# Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro...the Ugly Bokeh KING?



## LSXPhotog (Dec 18, 2018)

Back in September I made the decision to purchase a 35mm prime to finally round out my primes which already consisted of a 24, 50, 85, 100, and 135. I got my hands on the EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM lens as a rental and it was pretty easy to fall in love with that big guy. While I make a living using my gear, I am also realistic when it comes to priority of spending money. As a 50mm shooter through and through, I didn't think too keenly about the price tag for a lens that I already knew wouldn't see the level of action I get from my 50mm and 85mm on a weekly basis. The new RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro seemed like it might be a good idea for keeping the costs down and the macro capability might be really useful when I shoot food for local restaurants I work with. I rented the lens in early December and started messing around with it - bringing it with me to NYC on my vacation last week. My findings were...disappointing to say the least.

*Results:*
Before I left for NYC I was already messing around with the RF 35mm around the house and was really shocked how ugly I thought the photos were looking. The bokeh falloff was honestly very sloppy and was distracting in some shots. It was very clear that this lens is designed with shorter focus distances in mind, so images taken of closer subjects honestly look really nice. It isn't until about mid-range and general walk-around photography subjects are captured that you see what this lens does...and that is create some really harsh bokeh. Sadly, this performance has me shying away from buying the lens at this time, as I don't think I would personally have much use for it beyond food photography - which I'm sure this lens will excel at greatly. If you want a beautiful walk-around lens for portraits, events, weddings, and travel, I don't think this is a very good lens for that because of the bokeh quality. It's honestly some of the worst I've ever seen and it makes me sad. It's a pretty darn sharp lens great for grabbing details and shorter range subjects...but it can really create some dud shots.

_*Samples all shot wide open at f/1.8 on EOS R.*_


After taking this image walking my dog, I instantly knew I wasn't going to like this lens. The subject isolation is extremely poor and the backgrounds preserve a LOT of detail and have too much busyness going on.



100% crop shows that the lens performs very well in terms of sharpness and aberration control, but WOW...this is really ugly falloff for an f/1.8 prime.




When grabbing detail shots, this lens really does an excellent job creating a beautiful and sharp image. THIS is where the lens shines.



100% crop shows how nice the background is rendered and how sharp it is at shorter focusing distances.



Globally, to my eye, this image doesn't look very good at all. There is a nerviousness to the transition areas out of the depth of field and it doesn't look horrible, but it doesn't look smooth either. Look toward the top of the frame how the buildings and tree branches look in spite of being much further away from the chair I focused on.



100% crop shows the sharpness once again. It's a pretty sharp lens - no surprise - but at f/1.8 and this distance to focus on the subject I would have expected a smoother background.



This photo was the nail in the coffin for me with this lens as I think it tuns in an absolutely ugly performance. I'm focused on the sign and the falloff is not only poorly defined, but it doesn't look like an f/1.8 shot and the background is incredibly busy and messy looking. It honestly looks like a "portrait" mode shot from a cell phone.



I don't think bokeh performance can get much worse than this. THIS IS f/1.8!!! Instead of creating a nice blur we have image doubling. Everything looks hazy and distracting no matter how far away from the subject things in this shot get. Move your eyes from the ropes on the right, to the garbage ca, to the two people next to the parking meter. There is a solid 10-15 feet distance in depth between each of them and they are all roughly represented.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 18, 2018)

The last shot looks like some shots that I've gotten from the 70-200 f/2.8 II IS when IS is on. Did you try it with IS off?

I've only used the lens indoors for a couple dozen shots, so I haven't seen what you've described yet. The reviews I've seen so far have commented that the bokeh isn't as smooth as it could be, but I wonder how much better the 35L II could have done under the same conditions at f/1.8. Maybe I'll try a couple shots with trees in the backyard with the two lenses. Will have to wait until the weekend though.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 18, 2018)

First shot is awful in all respects, and with the horrendous glare on the lake (and a lot on the grass too), using it to judge bokeh makes no sense. A side by side with another lens in this crazy stress-test situation would be helpful!

For an approximately $500 lens, I think the bokeh in the shot behind the closeup of the figurine looks smooth and pleasant. No complaints here.

