HiI am moving to Full Frame with the next R8, and will buy the RF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM and the adapter for EF/EF-S lens.I allready have several EF/EF-S lenses (see list), will keep my 7D as back up APS-C with some lenses, and slowly built an RF ecosystem.Surely the RF 24-105 will be my averall lens, but if I had to find a RF prime to be with him, here is the two I am considering:RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro - 650$cad RF 50mm f/1.8 STM - 200$cadThe RF 50 is appealing by its price and the reputation of the nifty-fifty, but like with EF lens, will Canon release a RF 50mm f/1.4 USM?I saw a lot of review on the RF 50, everyone seems to agree: not the best lens, but a great one considering the price, you get what you'd pay for.The RF 35 seems also quite appealing as an overall lens, and has stabilization (which the R8 is missing)I am considering these two for travelling ultra light when I do not want to take the RF 24-105 (one of these days, when you take a camera "just in case").Does anyone has advice? Experience with these two RF lenses?Thanks Please note that I am not a professionnal, just an hobbyist.These are also in my list, but maybe for later, I am not sure I will use them RF 16mm f/2.8 STM - 350$cad RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM - 800$cad RF 80mm f/2 IS STM Macro - 850$cad

It is basically the same or slighlty better than the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM and overall a bit different than the EF 50mm 1.4 you are using (e.g. better sharpness wide open). Of course it only goes to 1.8, but the difference vs 1.4 is not that pronounced.If you are happy with the EF 50mm 1.4 you will be happy with the RF 50mm 1.8 as well. But be aware that a 50mm on a FF looks quite a bit different than a FF 50mm on your APS-C bodies, you would have to replace it with the RF 85mm 2.0 to get roughly the same framing at a given distance to the subject. The RF35mm will be even wider, so not sure if that suits your style / expectation.A RF 50mm 1.4 is not on the horizon yet, so don't expect it in the next two years.

Beyond the quality differences in the lens themselves is the question of which focal length you prefer. You could try a little data analysis…Grab a pencil and paper and look over the photos from the last year or so, especially any taken with standard zooms. Did you take more 35mm (aspc around 22mm) or more 50mm (aspc 33 mm or so) photos? Just another data point to factor into your decision.

DivaDreamer wrote:Beyond the quality differences in the lens themselves is the question of which focal length you prefer. You could try a little data analysis…Grab a pencil and paper and look over the photos from the last year or so, especially any taken with standard zooms. Did you take more 35mm (aspc around 22mm) or more 50mm (aspc 33 mm or so) photos? Just another data point to factor into your decision.HiI love for sure 35mm & 50mm.I used to shot a lot with my M6 / 35mm f/1.4 and with my 7D / EF 16-35 (eq. 25-56)That's why I picked these two.I was just wondering if anyone has experience with these two, which one they prefer and why?

HiIt is basically the same or slighlty better than the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM and overall a bit different than the EF 50mm 1.4 you are using (e.g. better sharpness wide open). Of course it only goes to 1.8, but the difference vs 1.4 is not that pronounced.Totally agree on the aperture, but the real difference between these two is clearly USM vs. STMIf you are happy with the EF 50mm 1.4 you will be happy with the RF 50mm 1.8 as well. But be aware that a 50mm on a FF looks quite a bit different than a FF 50mm on your APS-C bodies, you would have to replace it with the RF 85mm 2.0 to get roughly the same framing at a given distance to the subject. The RF35mm will be even wider, so not sure if that suits your style / expectation.I know, I will think about a 80mm later but not for now, for portrait, I will use the RF 24-105 / EF-S 60mm / EF 70-200 until I find a lens dedicated for that, if I need more.I was thinkibg more about a lens for travelling ultra light and general purpose, so 35mm or 50mm.A RF 50mm 1.4 is not on the horizon yet, so don't expect it in the next two years.That's the main reason why I am hesitating on the RF 50mm.

Solinthor wrote:HiI am moving to Full Frame with the next R8, and will buy the RF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM and the adapter for EF/EF-S lens.I allready have several EF/EF-S lenses (see list), will keep my 7D as back up APS-C with some lenses, and slowly built an RF ecosystem.Surely the RF 24-105 will be my averall lens, but if I had to find a RF prime to be with him, here is the two I am considering:RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro - 650$cad RF 50mm f/1.8 STM - 200$cadThe RF 50 is appealing by its price and the reputation of the nifty-fifty, but like with EF lens, will Canon release a RF 50mm f/1.4 USM?I saw a lot of review on the RF 50, everyone seems to agree: not the best lens, but a great one considering the price, you get what you'd pay for.The RF 35 seems also quite appealing as an overall lens, and has stabilization (which the R8 is missing)I am considering these two for travelling ultra light when I do not want to take the RF 24-105 (one of these days, when you take a camera "just in case").Does anyone has advice? Experience with these two RF lenses?Thanks Please note that I am not a professionnal, just an hobbyist.These are also in my list, but maybe for later, I am not sure I will use them RF 16mm f/2.8 STM - 350$cad RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM - 800$cad RF 80mm f/2 IS STM Macro - 850$cadThe RF 50/1.8 is a very nice lens, light and cheap. It is not the same optically as the EF 50 STM, it’s a new design, better built, and it is also very fast focusing. Sharpens up nicely at 2.8, really good at f4 through to f11. So yes it’s still a good lens to buy if 50mm on full frame suits you. Don’t worry about the lack of IS, the R8 is really good at higher ISO.The RF35 IS is also very nice, it’s a little bigger and of course has IS, making it a useful street/walk around lens on a FF body.  I use mine on my RP, same size as an R8.   Interestingly it seems just a little slower focusing than the 50, but this doesn’t matter in use.But if you bought the 50, you could probably stretch to the 16 as well, for the price of the 35. That would be a nice addition to your kit.

