# Review: Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM by TDP



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 29, 2020)

> Bryan at The Digital Picture has completed his review of the Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM, the new “nifty fifty” for the RF mount. Canon has a long history of making these inexpensive 50mm lenses that provide good optics and great value, and the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM continues this tradition.
> Compared to its EF brother:
> In the image quality comparison at f/1.8, the RF lens has a slight advantage, primarily in the image circle periphery. By f/2.8, the EF lens may be slightly sharper in the center of the frame, and the RF lens is very slightly sharper deep in the corners. The EF lens has less peripheral shading, and the RF lens has less geometric distortion. Overall, the image quality difference between...



Continue reading...


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 29, 2020)

Well, I was thinking of getting this lens just so that I could say once again that I own an RF lens.  I think I'll stick with my adapted Tamron. I think it is a better lens, and it ought to be at 2x the price. I'd be better served saving for the RF 85mm f/2... though I don't think I will ever be satisfied again until I can get back the RF "L" lenses I gave up thanks to pandemic economics. 2020 has been a year I'll be happy to put in the rear view mirror soon. The wife went to see her cardiologist this morning. The appointment was cancelled. Her doc woke up with a fever and rapid tested positive for COVID-19 this morning. Hope he's okay. I hope everyone is okay. I have an appt. this afternoon for the yearly physical. I'll ask for the vaccine since my health conditions qualify me at this point. Hope all of you are doing well.  May your lives be filled with joy, happiness, and love.


----------



## Aaron D (Dec 29, 2020)

"...Revelation-grade God rays." 

This is some genius writing!


----------



## zim (Dec 29, 2020)

Aaron D said:


> "...Revelation-grade God rays."
> 
> This is some genius writing!


Ha you beat me to it. I'd buy that lens just for those bad boys!


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 29, 2020)

I'm disappointed... and won't buy.
Edit: I still don't understand why Canon introduces a new lens with so many obvious flaws.


----------



## AJ (Dec 29, 2020)

Nice to see this lens in R mount. Not surprisingly it's pretty much the same as the EF lens, optically. Which is fine, but why the 60% price increase? That's the part I have trouble with.


----------



## Aaron D (Dec 29, 2020)

This is a fine lens for what it is, but I'd like to see another 50mm as sharp as the f/1.2 but smaller/lighter/less expensive, with IS and weather sealing. Doesn't have to be f/1.8 or 1.4 -- f/2 would be plenty if it could stay small.


----------



## Otara (Dec 29, 2020)

I got it for the size, had no expectations of amazing IQ improvements. Very happy with it.


----------



## drhuffman87 (Dec 30, 2020)

Aaron D said:


> This is a fine lens for what it is, but I'd like to see another 50mm as sharp as the f/1.2 but smaller/lighter/less expensive, with IS and weather sealing. Doesn't have to be f/1.8 or 1.4 -- f/2 would be plenty if it could stay small.


If it were as sharp wide open as the rf 85mm f/2.0 with no IS, I would be ecstatic.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 30, 2020)

As this lens is twice the price than its EF equivalent I still wonder if it is twice the value. 
I couldn't get this info from the review. 

Still a good decent lens for a decent price.


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 30, 2020)

TDP results confirm that I should be happy with my RF 35 Macro and that an RF 85 Macro would be a much better investment - EOS M50 with the EF-M 32 should be enough if I need the 50mm equiv focal length!


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 30, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> As this lens is twice the price than its EF equivalent I still wonder if it is twice the value.
> I couldn't get this info from the review.[..]



You also have to factor in the cost of an EF-RF adapter if you don't have one yet.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 30, 2020)

Brian's section on autofocusing didn't specifically mention focus consistency - which was the main complaint for the EF 50 f/1.8 II (less so the newer STM version). I take that to mean he didn't find it notable, which would imply a pretty big improvement. But looking back to his previous reviews of those lenses, it didn't warrant much mention either, so maybe that's not something that comes out during a review period.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 30, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> As this lens is twice the price than its EF equivalent I still wonder if it is twice the value.
> I couldn't get this info from the review.
> 
> Still a good decent lens for a decent price.