"Bryant Park," with as busy as a background can get, reminds me of the bokeh of the old ef 85mm 1.8, and, for 35mm, seems pretty good to me. The ball with lights doesn't seem too far back for a 35mm lens to produce a lot of bokeh at 1.8. A side by side with the ef 35mm 1.4L II could help your case. Here it's clearly a matter of taste and, perhaps, expectations.

Finally, the sidewalk shot does show what I hope is an aberration, as it is odd. It would be great if you could tell us exactly your settings and other variables so somebody can try to reproduce the effect on another copy of the lens.

Overall, this series seems to show the bokeh is fine when the backlighting is not extreme.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Dec 18, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> First shot is awful in all respects, and with the horrendous glare on the lake (and a lot on the grass too), using it to judge bokeh makes no sense.
> 
> For an approximately $500 lens, I think the bokeh in the shot behind the closeup of the figurine looks smooth and pleasant. No complaints here.
> 
> ...


Please read all of my captions and they should answer your questions.

The first shot makes a lot of sense to show bokeh! Haha This could easily be a shot of someone standing next to a lake - the glare did not altered the bokeh. It was done deliberately to see how it worked with harsh light in the frame and it did extremely well. If that's a person standing there, this is not a good image. I'm returning the lens tomorrow and do not have the time to make more images to satisfy all conditions. I can safely say that the majority of photos I took with the lens were not pleasing.

Please understand that the entire intention of these photos is to show how the image renders in various conditions. I didn't say I was looking to win awards with these photos because they're all garbage and were only taken to see how the lens would perform. It did poorly.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Dec 18, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> The last shot looks like some shots that I've gotten from the 70-200 f/2.8 II IS when IS is on. Did you try it with IS off?
> 
> I've only used the lens indoors for a couple dozen shots, so I haven't seen what you've described yet. The reviews I've seen so far have commented that the bokeh isn't as smooth as it could be, but I wonder how much better the 35L II could have done under the same conditions at f/1.8. Maybe I'll try a couple shots with trees in the backyard with the two lenses. Will have to wait until the weekend though.



I didn't try the lens with IS off. I don't know if it would have made much of a difference or if that should help. The majority of photos captured where I focus on something about 10+ feet away tend to have really poor bokeh.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 18, 2018)

I did read your captions.

Again, I think you'd make a stronger case with side-by-side shots.

And I know these are test shots. But even if you don't have another similar lens on hand for comparison, you could have tried a few shots of the backlit tree from slightly different angles. Even a bokeh "king" such as the ef 50mm f/1.2L gets similar jittery bokeh in certain situations at f/stops between f/1.8 and f/2.8, but in others is dreamy.

Clearly, you don't like the results. If you don't need IS and macro at 35mm, there is a much better choice!

BTW...Did you have a UV filter on this lens? That _could_ cause something like what we see in the sidewalk shot (and cause issues with ultra-harsh, over-the-top backlit shots too).


----------



## LSXPhotog (Dec 18, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I did read your captions.
> 
> Again, I think you'd make a stronger case with side-by-side shots.
> 
> ...


The only other 35mm lens I have is an FD 35mm f/2 - which actually looks nicer. I could do some quick comparison shots with that lens. I have a 35mm Art lens arriving Thursday, but I won't have the RF lens at that point. I do, however, have extensive experience with many various lenses and could tell very quickly that this lens wasn't going to do what I was looking for - which was provide good subject isolation at an affordable price in the 35mm focal length.

Every lens creates bad bokeh in various situations and conditions. I felt this lens more often than not would produce poor bokeh quality.

I didn't like the results, yes. And I wanted to share them because I wanted to show what kind of images I was getting with this lens. It appears many other reviewers are getting the same results and reaching similar conclusions.

There was no UV filter on the lens.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 18, 2018)

I wanted to disagree when I saw the title of the thread, but I agree completely, it looks seriously horrible... the closeups are great, but everything else is just, no....


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 18, 2018)

As stated in another thread, I think the bokeh of the RF35 is pleasing in my shots, but I have to admit that they are all shot with less than 1,5 meters to the subject, and probably most of them around 1 meter or less. I agree that the bokeh doesn’t seem impressive in the test shots above.


