t use it much anymore after getting the 35/85 prime. definitely agree with what you said about it being a really great combo. i do wonder about the 35/85 vs the 28-70 2.8!
Great video, James! Here is the setup I am debating and it seems many folks in the comment section have roughly the same dilemma as me. I am debating on the 28-70 f2.8 as my "one-and-done standard zoom" depending on its portrait quality compared to the primes, OR getting a 28/35mm wide travel prime, the new 50mm VCM f1.4, plus the 85mm f2. It seems like you have another video cooking for us on the new 28-70, so I can't wait to see what you put out. Keep doing your thing man, we all love to see it!!
Thanks for another useful video. I don't understand the complaints about the RF 85mm f/2 autofocus. I've found it to be plenty fast and quiet for everything I've shot with it. It is an all around superb lens!
The RF24-105 4-7.1 is my main lens for travel and nature photography. I always have RF35 F1.8 or 50/1.8 in my backpack, which I use when I need a blurred background. With Canon R8 I always have a light set :)
I don't think a photographer can go wrong having both the primes and a kit/zoom lens in a camera bag. The primes are relatively inexpensive to pick up used, so why not? I think this is particularly useful when a photographer is switching over to RF mount bodies. The kit lenses can be incredibly expensive, equal to the cost of the camera body in fact. The primes are a great way to switch over, imo. Thanks for taking the time on budget lenses!
Canon needs an awesome lens at 20mm like Sony G as well as a budget 20mm F2.8. Canon's move in the F1.4 trio was not wise enough. Please make a comparison between Sony 50mm 1.4 GM Vs Canon RF 50mm 1.4L vcm.
@@JamesReader Canon only go down to a RF24mmf1.8. I have the Nikon FX20mm f1.8 which I have used a lot for landscapes. It makes a very precise starburst shot which not too many lenses can. Nikon make a Z 20mm f1.8 too.
Great videos. Beginners can of course also buy two fixed focal lengths, e.g. the 35mm f/1.8 and the 85 f/2.0. The Sigma Art lenses for the EF mount are also still great lenses, as long as you don't mind the adapter 🙂
Using DSLR lenses on a mirrorless camera is the best of both worlds! Using pro lenses for half the price is awesome! Half my kit is adapted glass right now and I love it. Mirrorless lenses are just too sharp (for shooting humans) these days
Having owned all of them ... with some minor gripes the 85mm is an ABSOLUTELY wonderful lens, tack sharp in the middle wide open. It can get wanky on focus when you switch to macro shots but most of the time the issues are minor... honestly this issue was blown way out proportion. GET THE 85mm
Thanks for this. I really think the 85 looks so promising especially for the price but I hear so many complaints about the autofocus. To me it seems like a really great option to the 100mm macro too.
Thanks James, as always a great video! The 85F2 I've found to be a fantastic lens and use it more than any other lens, mainly for dog shots, stationery or certain action shots. As you say, the lens does get some criticism with its focusing but its never really become a issue with me 👍
Thanks Tom! I recorded this one a while ago before the release of the 28-70, I definitely want to do a similar comparison against that lens soon. Maybe 35+85 vs the 28-70
Thanks again for another great video! So the autofocus on the 85mm 2.0 isn't as bad as some say it is? I really love your 3 shot sample for 35mm at 11:03! Holy! Also, great tip about the LR/ACR blur feature. I have the 70-200 2.8 so I could probably use just a SLIGHT bit of that to get down to a fake f2.0 without much trouble (if you were able to get such good results from f7.1) PS. Thanks for the raw files. I really want to see how sharp that 85 is.
I wonder if the 85mm f2 has the same AF as the 35mm f1.8, which I have? Both are macros and for most stills the 35mm is completely fine (portraits, landscapes..). But it's too slow for video (it focuses SUPER SLOW to be radio silent then) and for hectic action photography I think. I miss a lot of my shots when I try to shoot the cats having the zoomies, for example. So depends on what you do, I'd say. Definitely not for sports, lively pets or similar. Works fine for most everything else.
