# OpticalLimits Reviews the Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro STM



## canonnews (Dec 22, 2019)

> OpticalLimits, formerly Photozone.de has completed their review of the Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS Macro STM.  Personally I feel that this is a start of a series of lightweight small primes for the Canon RF mount.
> They give it a solid review, with the breakdown of scores of;
> 
> Optical Quality – almost 4 out of 5 stars
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## brad-man (Dec 22, 2019)

Since this time of year I have very little control over the use of my Amex card, I picked up a refurbed EOS R + RF24-105mm f/4L IS for under $2k. While I expect this combo will be quite nice for a general purpose walk around kit, I think it would be useful to have a small faster lens available should the need arise, much like bringing the 22 along when I'm out with my M5 + zoom. So looking pretty hard at this one...


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 22, 2019)

So much for relegating focus-shift to the past.

Great to see Optical Limits (nee photozone) keeping up with reviews!


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 22, 2019)

I have one of these. New to Canon, I was naive about STM operation and talked to service about the noise, which they heard on the speakerphone and suggested I send it in. Instead I did a quick exchange with the retailer and confirmed the same noisy focus sound. I’m now used to it. 

I’d say that for fast, light, compact and cheap there is nothing close. 5x$ gets you faster and much heavier and fatter with the F1.2. And the 40mm f2.8 pancake on an adapter is cheaper lighter and smaller but loses speed.

This lens was my choice to go on an RP to the hospital for a new baby arrival. Fast and compact was a better choice that a big 2.8 zoom. It also pairs nicely with the f2.8 RF 70-200 that makes a great everyday family photo lens in its short 70 configuration. ~$3000 for the pair makes a very versatile setup. With those, the 24-240 never gets much use unless shooting outdoors.

My suggestion for this lens is a switch to lock out the nearer focal distances to effectively speed up and quiet down the focusing by not hunting over the whole range.


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 22, 2019)

This review confirms all my non-formal observations: it does not stand out optically like a lot of new lenses but I have to say that it has not bad flaws in all categories except maybe vignetting and a little bit too high coma wide open.
And featuring 1:2 macro + a very good IS implementation + size-weight-price on the low side it is a very capable lens for taking photos. Maybe we are to much focused on super high IQ in all categories and loosing some creativity and fun taking photos.
I bought the RP with adapter and RF 35 during a super cool discount and payed just below 1100 EUR for the whole package and I am impressed how much fun the camera and the lens provide!

Attached a photograph, just 1 hr old, trying to explore close up capability and I am impressed about those wide angle close ups - up to now macro was 100mm, the EF-M 32 showed me that close up can be 50mm and now the RF35 paved the way to more wide angle macros.

I tried it too for vlogging - in motion and static - while a bit too tight for self-shooting without some extension it showed very good separation at f/1.8 and for the static case it is a great focal length with useful f/1.8 max aperture. The strong vignetting isn't that problematic in 16:9 because you cut out the extreme corners of the 3:2 format.
Noise is a bit loud for internal microphones but who uses internal microphones for good quality sound (I will add a Videomic NTG soon which might be a good addition to RP / RF35 because of moderate size and great interface (amplification potentiometer with engraved NUMBERS !!!).

About the photograph: Subjects are little cups of about 40mm max. diameter and 50mm height. So no real macro but definitely close up! The aperture was f/1.8


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 22, 2019)

Optics Patent said:


> [...]
> This lens was my choice to go on an RP to the hospital for a new baby arrival. Fast and compact was a better choice that a big 2.8 zoom. It also pairs nicely with the f2.8 RF 70-200 that makes a great everyday family photo lens in its short 70 configuration. ~$3000 for the pair makes a very versatile setup. With those, the 24-240 never gets much use unless shooting outdoors.
> 
> My suggestion for this lens is a switch to lock out the nearer focal distances to effectively speed up and quiet down the focusing by not hunting over the whole range.


I just wanted to wait with RF a little bit but ... see my post above. And now I thought the same: RF 70-200 2.8 (and a second RP) would make a fast (aperture wise and changing lenses by changing cameras), compact and high quality setup for allround work.

The EF-M 32 has the switch and it would have been definitely a good idea to give it to the RF35. But focusing manually works very well with the highlighting of in-focus parts of the image and that helps to bring different objects into focus/adjust the focal plane so there is a workaround but ... as always: no need for workarounds makes one faster!


----------



## jedy (Dec 22, 2019)

I’ve never understood the point in making wide angle lenses macro. The distortion is usually quite pronounced and you have to get very close to the subject which often creates unwanted shadows. All this from previous experience.


----------



## wockawocka (Dec 22, 2019)

I have the RF35 and while it's good for non-professional use, I find it hunts terribly in low contrast situations when using servo and isn't much better in one shot.