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 18, 2018)

Just now I looked around for any 35LII shots that could be compared to the test images in the startof this thread. I haven’t found any pictures at f1.4 with the focus point as long away from the camera, but those I did find did not look fantastic in terms of bokeh. I’ve found that the 35LII has better and smoother bokeh than the RF35, about a 2/3 stop advantage. F2.5 of the 35LII is comparable to f2 of the RF35. My point is that one cannot expect fantastic bokeh from a 35mm lens, if the focus point is +3 meters away, and the background is busy. 

I will try to do another 35LII and RF35 bokeh comparison soon.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 18, 2018)

I took a walk late this afternoon with an ef-s 35mm Macro IS on an 80D. I didn't get any shots backlit as harshly, but some of the other shots have bokeh remarkably similar to some to what you posted, Larsskv. I'll post a few soon.

But I will say that if I tried my hardest to make a lens look bad, I would have taken that first shot of the tree by the lake. The glare is the horrendous part. It's not the kind of afternoon or morning light that most photographers would use for portrait work. It looks late in the morning to me, closer to noon than dawn by a few hours. This is why I don't think it's helpful.

I did get a hint of the ghosting in extreme corners when shooting with a UV filter, quite similar to your sidewalk shot.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 19, 2018)

My final point, if I was too harsh judging your test shots and quick judgments. Sorry! I do not believe the shots you shared offer more than a tiny data point about the RF 35mm f/1.8, but just a couple weeks ago I returned a Tamron 45mm f/1.8 within two days. It was awful in terms of AF ability, being soft even when focused as well as possible in LiveView, and with having massive CA wide-open, and still clearly visible at f/5.6. I concluded that I got a bad copy. People here on CR have written positively about it, and reviewers I trust, such as Dustin Abbott and Chris Frost praised it and showed excellent samples. Go figure.

I wonder how many photographers choose an inexpensive, relatively wide macro lens for backlit portraits?


----------



## jd7 (Dec 19, 2018)

I understand even the best of 35mm lenses have their challenges when it comes to bokeh, but I'm pretty sure the OP's shots - particularly the first and last - have ended my interest in the RF 35. I would have expected better from my old 35 2 IS. Perhaps adding the (semi) macro mode meant something else in the design had to give? Anyway, the close focus shots show the RF 35 is capable of producing very nice images, so it's not a bad lens - it just seems it's not as good for as many uses as it might first have appeared.


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 19, 2018)

I did a few shots at f1.4 with my 35LII mounted to the EOS R on my way to work today, with the focus point approximately 3 meters away. These pictures are straight from my phone via Wifi, not edited. It should be no doubt that the 35LII has better bokeh than the RF35, but people shouldn't have high hopes for fantastic bokeh from any 35mm lens, if the focus point is more than maybe two meters away.

In my opionon, those shooting a 35mm with the intention of good bokeh, without going close to their subject, should reconsider their shooting style, or choose a longer focal length.


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 19, 2018)

Here are some pictures from the RF35 that I am pleased with in terms of bokeh and subject separation. They are all shot at f1.8.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 19, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> I did a few shots at f1.4 with my 35LII mounted to the EOS R on my way to work today, with the focus point approximately 3 meters away. These pictures are straight from my phone via Wifi, not edited. It should be no doubt that the 35LII has better bokeh than the RF35, but people shouldn't have high hopes for fantastic bokeh from any 35mm lens, if the focus point is more than maybe two meters away.
> 
> In my opionon, those shooting a 35mm with the intention of good bokeh, without going close to their subject, should reconsider their shooting style, or choose a longer focal length.


The OP's examples from the RF 35 really do not look good at all, and as you say the 35L II is clearly better, but you may be right about shooting style. No point in having unrealistic expectations of gear - better to understand its limitations and work to its strengths! Perhaps not unreasonable to adopt the approach of stopping down at least a bit any time you are a medium distance from your subject when shooting with a 35mm (I'm guessing it wouldn't be necessary if you were at infinity focus?).
I think I'm still going to struggle convincing myself to switch to the RF 35 from my 35 Art though


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 19, 2018)

I bought my ef-s 35mm f/2.8 IS Macro to have something lightweight on my 80D. Approximately the same framing as a nifty-fifty, fairly useful IS, convenient for snapshots and occasionally better photos of the family, a bit of street photography, nice shots of details while out on outings...I like its AF speed and IQ better than the ef-s 24mm pancake, along with its ergonomics. In short, a generally fun, flexible prime.

