Trying to choose between 35mm 1.8 and 1.4

[JustJenMarie]

I am undecided between getting a Canon RF 1.8 or an EF 1.4 most reviews I have seen the difference is so small that I’m not sure the 1.4 is worth the huge price difference. I’m leaning toward the RF 1.8. Any one have any thoughts on this.?

[Brian500au]

Questions like this are very difficult to answer. The fact you are even considering 1.8 vs 1.4 indicates to me you yourself may not even be sure if you need a 1.4 aperture. Look at the style of photography you are doing and be honest with yourself - will an EF 1.4 lens take your photography to the next level compared to shooting with a RF 1.8 lens. I would suspect there is zero real life difference between shooting both lenses at f1.8.

Do you need to extra build quality of the EF lens? That really comes down to how rough do you treat you equipment?

Personally I own two 50mm 1.4 lenses and one 50 1.8 lens all in different brands. 9/10 times I dont care which one i use - if i am traveling I am just as happy to pick up the plastic f1.8 lens but if I am doing some portrait work then why not grab the f1.4 lens - it is in the bag anyway but in all honesty I would bet in the end nobody would know which lens I ended up using.

If it was me I would spend the money on the RF lens - but I am getting old and think good technique is worth 10x more than the equipment you are using.

[ameerat42]

Well put, Kel. Jen, check out reviews of these lenses. - It's the RF, not R.

I started to do so, and one thing that stuck out - but for which lens? - was that
it was not universally sharp for all apertures. Another thing was that the EF lens
was NOT weather sealed. OK, what will you mainly use such a lens for? Yet another
thing I noticed was that the RF version gave a max reproduction ratio of 0.5!
That's serious for close-up work, while the EF only gave something like 0.18. The
filter size was vastly different too. The R had some 50mm while the EF was 72mm.
I guess quite importantly, the RF has IS/OS built in.

In your reviews, check out sample images and even do a lens comparison:
https://www.dpreview.com/products/co...8_is_stm_macro

If image quality is on par, then for me the trio of IS, weather sealing, and 0.5
reproduction ratio would be the go. But features are nothing without IQ.

I'll leave the rest to others.

[arthurking83]

I am undecided between getting a Canon RF 1.8 or an EF 1.4 most reviews I have seen the difference is so small that I’m not sure the 1.4 is worth the huge price difference. I’m leaning toward the RF 1.8. Any one have any thoughts on this.?

A note to the OP.
The lenses are designed for different camera mounts.

RF lenses are for Canon mirrorless
EF type lenses are for Canon DSLR

The point noted that you are considering the RF 35mm lens assumes that your camera body is a Canon R of some type.
So if you're considering the 35/1.4 mm lens, you obviously require an adapter for it to fit.

In terms of image sharpness, (one would expect) the f/1.4 EOS would be much more acute in rendering fine details, both shot at the same focus distance.
So in addition to the 35/1.4 being a long lens and heavy, it will 'feel' heavier than the actual numbers suggest due to the 100mm lens of the lens, compared to the 35/1.8 RF lens.
Add the length of the adpater needed for the EOS to R camera, and this will feel more magnified.
By comparison, the RF lens will simply magnify your subject as it allows closer focusing(but for Canon to call it macro is pushing it a bit).

So you gain image sharpness, and a bit more light gathering, but pay for it in terms of $s and physical presence with the 35/1.4

OTOH, the RF 35 is cheaper(but expensive for a 35/1.8) and cheery, small and lightweight can get in closer if ever needed too.

I think what you choose depends on what you want it for?
If for just general, a bit wider, walking about shooting various stuff type lens, the RF 35 makes much more sense.

If wanted for shots of people, where the contrast between a sharp subject and blurry(ish) wide background is wanted, then the 35/1.4 would make more sense.

If you want it for video usage, I'd say the RF lens would be better simply due to the weight.

If landscapes are your thing, and by extension you probably sit it atop a tripod and stop the lens down to f/8 or something, you probably will never know the difference between each lens.

In addition to Am's suggestion to view lens reviews on DPR, I also suggest try TheDigitalPicture too. His tests show a bit more visibly how much more obvious the differences between lenses can be.
If it's a feature you want, then the 35/1.4 makes more sense.
If you do check out TDPs' image quality comparison, don't be fooled by the more sharp nature of the 35/1.4 compared to the 35/1.8RF. They are shot on different cameras, and added resolution from the sensor can seem to be more sharpness. It kind'a is, but not really too. What the comparisons shows is that the f/1.4 EOS lens is sharper, but if mounted R6(like the 35.1.8 is on his test site) it wouldn't look so overly obvious.

[Tannin]

I'd be investigating the Tamron 35/1.4 - it's not much more than a third the price of the Canon 1/4 and very competitive with it. THe days when Tamron made cheap and cheerful lenses are long gone, I've been very happy with my Tamron 85/1.8 and would happily buy another lens from the same stable.

[ameerat42]

I too thought about 3rd-party lenses, Tannin, but I had already said too much and...

[JustJenMarie]

After a lot of research I have purchased the RF 35mm 1.8 thanks everyone for your input I appreciate it.

[ricktas]

After a lot of research I have purchased the RF 35mm 1.8 thanks everyone for your input I appreciate it.

We have seen a lot of discussion about gear, now it would be good to see some of your actual photography.

[JustJenMarie]

I put a few pictures up after this thread but just now noticed this comment.
wow Way to set a friendly welcoming tone sorry if I didn’t meet your expectations. I work a lot and am doing my best to find time. I joined this group to be party of a friendly community but now I just feel reluctant to participate at all.