# The best of 2018 in gear as selected by our readers



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 31, 2018)

> Happy New Year! Voting for the best from Canon in 2018 has finished, and here are the results! I put my picks in parenthesis.
> *Your favourite new Canon camera of 2018*
> 
> *Canon EOS R 66.4% (CR’s Pick)*
> ...




[url=https://www.canonrumors.com/the-best-of-2018-in-gear-selected-by-our-readers/]Continue reading...[/url]


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2018)

Definitely agree with the EOS R as a top pick, a significant move for Canon. 

I think the M32/1.4 is also a significant move. Fast primes and zooms are almost de rigueur for a new FF system, as is recapitulating the popular FF kit lens – nice, but no surprise. A fast prime for the APS-C M series was a surprise, and perhaps indicates a bigger commitment to the line. Plus, it's a great lens!


----------



## LSXPhotog (Dec 31, 2018)

I am really surprised that the majority of people favored the RF 50mm f/1.2L. It's a lens that's been done before...several times by Canon. The 28-70 f/2 has never been done by anyone else in history and is a significant engineering accomplishment.


----------



## Frage (Dec 31, 2018)

I voted for the M50. I think is the better camera for the money and at the moment the system with the most lens options. Also the 70-200 F4 II is a lot of lens for the money and will be far more reachable (will produce more imagery) than many of the other options.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 31, 2018)

Surprised to find RF35 dead last on the lens chart.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 31, 2018)

There is a lot of good gear up there regardless of the ranking....


----------



## Roy Hunte (Dec 31, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> Surprised to find RF35 dead last on the lens chart.


I agree, it's an awesome lens perfect for walk-around and street photography in my opinion.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 31, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> Surprised to find RF35 dead last on the lens chart.


Considering my perception of the demographics (Money and what most seem to shoot) of most of the crowd around here, it doesn't surprise me. From my own personal experience with 35mm, it doesn't surprise me either. I have a 24-70mm and a 35mm. The 24-70 is so good that I am hard pressed to find an occasion where my 35mm is called for. A mentor of mine challenged me to use it throughout two days of model boot camps once, and that is really the only time I've fooled with it. Got some great images, but it will never be my first choice. However, I'm just one guy. The zooms are getting so good a short prime would be very hard for me to justify anymore. I don't pixel peep and nobody has ever told me the corners aren't sharp enough. An RF 28-70mm f/2 USM? Beautiful as far as I am concerned. I'd not even consider an RF 35mm f/1.8 STM prime to be a competitive lens against that. I can see zero reason to choose the 35mm over the 28-70mm. Seriously thinking of selling my EF 35mm f/1.4 II to get the EF 85mm f/1.4 IS.


----------



## Pooshoes (Dec 31, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> Surprised to find RF35 dead last on the lens chart.


Surprises me too, my #1 pick. I believe because it was the last RF lens to be available. It’s the most used Lens I have now.


----------



## bhf3737 (Dec 31, 2018)

Interestingly, it seems that in the two lens categories pragmatic aspects (i.e. usability particularly in mid range focal length and relatively brighter lenses) have collectively received more votes than innovative aspects (i.e. never done before lenses) and price point. I guess this says a lot about the CR readers who embrace usability and practicality of the tools. No surprise here.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 1, 2019)

Roy Hunte said:


> I agree, it's an awesome lens perfect for walk-around and street photography in my opinion.



It's just that the 28-70 is more perfect as a walk around lens. Really is. In my opinion.


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 1, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Considering my perception of the demographics (Money and what most seem to shoot) of most of the crowd around here, it doesn't surprise me. From my own personal experience with 35mm, it doesn't surprise me either. I have a 24-70mm and a 35mm. The 24-70 is so good that I am hard pressed to find an occasion where my 35mm is called for. A mentor of mine challenged me to use it throughout two days of model boot camps once, and that is really the only time I've fooled with it. Got some great images, but it will never be my first choice. However, I'm just one guy. The zooms are getting so good a short prime would be very hard for me to justify anymore. I don't pixel peep and nobody has ever told me the corners aren't sharp enough. An RF 28-70mm f/2 USM? Beautiful as far as I am concerned. I'd not even consider an RF 35mm f/1.8 STM prime to be a competitive lens against that. I can see zero reason to choose the 35mm over the 28-70mm. Seriously thinking of selling my EF 35mm f/1.4 II to get the EF 85mm f/1.4 IS.