Thank you so much DRIS! I've found the auto focus to be fine, any issues I had were sorted by enabling the focus limiter. I appreciate the kind words about the image, definitely give the lightroom blur a shot, just keep the settings subtle and I'm sure it could enhance an f2.8 image.
The AF of the 85/2 is more than good enough for portrait stills. It's not great for sports / wildlife but it doesn't need to be. Reviewers are always looking to identify strengths and weaknesses of a lens, and the results (e.g. the 85/2 AF is a little slower than some other Canon RF lenses) get oversimplified by viewers (e.g. "85/2 AF is bad!" - nope!).
Another great review. Awesome work James. Definitely keen to see the same comparison but with the 28-70 f2.8. The 28-70 f2.8 is about the same cost as the 35 f1.8 & 85 f2. Thx
Really great review. I must say, the 35mm just seems to have a bit more texture to it in the comparisons. But I’m just experimenting with my new RF 70-200 2.8 which although breaking the bank is proving to be amazing.
I really enjoy the 35/85 combo - versatile and fast enough for almost all indoor scenarios. Found the 50 a bit soft and dull wide open by comparison, but it’s good for outdoors walking around stopped down a bit.
James, But, given your recent consideration of the new 28-70 f2.8, and given the cost of the 3 primes all together are maybe more than the 28-70 zoom, would you consider opting first for that for maximum flexibility and less hassle changing lenses? I owned the 35 and 85 earlier, left Canon, but now have stepped back into Canon for birding and am considering the R8 for general use and travel.
Hey Craig! If you can stretch the budget, I'd definitely go with the 28-70 2.8 and add one of these primes later. Just can't beat the quality, flexibility and versatility it offers. It might be the perfect lens to pair with an R8 for general use and travel.
Love the review! I run these 3 primes in my kit after so much research. My first was the 50, second was the 35 then last was the 85. I also have the 24-105 F4 L but I’m debating picking up the 28-70 f2.8. I use my zoom quite a bit at the beach for family photos, so I don’t have to switch lenses while on the sand, but I’m always feeling like I’m lacking that faster aperture when nearing sunset. The F4 has been fantastic so don’t get me wrong but seeing so many reviews, it seems that there is indeed a slight advantage, in most categories, on the 28-70 f2.8 vs the 24-105 F4. I can’t say I regret buying the F4 L lens, as it was my holiday season work horse, but I don’t always find myself shooting at 24mm and 105mm. Just some extra food for thought
Thank you! That's a tough one. Personally if I had to choose between those zooms I would go with the RF 28-70 2.8. I've used it in some really sandy environments too and had no issues. The RF 24-105 is great though but I appreciate the F4 is sometimes not enough at sunset.
You can get separated subject with a zoom lens just like prime. Not with low aperture but by placing the subject closer to the lens and away from the background.
Yesterday I had an advantage due to the full buffer. I put my R6 II in my bag in drive mode H+. The camera was on and the shutter button was pressed in the pocket. The buffer saved me from hundreds of additional black images. ;-)
It's easily done! I can't tell you how many times I've put my camera into my backpack recording video by accident and filled up my card and overheated my camera.
Great comparison James. I noticed you like to take your photos looking at the screen, rather than through the viewfinder. Is that just a personal preference or is there a technical/quality reason for that? I started shooting with film SLRs back in the 90s and screens weren't an option then, so I'm stuck in the viewfinder mindset ha ha.
Thank you Matt! When I'm shooting for my self I always use the viewfinder, I find it a lot more immersive. For some reason when I'm framing up comparison shots I always find using the LCD screen easier. Also if I'm making a TH-cam video, I often record POV videos so I'll at least use the LCD for a few shots for the video's sake then switch over to the viewfinder.
Thanks a lot for sharing this, this is definitely THE video to help define which lenses to use and in which cases. I will soon buy a camera and was wondering if having a 24-105 F4 L would be enough or having the 35 1.8 would be useful too, since I like a lot that lens from all the videos I've seen. Thank you!!
Thank you Pablo! The RF 24-105 F4 is fantastic and would cover you across all bases. You could always add a cheaper prime to your kit down the line, the 35 or 50 would compliment it really well.
i like the kit lens look. Tired of the blur look that everyone is copying everyone. I know my eyes don't see that and my eye sees better picture if you know what i mean.