It's particularly bad in low light servo mode, in that it tends to search the full focus range and as it's focus by wire I can't quickly pull it back to the range it should be in to help it. But that's STM for you.

If anyone is considering a lightweight 35mm the EF F2 IS is still the winner, it doesn't suffer like the RF35 does albeit you'll lose the macro function which admittedly is a nice thing to have when you don't want to carry the 100mm 2.8 IS around.


----------



## brad-man (Dec 22, 2019)

jedy said:


> I’ve never understood the point in making wide angle lenses macro. The distortion is usually quite pronounced and you have to get very close to the subject which often creates unwanted shadows. All this from previous experience.


I consider it a quick wide angle with a close focus distance.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 23, 2019)

jedy said:


> I’ve never understood the point in making wide angle lenses macro. The distortion is usually quite pronounced and you have to get very close to the subject which often creates unwanted shadows. All this from previous experience.


Wide angle Macro lenses are fun to work with, Venus Laowa makes a 15mm Macro which is highly rated among a lot of photographers(primarily herping community) even though it is very tough lens to master. Just google some photos people(check Kurt Orion's work with that lens) have taken using that lens. In case of this RF 35mm that Macro capability is an added bonus which might be useful for photographers to get some decent close ups.



0M4A5790 by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 23, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> I have the RF35 and while it's good for non-professional use, I find it hunts terribly in low contrast situations when using servo and isn't much better in one shot.



I observed the hunting too but only if I use the small focus point and if there is no pattern which allows the horizontal (DP)AF-sensor-arrays to do their phase detect. For static subjects I rotate the camera by about 30 degree, do the focusing and rotate the camera back to the intended orientation. Not perfect but much better than using a center point and recompose.
Maybe QPAF will help where we could have cross sensor capabilities


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Dec 23, 2019)

I have this lens and I think it's a great general purpose lens, especially given it's wide aperture and excellent image stabilization. I would venture to guess that most people see it as an all-purpose lens vs. primarily macro. Canon probably could have left the "macro" designation off and it would have sold the same amount.

For my uses, this lens really shines in low-light shooting. With the image stabilization, I can easily handhold for 1/2 second exposures and get extremely sharp photos (some people have said they can even go up to a full second). Shooting low-light video with IS at F1.8 gives awesome, smooth video at low ISO's. I recently used it to to video some elaborate Christmas light displays and the results were spectacular.

I picked it up during the holiday sales for well under $500 U.S., and at that price it's probably a great addition for anybody with an R-mount camera.


----------



## HikeBike (Dec 23, 2019)

I've found this to be a wonderful general-purpose lens. Works well for photos and videos alike. I'm very happy with the image quality (it's not L glass...but we know this), and I would highly recommend it for a fun, light-weight setup.


----------



## NetMage (Dec 23, 2019)

It is a little too expensive for what I have always wanted, an APS-C normal to be the equivalent of the 50mm 1.8 for full frame, in EF mount. Guess that dream is probably dead.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 23, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> So much for relegating focus-shift to the past.
> 
> Great to see Optical Limits (nee photozone) keeping up with reviews!


Why would focus shift be different for a DSLR or a MILC? It is a function of the design of the lens and the way focus changes at different apertures, the only two ways around it are to make lenses that don't do it or to focus stopped down to the actual aperture to be used. The first is too expensive for a modest priced prime lens the second would impact AF speed.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 24, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Why would focus shift be different for a DSLR or a MILC? It is a function of the design of the lens and the way focus changes at different apertures, the only two ways around it are to make lenses that don't do it or to focus stopped down to the actual aperture to be used. The first is too expensive for a modest priced prime lens the second would impact AF speed.


Or possibly via firmware?


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 24, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Why would focus shift be different for a DSLR or a MILC? It is a function of the design of the lens and the way focus changes at different apertures, the only two ways around it are to make lenses that don't do it or to focus stopped down to the actual aperture to be used. The first is too expensive for a modest priced prime lens the second would impact AF speed.



A third option would be to add a mapping in the lens profile that can work out what the shift would be for a given focus distance and aperture. Canon mentioned that some of the RF lenses automatically adjust focus while zooming to emulate being parfocal, so it isn't a stretch that they could add a mapping in the lens or camera firmware if they really wanted to.


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 24, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> > Personally I feel that this is a start of a series of lightweight small primes for the Canon RF mount.
> 
> I don't. I'd like a notch yet more portable and a half-notch less speccy. For instance a line of 24/2.4 28/2 35/2 50/1.8 non-macro non-IS would let an R get lost in your daily commute backpack, in a way the 35/1.8ISMac probably doesn't. They'd also offer just enough extra aperture that you might take them with you even when you have your trinity 2.8 zooms with you.



