00:52 - to everyone who is commenting about me saying "the very first thing that I like about these prime lenses is that they have a fixed aperture" 1. I’m not a native English speaker, so I wasn’t clear earlier-it was a mistake. What I meant to say was, "They have a constant aperture, unlike some zoom lenses that have a variable aperture." Of course, prime lenses always have a fixed aperture! I just wanted to point out how much I enjoy working with constant aperture lenses. Sorry for the confusion. 2. It’s frustrating as a creator to spend so much time crafting an 11-minute comparison video packed with detail, only to see some comments focusing solely on one mistake. None of those comments mentions what they liked or appreciated. If you want to keep seeing educational content on UA-cam in the future from smaller creators, instead of just quick "dopamine hit" videos, try giving feedback like you’re sitting across from the creator, face to face. I'm sure you would choose kinder words in person. It’s easy to sit behind a screen and throw out frustrations, but for creators like us, those comments can really hit harder than you think.
I have both, and did some testing. The chromatic aberration on both are similar. The EF version has better bokeh. The RF is quicker and quiet with autofocus. I prefer the EF version. The f1.4 is useable. I'll probably sell my RF once my 6D is sold, so I will use the EF full time on the R5. That's just me though. Edit: Don't be weight weenies people, the weight difference is negligible, in fact, a little heavier lens will be better when your hands are shaky. Anyways, you choose your poison is what they say. Have a great day!
For photography I much preferred the EF image. If you don't have either and you have an RF mount its a no brainer. Get the RF lense. But I'm not sure its worth swapping them out if you already have the EF. That's based on the fact that if your adapting EF lenses the chances are the 50 isn't the only EF lense you have.
Im an hobby photographer and LOVE the 50mm RF for my R10. Making portraits with it makes so much fun and produces very sharp photos. I would still recommend every hobby photographer with a tight budged to invest into an EF adapter, since even the more premium EF lenses are cheaper (and mostly better) than its RF entry counterparts, especially telezoom lenses. The canon EF 55-250mm is incredible for its relative cheap price (200-250€). Its also pretty easy to find even cheaper second hand EF lenses in good/very good conditon.
@@tomer.aviation Yeah, especially since RF lenses tend to start at way to high apertures (f4+). Might be not a problem for landscapes, but i just like to have the option. I rather have to sharpen it afterwords then not to have a useable picture at all.
I used my 50mm RF 1.8 for like 3 months on my Eos R and then I decided to get the adapter to use my 70-200 2.8 and my 50mm 1.4 and my 40mm Pancake..... and oh man that EF 50mm 1.4 is magical on the Eos R and the R5 !!!!!
I like the form factor, design and sharpness of the RF, but the bokeh of the EF. Even when aperture is equal, the EF shallow dof looks more pleasant, probably because it‘s softer in general. Let‘s hope for a well build RF 50mm f1.4, and a general f1.4 RF line.
@@ThoSchoholic Well, nothing to be worried about - we still have old Canon EF f1.4 (can be bought brand new as well!) and RF 1.8. So while 1.4 can be used with an adapter, it's still much cheaper than 1500$ model one. I know I'm comparing apples and oranges here, but honestly, majority of my clients wouldn't be able to tell the difference between these two. Besides, I’ve learned to love and embrace the f/1.4 bokeh on my 5D Mark IV full-frame. It’s dreamy and sparkling.
Canon also released the EF 1.8mm $149 lens, lovingly termed "the nifty 50" which is probably a better comparison of the RF 1.8 50mm, a much smaller body, when compared to the EF 1.4 50mm and in the same price point.
Thank you for this informative video... much appreciated. I've never shot Canon SLR, to say nothing of mirrorless, cameras. I shot 35mm film with Minolta Maxxum SLRs from 1987 ~ 2004, then Nikon DX DSLRs from 2004 ~ 2023. In 2023, I gave all of my remaining Nikon gear to my youngest child when she turned 18, this past Christmas (D7500, SB-800 Speedlight, three ffl f/1.8 FX lenses, an AF-S VR(ii) DX zoom lens, an AF-P VR(iii) FX zoom lens, misc. other items, Tamrac camera gear bag). She was the only one of my children who ever expressed any interest in photography, and she'd already been using some of my Nikon gear to shoot club and sporting events at her H.S. Admittedly, she has quite a good photographer's eye. These days, I use my wife's ten year old Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-RX100m3 point-&-shoot pocket-sized camera... the closest thing to a mirrorless camera I've ever used. I have become very intrigued by the Canon EOS R6m2 and R7, and have been debating whether or not to buy used Canon EF lenses with a Canon EF-to-RF adapter (to save cost), or break the bank and buy native Canon RF lenses. Your review has me leaning towards the latter (native RF lenses), as the image quality they're capable of appears to be appreciably better. Good things! 👍
The focal length is fixed at 50mm for prime lenes, not the aperture, which is variable f/stop. For some zoom lenes (non-fixed focal lengths) the aperture will vary according to the max zoom focal length, but remains fixed if the f/stop is set to minimum aperture throughout the zoom range when camera settings are in Manual mode.
Hi, nice video and comparison. Long time Canon shooter and more recent Fuji convert but I still regularly own use both systems. The EF 50mm F1.4 has always been famous as being a bit soft and having weak AF motors. Mine still works after all these years but there are cases out there where the plastic gears wear down and self destruct until the AF stops working. I have both of these and also the original EF 50mm F1.8 also known as the “plastic fantastic” or “nifty fifty”. I think the EF 50mm F1.8 and the RF version are probably the better and more direct comparison in terms of focus speed and performance, general bokeh, same min aperture, similar price etc. I never sell stuff my old gear so I still switch between all three 50mm lenses from time to time for the fun of it, but the RF is definitely the best fit all round 50 mm now on my RF bodies. I love adapting theEF version onto my Fuji bodies just for fun, even if I already own the Fuji equivalents. They all have their own character, good and bad. Again, great video. Liked and subscribed.
Thank you so much for this comparison! I've used the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 with my R6 and the results were great-way better than with my DSLR. Probably because mirrorless cameras need no lens calibration, and focusing was perfect! The f/1.4 is still my go-to for portraits. But I may get the RF 50mm f/1.8 for video-it's a great value at $100 currently.
@@bensonemery DSLR cameras need, almost universally, a lens calibration process. It's annoying problem. Plus 50mm f1.4 is s very soft wide open. Another thing they are prone to have faulty ring where runner slide for focus ring.
Good review, but one thing you didn't cover is the advantage of 1.4 over 1.8 when shooting in Low Light situations. When we recently visited the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, AZ, for example, there are several instances during indoor activities and even night and low light activities where my EF 50mm f/1.4 really shined when paired on my R5. That said, I recognize that, in any situation where wide open isn't needed, the RF 50 f/1.8 is clearly the better option. For me, I think I will eventually get the RF 50 f/1.8 as it is clearly a great value, but I'll likely also keep my EF version for those situations where I really want to have as big an aperture as possible. Thanks for a great review.
Thanks you for the video. I own the canon EF 50 1.4, but I try to never use it at 1.4, even for portrait due to the very low sharpness at this aperture. I try not to go below 2.0, sometimes 1.8... but each time I shoot at 1.4, I have some regrets on the sharpness.... so 1.8 vs 1.4 should not be a subject here for me. By the way I keep my EF 50 1.4, because there's no real benefit to switch to the RF for photo.... but if I were a video creator I would switch to RF I think. (I bought this 50 mm 1.4 10 years ago, using it since last year on a Cano EOS 600D, and now on a EOS RP since last year)
The EF50/1.4 is a great lens. It has a tonal gradation and depth that rivals the Leica M-Summilux & Noctilux. I think Canon knows this and thinks it's a great lens that can't be discarded. And they've kept it in their lineup for so long. This is just my personal opinion.