It is definitely not a substitute for the ef 35mm f/1.4L II.

This explains why I kind of jumped to the defense of the rf 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro--I see it as a FF bigger sibling to my ef-s 35mm f/2.8.

Nice shots of the family! I like the b&w here very much. Happy holidays!


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 19, 2018)

jd7 said:


> The OP's examples from the RF 35 really do not look good at all, and as you say the 35L II is clearly better, but you may be right about that. No point in having unrealistic expectations of gear - better to understand its limitations and work to its strengths! Perhaps not unreasonable to adopt the approach of stopping down at least a bit any time you are a medium distance from your subject when shooting with a 35mm (I'm guessing it wouldn't be necessary if you were at infinity focus?).
> I think I'm still going to struggle convincing myself to switch to the RF 35 from my 35 Art though



It has been years since I sold of my 35ART, but I would be curious to see how it perform bokeh wise at f1.4 and f1.8 at various distances, up to at least 3 meters from your subject.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 19, 2018)

jd7 said:


> The OP's examples from the RF 35 really do not look good at all, and as you say the 35L II is clearly better, but you may be right about that. No point in having unrealistic expectations of gear - better to understand its limitations and work to its strengths! Perhaps not unreasonable to adopt the approach of stopping down at least a bit any time you are a medium distance from your subject when shooting with a 35mm (I'm guessing it wouldn't be necessary if you were at infinity focus?).
> I think I'm still going to struggle convincing myself to switch to the RF 35 from my 35 Art though


Why the desire to switch at all? Better AF? Macro? I liked mine while I had it, but got mega GAS when the ef 35mm f/1.4L II came out. The slightly faster Canon gives me quick and reliable AF with better bokeh. On the other hand, no IS, and it ain't petite.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Dec 19, 2018)

Hey there, gang. I went ahead and took some shots that I could easily reproduce tomorrow when I get my Sigma 35mm Art lens in the mail to directly compare bokeh quality at various focus distances. I took them next to my vintage FD 35mm f/2 S.C.C. lens, which is about 40 years old...and it appears to have performed better in terms of background smoothness - very sad but awesome for me because I love my FD lenses. LOL

Just looking through the shots I took it appears that this lens renders some very ugly bokeh from about 8-10ft out. When you focus on closer subjects, the lens does a magnificent job indeed.

Tomorrow when I get the Sigma in hand I will try to post the photos next to each other. Unfortunately for me, the weather conditions will change because it's lightly raining right now, so it will actually be MORE forgiving to the RF and FD mount lenses.


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 19, 2018)

LSXPhotog said:


> Hey there, gang. I went ahead and took some shots that I could easily reproduce tomorrow when I get my Sigma 35mm Art lens in the mail to directly compare bokeh quality at various focus distances. I took them next to my vintage FD 35mm f/2 S.C.C. lens, which is about 40 years old...and it appears to have performed better in terms of background smoothness - very sad but awesome for me because I love my FD lenses. LOL
> 
> Just looking through the shots I took it appears that this lens renders some very ugly bokeh from about 8-10ft out. When you focus on closer subjects, the lens does a magnificent job indeed.
> 
> Tomorrow when I get the Sigma in hand I will try to post the photos next to each other. Unfortunately for me, the weather conditions will change because it's lightly raining right now, so it will actually be MORE forgiving to the RF and FD mount lenses.



Looking forward to see a comparison to the Sigma. I’m glad you found the bokeh at closer focus distances to be much better, as I did.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 20, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Why the desire to switch at all? Better AF? Macro? I liked mine while I had it, but got mega GAS when the ef 35mm f/1.4L II came out. The slightly faster Canon gives me quick and reliable AF with better bokeh. On the other hand, no IS, and it ain't petite.