I'd rather spend twice as much to get a REALLY decent lens...like the Nikon Z 1,8/50, which ridicules the Canon 50/1,8.
Just check on TDP the midframe results at f1,8, for instance.
So, presently, if you want an excellent Canon 50mm, there's only the heavy and expensive f 1,2 left.
Or Tamron, Sigma, Zeiss.


----------



## nubu (Dec 30, 2020)

Bad weather. So no easy startest of the new RF50/1.8. But here is an an extreme lower right corner comparison of the RF50/1.8 and the RF50/1.2L - both with all corrections switched off.The X-mas lights provides us with helpful pointsources to check for the point spread function of the two lenses. This time I had not to wait for stars in the sky... The outcome is quite similar to Digital Picture test concerning corner PSFs


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Dec 30, 2020)

Good review as usual from TDP, but don't read too much into statements that one is "slightly sharper" wide open... one at f/2.8... one at the periphery.... With two lenses that are so close to one another in design, construction, and cost, such differences are more likely due to manufacturing process variation than design fundamentals. Identical testing using a different copy of each lens might produce the exact opposite results.

No manufactured component ever hits all of its ideal design parameters exactly. Even optical surfaces--which have to be accurate to within a fraction of a wavelength in order to be "diffraction limited"--have tolerances and variations. Separating the fundamental performance of each design from the effects of its manufacturing process would require testing many many copies of each (maybe hundreds!) from different production runs.

My takeaway from this review is that the RF and EF versions have basically identical optical performance. If you're trying to choose between one or the other, use other criteria that are important to you (price, EF compatibility vs. adapter, control ring, MFD, etc.).


----------



## twoheadedboy (Dec 30, 2020)

I really hope the lack of improvement in this lens (as compared to the direction Nikon went with its 50mm f/1.8) means an RF f/1.4 IS slotted right in the middle of the 2 products is forthcoming. I bought the f/1.8 because I own and love the f/1.2 but it's just too big and expensive for the purposes I need, but I could justify something bigger and more expensive could be justified if it got me f/1.4 and IS along with higher IQ at the wider apertures. My fear is that they WILL come out with a 3rd RF 50mm, but if will be an f/2 IS macro like the 85mm, and that's not at all the configuration I'm looking for.


----------



## Surab (Dec 30, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> I really hope the lack of improvement in this lens (as compared to the direction Nikon went with its 50mm f/1.8) means an RF f/1.4 IS slotted right in the middle of the 2 products is forthcoming. I bought the f/1.8 because I own and love the f/1.2 but it's just too big and expensive for the purposes I need, but I could justify something bigger and more expensive could be justified if it got me f/1.4 and IS along with higher IQ at the wider apertures. My fear is that they WILL come out with a 3rd RF 50mm, but if will be an f/2 IS macro like the 85mm, and that's not at all the configuration I'm looking for.



Hopefully not right in the middle price-wise, that would be a little hefty at ~ $1250. If they can make it sealed and optically good, for maybe 800-1000, that would be better. The Nikon Z primes are really appealing with their quality, size, and good to borderline-decent prices. Currently, Canon is still winning with their RF 24-105F4 L for what I would want.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Dec 31, 2020)

No thanks. 50mm RF mount is consumer grade or very expensive. No in between. No doubt I would find it decent but would prefer something equal to the Nikon 1.8S lens. Also missing is a 24-70 f4 RF, but eventually one will be released. When I decide (afford) to go mirrorless this lack of a very good middle range lens (not a big, heave expensive 2.8) will go a long way as to whether I go to Nikon body with either the f4 zoom or epic 1.8 lens.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Dec 31, 2020)

SUNDOG04 said:


> No thanks. 50mm RF mount is consumer grade or very expensive. No in between. No doubt I would find it decent but would prefer something equal to the Nikon 1.8S lens. Also missing is a 24-70 f4 RF, but eventually one will be released. When I decide (afford) to go mirrorless this lack of a very good middle range lens (not a big, heave expensive 2.8) will go a long way as to whether I go to Nikon body with either the f4 zoom or epic 1.8 lens.