Solinthor wrote:HiTotally agree on the aperture, but the real difference between these two is clearly USM vs. STMThe EF 50mm 1.4 is no "prime example" of an USM lens. The implementation is rather wonky (prone to failure) can be a bit noisy and in this special case I would say not really faster than the STM.

HiBut if you bought the 50, you could probably stretch to the 16 as well, for the price of the 35. That would be a nice addition to your kit.The 16mm would be covered with my EF 16-35 f/4 L IS USM who will become an wide zoom lens ... Hipe to test itThat's why I eliminated the 16mm prime from the final list and kept the 35mmm and 50mm.Thanks

I find the RF 35mm to be a more versatile lens than the RF 50mm. In fact, the 50mm is only very rarely on my R6.David

Solinthor wrote:HiI am moving to Full Frame with the next R8, and will buy the RF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM and the adapter for EF/EF-S lens.I allready have several EF/EF-S lenses (see list), will keep my 7D as back up APS-C with some lenses, and slowly built an RF ecosystem.Surely the RF 24-105 will be my averall lens, but if I had to find a RF prime to be with him, here is the two I am considering:RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro - 650$cad RF 50mm f/1.8 STM - 200$cadThe RF 50 is appealing by its price and the reputation of the nifty-fifty, but like with EF lens, will Canon release a RF 50mm f/1.4 USM?I saw a lot of review on the RF 50, everyone seems to agree: not the best lens, but a great one considering the price, you get what you'd pay for.The RF 35 seems also quite appealing as an overall lens, and has stabilization (which the R8 is missing)I am considering these two for travelling ultra light when I do not want to take the RF 24-105 (one of these days, when you take a camera "just in case").Does anyone has advice? Experience with these two RF lenses?Thanks Please note that I am not a professionnal, just an hobbyist.These are also in my list, but maybe for later, I am not sure I will use them RF 16mm f/2.8 STM - 350$cad RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM - 800$cad RF 80mm f/2 IS STM Macro - 850$cadYes. Stopping down to just f2 gives a noticeable improvement and most of the frame is fairly sharp. f2.8 is better and from f4 the whole frame has good sharpness.I also have the 35 1.8. Many tout it as the better lens optically, and maybe that's technically correct but you're talking small differences. I'd not make any decisions based on optical performance as they are more alike than different. If you like 35 better than 50, don't mind the extra size/weight of the 35, want IS, and have the money to spare, get the 35. Otherwise my recommendation is the 50.The 16 2.8 is just a fun lens and for most can overcome the temptation to buy a UWA zoom.Don't have the 24 or 85 so I'll leave those to others to comment.Also I have the 50 1.8s big brother the 1.2L so I know how a really good 50 looks.  Of course it's better, but the 1.8 is way better in real world use than some pixel peepers make it out to be.

Solinthor wrote:HiI am moving to Full Frame with the next R8, and will buy the RF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM and the adapter for EF/EF-S lens.I allready have several EF/EF-S lenses (see list), will keep my 7D as back up APS-C with some lenses, and slowly built an RF ecosystem.Surely the RF 24-105 will be my averall lens, but if I had to find a RF prime to be with him, here is the two I am considering:RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro - 650$cad RF 50mm f/1.8 STM - 200$cadThe RF 50 is appealing by its price and the reputation of the nifty-fifty, but like with EF lens, will Canon release a RF 50mm f/1.4 USM?No.I saw a lot of review on the RF 50, everyone seems to agree: not the best lens, but a great one considering the price, you get what you'd pay for.Stopped down it's great. It's not the 50mm for portraits though.The RF 35 seems also quite appealing as an overall lens, and has stabilization (which the R8 is missing)That's a plus idd.I am considering these two for travelling ultra light when I do not want to take the RF 24-105 (one of these days, when you take a camera "just in case").For that kind of use case 35mm is more flexible. I think the use case is the most important factor.Does anyone has advice? Experience with these two RF lenses?Thanks Please note that I am not a professionnal, just an hobbyist.These are also in my list, but maybe for later, I am not sure I will use them RF 16mm f/2.8 STM - 350$cad RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM - 800$cad RF 80mm f/2 IS STM Macro - 850$cad

...it's a great lens.Had the RF 35 and it just wasn't me.  Just didn't like the handling of it.  The 50 1.8 is PERFECT in that regard and remarkable image quality.The ultimate in pure image quality is the 85 2.0.  Granted, the L primes are the ultimate, but come at the expense of SIZE; not to mention the expense.The cheap RF prime lenses are really, really, really good.