Reason I was (am?) interested in the RF 35 is the idea of an EOS R + RF 35 being a relatively small and light package to use as a walk around set up while still having good IQ and a reasonably fast aperture (and the IS would be a bonus on some occasions). I used to have a 40 f/2.8 pancake and a 35 f/2 IS for my 6D and I did like having that sort of set up for casual use. I sold the 40 f/2.8 though because of lack of use after I got the 35 f/2 IS ... but then I tried a Sigma 35 Art and stopped using my 35 f/2 IS so it got sold too. I generally use either the 35 Art or 24-70 f/4L IS as my walk around these days - and they do a good job - but the idea of having one small, light prime still appeals to me. Maybe I should just pick up another 40 f/2.8.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 20, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> It has been years since I sold of my 35ART, but I would be curious to see how it perform bokeh wise at f1.4 and f1.8 at various distances, up to at least 3 meters from your subject.


I'd be happy to go and take some example shots but I injured my neck last week and I'm still pretty much stuck on the couch at the moment, unfortunately. I'll see if I can find any suitable shots in my photo library as soon as I can, but my photos are all on my desktop computer and at the moment I can't even sit up to use it for very long! (On couch with a laptop at the moment.)

On a side note, I don't recommend straining ligaments in your neck. It will heal but it's not a whole lot of fun in the meantime!


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 20, 2018)

jd7 said:


> I'd be happy to go and take some example shots but I injured my neck last week and I'm still pretty much stuck on the couch at the moment, unfortunately. I'll see if I can find any suitable shots in my photo library as soon as I can, but my photos are all on my desktop computer and at the moment I can't even sit up to use it for very long! (On couch with a laptop at the moment.)
> 
> On a side note, I don't recommend straining ligaments in your neck. It will heal but it's not a whole lot of fun in the meantime!



If you don’t find any suitable comparison pictures (f1.4 with a focus point 3meters/10 feet away) and a busy background, it is probably because such photos don’t play to a 35mm strengths, and rarely becomes keepers. 

I wish you a healthy a speedy recovery!


----------



## jd7 (Dec 22, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> If you don’t find any suitable comparison pictures (f1.4 with a focus point 3meters/10 feet away) and a busy background, it is probably because such photos don’t play to a 35mm strengths, and rarely becomes keepers.
> 
> I wish you a healthy a speedy recovery!


Thanks! Am recovering but I wouldn't call it speedy at this point 

I have had a look in my photo library and I haven't found any really good examples of wide aperture shots with the Sigma 35 Art with the subject around 3 meters away and a busy background. As you say, that may be because that style of shot doesn't play to the strengths of a 35mm lens. Anyway, I've attached the closest examples I've found, for whatever they are worth.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 23, 2018)

I don't have a L-bracket yet for the R, so these were handheld. Shutter speed ranged from 1/1000 to 1/6400s. All at f/1.8. 4 shots each from the EF 35L II with RF/EF adapter and the RF 35 f/1.8 IS. IS was on all the time. Resized to max 3000 pixels to be able to load onto this site.


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 23, 2018)

jd7 said:


> Thanks! Am recovering but I wouldn't call it speedy at this point
> 
> I have had a look in my photo library and I haven't found any really good examples of wide aperture shots with the Sigma 35 Art with the subject around 3 meters away and a busy background. As you say, that may be because that style of shot doesn't play to the strengths of a 35mm lens. Anyway, I've attached the closest examples I've found, for whatever they are worth.


Thank you for sharing! I’m on my phone, so it is hard to make a good opinion, but I’d say the Sigma 35ART does very well in terms of bokeh in your pictures.


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 23, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> I don't have a L-bracket yet for the R, so these were handheld. Shutter speed ranged from 1/1000 to 1/6400s. All at f/1.8. 4 shots each from the EF 35L II with RF/EF adapter and the RF 35 f/1.8 IS. IS was on all the time. Resized to max 3000 pixels to be able to load onto this site.