You could get a Nikon Z body and the 50mm for the same or less than the price of the RF 50 1.2. So even if you have a R5 yo could have a wee portable 50mm ’point and shoot’.


----------



## degos (Dec 31, 2020)

Aaron D said:


> This is a fine lens for what it is



No, it's like a trashy third-party lens from the 80s. Look at that coma, it's hilariously bad:



https://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-RF-50mm-F1.8-STM-Lens/Coma.jpg



Though you might have missed that because the TDP author insists on copying and pasting vast tracts of text into each review.

Here's the Tamron 45 1.8 for comparison:



https://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Tamron-45mm-f-1.8-Di-VC-USD-Lens/Coma.jpg


----------



## Romain (Dec 31, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> You also have to factor in the cost of an EF-RF adapter if you don't have one yet.


Every EF shooters with decent lenses having an R body have an EF-RF adapter, unless they sold all of their EF lenses.


----------



## JustUs7 (Dec 31, 2020)

If I want f/1.8 at roughly 50mm (56mm) for indoor snapshots, I drop my RP into Crop mode using the RF 35mm f/1.8 and shoot at roughly 10 megapixels. For stuff that will stay on the computer or land in the photo album, that works. 

I’ve been watching for this because I read too much that says one is supposed to own a nifty fifty. But having the 35 f/1.8 and 85 f/2 already, I’d rather spend $200 on a couple filters or a bag or something.


----------



## BBarn (Dec 31, 2020)

It's a small mundane 50 in an RF mount. They could have made a proper RF lens with a control ring, IS, and perhaps better close focusing. For an RF 50, this one isn't very nifty. I'll just use my EF.


----------



## Frodo (Dec 31, 2020)

This is not a fine lens - its only really usable from f/4 if you want reasonable image quality. The low price is not an excuse for such an embarrassment to the RF line. I'd pay more for a small 50mm lens with good quality at f/2.


----------



## JPAZ (Dec 31, 2020)

There is a role for less than perfect lenses. For example, I'm still holding on to my EF 40 f/2.8 "Pancake" but only 'cause it is a great lens cap that takes pictures. I've used it on 5 series DSLRs, on the M series with an adapter and now, maybe it will go on the R5 or RP. Of course, it will now need the EF-RF adapter so it is an adapted lens cap . 

But, despite the limitations, there might be a spot for this RF 50 f/1.8 when I want a small and light lens on the RP. It might become the new lens cap.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 31, 2020)

degos said:


> No, it's like a trashy third-party lens from the 80s.


What an outrageous comment !
It’s from the ‘60s


----------



## ctk (Dec 31, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> Brian's section on autofocusing didn't specifically mention focus consistency - which was the main complaint for the EF 50 f/1.8 II (less so the newer STM version). I take that to mean he didn't find it notable, which would imply a pretty big improvement. But looking back to his previous reviews of those lenses, it didn't warrant much mention either, so maybe that's not something that comes out during a review period.


I think that might have been due to the issues with thin DOF on DSLRs. Shouldn't be a problem on MILCs.

That said I'm super disappointed in this lens. Canon just flipped the design 180 degrees, made a small change to an element, added a control ring and called it a day. Big missed opportunity here. To be fair none of the similarly priced nifty 50s are much better, but I would have figured they'd have tried something new after 30+ years


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 31, 2020)

JPAZ said:


> There is a role for less than perfect lenses. For example, I'm still holding on to my EF 40 f/2.8 "Pancake" but only 'cause it is a great lens cap that takes pictures.