The EF50/1.4 is very similar to the Contax/Yashica Planar 50/1.4, except for vignetting. If you are not satisfied with the AF or manual focus of the EF50/1.4, you may want to choose the EOS R body + C/Y Planar 50/1.4.
Thanks so much for doing this comparison, I have the 1.4, and have been looking for a comparison video between this and the RF 1.8 for a while. That said, the sharpness is very similar in all cases except the car door handle, and it looks like the EF missed focus. I honestly couldn’t tell the difference at all with the park bench. The RF is sharper for the portrait though. An important point for me is how much faster USM lenses are compared to STM lenses as a photographer. I shoot a lot of low light action, and the faster motor and the slightly faster maximum aperture is a big deal for me. I might pick up the RF 50 for video though. The EF lens is obnoxiously loud for video, and that focus breathing is strong
I own the ef 50mm and have an ef to r adapter with built in nd filter. For sound, I use an external audio recorder or lav mic so focus motor noise doesn't affect my videos. I may pick up the rf 50 mm at some point though. Great video.
I agree about the sharpness and all, but man : at f/8 (picture of the bench) the bokeh is clearly not the same at all. The EF 1.4 is smoother, rounder etc. The RF 1.8 doesn't have a bokeh that good which understandable: less blades, and sharper overall. Other than that, yeah the RF is better
@@arnavsingh8840, he means that the lens may only be 200 dollars but any good camera body that it goes to costs 1000 dollars for you to run that shit. Which is wack
@@emeryz10I got a brand new R50 with a lens, tripod, mic and carrying case full of accessories for $699. The mic and the tripod were hilariously poor quality but still feel like I got a great deal on the body and lens back in December
@@emeryz10I’d say it’s the other way around. They have relatively cheaper bodies than their competitors but all their glass is ridiculously priced. They have like 3 budget lenses and this is one of them. Any of their pro lenses are about $500-$1000 more than the Sony equivalent and glass is what you should be investing in. They did this because camera specs are much easier to sell than quality glass.
Thanks for the great review! Here's one thought: could the EF version be better for portraits? For one, we do not always want to see all the wrinkles and imperfections on faces, and second we nowadays love strong bokeh which the EF can deliver better. What do you think?
I would ALWAYS choose the sharpest lens - RF lens in this case - because I can make it softer in editing. When you resize photos, small imperfections just dissapear instantly. EF is too old by this point with an old focus motor.
I actually share your views - I think EF at 1.4 is a brilliant lens on FF cameras, even on crop, but really shines on FF due to maxed out bokeh. The skin tones are softer, but the face is well defined, with lashes nicely visible at f1.4. The bokeh is sparkly and swirly. I really love this lens. But NEVER use it without the hood. The hood literally saved the lens for me, last time when it fell on the concrete ground. I needed to use micro-adjustment in my DSLRs afterwards, something probably shifted inside, but the lens turned out unscratched and working, no probs.
I thought I'd be clever and save money buying EF primes on an R6 body... nope. I bought the 50 and 85 1.4. Sold both and the adapter. I'll stick with RF thank you very much. Sharper, better light/colors in my subjects. The EF's were soft all around. Just use a mist filter if you want that effect. In any case, your results were the same as mine. Thanks for confirming... I will keep waiting on an RF 50mm/1.4... maybe another year, maybe never.. but we'll see.
Nice comparison that really pushes me toward the RP. As somebody stuck in APS-C-ville, it is difficult to beat for the money. If I want something with more range, I'm probably more likely to go with much heavier glass than either of them with something like the f/1.2L.
Can't use the 1.8 since I don't use mirrorless. However I just picked up the 1.4 for like 150. So I'm not sure where you are getting 400 at? I went to KEH. Where did you look?
Great review! I actually ended up buying the RF 50mm because of this video, and I must say that it is tack sharp at 1.8, - where my EF 1.4 first shines at 2.0.
I'm not sure if this is a good comparison because the EF uses an adapter. As you know, adapters can cause a delay on the speed of the auto focus. Question: Wouldn't the length of the lens affect the overall photo? The 50mm has the adapter. Would it affect the bokeh?
the goal is to make a choice when you have an EOS R series canon... and in this case, you'll need the adapter. In case you have a canon EF series, you can't use the RF version... so it's pointless to compare the EF version without the adapter
I have them both and I prefer the RF much over the EF. On a EF camera I always had problems with the AF of the EF 50 1.4. The Sigma 50mm Art für EF is the much better lens. I will sell the EF 50 1.4 and use the RF as a lithe walk around lens and the Sigma for assignments
IMO RF glass is optimized for video. The older EF lenses have better contrast. The only reason I stopped using the EF 50 1.4 is that I have the Zeiss 50 1.4 Planar.
I do not know the new RF Version, but I can tell about 50mm EF. The stm version since pretty comparable to the RF Version. It is very sharp and focus is accurate. The old vers. II was considerably sharper at 2.8 and above While focusing is very slow and at 1.8 a kind of a hit and miss. With the 1.4 you get a nicer bokeh at every F-Stop and images pops more. It is quite soft at 1.4. and focus isn‘t perfect at the lower f-stop. Normally I use it at 2.2. I definitely like it more than stm, because how the image looks overall. Sometimes I put on my 5d mkI (yes a 18 year old camera) and the images just blow me away.
DSLR cameras need, almost universally, a lens calibration process. It's annoying problem. Plus 50mm f1.4 is s very soft wide open. Another thing they are prone to have faulty ring where runner slide for focus ring.
I hate the 50 1.4. I've had 2. Very easy to break and the manual focusing is awful. I actually contacted Canon when I got mine in 2011 and asked if it was normal that the manual focusing sounded so grindy and rough. They told me that it was a common question and that my lens was fine. One 3 foot drop on carpet killed it 6 months later. I actually think the EF 1.8 STM is the superior lens of all of these non-L 50s. The EF 1.8 is almost as sharp as the RF 1.8 but it has more versatility between bodies and still works well with video auto-focus. And you can use the EF 1.8 STM with the Canon EF-to-RF Drop-in Variable ND adapter!
The RF 50 f1.8 is such great value I got it for my new R8, despite I'm more a 35mm kind of guy. But it's so light and small it's a no brainer to take it on a hike, even as a 2nd prime. I can't believe how light the R8 + this lens setup is, considering it's a full frame camera. Good times to be alive !
I got the EF 50mm 1.4 when I bought my Canon 6D. The main selling point is the big aperture here, but focus was so soft that I consider it almost useless. If I have to stop it down further than 2.8 I rather use my other stabilized zoom lens. I'm trying to sell the 50mm now it but nobody wanted to buy it so far...
Quick question. If I want to buy the RF 50mm f/1.8 for my R T7, what type of adapter do I need? Or can I only get EF lenses as I have a RT7? Great video by the way, very informative!