Great comparisons. A situation where kit lenses are really worth using is in a studio environment when using strobes. Most shots with strobe in studio are shot at very low, usually base, ISO and at closed-down apertures of f8-11. In this situation, combined with good processing, it's very hard to tell the difference between a kit lens and an expensive prime. Also - lightroom fake blur/bokeh looks terrible! I find it easy to spot in most images. It will get there one day, but it's not there yet.
Would love it if you could take a look on older ef lenses like the sigma 85mm 1.4 ore the canon ef 85mm 1.4 L. Iam currently on the rf 50mm 1.8, 85mm f2 and the rf 28-70mm f2.8. Im thinkig about to chance the rf 85 f2 to the sigma 85mm f1.4.
I would really like to try and cover some of the EF mount lenses but there are so many I could include. I've always been interested in the Canon EF 85mm 1.4. I'll definitely try and get my hands on some EF glass to compare
I got myself RF 16, RF 24, RF 50, RF 85 and RF 24-105mm STM, the last one for going in the park with my kid. I use them with a R6 mk2. I wonder if i should also get the RF 28/35mm for all purpose, lightweight allrounder, as the 24mm seems a bit to wide for that, or just jump on a 28-70 2.8 stm.
I would definitely recommend the 35 for an all purpose option. The 28 is a little too close to your 24mm. Alternatively, if you can stretch the budget, the 28-70 2.8 is a fantastic all rounder and nice and light.
I think Lightroom blur does a surprisingly good job. I'd use it in a pinch if I had a zoom and really wanted that "prime" look. Definitely go subtle with the settings though!
The 35mm offers a more contemporary look, which I personally like the most; 50mm is standard, yet somewhat ordinary, while 85mm, synonymous with portrait photography, seems to lack the appeal it once had.
I’ve shot a lot with the RF50 f1.8 and the 28 f2.8 and they are good for travel being light and compact. My 50 lacks contrast and is okay at best, the 28 being surprisingly a bit better. But both are choices you are forced to make as the L lenses are the only other prime possibilities and they are both very expensive and large and heavy. The lack of lens choice really has me looking elsewhere as Canon clearly is unwilling to bring other manufacturers on board for their full frame cameras.
The 28mm is fantastic! I do hope we see more mid range options. Hopefully the RF 28-70 2.8 is a sign of things to come. Or even better, bring Sigma on board.
Canon isn't for me... their locked down system doesn't appeal to me. The 85 F2 costs 600€ here. I got my 85 1.4 (the DG DN) from Sigma for 800€. The 35 1.8 from Canon - 470€ - got mine from Samyang for 299 and its almost as sharp as the Sigma, which is nuts... Other lenses like the "cheap" 28-70 2.8 from Canon are overpriced as well at 1169€... Was able to get Tamrons 28-75 2.8 G2 for 680€. Where are 14/16mm primes with decent apertures? Oh, and dont get me started on the 70-200mm 2.8's... sure... all non-native i've listed, and if you need more than 15 FPS on the highend bodies you're lost... but i use the A7 IV and RV - so i dont really care. I care more about value...
These budget Canon primes are trash compared to what's available from Sony and Nikon. And it's on purpose, along with their lack of midrange options and forcing out 3rd parties there's nothing available for consumers who get baited into the Canon system. You are forced to spend thousands more on L lenses if you want an upgrade.
Nonsense! Alex Barerra did a great comparison of the R6 and these 3 budget lenses vs the A7IV and the Sony equivalents. Not only was the Canon system cheaper, the Canon lenses were much sharper on the 35 and 85 lenses, and only the nifty 50 was slightly less sharp than the Sony (but the Sony was much more money). Nobody shoots Nikon so unsure about what they have over there.
I must admit I've had no experience withthe Sony equivalent of these options, but I know Sigma do some great budget primes. The best 1.8 primes I've used are the Lumix L mount ones. They did a great job with those lenses.
@@77dris are you saying the three budget Canon lenses you mentioned are sharper than Canon’s L lenses with similar focal lengths or zoom models? So a $175 50mm Canon RF lens is better than a $1500 RF Canon lens?