Actually the EF40/2.8 appears to spank the RF50/1.8
I find the 40 to be a charming lens although it has quite bad field curvature (which never seemed to be picked up in reviews) but that can be used to advantage.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 31, 2020)

ctk said:


> That said I'm super disappointed in this lens. Canon just flipped the design 180 degrees, made a small change to an element,


Actually Canon didn't flip the double gauss design, they used the configuration that they and others had used on rangefinder cameras. The 1964 Canonet rangefinder camera has a 45mm lens which is very similar to this RF one in its optical diagram. That design of double gauss was able to be placed closer to the film which suited mirrorless rangefinders of the day and is perhaps why Canon went down this route with modern mirrorless. So basically the RF 50/1.8 is a rangefinders version of the EF 50/1.8, so it was never going to be much different. 

Please be aware, I said 'very similar' to the 1964 Canonet, not identical, lest forum member ace, that omniscient of lesser Canon lens design comes flying in on her broomstick again to bereate me for spreading false information !


----------



## JPAZ (Dec 31, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> Actually the EF40/2.8 appears to spank the RF50/1.8



Yeah, I get that and have always liked the 40mm. That lens with an adapter on my M bodies in the past was a real nice option and using it on a FF DSLR was always a street photo alternative. My point was more about the size of the 40 with the EF-RF adapter.........

Might be better to have this RF 50 on the RP for more casual snaps, especially if not going to use any extra lighting.

Thanks. I appreciate your input. 

Happy New Year to all.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 1, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Actually Canon didn't flip the double gauss design, they used the configuration that they and others had used on rangefinder cameras. The 1964 Canonet rangefinder camera has a 45mm lens which is very similar to this RF one in its optical diagram. That design of double gauss was able to be placed closer to the film which suited mirrorless rangefinders of the day and is perhaps why Canon went down this route with modern mirrorless. So basically the RF 50/1.8 is a rangefinders version of the EF 50/1.8, so it was never going to be much different.
> 
> Please be aware, I said 'very similar' to the 1964 Canonet, not identical, lest forum member ace, that omniscient of lesser Canon lens design comes flying in on her broomstick again to bereate me for spreading false information !


There's always somebody looking for a "gotcha!".


----------



## Frodo (Jan 1, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Actually Canon didn't flip the double gauss design, they used the configuration that they and others had used on rangefinder cameras. The 1964 Canonet rangefinder camera has a 45mm lens which is very similar to this RF one in its optical diagram. That design of double gauss was able to be placed closer to the film which suited mirrorless rangefinders of the day and is perhaps why Canon went down this route with modern mirrorless. So basically the RF 50/1.8 is a rangefinders version of the EF 50/1.8, so it was never going to be much different.
> 
> Please be aware, I said 'very similar' to the 1964 Canonet, not identical, lest forum member ace, that omniscient of lesser Canon lens design comes flying in on her broomstick again to bereate me for spreading false information !



Might need to buy the RF 50/1.8 out of nostalgia reasons! The Canonet QL19 was my first camera - I photographed the Apollo 17 launch with it! Hmmm, showing my age here!


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 1, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> I really hope the lack of improvement in this lens (as compared to the direction Nikon went with its 50mm f/1.8) means an RF f/1.4 IS slotted right in the middle of the 2 products is forthcoming. I bought the f/1.8 because I own and love the f/1.2 but it's just too big and expensive for the purposes I need, but I could justify something bigger and more expensive could be justified if it got me f/1.4 and IS along with higher IQ at the wider apertures. My fear is that they WILL come out with a 3rd RF 50mm, but if will be an f/2 IS macro like the 85mm, and that's not at all the configuration I'm looking for.


RF 50mm f2 macro?
Yummy yummy!
Just what I'm waiting for !