I've used the EF 50mm f/1.4 for many years. I have not used the new RF 50mm f1.8. To be perfectly honest, 50mm on "full frame" is not my favorite focal length. I find it pretty boring. In fact, when I was shooting film I didn't even carry a 50mm lens... I used both wider and longer (20, 21, 24, 28, 35mm... 75, 85, 90mm depending upon the system). But after I switched to APS-C digital, where it acts as an excellent big aperture, short telephoto... ideal portrait lens... the 50mm became one of my favorites. I found there is some variation copy-to-copy with the EF 50mm f/1.4. It tends to be soft wide open at f/1.4. The one I have now is pretty good, but I still tend to stop it down just a little, at least f/2, most of the time. It's quite sharp there, though at least with mine f/1.4 is usable, if needed. Images just need a little more tweaking in post production. The EF 50mm f/1.4 is notorious for AF failure, as you mentioned. I think this often happens when the focus ring or the slightly protruding front barrel (when focused closer) gets a hard knock. A possible solution is the OEM bayonet lens hood... which does a good job protecting the barrel when shooting and also covers the focus ring when stored in the reverse position. Just remember to set focus to infinity during storage, too (to retract the front barrel). Thus might be why my lens has had no AF issues all these years. The new RF 50mm f/1.8 sounds like a better option for most. The older EF 50mm f/1.8s didn't hold up as well against the f/1.4. The first two EF f/1.8s used slow, noisy micro motors. They also needed to be stopped down when sharpness was critical, ending up around f/2.6... or about 2/3 stop slower than the f/1.4 lens set to f/2. They also didn't have as nice color rendition as the f/1.4 lens. The final EF 50mm f1.8 STM was a definite improvement in most respects... sharper wide open, quicker and quieter AF (but still not as quick as the f/1.4's USM, on the DSLRs). With 5 or 6 aperture blades, they also didn't render as nice background blur as the f/1.4. Another lens I wish was an option is the Sigma 56mm f1.4. I have it in EF-M mount and it's superior in every way to all the Canon 50mm lenses except for the much, much more expensive 50mm f/1.2L (both EF and RF versions). I really hope Canon works out a deal to allow some 3rd party lenses to be made for the R-series cameras... and one of them is this Sigma (it is "crop only"). P.S. Someone else noted the EF lenses' nicknames, but needs to be corrected. Originally the EF 50/1.4 was called the "nifty fifty". The EF 50/1.8 that came a little later was called the "thrifty fifty". Only in more recent years people started calling the f1.8 lenses the nifties.
I have an EOS R6. I have a 16mm RF lens for it. I don't know if I will buy another RF lens as I have EF lenses which I can use with an adapter. I also have an EOS 5D III which I love. I am conflicted!
This review is great! I have R5 and both EF and RF 50mm, most of the time though I use the EF since I have EF 85mm as well. You are correct especially to the focusing, RF is great compared to EF but since I already have the EF might as well use it. However, if I have budget I will for sure invest new lens but that would be the sigma art. Finger cross hopefully they will have RF lenses soon. Can you please do RF vs Sigma art lenses using the adaptor? thank you :)
About chromatic aberration, did you remove automatic profile adjustment from lightroom? My RF 50 1.8 has more aberration if I disable lens profile correction.
My opinion as a photographer: I own the 50mm 1.4 since 8 years and it never let me down. I'd recommend you to buy the adapter (then you'll also bo able to use other ef lenses). There are a few things not mentioned in this Video. And to me those are the things that are more important. First of all color. The ef, although it's old, is my go to lens regarding portraits. No other lens i used renders colors in such a nice way. And the second distinct feature is actually a flaw. The lensflares. They just look so amazing and unique. I know, as a photographer sometimes you want to invest in new gear. And we look out for the sharpest lenses at the best price. I'm guilty too. But i made the experience, that the sharpest lenses do not always make the nicest photos. I bought some lenses just because of their sharpness and now i struggle to get the colors right. Long story short, keep the EF-version, it's great. But i wouldn't use it below f 2.2. :)
I bought the canon r50 and the rf 50mm 1.8 lens. Unfortunately, I can't produce any usable video footage at all because neither the camera nor the lens has an image stabilizer. Do you think a lens with image stabilizer will be able to work against this? Or would I be better off returning the camera and buying the Canon r7 with built-in image stabilizer instead? Or do you think a lens with image stabilizer will make as smooth video as the combination of a camera with image stabilizer and a lens with image stabilizer?
To be honest I would try a stabilized lens first. Try to borrow one and make some tests. But ultimately, a lens with IS and a camera like the R7 will be a super combo!
@@VideoMakerTwist Thank you so much for your quick answer! Then I will try this! Would you rather recommend the CANON RF 24-105MM/4,0-7,1 IS STM or the CANON RF 85MM/2,0 MACRO IS STM lens for food filming with nice closeups? (I can‘t afford the 100mm macro lens yet) Thank you in advance, I love your content btw
@@KatharinaKorb I would go with the 24-105 with variable aperture OR if you have the budget, I will definitely choose the RF 24-105 F4. So I would choose the zoom over the fixed lens. But if the 85mm lets you get closer to the subject and you really need macro, then go with that one.
with the canon ef 50 1.4 it has always been a bit soft. I actually always prefered the ef 50 1.8 (both the original and the second version) for photos. I have owned both versions and borrowed the ef 50 1.4 and was just disappointed :P It's a similar problem with the softness on the ef 85 1.8 but there is unfortunately no cheap alternative for that one from canon. I have been spoiled by the EF50 1.8. And for photos it's sharpness peaks at f4 but is already good wide open. So not sure I'll upgrade to the RF 50 1.8 from the EF 50 1.8 (mk2) but I would definitely upgrade from the 1.4 :D
Splitting hairs on weight and price is a major factor for 100% amateurs. I’m never going to r series staying with old ef series full gram an picked up Fuji mirrowless for 1/4 of cost plus their lense I would say are equivalent in most cases an superior
Genuine question, wouldn't a more even comparison be the EF 50mm f1.8? The RF 50mm f1.8 was made in line with that, not the f1.4. Just curious as to why you used the, older, f1.4
I am confused - what lenses exist where you are unable to select an aperture and stick to it? this is like a pretty core concept for photography right? What do you mean by constant aperture??
Zoom lenses for example sometimes have variable apertures from 4.5 to 6.3 for example. You start with 4.5 and when you zoom in, the aperture changes to a higher number. On the other hand, for prime lenses, the constant aperture is very very helpful.
@@VideoMakerTwist Oh i see now, i was a bit drunk, but also all primes have a constant aperture and you were reviewing two primes so i guess its still kinda odd to mention it but yeah.
You mean a fast aperture, not a fixed aperture. Its not a zoom, its a prime. No change in FL/aperture possible anyways… Also, Its not just an old USM motor on the EF lens, its a micro USM motor and has basically nothing to do with USM technology at all, just marketing. When talking about USM motors, you typically talk about the sophisticated and much better and more silent ring-USM systems compared to STM. They are also mosty inside focussing so no moving or turning front element. Some key differences you didnt mention tho: - The EF can sometimes be cheaper (2nd hand) than the RF 50 1.8 as kit with an older DSLR for example. As much i also liked the RF (used it for over 2 years on the EOS RP), and as much flaws the EF 50 1.4 has, the EF has a place in my heart since it is in very few things better: - 3d pop. The RF 50 1.8 barely if at all has 3d pop. Yes the EF isnt much better, but slightly when used for portrait on APS-C - build quality: inside especially the RF is „built like a tank“ compared to the EF 50 1.4. I had 3 EF 1.4s, 2 were broken completely within some years and the 3rd one i repaired and sold immediatly before it breaks again (mostly AF/MF clutch mechanism). Also the EF better dont fall on the ground with the front end, instant mechanical damage of the inner tubes guiding rails and hard to bend back properly. The RF is pretty much protected against this case since the inner barrel is focussed to infinity not standing out at all. I would prefer the RF if i could only pick between those 2 lenses, just more usable for anything beside portrait and super small and light „run and gun“ combo with a RP or R8. Luckily we can also adapt vintage lenses and there are so much better and cheaper options out there than EF and RF 50 1.4/1.8… - SMC/Super Takumar 1.4/1.8s. - Helios 44-2, 44M-5, 44M-7,… - Zeiss Planar 2/50 and some others even Sonnar 1.5, Jena/Biotar,… - jupiter 3 or jupiter 8 for the bigger budgets like 300-600$ there are even some nice more professional 1.2 versions on the market such as the SMC Takumar 50 1.2, rarer and much more expensive but a nice thing if you want more than the „average“ 1.4 SMC/Super Takumar version you can get for a bargain.