@@77dris The Canon 35 and 85 have extremely slow and unusable AF though especially the 85... On the 85 the AF is so slow basically the only thing you can do with it is static portraits. Nikon takes Sony and Canon to the cleaners for budget primes. They have a 35, 50, and 85 1.8 that are tack sharp fast AF great character and weather sealed, and on top of that they also have a 35 1.4 and a 50mm 1.4 that are sub 1k as well. Nikon bodies are also far superior to Canon or Sony in pretty much every way. Everyone should switch to Nikon.
Rule # 1 in photography: don't stint on paying for the best glass that could last you a lifetime of use and provide you with the best images to pass on to posterity. Do not waste your money on so called "budget lenses," which is a euphemism for bullshit lenses. What you get from these bullshit budget lenses is shitty images and a waste of your money and time.
Most of Canon's "best glass" weighs 1kg+. After a while you begin wondering maybe it would be more enjoyable to lug around that nifty fifty and step it down a bit to f2.8 to achieve results similar to e.g. 24-70/2.8L? And rather invest those spare money into stocks?
I can't agree on this one, I honestly think just about every other element of photography matters so much more than a cheap lens. Light, location, styling, planning, posing, composition, the list goes on. Some people simply can't afford the best glass too. I have the RF 50mm 1.2 and still grab the 1.8 version some times and I've never had any complaints when I do. I also have the RF 35mm 1.4 and still keep the 1.8 version and use it regularly.
Thanks for being the best TH-camr that gives attention on budget lenses!
I appreciate that! Thank you!
You're the best camera TH-camr, always super helpful real-world examples, mixed with a sensible opinion.
That's awesome, thank you so much!
@@JamesReader I found your videos to be the best mix of information to help decide for or against a lens. I watch a lot of different camera TH-camrs, and some are overly critical to the point it's not real-world applicable anymore (the vignetting is a tad too strong, what a garbage lens!), some are too shallow in their review (I can just google the base info if it's just that), others do bogus comparisons (a 200$ lens vs a 3000$ lens or something).
You always compare lenses I think most people would weight against and wish to know what they'd get in either case, adding some decent amount of pixel peeping but not too much and round it up with some decent real world examples and your personal opinion.
Thanks for your work!
Rachel! Im never bored of her and your work. Awesome content with awesome model! Thank you. I had to subscribe no choice!
thanks james! the 50 was my first lens - but i don’t use it much anymore after getting the 35/85 prime. definitely agree with what you said about it being a really great combo. i do wonder about the 35/85 vs the 28-70 2.8!
Thank you! Yeah I definitely want to compare that 35+85 combo against the new 28-70
Oh, yes, please compare them with the new 28-70 2.8
These comparisons are so so helpful! Thank you ❤
Thank you so much!
Thanks James! I find your videos very helpful and I really appreciate the style and quality of your videos. 📸
Thank you so much Nicolae!
Amé este video. Eres el mejor!!!
Great video, James! Here is the setup I am debating and it seems many folks in the comment section have roughly the same dilemma as me. I am debating on the 28-70 f2.8 as my "one-and-done standard zoom" depending on its portrait quality compared to the primes, OR getting a 28/35mm wide travel prime, the new 50mm VCM f1.4, plus the 85mm f2. It seems like you have another video cooking for us on the new 28-70, so I can't wait to see what you put out. Keep doing your thing man, we all love to see it!!
Thanks for another useful video. I don't understand the complaints about the RF 85mm f/2 autofocus. I've found it to be plenty fast and quiet for everything I've shot with it. It is an all around superb lens!
Totally agree! Thank you for watching
Great! Please do this with the RF zoom lenses (24-240 & 100-400) against the primes as well :D
Thank you! I’ll definitely try and compare those zooms.
The RF24-105 4-7.1 is my main lens for travel and nature photography. I always have RF35 F1.8 or 50/1.8 in my backpack, which I use when I need a blurred background. With Canon R8 I always have a light set :)
That's a great combo. I be the RF 24-105 is fantastic for travel photography
Excelente video!!
Thank you!