With IBIS the IS wont be needed anyway, and a touch more ISO noise in low light is fine. A line of “body cap “ lenses. Even f2.8 is fine.


----------



## uri.raz (Dec 24, 2019)

Almost 4 stops of vignetting at f/1.8? Dayum!

The EF 24mm f/1.4L doesn't have that much vignetting at f/1.4


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 24, 2019)

The focus noise of this lens, especially as it hunts through 85% of its range closer than two feet got a dirty look from my three year old son I was taking pictures of at play.

I need this lens but don’t really like it. Weighing whether to send it back and rely on the adapter 40mm pancake.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 24, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> Or possibly via firmware?


If you are talking about RF 70-200mm then in case of that lens which uses two separate motors for AF firmware can help in better synchronization of those two motors so they will focus correctly.


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 24, 2019)

So here’s the problem with this lens: most of the focus adjustment is spent at macro distances.

In manual mode there is one full rotation of the focus ring from closest to distant. Fully one half of this rotation is used to adjust from about 3” to 5” from the front of the lens. Another quarter of a turn gets you to 12”. That leaves 1/4 of the focus range in the useful world beyond 12”.

If they had a switch to lock out closer than 12” I’d glue it down. This lens spends 75% of its efforts noisily and slowly hunting where I don’t shoot with a wide normal lens. In fact it’s not noisy or slow, it’s just that it spends so much time hunting where I’m not looking.

I will in the future consider “macro” not as an occasional added benefit but as a handicap if it can’t be locked out.

Camera-controlled focus range limit firmware update desperately desired. Or maybe just send it back as I’m within the Adorama VIP 60-day period.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 24, 2019)

Optics Patent said:


> So here’s the problem with this lens: most of the focus adjustment is spent at macro distances.
> 
> In manual mode there is one full rotation of the focus ring from closest to distant. Fully one half of this rotation is used to adjust from about 3” to 5” from the front of the lens. Another quarter of a turn gets you to 12”. That leaves 1/4 of the focus range in the useful world beyond 12”.
> 
> ...



I've always wondered why some lenses have a switch on them that limits their closest distance; now I know. (In particular my 100mm macro has that switch, but since I *do* use it for macro, I don't engage it. But I can see why significant numbers of customers would want such a thing, including me in other scenarios!)

Is there some place on the menus where one could put a minimum focus control, and have it fit in? As far as I know (and I've zero experience with high end models) there's no such thing. I can't imagine that being added just for this...so I suspect your best course is to send it back and get a non macro prime (if there is an R one that will work for you) or go back to your pancake + adapter.

Another option (for them, not for you--you don't have time to wait on this) would be for the autofocus, if the camera is already outside of 12 inches and finds it needs to refocus, to focus further away first, then try coming back in. That way if it IS going off in the wrong direction, at least the time spent hunting is minimized. Case one: your subject moves further away: AF-ing closer first and bouncing off the near limit and going back again is a total travel of 1.5 turns of the ring, round trip. Going out, of course immediately solves it. Case 2: your subject moves closer in. AF-ing closer first solves it instantly, AFing more distantly first makes the camera take a 0.5 (or less) turn rof the focus ring round trip. Clearly, having the autofocus try going farther first is superior when you're not shooting at macro distances. This is obvious enough to me that I infer the lens isn't just macro-capable; it's targeted for macro use.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 25, 2019)

Optics Patent said:


> So here’s the problem with this lens: most of the focus adjustment is spent at macro distances.
> 
> In manual mode there is one full rotation of the focus ring from closest to distant. Fully one half of this rotation is used to adjust from about 3” to 5” from the front of the lens. Another quarter of a turn gets you to 12”. That leaves 1/4 of the focus range in the useful world beyond 12”.
> [..]



Note that on RF lenses the focus ring is complete controlled by software, there are a few options in the camera to tweak it, one of which is the direction. Maybe it has a section for sensitivity as well?
DPReview TV did an item a few weeks back about software controlled focus limiting, a thing I would very much like to have. 
But I want it for the reverse: lock it down from MFD to 1 meter so it stays in macro mode. It's very annoying when you try to focus on an insect and it grabs the background instead.


----------



## brad-man (Dec 25, 2019)

Mine arrives Monday, AF be damned. Merry Christmas all!


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Dec 25, 2019)

brad-man said:


> Mine arrives Monday, AF be damned. Merry Christmas all!
> View attachment 187912



You're going to love it. It really is a great all around lens.

Regarding the autofocus issues some of you are having, all scenes and situations vary, so maybe yours are different enough to make a difference in AF operation, but I haven't been experiencing any of the hunting or autofocus issues described. I actually bought the RP specifically because the eye-detect AF is awesome, and my 3-year-old is so active, none of my other cameras were ever able to focus on him. I rented an RP, got nearly 100% of my photos in focus, and I was sold.