Pretty foreseeable results, I had the EF 50 f1.4 back in the days, it's one one the worst Canon lenses ever released, sharpness and contrast were unusable until f2.8 and started to get decent at f4, such a rubbish lens, should cost not more then 50€. All the f1.8 EF 50's (Mk I, II and STM) were already bashing it hard, and the new RF is even better. No brainer. For almost the same price of a new EF 50 1.4 one can buy an used Sigma 50 f1.4 Art which has stellar performances; yes, Sigma is twice as big and three times heavier, but who cares? I had it for 6 years and was in love with it, and recently sold it to buy the Sigma 40 f14 Art (50% bigger and almost 100% heavier...but again, who cares when you see the quality?), which is even better, and even kicks RF 50 f1.2 L's ass for just 1/3rd of the price.
@@VideoMakerTwist It works fine with an adapter, though! I use a Sigma 150-600 on my mirrorless Canons all the time! Works amazingly, photos are sharp. I use it on a film SLR as well, and it works nicely, but not as quickly as on mirrorless.
The EF has weak contrast wide open, but the sharpness is not bad. I understand the convenience of the RF, but I am in no hurry to change my EF, since it has more "lens" in itself. At 2.8 you have much more light and sharpness across the image. RF vignettes like crazy. Canon really lacks something between this class and their 50 1.2. Some kind of 50 1.4 like Sigma Art or at least 50 1.8 with a more complex design.
I understand. If you only use it just for photos, that vignetting is corrected through profile corrections in Camera Raw, so not an issue. Agree with the fact that we need another 50mm lens that sits between the very low budget and premium! Can't wait to see what Sigma has to offer in the future for the RF mount.
@@VideoMakerTwist It is not corrected for free, it uses quality reserve of the sensor. But I want this entire reserve for myself, it might come in handy, after all, we buy fast aperture lenses not only for bokeh, but also for the light, don’t we ? So i can't call it "not an issue". It would be nice to get some new Sigma for RF, but it seems that only crop is open for third party.
The EF was never meant for live-view focusing. It's a 30 y.o. lens that's still plenty sharp - Just shoot at f/2.8 or even f/4. The point of the lens is not sharpness wide open - It's softness wide open, tack sharp at f/4 - not video but manual focus at f/1.4. Remember video is only recently using auto focus... Why would you reach for a f/1.4 lens? Oh yeah - because it's DARK!!! or you want to nail a portrait on aps-c - I'd argue the f/1.4 is a great reason to do that! For the money, there isn't a f/1.4 lens out there that does what it does - or the Canon f/1.8 at 85mm or the EF-100mm f/2
@@VideoMakerTwist really? I was watching some videos that told me “even you are using that Canon RP + Adapter + 50mm you are going to have a crop” so I won’t? THATS AWESOME
That stm 50 is great except it’s not durable. The barrel was obstructed when turning it on and now I have $150 paper weight. Not worth the cost of fixing.
My EF 50mm 1.4 is soft as duck wide open. In my opinion beyond usability. It sharpens up at 3.5… my 60 yo takumar 50mm 1.4 is plenty sharp wide open and renders smooth background blur. Perhaps my copy is faulty…
00:52 - to everyone who is commenting about me saying "the very first thing that I like about these prime lenses is that they have a fixed aperture"
1. I’m not a native English speaker, so I wasn’t clear earlier-it was a mistake. What I meant to say was, "They have a constant aperture, unlike some zoom lenses that have a variable aperture." Of course, prime lenses always have a fixed aperture! I just wanted to point out how much I enjoy working with constant aperture lenses. Sorry for the confusion.
2. It’s frustrating as a creator to spend so much time crafting an 11-minute comparison video packed with detail, only to see some comments focusing solely on one mistake. None of those comments mentions what they liked or appreciated.
If you want to keep seeing educational content on UA-cam in the future from smaller creators, instead of just quick "dopamine hit" videos, try giving feedback like you’re sitting across from the creator, face to face. I'm sure you would choose kinder words in person. It’s easy to sit behind a screen and throw out frustrations, but for creators like us, those comments can really hit harder than you think.
I have both, and did some testing. The chromatic aberration on both are similar. The EF version has better bokeh. The RF is quicker and quiet with autofocus. I prefer the EF version. The f1.4 is useable. I'll probably sell my RF once my 6D is sold, so I will use the EF full time on the R5. That's just me though. Edit: Don't be weight weenies people, the weight difference is negligible, in fact, a little heavier lens will be better when your hands are shaky. Anyways, you choose your poison is what they say. Have a great day!
Did you choose the EF for the photography side? If yes, then it makes more sense.
@@VideoMakerTwist yes, i only do photos
@Video Maker Twist yeah ultra fast autofocus is only needed in videos, in photos its not as noticable
The RF version is much better and sharper in all tests. Especially in the whole area away from the center. Also sharper in the corners.
@@mariavanschie7946 please show us your tests, I want to see thanks
For photography I much preferred the EF image. If you don't have either and you have an RF mount its a no brainer. Get the RF lense. But I'm not sure its worth swapping them out if you already have the EF. That's based on the fact that if your adapting EF lenses the chances are the 50 isn't the only EF lense you have.
Im an hobby photographer and LOVE the 50mm RF for my R10. Making portraits with it makes so much fun and produces very sharp photos. I would still recommend every hobby photographer with a tight budged to invest into an EF adapter, since even the more premium EF lenses are cheaper (and mostly better) than its RF entry counterparts, especially telezoom lenses. The canon EF 55-250mm is incredible for its relative cheap price (200-250€). Its also pretty easy to find even cheaper second hand EF lenses in good/very good conditon.
agreed. I shoot exclusively on EF-L lenses with my R5. Professional glass at budget prices yk
@@tomer.aviation Yeah, especially since RF lenses tend to start at way to high apertures (f4+). Might be not a problem for landscapes, but i just like to have the option. I rather have to sharpen it afterwords then not to have a useable picture at all.
I used my 50mm RF 1.8 for like 3 months on my Eos R and then I decided to get the adapter to use my 70-200 2.8 and my 50mm 1.4 and my 40mm Pancake..... and oh man that EF 50mm 1.4 is magical on the Eos R and the R5 !!!!!
R + EF 50mm F1.4 make you happy than RF 50mm F1.8 bro? im very hesitate to choose EF or RF for my EOS RP.
Of course you are right. I liked EF 50 1.4 more than RF
I like the form factor, design and sharpness of the RF, but the bokeh of the EF.
Even when aperture is equal, the EF shallow dof looks more pleasant, probably because it‘s softer in general.
Let‘s hope for a well build RF 50mm f1.4, and a general f1.4 RF line.
they just build f 1.4. almost for 1500$.
@@NarekManukyan 😞
@@ThoSchoholic Well, nothing to be worried about - we still have old Canon EF f1.4 (can be bought brand new as well!) and RF 1.8. So while 1.4 can be used with an adapter, it's still much cheaper than 1500$ model one. I know I'm comparing apples and oranges here, but honestly, majority of my clients wouldn't be able to tell the difference between these two. Besides, I’ve learned to love and embrace the f/1.4 bokeh on my 5D Mark IV full-frame. It’s dreamy and sparkling.