I have the opposite approach. The more experienced I get, the more I value the possibility to use large apertures. For most of my use, I find the flexibility in aperture more important than the flexibility in zooming. Therefore I like and use prime lenses much more than zooms. 

And yes, modern zooms offers fantastic quality images.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 1, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> I have the opposite approach. The more experienced I get, the more I value the possibility to use large apertures. For most of my use, I find the flexibility in aperture more important than the flexibility in zooming. Therefore I like and use prime lenses much more than zooms.
> 
> And yes, modern zooms offers fantastic quality images.


Yeah, but f/1.8 vs f/2.0... not a big deal. Especially considering the flexibility in focal length. Shall I choose a strict 35mm f/1.8 vs a 28-70 f/2.0? No brainer.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 1, 2019)

LSXPhotog said:


> I am really surprised that the majority of people favored the RF 50mm f/1.2L. It's a lens that's been done before...several times by Canon. The 28-70 f/2 has never been done by anyone else in history and is a significant engineering accomplishment.


The 28-70 is of no interest to me as it’s too heavy and too expensive, but it was my second pick for sure.

Maybe it’s because they’ve made it before that people have a relation to it, and when they made the RF a hundred times better people appreciate the effort. 

And I’ve, at least, waited for a 50 L since 2006 when I bought and hated the EF version. And it’s an instant classic, even the feel and quality makes my 85 IS look and feel very cheap..


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 1, 2019)

Isn't it nice to have such a wide choice of great lenses to choose from?
World's best 1,2/50, superb 28/70 F 2, 1,4/32 M, etc...
Different needs, different preferences, and Canon gives us more choices than anybody else !


----------



## Pooshoes (Jan 1, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yeah, but f/1.8 vs f/2.0... not a big deal. Especially considering the flexibility in focal length. Shall I choose a strict 35mm f/1.8 vs a 28-70 f/2.0? No brainer.



Specs are one thing, the 28-70mm is beautiful and the top in that department. If you're aiming for a comfortable lens that you would take anywhere, all that glass is a burden to hang around your neck all day. the EOS R + 35mm is so light and compact, it might be hard to find a better FF package to compete with the portability, features, Images and video (IS is important to me for that reason).


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 1, 2019)

Pooshoes said:


> Specs are one thing, the 28-70mm is beautiful and the top in that department. If you're aiming for a comfortable lens that you would take anywhere, all that glass is a burden to hang around your neck all day. the EOS R + 35mm is so light and compact, it might be hard to find a better FF package to compete with the portability, features, Images and video (IS is important to me for that reason).


Yeah, but I tend to have a 70-200 around my neck all day.


----------



## canonmike (Jan 1, 2019)

LSXPhotog said:


> I am really surprised that the majority of people favored the RF 50mm f/1.2L. It's a lens that's been done before...several times by Canon. The 28-70 f/2 has never been done by anyone else in history and is a significant engineering accomplishment.


What I would really like to see is how many voted for these two lenses without owning either one????


----------



## canonmike (Jan 1, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yeah, but I tend to have a 70-200 around my neck all day.


----------



## Yasko (Jan 1, 2019)

Viggo said:


> The 28-70 is of no interest to me as it’s too heavy and too expensive, but it was my second pick for sure.
> 
> Maybe it’s because they’ve made it before that people have a relation to it, and when they made the RF a hundred times better people appreciate the effort.
> 
> And I’ve, at least, waited for a 50 L since 2006 when I bought and hated the EF version. And it’s an instant classic, even the feel and quality makes my 85 IS look and feel very cheap..



Well, I suppose for an extra 1000€ (here in Europe) it should feel a bit more luxury than the 85 f/1.4. Besides, 2500€ for a prime lens isn‘t quite a bargain and I guess there are some psychological aspects to the „very cheap“ look and feel of the 85 f/1.4. We all love our new tools ;-).


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 1, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yeah, but f/1.8 vs f/2.0... not a big deal. Especially considering the flexibility in focal length. Shall I choose a strict 35mm f/1.8 vs a 28-70 f/2.0? No brainer.



The 28-70 is way too big and heavy. It weighs about 5 times as much as the RF35, which offers a faster aperture and IS! 

F2 is nice, but it’s still quite far away from f1.2 or f1.4.