Maybe two of the settings below might help? When I have eye-detect AF locked on my 3-year-old, it stays locked perfectly, and even if he turns around temporarily, when his eyes are back in frame it instantly locks back on. I'm impressed too that the face doesn't even need to be that large in the frame. It works at a wide variety of distances.


----------



## Dantana (Dec 26, 2019)

NetMage said:


> It is a little too expensive for what I have always wanted, an APS-C normal to be the equivalent of the 50mm 1.8 for full frame, in EF mount. Guess that dream is probably dead.


Why not the EF 35 2.0 IS?


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 26, 2019)

Dantana said:


> Why not the EF 35 2.0 IS?



I was looking at that, but bristle at paying $100 more for a lens requiring an adapter. To go from the $99 40mm f2.8. IS isn't a big difference because soon I'll have it on an IBIS body.

Might borrow it though CPS. Or buy from Adorama and send back if I don't love it.


----------



## Dantana (Dec 26, 2019)

Optics Patent said:


> I was looking at that, but bristle at paying $100 more for a lens requiring an adapter. To go from the $99 40mm f2.8. IS isn't a big difference because soon I'll have it on an IBIS body.
> 
> Might borrow it though CPS. Or buy from Adorama and send back if I don't love it.


 Right, but that was in response to NetMage who seemed to be looking for an EF lens unless I am misunderstanding their post:

"It is a little too expensive for what I have always wanted, an APS-C normal to be the equivalent of the 50mm 1.8 for full frame, in EF mount. Guess that dream is probably dead."


----------



## padam (Dec 27, 2019)

Dantana said:


> Why not the EF 35 2.0 IS?


The RF focuses smoother and a lot quieter during video, and has better IS, too.


----------



## Dantana (Dec 27, 2019)

padam said:


> The RF focuses smoother and a lot quieter during video, and has better IS, too.


Absolutely.

But again, that was in response to NetMage who seemed to be looking for an EF lens unless I am misunderstanding their post:

"It is a little too expensive for what I have always wanted, an APS-C normal to be the equivalent of the 50mm 1.8 for full frame, in EF mount. Guess that dream is probably dead."


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 27, 2019)

I made this video to show what I hate about this lens I otherwise love. My bold claim at the end (start at 3:45 if impatient) is that the lens takes 10x as long and makes 10x the noise focusing closer than 12" than it does from 12" to infinity. The macro feature makes this an irritating lens to use for normal subjects.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Dec 27, 2019)

Optics Patent said:


> I made this video to show what I hate about this lens I otherwise love. My bold claim at the end (start at 3:45 if impatient) is that the lens takes 10x as long and makes 10x the noise focusing closer than 12" than it does from 12" to infinity. The macro feature makes this an irritating lens to use for normal subjects.



I did some similar experiments after watching your video, and while I did get better results than you did, likely due either to better lighting and / or higher contrast target subjects, I was able to replicate what you described when moving between a subject around 3" from the camera to something about 12" away. I'm not familiar with the actual motors inside the lens, but it seems like the gearing is different (and slower) at close range than distances 12"+ out, in order for more precise focusing at those small distances. 

Everyone's shooting style and subject matter is of course different. For me, I can't think of a particular scenario where I would be using servo AF to frequently move between something 3" away to something 12" away and back. I'm either doing "general purpose" photography (99% of the time) in which case this phenomenon doesn't have any impact or apply, or I'm shooting macro in which case I'm probably not autofocusing frequently back and forth between those two close-range distances.

Is there a situation you find yourself in where this lens behavior presents a problem?


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 27, 2019)

The irritation arises any time I’m doing normal subjects and it has a little trouble focusing. It ends up hunting far from its target. Like it lost its car keys under the lamppost but searches all the way around the block before finding them.

And it’s irritating when you set down a live camera on a table and it hums and strains to focus on something next to it. Same when you pick it up and it makes point and shoot noises.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Dec 27, 2019)

Optics Patent said:


> The irritation arises any time I’m doing normal subjects and it has a little trouble focusing. It ends up hunting far from its target. Like it lost its car keys under the lamppost but searches all the way around the block before finding them.
> 
> And it’s irritating when you set down a live camera on a table and it hums and strains to focus on something next to it. Same when you pick it up and it makes point and shoot noises.