I don't think a photographer can go wrong having both the primes and a kit/zoom lens in a camera bag. The primes are relatively inexpensive to pick up used, so why not? I think this is particularly useful when a photographer is switching over to RF mount bodies. The kit lenses can be incredibly expensive, equal to the cost of the camera body in fact. The primes are a great way to switch over, imo. Thanks for taking the time on budget lenses!
Canon needs an awesome lens at 20mm like Sony G as well as a budget 20mm F2.8. Canon's move in the F1.4 trio was not wise enough. Please make a comparison between Sony 50mm 1.4 GM Vs Canon RF 50mm 1.4L vcm.
Yep, I really want to see a 20mm prime. 20mm 1.8 would be great. I've got some videos on the RF 50mm 1.4 coming!
@@JamesReader Canon only go down to a RF24mmf1.8. I have the Nikon FX20mm f1.8 which I have used a lot for landscapes. It makes a very precise starburst shot which not too many lenses can. Nikon make a Z 20mm f1.8 too.
Great videos. Beginners can of course also buy two fixed focal lengths, e.g. the 35mm f/1.8 and the 85 f/2.0. The Sigma Art lenses for the EF mount are also still great lenses, as long as you don't mind the adapter 🙂
Very true! 35 + 85 is a great combo but a bit pricy with the RF lenses. Some great options on EF mount though.
Using DSLR lenses on a mirrorless camera is the best of both worlds! Using pro lenses for half the price is awesome! Half my kit is adapted glass right now and I love it. Mirrorless lenses are just too sharp (for shooting humans) these days
Thank you for the detailed review very useful comparison Currently using the rf 35mm 1.8 Perhaps may try the rf 50mm Have that too
Thank you John!
Having owned all of them ... with some minor gripes the 85mm is an ABSOLUTELY wonderful lens, tack sharp in the middle wide open. It can get wanky on focus when you switch to macro shots but most of the time the issues are minor... honestly this issue was blown way out proportion. GET THE 85mm
Thanks for this. I really think the 85 looks so promising especially for the price but I hear so many complaints about the autofocus. To me it seems like a really great option to the 100mm macro too.
Totally agree! Focus limiter really mitigated an focus issues I had. It's one of my favourite RF primes.
Thanks James, as always a great video! The 85F2 I've found to be a fantastic lens and use it more than any other lens, mainly for dog shots, stationery or certain action shots. As you say, the lens does get some criticism with its focusing but its never really become a issue with me 👍
Thank you! I'm sure dog photography is pretty demanding so it's great to hear the RF 85mm F2 can handle it!
Awesome, just the video I was looking for!
Thank you!
Thanks James, great comparison! I'd maybe rather go with the new 28-70 2.8 if on a budget?
This comparison needs to be redone against the 28-70 2.8 😉
Thanks Tom! I recorded this one a while ago before the release of the 28-70, I definitely want to do a similar comparison against that lens soon. Maybe 35+85 vs the 28-70
I’ll have a similar video soon!
@@JamesReader Great! Maybe add the 28 pancake too?
Great video!
Thank you!
always a pleasure to watch your videos. Can u do a side by side of the 35 1.4 VCM with the 35mm 1.8 STM?
Thank you so much! Check out my RF 35mm 1.4 review - I compared it side by side to the 1.8 and I think shared RAW files.
Thanks again for another great video! So the autofocus on the 85mm 2.0 isn't as bad as some say it is? I really love your 3 shot sample for 35mm at 11:03! Holy!
Also, great tip about the LR/ACR blur feature. I have the 70-200 2.8 so I could probably use just a SLIGHT bit of that to get down to a fake f2.0 without much trouble (if you were able to get such good results from f7.1)
PS. Thanks for the raw files. I really want to see how sharp that 85 is.
I wonder if the 85mm f2 has the same AF as the 35mm f1.8, which I have? Both are macros and for most stills the 35mm is completely fine (portraits, landscapes..). But it's too slow for video (it focuses SUPER SLOW to be radio silent then) and for hectic action photography I think. I miss a lot of my shots when I try to shoot the cats having the zoomies, for example.
So depends on what you do, I'd say. Definitely not for sports, lively pets or similar. Works fine for most everything else.