Nice comparison! Thank you for the effort. It is no doubt that the 35LII does better, but from what I’ve seen in my own, and the other RF 35 shots in this thread, the RF 35 has very decent bokeh at closer distances. At longer focus distances, it can have some busy bokeh, which is worse than both the 35LII and Sigma 35ART. That said, if you play on the strengths of the RF35, it should be easy to avoid those situations when bokeh goes bad. Summarized, I am still considering selling my 35LII, after getting the RF35. I will decide after some more experience with the two, and after comparing color and clarity - a strong point for the 35LII.


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 23, 2018)

navastronia said:


> Love all this discussion of the EF and RF 35mm lenses. I just upgraded from a 7D to a 5D classic last month and plan to hop into the RF ecosystem in a couple years when there's a great replacement for the 5D IV or the 1DX mii. 35mm is one of my favorite focal lengths, and if you want to see some truly nervous bokeh, see what the Yongnuo EF 35mm does with a busy background ; )



How do you like the 5D classic? I really like the colors in the cat picture. I consider getting a 5D for use with manual focus lenses.


----------



## navastronia (Dec 23, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> How do you like the 5D classic? I really like the colors in the cat picture. I consider getting a 5D for use with manual focus lenses.



Thank you! I love it so far (I actually bought 2 bargain-grade bodies from KEH) and, coincidentally, I'm also getting into manual focus, since the autofocus isn't extremely reliable. It's head and shoulders above any of the crop bodies I've shot with - the colors are charming and the clarity is outstanding, even with cheaper glass.

I recently purchased an Ee-S focusing screen and installed it in one of the bodies, and that's taken my ability to manual focus to another level. I'm also waiting on a 1.2x viewfinder (apparently the Pentax expand o-me53 fits the 5D classic) to help me further. Will post photos when it arrives.

These 2 modifications have set me back only $30 each, and if they help me take better pictures, I'm going to be extremely pleased.

EDIT: in case you haven't seen it yet, here's also a list of manual focus m42 lenses and their compatibility with the 5D classic (link)


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 23, 2018)

navastronia said:


> Thank you! I love it so far (I actually bought 2 bargain-grade bodies from KEH) and, coincidentally, I'm also getting into manual focus, since the autofocus isn't extremely reliable. It's head and shoulders above any of the crop bodies I've shot with - the colors are charming and the clarity is outstanding, even with cheaper glass.
> 
> I recently purchased an Ee-S focusing screen and installed it in one of the bodies, and that's taken my ability to manual focus to another level. I'm also waiting on a 1.2x viewfinder (apparently the Pentax expand o-me53 fits the 5D classic) to help me further. Will post photos when it arrives.
> 
> ...


The appeal to me is to try out the CCD sensor, which seem to provide a different look, compared the CMOS sensors. Further I am a bit drawn to the simplicity of the 5D. Adding that EE-S focusing screen seems like good advice. With good MF lenses, it makes you focus on what you want in focus in a very intuitive way, not needing to fiddle around with focusing points. It helps me being more caught up in the creative process. And of course, you can get the 5D bodies at a very affordable price.

Edit: I just found out I was wrong regarding the CCD. It has a CMOS sensor...


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Dec 24, 2018)

LSXPhotog said:


> Back in September I made the decision to purchase a 35mm prime to finally round out my primes which already consisted of a 24, 50, 85, 100, and 135. I got my hands on the EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM lens as a rental and it was pretty easy to fall in love with that big guy. While I make a living using my gear, I am also realistic when it comes to priority of spending money. As a 50mm shooter through and through, I didn't think too keenly about the price tag for a lens that I already knew wouldn't see the level of action I get from my 50mm and 85mm on a weekly basis. The new RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro seemed like it might be a good idea for keeping the costs down and the macro capability might be really useful when I shoot food for local restaurants I work with. I rented the lens in early December and started messing around with it - bringing it with me to NYC on my vacation last week. My findings were...disappointing to say the least.
> 
> *Results:*
> Before I left for NYC I was already messing around with the RF 35mm around the house and was really shocked how ugly I thought the photos were looking. The bokeh falloff was honestly very sloppy and was distracting in some shots. It was very clear that this lens is designed with shorter focus distances in mind, so images taken of closer subjects honestly look really nice. It isn't until about mid-range and general walk-around photography subjects are captured that you see what this lens does...and that is create some really harsh bokeh. Sadly, this performance has me shying away from buying the lens at this time, as I don't think I would personally have much use for it beyond food photography - which I'm sure this lens will excel at greatly. If you want a beautiful walk-around lens for portraits, events, weddings, and travel, I don't think this is a very good lens for that because of the bokeh quality. It's honestly some of the worst I've ever seen and it makes me sad. It's a pretty darn sharp lens great for grabbing details and shorter range subjects...but it can really create some dud shots.
> ...