You don't have the setting "Continuous AF" set to "Enable", do you? That's the most annoying setting I've ever seen. I don't even know why they offer it. Is that potentially your issue? That setting can be changed on Page 7 on my RP's menu screen. Not sure where it is if you have an R (vs. RP). That settings tells the camera to *constantly* hunt, focus and re-focus all the time non-stop when the camera is powered on. With a lens capable of macro to infinity, it would pretty much hobble the camera. The reason I ask is because you say that your camera makes noise when you set it on a table and pick it up. The only way I can see it doing that is if you have Continues AF set to "Enable". I would definitely set that to "Disable" if it's not already. If it's currently on "Enable", changing it to "Disable" could very well solve your problem.


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 27, 2019)

Ah. I believe the alternative is that the AF wakes up and operates when the shutter releases is touched. I’ll try it. Not related to servo.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Dec 27, 2019)

Optics Patent said:


> Ah. I believe the alternative is that the AF wakes up and operates when the shutter releases is touched. I’ll try it. Not related to servo.



Correct. When Continuous AF is set to "disable", it acts like a "normal camera" for the last several decades, i.e. half-press of the shutter button will autofocus on the subject. (Also correct, not servo). I have no idea why this feature is in the camera, AND, it comes defaulted to "Enable" I believe. I just tested on mine and turned it on to "Enable" on my RP with that lens, and the camera was useless. It just hunted non-stop everywhere I turned. If it's currently set to "Enable" on your camera, I'm hoping you will be very happy with the results when you set to Disable.


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 28, 2019)

You just may have solved 80% or my irritation, which may well
Make me happily keep this lens. I’m happy to buy the 24-70 F2.8 and or the 50 1.2. But this might make both unnecessary given my love for my compact 70 f2.8 (that happens also to zoom to 200).


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Dec 28, 2019)

Optics Patent said:


> You just may have solved 80% or my irritation, which may well
> Make me happily keep this lens. I’m happy to buy the 24-70 F2.8 and or the 50 1.2. But this might make both unnecessary given my love for my compact 70 f2.8 (that happens also to zoom to 200).



I hope that's the case! (That a good part of the irritation with the lens is resolved). 

Please let me know if / when you have a chance to check that setting and give the camera a test, if you haven't already. I'd love to hear if it helped.


----------



## gouldopfl (Dec 28, 2019)

canonnews said:


> Continue reading...


Since when did a 1:2 become a true macro lens. My understanding is that macro lenses are 1:1 on a full frame sensor or greater. I've seen 5:1 but never 1:2 considered macro. Sounds like a marketing ploy using cheaper materials than the L line


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 28, 2019)

Disabling the Continuous AF in camera menu page 7 makes things much better. I'll spend some time shooting this way to verify. I might just keep this lens. I need it.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Dec 28, 2019)

Optics Patent said:


> Disabling the Continuous AF in camera menu page 7 makes things much better. I'll spend some time shooting this way to verify. I might just keep this lens. I need it.



Excellent, and thanks for the update. I think you'll find it significantly better. I'm so glad you casually mentioned the part about it making the noise when you set it on a table... as soon as I heard that I figured you had Continuous AF on. Keep in mind too that it was doing that with *all* your lenses. You just may have never noticed because the focus on your 70-200 or any other lenses you have is much faster. It would have been constantly hunting and focusing with every single lens, all the time. I imagine it totally drains your battery as well.


----------



## canonnews (Dec 28, 2019)

gouldopfl said:


> Since when did a 1:2 become a true macro lens. My understanding is that macro lenses are 1:1 on a full frame sensor or greater. I've seen 5:1 but never 1:2 considered macro. Sounds like a marketing ploy using cheaper materials than the L line



since around the birth of EOS.. the 50mm F2.5 Compact Macro is .5x but could go to 1:1 with the lifesize converter.


----------



## flip314 (Dec 28, 2019)

gouldopfl said:


> Since when did a 1:2 become a true macro lens. My understanding is that macro lenses are 1:1 on a full frame sensor or greater. I've seen 5:1 but never 1:2 considered macro. Sounds like a marketing ploy using cheaper materials than the L line



The "official" definition of macro is that the image on the sensor is life-sized (1:1). I've never heard qualifications about the sensor size though.

It's always seemed arbitrary to me though, whether you really need 1:1 depends entirely on what you're photographing. A small close focusing distance is always useful whether you're doing "macro" work or not


----------



## brad-man (Dec 29, 2019)

gouldopfl said:


> Since when did a 1:2 become a true macro lens. My understanding is that macro lenses are 1:1 on a full frame sensor or greater. I've seen 5:1 but never 1:2 considered macro. _Sounds like a marketing ploy using cheaper materials than the L line_


You do understand that it's not an L lens, right?


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 29, 2019)

gouldopfl said:


> Since when did a 1:2 become a true macro lens. My understanding is that macro lenses are 1:1 on a full frame sensor or greater. I've seen 5:1 but never 1:2 considered macro. Sounds like a marketing ploy using cheaper materials than the L line



since when is a 35mm lens a “macro”? What genius thinks they can light a subject two inches from the lens? 