Canon also released the EF 1.8mm $149 lens, lovingly termed "the nifty 50" which is probably a better comparison of the RF 1.8 50mm, a much smaller body, when compared to the EF 1.4 50mm and in the same price point.
thats what i thought. half way into the video i realised that its not that 1.8 but a 1.4
Thank you for this informative video... much appreciated.
I've never shot Canon SLR, to say nothing of mirrorless, cameras.
I shot 35mm film with Minolta Maxxum SLRs from 1987 ~ 2004, then Nikon DX DSLRs from 2004 ~ 2023.
In 2023, I gave all of my remaining Nikon gear to my youngest child when she turned 18, this past Christmas (D7500, SB-800 Speedlight, three ffl f/1.8 FX lenses, an AF-S VR(ii) DX zoom lens, an AF-P VR(iii) FX zoom lens, misc. other items, Tamrac camera gear bag).
She was the only one of my children who ever expressed any interest in photography, and she'd already been using some of my Nikon gear to shoot club and sporting events at her H.S.
Admittedly, she has quite a good photographer's eye.
These days, I use my wife's ten year old Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-RX100m3 point-&-shoot pocket-sized camera... the closest thing to a mirrorless camera I've ever used.
I have become very intrigued by the Canon EOS R6m2 and R7, and have been debating whether or not to buy used Canon EF lenses with a Canon EF-to-RF adapter (to save cost), or break the bank and buy native Canon RF lenses.
Your review has me leaning towards the latter (native RF lenses), as the image quality they're capable of appears to be appreciably better.
Good things! 👍
The focal length is fixed at 50mm for prime lenes, not the aperture, which is variable f/stop. For some zoom lenes (non-fixed focal lengths) the aperture will vary according to the max zoom focal length, but remains fixed if the f/stop is set to minimum aperture throughout the zoom range when camera settings are in Manual mode.
Hi, nice video and comparison. Long time Canon shooter and more recent Fuji convert but I still regularly own use both systems. The EF 50mm F1.4 has always been famous as being a bit soft and having weak AF motors. Mine still works after all these years but there are cases out there where the plastic gears wear down and self destruct until the AF stops working. I have both of these and also the original EF 50mm F1.8 also known as the “plastic fantastic” or “nifty fifty”. I think the EF 50mm F1.8 and the RF version are probably the better and more direct comparison in terms of focus speed and performance, general bokeh, same min aperture, similar price etc. I never sell stuff my old gear so I still switch between all three 50mm lenses from time to time for the fun of it, but the RF is definitely the best fit all round 50 mm now on my RF bodies. I love adapting theEF version onto my Fuji bodies just for fun, even if I already own the Fuji equivalents. They all have their own character, good and bad. Again, great video. Liked and subscribed.
Agreed
Thank you so much for this comparison! I've used the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 with my R6 and the results were great-way better than with my DSLR. Probably because mirrorless cameras need no lens calibration, and focusing was perfect! The f/1.4 is still my go-to for portraits. But I may get the RF 50mm f/1.8 for video-it's a great value at $100 currently.
Why would you need the 1.8 if you have the 1.4?
@@bensonemery For video, the EF 1.4 is way too noisy
@ameetkini8554 oh right, I didn't think about this - I thought they both used stm motors so would have roughly the same noise level?
@@bensonemery DSLR cameras need, almost universally, a lens calibration process. It's annoying problem. Plus 50mm f1.4 is s very soft wide open. Another thing they are prone to have faulty ring where runner slide for focus ring.
@kamilpotato3764 yes, but you can stop up the lens to a better f stop
Good review, but one thing you didn't cover is the advantage of 1.4 over 1.8 when shooting in Low Light situations. When we recently visited the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, AZ, for example, there are several instances during indoor activities and even night and low light activities where my EF 50mm f/1.4 really shined when paired on my R5. That said, I recognize that, in any situation where wide open isn't needed, the RF 50 f/1.8 is clearly the better option. For me, I think I will eventually get the RF 50 f/1.8 as it is clearly a great value, but I'll likely also keep my EF version for those situations where I really want to have as big an aperture as possible. Thanks for a great review.
Why not compare like for like the RF 50/1.8 vs EF 50/1.8 STM?
So detailed review, price, adapters, size, etc. Very informative. Well done sir!
I've got the EF 50mm / 1.4 also. The aperture is not fixed!
Thanks you for the video. I own the canon EF 50 1.4, but I try to never use it at 1.4, even for portrait due to the very low sharpness at this aperture. I try not to go below 2.0, sometimes 1.8... but each time I shoot at 1.4, I have some regrets on the sharpness.... so 1.8 vs 1.4 should not be a subject here for me.
By the way I keep my EF 50 1.4, because there's no real benefit to switch to the RF for photo.... but if I were a video creator I would switch to RF I think.
(I bought this 50 mm 1.4 10 years ago, using it since last year on a Cano EOS 600D, and now on a EOS RP since last year)
The EF50/1.4 is a great lens. It has a tonal gradation and depth that rivals the Leica M-Summilux & Noctilux. I think Canon knows this and thinks it's a great lens that can't be discarded. And they've kept it in their lineup for so long. This is just my personal opinion.
The EF50/1.4 is very similar to the Contax/Yashica Planar 50/1.4, except for vignetting. If you are not satisfied with the AF or manual focus of the EF50/1.4, you may want to choose the EOS R body + C/Y Planar 50/1.4.
Thanks so much for doing this comparison, I have the 1.4, and have been looking for a comparison video between this and the RF 1.8 for a while.
That said, the sharpness is very similar in all cases except the car door handle, and it looks like the EF missed focus. I honestly couldn’t tell the difference at all with the park bench. The RF is sharper for the portrait though.
An important point for me is how much faster USM lenses are compared to STM lenses as a photographer. I shoot a lot of low light action, and the faster motor and the slightly faster maximum aperture is a big deal for me.
I might pick up the RF 50 for video though. The EF lens is obnoxiously loud for video, and that focus breathing is strong
I own the ef 50mm and have an ef to r adapter with built in nd filter. For sound, I use an external audio recorder or lav mic so focus motor noise doesn't affect my videos. I may pick up the rf 50 mm at some point though. Great video.
🎥 Watch next → Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 vs EF 24-70 f2.8 II Comparison ua-cam.com/video/uOaRjn2PoWw/v-deo.html
I agree about the sharpness and all, but man : at f/8 (picture of the bench) the bokeh is clearly not the same at all. The EF 1.4 is smoother, rounder etc. The RF 1.8 doesn't have a bokeh that good which understandable: less blades, and sharper overall.
Other than that, yeah the RF is better
When Canon mentions RF, they just don't want your first child, they want a second mortgage on your life of bad choices.
Wdym?
@@arnavsingh8840, he means that the lens may only be 200 dollars but any good camera body that it goes to costs 1000 dollars for you to run that shit. Which is wack
@@emeryz10I got a brand new R50 with a lens, tripod, mic and carrying case full of accessories for $699. The mic and the tripod were hilariously poor quality but still feel like I got a great deal on the body and lens back in December
@@emeryz10I’d say it’s the other way around. They have relatively cheaper bodies than their competitors but all their glass is ridiculously priced. They have like 3 budget lenses and this is one of them. Any of their pro lenses are about $500-$1000 more than the Sony equivalent and glass is what you should be investing in. They did this because camera specs are much easier to sell than quality glass.
keep up the great work man, salute from a fellow romanian!
Thanks a lot, Dan! Happy to have you here!
Thanks for the great review! Here's one thought: could the EF version be better for portraits? For one, we do not always want to see all the wrinkles and imperfections on faces, and second we nowadays love strong bokeh which the EF can deliver better. What do you think?