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 1, 2019)

Yasko said:


> Well, I suppose for an extra 1000€ (here in Europe) it should feel a bit more luxury than the 85 f/1.4. Besides, 2500€ for a prime lens isn‘t quite a bargain and I guess there are some psychological aspects to the „very cheap“ look and feel of the 85 f/1.4. We all love our new tools ;-).


If you are in the market for L series primes and consider the EF lenses 35LII, the 50L or either of the 85L lenses, I would argue that the RF 50 L is a bargain. It has the sharpness of the EF35LII already at f1.2, (almost) the bokeh of the 85LII and better subject separation (depth rendering) than any of the mentioned EF lenses. The AF is fast and incredibly precise. In my opinion, the RF50L could be considered a bargain for its intended market.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 1, 2019)

Yasko said:


> Well, I suppose for an extra 1000€ (here in Europe) it should feel a bit more luxury than the 85 f/1.4. Besides, 2500€ for a prime lens isn‘t quite a bargain and I guess there are some psychological aspects to the „very cheap“ look and feel of the 85 f/1.4. We all love our new tools ;-).


Haha, yeah, different price range, agreed, I guess it’s nice to really tell the difference also, since it’s pricier... that said, I’ve always felt the 85 was more midrange than I hoped for when I bought it. 

I got a deal and cash back on the 50 so it was around 2000 gbp


----------



## Ron_v_W (Jan 1, 2019)

I voted for the EOS R, a rightful winner. Own it, love it. For an explanation I'll quote my daughter: "It seems like every single picture I take with this thing is instantly turned into a piece of art."
I had this same effect with a borrowed 5D4, that's why I wanted to have an R (to me it's a Mark-IV in a smaller body). And it truly delivers. You don't even need L-glass for that. Even combined with the cheapest 50mm "plastic fantastic", it gives you tack-sharp and smooth results every shot.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 1, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> The 28-70 is way too big and heavy. It weighs about 5 times as much as the RF35, which offers a faster aperture and IS!
> 
> F2 is nice, but it’s still quite far away from f1.2 or f1.4.


Hmmmm.... I think you mean too heavy for you. For me? Perfect. I'm not inclined to spend too much on a single focal length lens @ f/1.8 when I can get a zoom @ f/2... price wouldn't be a factor in my decision in this case at all. IS? Not a factor for me at those focal lengths.


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 1, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Hmmmm.... I think you mean too heavy for you. For me? Perfect. I'm not inclined to spend too much on a single focal length lens @ f/1.8 when I can get a zoom @ f/2... price wouldn't be a factor in my decision in this case at all. IS? Not a factor for me at those focal lengths.


Canon knows their customers have different preferences. It’s great they produce the 28-70 f2 to those who want and need it.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 2, 2019)

The performance and relatively light weight of the ef 24-70mm f/2.8L II is just so outstanding, so decisive, that giving up 4mm on the wide end, while adding 1.8 x the weight, plus about $1500 USD in cost, just doesn't seem immediately appealing.

On the other hand, Canon hasn't had a spectacular fast-50mm...ever? For all the talk of magic in the ef 50mm f/1.2L, after looking through hundreds of images on the web, talking with high-end pro wedding photographers, and seeing, clearly, the focus shift issues it has in well done youtube videos, I can understand why it has been a "love-hate" kind of lens. Any praise has been balanced with significant criticism. And not just for the focus shift. Even with spot on AF, at wide apertures it is soft. CA rears its head. And the bokeh, while at times impressive, also can look quite ordinary or even jittery. (I think part of the reason for unpleasant bokeh can be over-application of universal sharpening to compensate for soft focus on the subjects.)

In short, the 24-70mm does great in its slot, so not a lot of photographers have been thinking, "Gee, why don't they make it one stop faster, a whole lot heavier, a little tighter on the wide end, and almost twice as expensive?" But those of us craving a superstar 50mm f/1.2 have been thinking about it for years and are happy one is finally here. Even if it is a whole lot heavier and twice as expensive!


----------



## canonmike (Jan 6, 2019)

Frage said:


> I voted for the M50. I think is the better camera for the money and at the moment the system with the most lens options. Also the 70-200 F4 II is a lot of lens for the money and will be far more reachable (will produce more imagery) than many of the other options.


I was and am more than pleased with my M50 purchase and the results it produces, even with the basic 15-45mm kit lens and at such a low price. When using Sigma's 18-35mm F1.8 Art lens, this combo produces amazing photos.


----------