If they are accurately describing the specs then the huffing is unjustified


----------



## Profit007 (Dec 29, 2019)

The huge deal here is FOCUS SHIFT, rendering this lens total garbage.

For those who don't know, your AF selects accurate focus @ f1.8, then as you take the photo the lens stops down to your selected aputure (say f2.8) and the focus point changes due to the aputure change... It's not till you get enough DoF (ie f4.0) to cover the shift that everything is 'all right' again. 

The only way to avoid it is to use live view, so your aputure doesn't change after focus.


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 29, 2019)

Profit007 said:


> The huge deal here is FOCUS SHIFT, rendering this lens total garbage.
> 
> For those who don't know, your AF selects accurate focus @ f1.8, then as you take the photo the lens stops down to your selected aputure (say f2.8) and the focus point changes due to the aputure change... It's not till you get enough DoF (ie f4.0) to cover the shift that everything is 'all right' again.
> 
> The only way to avoid it is to use live view, so your aputure doesn't change after focus.


In live view mode camera still focusing at the widest available aperture. This is my understanding happy to be corrected.


----------



## uri.raz (Dec 29, 2019)

gouldopfl said:


> Since when did a 1:2 become a true macro lens. My understanding is that macro lenses are 1:1 on a full frame sensor or greater. I've seen 5:1 but never 1:2 considered macro. Sounds like a marketing ploy using cheaper materials than the L line



Canon calls the new TS-E lenses (50mm, 90mm, 135mm) macro though their max magnification is 1:2. IIRC, I've read that back in the film days, lenses with max magnification of 1:4 were also called macro, though I can't find the source at the moment.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 29, 2019)

Optics Patent said:


> since when is a 35mm lens a “macro”? What genius thinks they can light a subject two inches from the lens?
> 
> If they are accurately describing the specs then the huffing is unjustified



The Canon MTxx flashes can, as well as their 35mm lens with builtin lighting: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-35mm-f-2.8-Macro-IS-STM-Lens.aspx

Or use a hot-shoe cord and put your flash on a flexible arm or something. The Canon MP-E and Laowa lenses have a working distance of less than 2 inches at maximum magnification.


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 29, 2019)

flip314 said:


> A small close focusing distance is always useful whether you're doing "macro" work or not



Potentially useful but in this case at a cost of 3/4 of the focusing range being less than a foot so it can spend most of its effort where the subject isn’t. Which is why some lenses have focus range limit switches. Usually (such as with telephotos having limit switches) closer is better. For AF macros without a switch when macro shooting is not the goal, there’s a potential downside. 

As far as the concern that reducing the aperture to remove some peripheral rays can defocus the central rays as has been recently explained with appreciated clarity, I’ll have to test that at normal focal distances.


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 29, 2019)

Profit007 said:


> The huge deal here is FOCUS SHIFT, rendering this lens total garbage.
> 
> For those who don't know, your AF selects accurate focus @ f1.8, then as you take the photo the lens stops down to your selected aputure (say f2.8) and the focus point changes due to the aputure change... It's not till you get enough DoF (ie f4.0) to cover the shift that everything is 'all right' again.
> 
> The only way to avoid it is to use live view, so your aputure doesn't change after focus.



Very clear explanation. I sought to replicate this with a flat subject at 30" from the lens. f1.8, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8. All indistinguishable at full magnification of the finder. Is this something rarely encountered like the RF70-200 near close focus error? I'd like to understand this better before I dismiss the concern as irrelevant to my usage (like the to-be-fixed RF70-200 focus error).

With a foreshortened ruler I thought I might have seen some shift, but had a hard time replicating (if it isn't repeatable, it isn't science).

I'd be happy to see a link to anyone who has published tests I can replicate.


----------



## jjesp (Dec 29, 2019)

I really hope Canon will make some smaller prime alternatives in the 28mm to 50mm range. Especially since they have cameras like the RP. Would be so nice to have for travel and street photography.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Dec 29, 2019)

Optics Patent said:


> Very clear explanation. I sought to replicate this with a flat subject at 30" from the lens. f1.8, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8. All indistinguishable at full magnification of the finder. Is this something rarely encountered like the RF70-200 near close focus error? I'd like to understand this better before I dismiss the concern as irrelevant to my usage (like the to-be-fixed RF70-200 focus error).
> 
> With a foreshortened ruler I thought I might have seen some shift, but had a hard time replicating (if it isn't repeatable, it isn't science).
> 
> I'd be happy to see a link to anyone who has published tests I can replicate.