I would ALWAYS choose the sharpest lens - RF lens in this case - because I can make it softer in editing. When you resize photos, small imperfections just dissapear instantly. EF is too old by this point with an old focus motor.
I actually share your views - I think EF at 1.4 is a brilliant lens on FF cameras, even on crop, but really shines on FF due to maxed out bokeh. The skin tones are softer, but the face is well defined, with lashes nicely visible at f1.4. The bokeh is sparkly and swirly. I really love this lens. But NEVER use it without the hood. The hood literally saved the lens for me, last time when it fell on the concrete ground. I needed to use micro-adjustment in my DSLRs afterwards, something probably shifted inside, but the lens turned out unscratched and working, no probs.
I thought I'd be clever and save money buying EF primes on an R6 body... nope. I bought the 50 and 85 1.4. Sold both and the adapter. I'll stick with RF thank you very much. Sharper, better light/colors in my subjects. The EF's were soft all around. Just use a mist filter if you want that effect. In any case, your results were the same as mine. Thanks for confirming... I will keep waiting on an RF 50mm/1.4... maybe another year, maybe never.. but we'll see.
Nice comparison that really pushes me toward the RP. As somebody stuck in APS-C-ville, it is difficult to beat for the money. If I want something with more range, I'm probably more likely to go with much heavier glass than either of them with something like the f/1.2L.
Can't use the 1.8 since I don't use mirrorless. However I just picked up the 1.4 for like 150. So I'm not sure where you are getting 400 at? I went to KEH. Where did you look?
wow ! im blown away how much sharper the RF 1.8 lens is, i have th F1.4 for years and used a ton, also on sony cameras etc.
Great review!
I actually ended up buying the RF 50mm because of this video, and I must say that it is tack sharp at 1.8, - where my EF 1.4 first shines at 2.0.
I'm happy that my video helped you to make the right decision for you!
I'm not sure if this is a good comparison because the EF uses an adapter. As you know, adapters can cause a delay on the speed of the auto focus. Question: Wouldn't the length of the lens affect the overall photo? The 50mm has the adapter. Would it affect the bokeh?
the goal is to make a choice when you have an EOS R series canon... and in this case, you'll need the adapter. In case you have a canon EF series, you can't use the RF version... so it's pointless to compare the EF version without the adapter
You don't understand how an EF to RF adapter work.
Really detailed video, nice works man.
Thank you!
Hi....very nice and clear comparison, I was planning to buy an adapter and es version for Canon R 50.....will change my plan now...
The EF version also works great on my SLR, actually all of them - I have about 5 bodies from RT to 300X.
Great video! What camera lens did you use for video
Canon RF 24-70 2.8
wow this rf is really good ! interesting how to compare to sigma art 50 1.4 , price difference is big but quality ?
I have them both and I prefer the RF much over the EF.
On a EF camera I always had problems with the AF of the EF 50 1.4. The Sigma 50mm Art für EF is the much better lens. I will sell the EF 50 1.4 and use the RF as a lithe walk around lens and the Sigma for assignments
IMO RF glass is optimized for video. The older EF lenses have better contrast. The only reason I stopped using the EF 50 1.4 is that I have the Zeiss 50 1.4 Planar.
wow such a great review! thanks a lot!
I do not know the new RF Version, but I can tell about 50mm EF. The stm version since pretty comparable to the RF Version. It is very sharp and focus is accurate. The old vers. II was considerably sharper at 2.8 and above While focusing is very slow and at 1.8 a kind of a hit and miss. With the 1.4 you get a nicer bokeh at every F-Stop and images pops more. It is quite soft at 1.4. and focus isn‘t perfect at the lower f-stop. Normally I use it at 2.2. I definitely like it more than stm, because how the image looks overall. Sometimes I put on my 5d mkI (yes a 18 year old camera) and the images just blow me away.
DSLR cameras need, almost universally, a lens calibration process. It's annoying problem. Plus 50mm f1.4 is s very soft wide open. Another thing they are prone to have faulty ring where runner slide for focus ring.
I have the EF 50mm 1.8, but now I guess I better get the RF one. Thank you for the info.
Amazing review! I got exactly what I'm looking for. Thank you!
I hate the 50 1.4. I've had 2. Very easy to break and the manual focusing is awful. I actually contacted Canon when I got mine in 2011 and asked if it was normal that the manual focusing sounded so grindy and rough. They told me that it was a common question and that my lens was fine. One 3 foot drop on carpet killed it 6 months later. I actually think the EF 1.8 STM is the superior lens of all of these non-L 50s. The EF 1.8 is almost as sharp as the RF 1.8 but it has more versatility between bodies and still works well with video auto-focus. And you can use the EF 1.8 STM with the Canon EF-to-RF Drop-in Variable ND adapter!
The RF 50 f1.8 is such great value I got it for my new R8, despite I'm more a 35mm kind of guy. But it's so light and small it's a no brainer to take it on a hike, even as a 2nd prime. I can't believe how light the R8 + this lens setup is, considering it's a full frame camera. Good times to be alive !
can i use the rf 50 f1.8 with canon r50 ?
@@ko-Daeguof course! But you have to consider that the R50 is an Aps-c Camera wich means you have 80mm focal lengh with the rf50mm
Hello! i want to buy canon r8! and rf50 f1.8 can i look your photos? maybe on instagram?
Thank you for the comparison, this was exactly what I needed to know :)
I got the EF 50mm 1.4 when I bought my Canon 6D. The main selling point is the big aperture here, but focus was so soft that I consider it almost useless. If I have to stop it down further than 2.8 I rather use my other stabilized zoom lens. I'm trying to sell the 50mm now it but nobody wanted to buy it so far...
Quick question. If I want to buy the RF 50mm f/1.8 for my R T7, what type of adapter do I need? Or can I only get EF lenses as I have a RT7? Great video by the way, very informative!
Thanks! The Canon Rebel T7 is a DSLR so you can mount the EF lenses without an adapter.
Would image stabilization for video be an issue with a Canon R50 , while using the Rf-1.8 lenses ? And if so what about an Ef lenses?
Glad I found this video I need to understand Ef In RF
Hello.... Please suggest me the camera setting so that i can get good skin tone. Ur lil pinkish effect is amazing.
I'm using canon 750D camera with 50mm prime lens for youtube videos.
I've used the EF 50mm f/1.4 for many years. I have not used the new RF 50mm f1.8.
To be perfectly honest, 50mm on "full frame" is not my favorite focal length. I find it pretty boring. In fact, when I was shooting film I didn't even carry a 50mm lens... I used both wider and longer (20, 21, 24, 28, 35mm... 75, 85, 90mm depending upon the system). But after I switched to APS-C digital, where it acts as an excellent big aperture, short telephoto... ideal portrait lens... the 50mm became one of my favorites.
I found there is some variation copy-to-copy with the EF 50mm f/1.4. It tends to be soft wide open at f/1.4. The one I have now is pretty good, but I still tend to stop it down just a little, at least f/2, most of the time. It's quite sharp there, though at least with mine f/1.4 is usable, if needed. Images just need a little more tweaking in post production.
The EF 50mm f/1.4 is notorious for AF failure, as you mentioned. I think this often happens when the focus ring or the slightly protruding front barrel (when focused closer) gets a hard knock. A possible solution is the OEM bayonet lens hood... which does a good job protecting the barrel when shooting and also covers the focus ring when stored in the reverse position. Just remember to set focus to infinity during storage, too (to retract the front barrel). Thus might be why my lens has had no AF issues all these years.