Thank you so much DRIS! I've found the auto focus to be fine, any issues I had were sorted by enabling the focus limiter. I appreciate the kind words about the image, definitely give the lightroom blur a shot, just keep the settings subtle and I'm sure it could enhance an f2.8 image.
The AF of the 85/2 is more than good enough for portrait stills. It's not great for sports / wildlife but it doesn't need to be. Reviewers are always looking to identify strengths and weaknesses of a lens, and the results (e.g. the 85/2 AF is a little slower than some other Canon RF lenses) get oversimplified by viewers (e.g. "85/2 AF is bad!" - nope!).
@gabedamien Yep, if the 85 is anything like the 35 this is accurate. :D
Another great review. Awesome work James. Definitely keen to see the same comparison but with the 28-70 f2.8. The 28-70 f2.8 is about the same cost as the 35 f1.8 & 85 f2. Thx
Thank you Tony! Definitely working on that comparison next
Really great review. I must say, the 35mm just seems to have a bit more texture to it in the comparisons. But I’m just experimenting with my new RF 70-200 2.8 which although breaking the bank is proving to be amazing.
Thank you Graham! The 35 is really great
I really enjoy the 35/85 combo - versatile and fast enough for almost all indoor scenarios. Found the 50 a bit soft and dull wide open by comparison, but it’s good for outdoors walking around stopped down a bit.
Totally agree, it's hard to beat a 35/85 combo.
James, But, given your recent consideration of the new 28-70 f2.8, and given the cost of the 3 primes all together are maybe more than the 28-70 zoom, would you consider opting first for that for maximum flexibility and less hassle changing lenses? I owned the 35 and 85 earlier, left Canon, but now have stepped back into Canon for birding and am considering the R8 for general use and travel.
Hey Craig! If you can stretch the budget, I'd definitely go with the 28-70 2.8 and add one of these primes later. Just can't beat the quality, flexibility and versatility it offers. It might be the perfect lens to pair with an R8 for general use and travel.
@ James, Thanks, i value your input.
Used the 35/85 combo almost exclusively to build and grow my business. Great lenses.
Were those the 1.8 primes?
@ the 35 1.8 and 85f2. Both great for photo and video.
That's awesome Phil! It's a fantastic combo.
Love the review! I run these 3 primes in my kit after so much research. My first was the 50, second was the 35 then last was the 85. I also have the 24-105 F4 L but I’m debating picking up the 28-70 f2.8. I use my zoom quite a bit at the beach for family photos, so I don’t have to switch lenses while on the sand, but I’m always feeling like I’m lacking that faster aperture when nearing sunset. The F4 has been fantastic so don’t get me wrong but seeing so many reviews, it seems that there is indeed a slight advantage, in most categories, on the 28-70 f2.8 vs the 24-105 F4. I can’t say I regret buying the F4 L lens, as it was my holiday season work horse, but I don’t always find myself shooting at 24mm and 105mm.
Just some extra food for thought
Thank you! That's a tough one. Personally if I had to choose between those zooms I would go with the RF 28-70 2.8. I've used it in some really sandy environments too and had no issues. The RF 24-105 is great though but I appreciate the F4 is sometimes not enough at sunset.
You can get separated subject with a zoom lens just like prime. Not with low aperture but by placing the subject closer to the lens and away from the background.
Very true!
Yesterday I had an advantage due to the full buffer. I put my R6 II in my bag in drive mode H+. The camera was on and the shutter button was pressed in the pocket. The buffer saved me from hundreds of additional black images. ;-)
It's easily done! I can't tell you how many times I've put my camera into my backpack recording video by accident and filled up my card and overheated my camera.
can you do a comparison with 28-70 f2.8
Definitely! With the same three primes?
Great comparison James. I noticed you like to take your photos looking at the screen, rather than through the viewfinder. Is that just a personal preference or is there a technical/quality reason for that? I started shooting with film SLRs back in the 90s and screens weren't an option then, so I'm stuck in the viewfinder mindset ha ha.