It's a non-existent problem. The lens focuses flawlessly in both autofocus and manual modes. Some reviewers just like to come up with something to discuss. It's a natural optical phenomenon with wide aperture lenses that generally causes no-real world effects, as you have seen in your own tests. Feel free to enjoy your lens worry-free about AF issues. If it actually had this problem, it wouldn't be rated so highly almost universally. Perhaps most importantly, the ultimate test of a lens's performance is how well it works for you. If it works great for you and gives you the results you want, that's all that matters.


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 29, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> It's a non-existent problem. The lens focuses flawlessly in both autofocus and manual modes. Some reviewers just like to come up with something to discuss. It's a natural optical phenomenon with wide aperture lenses that generally causes no-real world effects, as you have seen in your own tests. Feel free to enjoy your lens worry-free about AF issues. If it actually had this problem, it wouldn't be rated so highly almost universally. Perhaps most importantly, the ultimate test of a lens's performance is how well it works for you. If it works great for you and gives you the results you want, that's all that matters.


I’ve just shot a real world test of sunlit toddler with eye focus and all apertures are eyelash sharp. If it can do that I don’t care much about some bloggers lab results.
That said, this optics industry technology expert is interested in the principles by which removing outer rays can shift a sharp central focus point. I have an open mind.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Dec 29, 2019)

Optics Patent said:


> If it can do that I don’t care much about some bloggers lab results.



Exactly. It's some bloggers lab results.

As for the physics of it, see the diagram below. In the top example, with the aperture wide open (which it would be during autofocus) the light rays enter from a variety of more extreme angles, creating a focus plane that is not a single point, but rather a bit of a blurry blob. The AF would focus in the middle of this blurry blob (the middle vertical green line).

In the second example with the aperture stopped down slightly, the "extreme angle" rays entering the lens are eliminated by the smaller aperture opening, producing a more accurate point of focus, in this case, shifted slightly leftward (the vertical red line).

These are all tiny amounts (if at all) measured in some lab, as you correctly state. Aspherical elements in the lens can eliminate or drastically reduce it.

Your real-world tests with this lens are the same as mine -- excellent autofocus at all apertures and distances.


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 29, 2019)

Excellent, thanks. This fits with my reading that the actual point of focus gets sharper at smaller apertures and NEVER gets worse by stopping down. It is a “one hand clapping” philosophical matter of whether at a reduced aperture there is a focus setting that provides slightly sharper focus? 

My lens is sharp wide open and get sharper at every reduced aperture until diffraction intervenes. I’m a little sorry I wasted time on this. But glad to have learned a bit more. Clients come to me and are glad I’ve already been familiarized with their issues like these.

a


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 30, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Note that on RF lenses the focus ring is complete controlled by software, there are a few options in the camera to tweak it, one of which is the direction. Maybe it has a section for sensitivity as well?
> DPReview TV did an item a few weeks back about software controlled focus limiting, a thing I would very much like to have.
> But I want it for the reverse: lock it down from MFD to 1 meter so it stays in macro mode. It's very annoying when you try to focus on an insect and it grabs the background instead.


I too would like a menu option to limit focus range. My 100mm f/2.8 macro has the switch which is great when I am shooting above water but not accessible when in an underwater housing  
Mostly I would shoot close up/macro subjects under water with the lens but occasionally further distant subjects if the vis is okay. Only option now is to keep the full range available and put my hand in front to bring the focus close and start the focusing close up. The focus hunting can be quite annoying though.


----------



## ozturert (Dec 30, 2019)

Here's my verdict on the lens: It is one of the best values among all 35mm lenses. With EOS R, it can AF in almost complete darkness, is very sharp even at f1.8 (at least at distances where it matters), it has IS, it focuses fast, it has 1:2 magnification, it is fairly light and small for such a lens and it is dirt cheap when bought with a body (I bought in Norway). I didn't notice that bad vignetting and CA is OK (not bad, not the best). I had EF 35mm f2.0 IS USM as well and this lens is better than that already great lens.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 30, 2019)

ozturert said:


> Here's my verdict on the lens: It is one of the best values among all 35mm lenses. With EOS R, it can AF in almost complete darkness, is very sharp even at f1.8 (at least at distances where it matters), it has IS, it focuses fast, it has 1:2 magnification, it is fairly light and small for such a lens and it is dirt cheap when bought with a body (I bought in Norway). I didn't notice that bad vignetting and CA is OK (not bad, not the best). I had EF 35mm f2.0 IS USM as well and this lens is better than that already great lens.


Out of curiosity, what do you like better about the RF 35 over the EF 35/2 IS?

From what I’ve seen and read, I had the impression the RF 35 may be a touch sharper, and of course it has its macro ability, but the EF has better bokeh (probably not noticeable at close focus distances but noticeable one the subject is a bit further away), faster AF and perhaps slightly less CA. I’ve never shot the the RF myself though, and I haven’t owned the EF for years, so I haven’t tested them head to head myself.