The new RF 50mm f/1.8 sounds like a better option for most. The older EF 50mm f/1.8s didn't hold up as well against the f/1.4. The first two EF f/1.8s used slow, noisy micro motors. They also needed to be stopped down when sharpness was critical, ending up around f/2.6... or about 2/3 stop slower than the f/1.4 lens set to f/2. They also didn't have as nice color rendition as the f/1.4 lens. The final EF 50mm f1.8 STM was a definite improvement in most respects... sharper wide open, quicker and quieter AF (but still not as quick as the f/1.4's USM, on the DSLRs). With 5 or 6 aperture blades, they also didn't render as nice background blur as the f/1.4.
Another lens I wish was an option is the Sigma 56mm f1.4. I have it in EF-M mount and it's superior in every way to all the Canon 50mm lenses except for the much, much more expensive 50mm f/1.2L (both EF and RF versions). I really hope Canon works out a deal to allow some 3rd party lenses to be made for the R-series cameras... and one of them is this Sigma (it is "crop only").
P.S. Someone else noted the EF lenses' nicknames, but needs to be corrected. Originally the EF 50/1.4 was called the "nifty fifty". The EF 50/1.8 that came a little later was called the "thrifty fifty". Only in more recent years people started calling the f1.8 lenses the nifties.
Wow, thanks for taking time to write your feedback, really appreciate it!
Thanks, dude! It was very helpful for me.
Glad it helped! Not everybody was happy about this video in the comments. But I assume you have the EF 50 1.4, so this was useful to you.
I have an EOS R6. I have a 16mm RF lens for it. I don't know if I will buy another RF lens as I have EF lenses which I can use with an adapter. I also have an EOS 5D III which I love. I am conflicted!
This review is great! I have R5 and both EF and RF 50mm, most of the time though I use the EF since I have EF 85mm as well. You are correct especially to the focusing, RF is great compared to EF but since I already have the EF might as well use it. However, if I have budget I will for sure invest new lens but that would be the sigma art. Finger cross hopefully they will have RF lenses soon.
Can you please do RF vs Sigma art lenses using the adaptor? thank you :)
About chromatic aberration, did you remove automatic profile adjustment from lightroom? My RF 50 1.8 has more aberration if I disable lens profile correction.
Fixed focal length? The aperture can be adjusted
What would be a variable aperture on a prime? 😕
and what is focus breathing on a prime?
@@muwanchen973 where the lens hunts back and forth to find focus. You deff do get that on primes
Will you recommend to buy adapter with r6 ii and use my ef 50 1.4 or buy new rf 50 1.8 instead?
My opinion as a photographer:
I own the 50mm 1.4 since 8 years and it never let me down. I'd recommend you to buy the adapter (then you'll also bo able to use other ef lenses).
There are a few things not mentioned in this Video. And to me those are the things that are more important.
First of all color. The ef, although it's old, is my go to lens regarding portraits. No other lens i used renders colors in such a nice way.
And the second distinct feature is actually a flaw. The lensflares. They just look so amazing and unique.
I know, as a photographer sometimes you want to invest in new gear. And we look out for the sharpest lenses at the best price. I'm guilty too.
But i made the experience, that the sharpest lenses do not always make the nicest photos. I bought some lenses just because of their sharpness and now i struggle to get the colors right.
Long story short, keep the EF-version, it's great. But i wouldn't use it below f 2.2.
:)
50mm f1.4, better af, better colors, better bokeh and constrution
Yes I also noticed that on my R5C. It works great with servo mode while RF always hunting focus. Also I like the bokeh of EF 50 1.4
I bought the canon r50 and the rf 50mm 1.8 lens. Unfortunately, I can't produce any usable video footage at all because neither the camera nor the lens has an image stabilizer. Do you think a lens with image stabilizer will be able to work against this? Or would I be better off returning the camera and buying the Canon r7 with built-in image stabilizer instead? Or do you think a lens with image stabilizer will make as smooth video as the combination of a camera with image stabilizer and a lens with image stabilizer?
To be honest I would try a stabilized lens first. Try to borrow one and make some tests. But ultimately, a lens with IS and a camera like the R7 will be a super combo!
@@VideoMakerTwist Thank you so much for your quick answer! Then I will try this! Would you rather recommend the CANON RF 24-105MM/4,0-7,1 IS STM or the CANON RF 85MM/2,0 MACRO IS STM lens for food filming with nice closeups? (I can‘t afford the 100mm macro lens yet)
Thank you in advance, I love your content btw
@@KatharinaKorb I would go with the 24-105 with variable aperture OR if you have the budget, I will definitely choose the RF 24-105 F4. So I would choose the zoom over the fixed lens. But if the 85mm lets you get closer to the subject and you really need macro, then go with that one.
@@VideoMakerTwist thank you 🤗 unfortunately I can‘t afford the F4 but I will go with the zoom lens
have you tried the digital image stabilization?
Why not compare with the cheaper EF 50mm f1.8 too? It's much closer in terms of price range
Crazy thing is the price of the 1.4. If they make a RF version it’ll be $1000+ I’m sure.
Yes, if Canon releases a 50mm 1.4 prime it will be in the USD 1000,- to 1200,- range (basically in the EF 50/1.2 ball park).
Hello, if i am able to get the EF and RF lenses for the same price, which would you recommend?
Before I answer to that, what camera system are you using now? DSLR or mirrorless?
@@VideoMakerTwist I'm the same. I have Canon RP what should buy!
how did you record the LCD display?
I use this external monitor, it's very smart: geni.us/RSNwqkR
Most of us already have the nifty fifty.. so compare only the cost of buying the EF-EOSR adapter vs. the RF50mm lens
with the canon ef 50 1.4 it has always been a bit soft. I actually always prefered the ef 50 1.8 (both the original and the second version) for photos. I have owned both versions and borrowed the ef 50 1.4 and was just disappointed :P
It's a similar problem with the softness on the ef 85 1.8 but there is unfortunately no cheap alternative for that one from canon.
I have been spoiled by the EF50 1.8. And for photos it's sharpness peaks at f4 but is already good wide open. So not sure I'll upgrade to the RF 50 1.8 from the EF 50 1.8 (mk2) but I would definitely upgrade from the 1.4 :D
Splitting hairs on weight and price is a major factor for 100% amateurs. I’m never going to r series staying with old ef series full gram an picked up Fuji mirrowless for 1/4 of cost plus their lense I would say are equivalent in most cases an superior
great comparison! helped me with my decision
Thanks man! Happy to hear you made a decision. What did you choose?
@@VideoMakerTwist i choose the cheaper one a subscription of your channel ;)
Do we say “fix aperture” with fixed-focus lenses?
If I said that, I rather meant to say "constant aperture".
Genuine question, wouldn't a more even comparison be the EF 50mm f1.8? The RF 50mm f1.8 was made in line with that, not the f1.4. Just curious as to why you used the, older, f1.4
You are right, but I made this video based on what people searched on UA-cam. This comparison was one of the related searches.
@@VideoMakerTwist exactly, i searched this comparison on Google & google directed me to ur channel
0:53 - I do not get the idea of being excited about fixed aperture in prime lenses. All prime lenses have fixed aperture...
Maybe I was not clear. I wanted to point out the benefit of fixed aperture on prime lenses vs zoom lenses with variable aperture.
Can the RF 50mm f/1.8 be mounted to M50 mark II without adapter?
Not compatible. You can use the adapter with EF lenses though.
If I use R50 and this RF lens 50mm f1.8 would it the auto focus make noise on my videos?
No
I am confused - what lenses exist where you are unable to select an aperture and stick to it? this is like a pretty core concept for photography right? What do you mean by constant aperture??