----------



## ctk (Jan 2, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> I really hope the lack of improvement in this lens (as compared to the direction Nikon went with its 50mm f/1.8) means an RF f/1.4 IS slotted right in the middle of the 2 products is forthcoming. I bought the f/1.8 because I own and love the f/1.2 but it's just too big and expensive for the purposes I need, but I could justify something bigger and more expensive could be justified if it got me f/1.4 and IS along with higher IQ at the wider apertures. My fear is that they WILL come out with a 3rd RF 50mm, but if will be an f/2 IS macro like the 85mm, and that's not at all the configuration I'm looking for.


IDK. An F/1.4 IS would be massive, expensive and probably not far off from the 1.2. I don't think any stabilized 1.4 lenses exist- just too many elements. An F/2 true macro would actually cover the gamut really nicely. Zeiss makes a 50/2 Makro and it's amazing. Sharp corner to corner (as macro requires) with really nice rendering. For me, if they made it 45mm with an L designation and super smooth bokeh rendering I'd be in for under a grand.


----------



## Frodo (Jan 2, 2021)

This video made me rethink my views....


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 3, 2021)

Frodo said:


> This video made me rethink my views....



I agree with him and a lot of what TDP wrote. It's a new lens that came out at 200 USD. In a few years, that price will drop significantly. This lens was not designed to compete with Nikon's 50mm f/1.8 S, which started at 600 USD, or triple the RF 50mm's price. The RF line used to be synonymous with great optics and high prices, but the RF lineup is filling up and becoming what the EF range still today, with something for a wide range of photography and prices. Not many people in this forum are going to go for the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1 either, but Canon is going sell lots of those 24-105s and a lot of the these 50 f/1.8s.

When the RP came out, people ridiculed Canon for not having cheaper lenses although it was a less expensive option for those with EF lenses already to see some of the benefits of MILCs. To maintain its market position, Canon needs a wide range of lenses catering to pros, enthusiasts, beginners and those on a tight budget. The RP with this RF 50 f/1.8 can do a lot of types of photography for a low price. Canon will also have better bodies and lenses for those that want to continue developing their craft with better tools. Maybe Canon will come out with a third RF 50mm lens, which is another discussion but does not diminish the role that this lens serves in the RF lineup. Most of the people buying and using this lens will not sport R5 camera bodies like the photographer in this video.

Will I buy this lens? Definitely not now, but maybe a refurbished one on sale. I have other options, so I'd really only use this to serve as a "pancake" normal when only carrying a telephoto like the 100-500 (the same role that my EF 40mm did).


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jan 3, 2021)

ctk said:


> IDK. An F/1.4 IS would be massive, expensive and probably not far off from the 1.2. I don't think any stabilized 1.4 lenses exist- just too many elements. An F/2 true macro would actually cover the gamut really nicely. Zeiss makes a 50/2 Makro and it's amazing. Sharp corner to corner (as macro requires) with really nice rendering. For me, if they made it 45mm with an L designation and super smooth bokeh rendering I'd be in for under a grand.



I have the EF 85mm f/1.4 IS and it's great. Seems unlikely they will replace it on the RF mount but that's ok, it's going to remain one of my two long-term adapted lenses (the other being the Sigma ART 28mm f/1.4, which I would love a first-party replacement for, stabilized or otherwise).


----------



## Absolutic (Jan 4, 2021)

I bought this lens the day it came out because I wanted a small 50. It does not take much space. On vac I brought 35rf this 50 and 85Rf 1.2. 85Rf f2 i owned for little bit by upgraded to f1.2. I used the 50 the least but nevertheless it is so small and light you can put it in your bag or pocket and forget about it. 85Rf f2 (and Nikon 50 1.8z that someone mentioned here early which I also used to own) are excellent lenses but much more bulky. Sony made a shitty 50 1.8 fe lens that is small too and is the same price as canon rf. If you want better lens optically it will be larger and heavier.