Thank you Matt! When I'm shooting for my self I always use the viewfinder, I find it a lot more immersive. For some reason when I'm framing up comparison shots I always find using the LCD screen easier. Also if I'm making a TH-cam video, I often record POV videos so I'll at least use the LCD for a few shots for the video's sake then switch over to the viewfinder.
Please compare the primes to the 28-70 2.8. Getting two primes vs Getting the zoom ?
Awesome idea. I’ll definitely do that!
Great video? Do you have any videos I can watch on your editing? Specifically what you are doing in the basic panel in Lightroom?
Thank you! I have some editing videos on the way
Thanks a lot for sharing this, this is definitely THE video to help define which lenses to use and in which cases.
I will soon buy a camera and was wondering if having a 24-105 F4 L would be enough or having the 35 1.8 would be useful too, since I like a lot that lens from all the videos I've seen.
Thank you!!
Thank you Pablo! The RF 24-105 F4 is fantastic and would cover you across all bases. You could always add a cheaper prime to your kit down the line, the 35 or 50 would compliment it really well.
Have you thought about using off camera flash ?
For the comparisons? Most of the time it would probably get me kicked out of these kinds of locations. Would definitely be useful though.
i like the kit lens look. Tired of the blur look that everyone is copying everyone. I know my eyes don't see that and my eye sees better picture if you know what i mean.
Great comparisons. A situation where kit lenses are really worth using is in a studio environment when using strobes. Most shots with strobe in studio are shot at very low, usually base, ISO and at closed-down apertures of f8-11. In this situation, combined with good processing, it's very hard to tell the difference between a kit lens and an expensive prime. Also - lightroom fake blur/bokeh looks terrible! I find it easy to spot in most images. It will get there one day, but it's not there yet.
Thanks Stew! Totally agree about studio use. I think it must be great for landscapes and even travel too with adequate light.
Are these lenses good for video as well?
Yeah they are all great. Especially the 35 and 85 thanks to the IS
Would love it if you could take a look on older ef lenses like the sigma 85mm 1.4 ore the canon ef 85mm 1.4 L. Iam currently on the rf 50mm 1.8, 85mm f2 and the rf 28-70mm f2.8. Im thinkig about to chance the rf 85 f2 to the sigma 85mm f1.4.
I would really like to try and cover some of the EF mount lenses but there are so many I could include. I've always been interested in the Canon EF 85mm 1.4. I'll definitely try and get my hands on some EF glass to compare
What colour profiles are you using in Lightroom? Ich dont like the Canon Colours with the Standard or Adobe profiles.
These were all in Camera Standard.
interesting comparison
Thank you!
What is it like? rf 28-70 F/2 is a great option for wedding photographers, but 85f/2 is too dark and is not suitable, but the light is the same
The RF 85mm F2 is my go to for weddings. Even having the 1.2, I prefer the lighter lens on a long day.
I got myself RF 16, RF 24, RF 50, RF 85 and RF 24-105mm STM, the last one for going in the park with my kid. I use them with a R6 mk2. I wonder if i should also get the RF 28/35mm for all purpose, lightweight allrounder, as the 24mm seems a bit to wide for that, or just jump on a 28-70 2.8 stm.
I would definitely recommend the 35 for an all purpose option. The 28 is a little too close to your 24mm. Alternatively, if you can stretch the budget, the 28-70 2.8 is a fantastic all rounder and nice and light.
Paring cheap zoom lens with adobe lightroom lens blur, adding a bit of that bokeh you get from prime lens, thoughts?
Did you watch the video?
@@samuelherklots6361not until now 😅 8:38
I think Lightroom blur does a surprisingly good job. I'd use it in a pinch if I had a zoom and really wanted that "prime" look. Definitely go subtle with the settings though!
The 35mm offers a more contemporary look, which I personally like the most; 50mm is standard, yet somewhat ordinary, while 85mm, synonymous with portrait photography, seems to lack the appeal it once had.
Very true!
I’ve shot a lot with the RF50 f1.8 and the 28 f2.8 and they are good for travel being light and compact. My 50 lacks contrast and is okay at best, the 28 being surprisingly a bit better. But both are choices you are forced to make as the L lenses are the only other prime possibilities and they are both very expensive and large and heavy.