Zoom lenses for example sometimes have variable apertures from 4.5 to 6.3 for example. You start with 4.5 and when you zoom in, the aperture changes to a higher number. On the other hand, for prime lenses, the constant aperture is very very helpful.
@@VideoMakerTwist Oh i see now, i was a bit drunk, but also all primes have a constant aperture and you were reviewing two primes so i guess its still kinda odd to mention it but yeah.
@@TheRealUnconnected Other than that, did you find the video useful?
You mean a fast aperture, not a fixed aperture. Its not a zoom, its a prime. No change in FL/aperture possible anyways…
Also, Its not just an old USM motor on the EF lens, its a micro USM motor and has basically nothing to do with USM technology at all, just marketing. When talking about USM motors, you typically talk about the sophisticated and much better and more silent ring-USM systems compared to STM. They are also mosty inside focussing so no moving or turning front element.
Some key differences you didnt mention tho:
- The EF can sometimes be cheaper (2nd hand) than the RF 50 1.8 as kit with an older DSLR for example. As much i also liked the RF (used it for over 2 years on the EOS RP), and as much flaws the EF 50 1.4 has, the EF has a place in my heart since it is in very few things better:
- 3d pop. The RF 50 1.8 barely if at all has 3d pop. Yes the EF isnt much better, but slightly when used for portrait on APS-C
- build quality: inside especially the RF is „built like a tank“ compared to the EF 50 1.4. I had 3 EF 1.4s, 2 were broken completely within some years and the 3rd one i repaired and sold immediatly before it breaks again (mostly AF/MF clutch mechanism). Also the EF better dont fall on the ground with the front end, instant mechanical damage of the inner tubes guiding rails and hard to bend back properly. The RF is pretty much protected against this case since the inner barrel is focussed to infinity not standing out at all.
I would prefer the RF if i could only pick between those 2 lenses, just more usable for anything beside portrait and super small and light „run and gun“ combo with a RP or R8.
Luckily we can also adapt vintage lenses and there are so much better and cheaper options out there than EF and RF 50 1.4/1.8…
- SMC/Super Takumar 1.4/1.8s.
- Helios 44-2, 44M-5, 44M-7,…
- Zeiss Planar 2/50 and some others even Sonnar 1.5, Jena/Biotar,…
- jupiter 3 or jupiter 8
for the bigger budgets like 300-600$ there are even some nice more professional 1.2 versions on the market such as the SMC Takumar 50 1.2, rarer and much more expensive but a nice thing if you want more than the „average“ 1.4 SMC/Super Takumar version you can get for a bargain.
nicelyshot video for beginners
sir Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L III IS USM vs Canon RF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM review
ef f1.4 is usm and rf 1.8 is stm please compare stm to stm and usm to usm
i use rf 50mm f1.2 usm and results are awesome
Pretty foreseeable results, I had the EF 50 f1.4 back in the days, it's one one the worst Canon lenses ever released, sharpness and contrast were unusable until f2.8 and started to get decent at f4, such a rubbish lens, should cost not more then 50€.
All the f1.8 EF 50's (Mk I, II and STM) were already bashing it hard, and the new RF is even better. No brainer.
For almost the same price of a new EF 50 1.4 one can buy an used Sigma 50 f1.4 Art which has stellar performances; yes, Sigma is twice as big and three times heavier, but who cares? I had it for 6 years and was in love with it, and recently sold it to buy the Sigma 40 f14 Art (50% bigger and almost 100% heavier...but again, who cares when you see the quality?), which is even better, and even kicks RF 50 f1.2 L's ass for just 1/3rd of the price.
Thanks for sharing this. I would love a Sigma 1.4. Too bad Canon doesn't allow third party lenses on their RF system.
@@VideoMakerTwist It works fine with an adapter, though! I use a Sigma 150-600 on my mirrorless Canons all the time! Works amazingly, photos are sharp. I use it on a film SLR as well, and it works nicely, but not as quickly as on mirrorless.
Thanks for.....
The EF has weak contrast wide open, but the sharpness is not bad. I understand the convenience of the RF, but I am in no hurry to change my EF, since it has more "lens" in itself. At 2.8 you have much more light and sharpness across the image. RF vignettes like crazy.
Canon really lacks something between this class and their 50 1.2. Some kind of 50 1.4 like Sigma Art or at least 50 1.8 with a more complex design.
I understand. If you only use it just for photos, that vignetting is corrected through profile corrections in Camera Raw, so not an issue. Agree with the fact that we need another 50mm lens that sits between the very low budget and premium! Can't wait to see what Sigma has to offer in the future for the RF mount.
@@VideoMakerTwist It is not corrected for free, it uses quality reserve of the sensor. But I want this entire reserve for myself, it might come in handy, after all, we buy fast aperture lenses not only for bokeh, but also for the light, don’t we ? So i can't call it "not an issue".
It would be nice to get some new Sigma for RF, but it seems that only crop is open for third party.
"this prime lenses have fixe aperture". What do you mean? If it's a not zoom, it's automatically fixe aperture.
Nice vide bro & thanks❤️
I had the FD and EF of both the 1.8 and the 1.4, they are the same
The EF was never meant for live-view focusing. It's a 30 y.o. lens that's still plenty sharp - Just shoot at f/2.8 or even f/4. The point of the lens is not sharpness wide open - It's softness wide open, tack sharp at f/4 - not video but manual focus at f/1.4.
Remember video is only recently using auto focus...
Why would you reach for a f/1.4 lens? Oh yeah - because it's DARK!!! or you want to nail a portrait on aps-c - I'd argue the f/1.4 is a great reason to do that!
For the money, there isn't a f/1.4 lens out there that does what it does - or the Canon f/1.8 at 85mm or the EF-100mm f/2
Will I have a crop if I use the adapter?
If your camera is full frame, then no.
@@VideoMakerTwist really? I was watching some videos that told me “even you are using that Canon RP + Adapter + 50mm you are going to have a crop” so I won’t? THATS AWESOME
What is a prime lens with a constant aperture ? A prime lens with an aperture ?
Can i use the canon rf 1.8 and rf 35mm f1.8 macro lense on a canon m50 mark ii?
no， you can't. Rf lens can only used on r series cameras.
Used adapter rf to ef mount
Salut ar fi foarte fain daca ai pune link in descriere despre produsele prezentate....mersi
Salut, sunt deja listate in descriere produsele.
That stm 50 is great except it’s not durable. The barrel was obstructed when turning it on and now I have $150 paper weight. Not worth the cost of fixing.
The RF is less sharp but colours are warmer, i like them more.
I could say, that even EF 50/1.8STM is sharper. Buy 1.4 only if you need this 1.4
Shouldn’t you compare the 1.8 to the 1.8?
I think the used price is quite similar between these two lenses. Here in Malaysia, RF 50mm 1.8 and EF 50mm 1.4 are about RM700 used
Doesn’t make sense, they cost about the same when the RF is on sale, and the RF is better in every way.
You like that these lenses have a fixed aperture? Wow. I would be surprised if a fixed focal length lens would have a variable aperture somehow.
I have 50mm 1.4 usm in my job and this have slow focus and make much noise, for video is only usable with ext mic or manual mode. Stm is much better.
whats your lens and camera in this video ?
Canon EOS R, Canon RF 35mm f1.8
Thank you.
Thank you
My EF 50mm 1.4 is soft as duck wide open. In my opinion beyond usability. It sharpens up at 3.5… my 60 yo takumar 50mm 1.4 is plenty sharp wide open and renders smooth background blur.
Perhaps my copy is faulty…
thxxxxx
how could be a prime lens not constant f???
What do you mean exactly?
@@VideoMakerTwist focal length
I have a cannon EF 50mm 1.2 on a RF body.