----------



## ctk (Jan 4, 2021)

IMO a lens being easy to carry is meaningless if I don't like the way it renders photos. I don't buy the idea that a good, small, affordable 50 isn't feasible either. The Samyang 45 1.8 only weighs 2g more than the RF 50 1.8, and while it's bigger and more expensive its rendering and performance make all that worth it IMO. Really hoping Samyang ports that and more of its other lenses over.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jan 4, 2021)

ctk said:


> IMO a lens being easy to carry is meaningless if I don't like the way it renders photos.



Well, that may be true for your shooting preferences, but it isn't for others. And to be clear, there's nothing wrong with how this lens "renders photos", you just might have to make compromises in settings to get the IQ you want, such as shooting at f/4 instead of f/2.8, which may bump up the ISO and definitely changes the background blur, etc. But a lot of field photographers are stopping down to f/8 anyway, at which point there is very little if any IQ difference, but they still have the size, weight, and cost benefits with the f/1.8 lens. If none of those things matter or represent your needs, then there's no reason for you to get this lens; get the incomparable f/1.2 instead.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 4, 2021)

I can't get my head around people dissing this lens. Some of the greatest photos ever taken were taken with 50mm lenses with way worse characteristics than this modest little lens from Canon.

Imagine if HCB had taken the attitude so many here have _'I'd rather not have it than compromise my images'_. It is a great lens for the price and opens all kinds of possibilities for people wanting to actually take photos. Here is an example of a shot taken with a technically much more modest 50mm lens on a 'ff' camera.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Jan 4, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I can't get my head around people dissing this lens. Some of the greatest photos ever taken were taken with 50mm lenses with way worse characteristics than this modest little lens from Canon.
> 
> Imagine if HCB had taken the attitude so many here have _'I'd rather not have it than compromise my images'_. It is a great lens for the price and opens all kinds of possibilities for people wanting to actually take photos. Here is an example of a shot taken with a technically much more modest 50mm lens on a 'ff' camera.
> 
> View attachment 194986


Well, I doubt this HCB bloke will go far - the subject seems to be out of focus, and the corners are not "tack sharp" ( a must for any good photo), and I don't know what mega-pix he's using, but this is going to look so grainy when blown up to 30' x 20' that he may as well not bother! 

What he needs to do is get newer gear, and then pick his moment better.


----------



## ctk (Jan 5, 2021)

I don't buy the HCB argument either. Why bother with this lens at all then? Shoot film manually just like he did. You can probably grab an old film camera + 50mm lens for half the price of this lens.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 5, 2021)

ctk said:


> I don't buy the HCB argument either. Why bother with this lens at all then? Shoot film manually just like he did. You can probably grab an old film camera + 50mm lens for half the price of this lens.


I was thinking more wet plate glass 8” x 10” and magnesium powder flash...


----------



## BBarn (Jan 5, 2021)

Not all of the criticisms of the new 50 regard IQ. I was wanting something closer to the RF 35; like a real control ring, IS, and closer focusing. I consider it overpriced compared to the EF which offers nearly the same performance at almost half the price. I consider the RF 35 at over twice the price a better value given it's additional features.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 5, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Here is an example of a shot taken with a technically much more modest 50mm lens on a 'ff' camera.
> 
> View attachment 194986


Yes and it looks like it was ! 

We could have a very interesting debit around how the images of John Szarkowski's 1964 book 'The Photographer's Eye" stand up when viewed outside of their historical significance, although the one you have chosen is timeless of course.

But you are quite right, some people will make magical images with this RF50/1.8 that put many of us with more expensive lenses to shame.


----------



## Frodo (Jan 6, 2021)

Sure any small 50mm lens in the hands of a good photographer can makes images like the HCB posted.
But that's not the point. A shitty fifty presents IQ compromises if you wish to make sharp formal portraits at f/1.8 - 2, especially with the subject off centre. So it can limit the sort of photography you can do. For some people the limitation is not a big deal. For others it is.


----------