The lack of lens choice really has me looking elsewhere as Canon clearly is unwilling to bring other manufacturers on board for their full frame cameras.
The 28mm is fantastic! I do hope we see more mid range options. Hopefully the RF 28-70 2.8 is a sign of things to come. Or even better, bring Sigma on board.
If I only could have one lens for people photography, it would be the 50.
For general purpose, I would take the 35.
Totally agree. If you throw pretty much any other type of photography into the mix (travel,street, landscape, video), 35mm is the one to go for.
I dont know if its the lens but she looks extremely small.
Haha she is quite small 😂
pop =I= more blurry background
Good sharpness, good contrast and blurry background = pop. IMO. Leica or Zeiss lenses are a great example.
Canon isn't for me... their locked down system doesn't appeal to me. The 85 F2 costs 600€ here. I got my 85 1.4 (the DG DN) from Sigma for 800€. The 35 1.8 from Canon - 470€ - got mine from Samyang for 299 and its almost as sharp as the Sigma, which is nuts... Other lenses like the "cheap" 28-70 2.8 from Canon are overpriced as well at 1169€... Was able to get Tamrons 28-75 2.8 G2 for 680€. Where are 14/16mm primes with decent apertures? Oh, and dont get me started on the 70-200mm 2.8's...
sure... all non-native i've listed, and if you need more than 15 FPS on the highend bodies you're lost... but i use the A7 IV and RV - so i dont really care. I care more about value...
These budget Canon primes are trash compared to what's available from Sony and Nikon. And it's on purpose, along with their lack of midrange options and forcing out 3rd parties there's nothing available for consumers who get baited into the Canon system. You are forced to spend thousands more on L lenses if you want an upgrade.
Yup! However the L lenses especially the newly released ones with f1.4 aperture are pretty nice (but pricey).
Nonsense! Alex Barerra did a great comparison of the R6 and these 3 budget lenses vs the A7IV and the Sony equivalents. Not only was the Canon system cheaper, the Canon lenses were much sharper on the 35 and 85 lenses, and only the nifty 50 was slightly less sharp than the Sony (but the Sony was much more money). Nobody shoots Nikon so unsure about what they have over there.
I must admit I've had no experience withthe Sony equivalent of these options, but I know Sigma do some great budget primes. The best 1.8 primes I've used are the Lumix L mount ones. They did a great job with those lenses.
@@77dris are you saying the three budget Canon lenses you mentioned are sharper than Canon’s L lenses with similar focal lengths or zoom models? So a $175 50mm Canon RF lens is better than a $1500 RF Canon lens?
@@77dris The Canon 35 and 85 have extremely slow and unusable AF though especially the 85... On the 85 the AF is so slow basically the only thing you can do with it is static portraits. Nikon takes Sony and Canon to the cleaners for budget primes. They have a 35, 50, and 85 1.8 that are tack sharp fast AF great character and weather sealed, and on top of that they also have a 35 1.4 and a 50mm 1.4 that are sub 1k as well. Nikon bodies are also far superior to Canon or Sony in pretty much every way. Everyone should switch to Nikon.
What about the 28mm?? Instead of the 35mm combination with 85mm 2.0
That would be a great combo. The 28mm is fantastic. I compared it in a similar way to the 35 and 50 in another video.
Rule # 1 in photography: don't stint on paying for the best glass that could last you a lifetime of use and provide you with the best images to pass on to posterity. Do not waste your money on so called "budget lenses," which is a euphemism for bullshit lenses. What you get from these bullshit budget lenses is shitty images and a waste of your money and time.
Most of Canon's "best glass" weighs 1kg+. After a while you begin wondering maybe it would be more enjoyable to lug around that nifty fifty and step it down a bit to f2.8 to achieve results similar to e.g. 24-70/2.8L? And rather invest those spare money into stocks?
I can't agree on this one, I honestly think just about every other element of photography matters so much more than a cheap lens. Light, location, styling, planning, posing, composition, the list goes on. Some people simply can't afford the best glass too. I have the RF 50mm 1.2 and still grab the 1.8 version some times and I've never had any complaints when I do. I also have the RF 35mm 1.4 and still keep the 1.8 version and use it regularly.