Maybe the electronic first curtain shutter ist the problem with the bokeh together with certain shutter speeds.

There are already some articles to find about these issue:
https://petapixel.com/2018/12/07/ps...in-shutter-may-be-quietly-hurting-your-bokeh/


----------



## LSXPhotog (Dec 27, 2018)

Photorex said:


> Maybe the electronic first curtain shutter ist the problem with the bokeh together with certain shutter speeds.
> 
> There are already some articles to find about these issue:
> https://petapixel.com/2018/12/07/ps...in-shutter-may-be-quietly-hurting-your-bokeh/


I have had electronic shutter disabled on my camera since I discovered its impact on using high-speed sync.

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/eos-r-banding-with-strobes-how-to-fix.36348/

The lens is entirely the problem, unfortunately.


----------



## rosw (Dec 28, 2018)

Hi Guys,

this was posted and shared in another post, do check out his pics and see if it is noisy as well

https://delightphoto.zenfolio.com/b...vel-china-november-2018-with-the-rf-35mm-f1-8

Personally i think the best pic taken is "_*This image off pretty tasty silk worms had blown me away, not because of the food but because of bokeh.... Using macro distances the bokeh is pretty pleasant and creamy..."*_

i think this lens really shines with excellent bokeh with extreme close up ....

as for general street photography, i let you be the judge, happy to hear your views ....


----------



## rosw (Dec 28, 2018)

found these few youtube videos - 

do check them out and see if you think they are sharp or have noisy background 

1) 




2) 




3) 




4)


----------



## rosw (Dec 28, 2018)

unfortunately, i cant do the korean-english translation, but do check out the night club video from time 8.41-9.47

hand-hold 







this video is in english though


----------



## rosw (Jan 26, 2019)

https://alikgriffin.com/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-review-sample-photos/


----------



## rosw (Jan 26, 2019)

*Bokeh Distance*
The best looking bokeh often takes place in a distance sweet spot, especially with 35mm lenses. When you get past 10 feet with this lens you start to see some issues with bokeh in the corners. You almost get this split image that happens and it can give a very distracting nervous feel. So at f1.8 you’ll want to stay within 10 feet (3 meters) for the best looking bokeh.
This is pretty standard though. I include this in my reviews now because people will often complain about nervous bokeh, or this bokeh or that bokeh, but the quality of bokeh varies massively with distance on most lenses so this lens will be suited well for head shots, but for full body portraits you will get a distracting boke


----------



## londonxt (Jan 26, 2019)

Busy Background RF 35 @ f4

I was really enjoying this lens when I first bought it in Japan for travelling and pictures were nice and sharp. But in UK recently I had quite a lot of shockers, not very sharp at f8 etc noticed the shutter speed was often down to 1/60 and I had image stabiliser turned on which I didnt in Japan, plus it was sunnier there at the time. Might try again with IS turned off.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jan 29, 2019)

rosw said:


> https://alikgriffin.com/canon-rf-35mm-f1-8-review-sample-photos/


Absolutly GREAT article. Wow was that a joy to read and look at.

The lens certainly has its uses...for me, this lens didn't work out. I would much rather carry around my FD 35mm f/2 S.C.C. and adapter when I travel - it's more fun and provides more optical character. (God that sounds so hipster, but it's true.) For me - looking for a smaller 35mm - I thought it would be a great lens for the EOS R when I travel. It wasn't for me and I didn't like using it at all nor did I feel I was happy with the majority of the photos. Every lens has its sweet spot, as I pointed out. This lens with its macro ability is very unique. But I fear that providing this macro capability may have impacted its rendering for general purpose photography? I really don't know.


----------