----------



## Profit007 (Dec 30, 2019)

Focus Shift a "non-existent problem " ??? Tell that to all the people who bought the EF50 f1.2 It's a huge problem with that lens if you shoot close to your subject between f1.6 & f2.8.
This is why the reviews of the EF50 f1.2 were always so mixed, lots of people had no idea what was going on but had/have problems vs others who don't shoot up close around f2.0 and have no problems.
On the other hand, the EF85 f1.2 & 1.4 have no focus shift. I've shot many (probably 1000) images up close with the 85 f1.2, something you can't do with the EF50 unless you stick to f1.2 or >f2.8

I don't know if the RF35 has a focus shift design flaw. If it does (as the reviewer claimed), then DPAF should mostly cover it up. If a future RF camera also uses phase detect AF that's when the problems will show.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Dec 30, 2019)

Profit007 said:


> Focus Shift a "non-existent problem " ??? Tell that to all the people who bought the EF50 f1.2 It's a huge problem with that lens if you shoot close to your subject between f1.6 & f2.8.
> This is why the reviews of the EF50 f1.2 were always so mixed, lots of people had no idea what was going on but had/have problems vs others who don't shoot up close around f2.0 and have no problems.
> 
> I don't know if the RF35 has a focus shift design flaw. If it does (as the reviewer claimed), then DPAF should mostly cover it up. If a future RF camera also uses phase detect AF that's when the problems will show.



I was only referring to the 35mm F1.8, where focus shift is not a problem. 

As you state, other lenses especially wider aperture lenses (e.g
F1.2) it can be an issue.


----------



## Profit007 (Dec 30, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> I was only referring to the 35mm F1.8, where focus shift is not a problem.


OK, great to hear. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Dantana (Dec 31, 2019)

Does anyone here have both this lens and the 35 1.4 L v1? I love the images that I get out of my 1.4, but the size of it with the adapter is kind of funny compared to the 1.8. Curious if anyone has compared the 2.


----------



## ozturert (Jan 2, 2020)

jd7 said:


> Out of curiosity, what do you like better about the RF 35 over the EF 35/2 IS?
> 
> From what I’ve seen and read, I had the impression the RF 35 may be a touch sharper, and of course it has its macro ability, but the EF has better bokeh (probably not noticeable at close focus distances but noticeable one the subject is a bit further away), faster AF and perhaps slightly less CA. I’ve never shot the the RF myself though, and I haven’t owned the EF for years, so I haven’t tested them head to head myself.


To me, all short lenses' bokeh is distracting if subject is more than 3-4 meters away. I think this RF lens is optically more corrected so it might have slightly more distracting bokeh than 35mm f2.0 IS.
CA in RF lens is never distracting for me. I always process my RAWs and any software can correct it anyway. CA isn't so high to damage the edges as well (like in some lenses). Sony Zeiss FE 55mm f1.8 is a great lens but I had huge CA problems in adverse light conditions. In some cases CA was so bad that trying to correct it created very obvious halos.
EF 35mm f2.0 IS USM is slightly faster to AF, but then RF isn't that slow and AF accuracy is perfect so I think RF has the overall edge.


----------



## jd7 (Jan 2, 2020)

ozturert said:


> To me, all short lenses' bokeh is distracting if subject is more than 3-4 meters away. I think this RF lens is optically more corrected so it might have slightly more distracting bokeh than 35mm f2.0 IS.
> CA in RF lens is never distracting for me. I always process my RAWs and any software can correct it anyway. CA isn't so high to damage the edges as well (like in some lenses). Sony Zeiss FE 55mm f1.8 is a great lens but I had huge CA problems in adverse light conditions. In some cases CA was so bad that trying to correct it created very obvious halos.
> EF 35mm f2.0 IS USM is slightly faster to AF, but then RF isn't that slow and AF accuracy is perfect so I think RF has the overall edge.


Thanks for the information oztuert. And I know what you mean about the bokeh of shorter focal length lenses. 
I like my 35 Art too much to give it up, I think, but I sometimes miss the small size and light weight of my old 35/2 IS, so I do see the attraction in the RF 35/1.8 IS. Glad to hear you are enjoying yours.


----------



## Joules (Jan 2, 2020)

Profit007 said:


> If it does (as the reviewer claimed), then DPAF should mostly cover it up. If a future RF camera also uses phase detect AF that's when the problems will show.


DPAF IS phase detect AF. It won't cover up anything. As was said before, the Camera could simply take a selected aperture value into account during focusing and thereby make focus shift irrelevant in AF mode.


----------

