Hi Spencer, good review! I don’t have this lens, but I have rf 24-105 stm, 50 1.8 and 16 2.8, I assume that all these lenses are in the same build quality league. I use them with canon rp for family and travel photos, and also mountaineering and climbing. And having a lot of hobbies ;-), I really appreciate low weight and specially low price of this kit, so I tend to like cheaper canon oferings (85 f2, 100-400..). I accept shortcomings in build quality, and image quality is more than enough for me. Next lenses in my wish list will be 100-400 rf and this 35 1.8
Yes, pretty similar! Glad you’re enjoying those lenses. My 16mm f/2.8 review is coming up soon. It sounds like you’ve got a great kit.
bg5931
November 23, 2023 11:09 am
Is it possible that being a macro helps this lens with test chart performance (those are usually not sooo far away ;) ) compared to the two higher-end lenses that do not test quite as well? Or are the results visually different (in the way suggested by the test charts) also at longer focus distances?
Test charts can only tell you for certain about test chart distances. But with the very large chart that we use, it does a great job indicating sharpness in the range from moderate distances to infinity.
I’ll put it this way—I’ve never yet seen a lens’s real-world infinity sharpness deviate significantly from how it measures on this test chart in our lab.
However, when it comes to super-telephotos, we test those on a different, much smaller chart by necessity of the long focal length. Because of that, our telephoto MTF results are skewed toward measuring near-to-middle-distance sharpness performance rather than performance at infinity. So what I’ve written above only applies to lenses of approximately 200mm and wider.
That “7-foot” appears to refer to the 217 cm diagonal of the largest SFRPlus chart, which measures 110×187 cm.
On a full-frame sensor, the required magnification is very much smaller than the maximum magnification of the lens under test: • magnification of chart ≈ 0.02× • magnification ratio ≈ 1:50
True, but it’s much closer to it, optically speaking. The focusing group doesn’t need to move very much to get from 1:50 to infinity, whereas it would need to move substantially if going toward close focus.
Using the thin lens approximation of this f=35 mm lens for illustration…
The distance from the lens to the image plane (Si) is given by: Si = (1 + | m |)f, where f = focal length = 35 mm | m | is the modulus of the magnification.
The minimum magnification m=0 when focussed at ∞ : Si = (1 + 0)f = 35 mm ΔSi = 0 mm
The maximum magnification of this lens m=0.5 : Si = (1 + 0.5)f = 52.5 mm ΔSi = 17.5 mm
When focussed on the test chart m=0.02 : Si = (1 + 0.02)f = 35.7 mm ΔSi = 0.7 mm, which is only 4% of its travel forward to its maximum magnification position.
In other words, when focussed on the test chart, the focus ring of an equivalent unit-focussing lens would be rotated 96% of the way towards its ∞ position. The difference in performance at this 96% position and its ∞ position will be negligible; probably unmeasurable.
Following in the footsteps of “The lack of weather sealing significantly dampens the lens’s versatility”…
I presented above only a watered-down version of the mathematics, because I wanted to avoid flooding the comments with equations, while being substantially more rigorous than using a wet finger in the air approach.
Regarding weather sealing: one can’t be optimistic when all one has is a misty optic.
Norbert
November 22, 2023 6:38 pm
You mention that “The lack of weather sealing significantly dampens the lens’s versatility,” but I don’t think that’s quite correct. Instead it’s the moisture ingress that the lack of weather sealing allows that dampens not only the versatility, but the inside of the lens itself.
Har! Excellent bad pun, but I suspect one that’s completely unintended. Apologies …. I couldn’t resist ….
It wasn’t deliberate in the article, but I’m keeping it anyway! 😂
Pat
November 22, 2023 5:52 pm
It reminds me of Tamron’s, now discontinued, 35mm f/1.8 SP Di VC without the cons, but not a macro. Because it focuses pretty close, for a non-macro lens, I always bring it when armed with my 90mm macro lens.
The 35mm + 85mm prime combo (or in your case 90mm) is a classic.
Juergen
November 22, 2023 4:25 am
This lens reminds me of the barrel-style that my Nikon Z MC 50 has, where the frontelement moves out of the inner barrel in close-up position. Even though Nikon provides a little ring that they call lens hood but this can seriously only help to avoid contact to you subject. Only 46mm-filters can be used with the filter-thread of the inner barrel. Fortunately Nikon included a second 62mm-Filter thread on the outer part of the barrel, which can’t be used for filters because the inner barrel would touch the filter when moving out. So my solution to give my Nikon Z MC 50 a little more protection on the front element was to buy an after-market lens hood that screws into the 62mm thread of the outer barrel. It long enough to easily cover the inner barrel when moving out to the 1 : 1 position. This after-market lens hood is made from aluminum and has a filter-thread that can take 67mm-filters (and a 67mm-lens cap!!!). It doesn’t cause any vignetting, improves handling and can take a polariser in the 67mm filter-thread of the (outer) lens hood. For me it works absolutely perfect.
Maybe this would be something that works on the reviewed Canon 35mm as well to give the lens a bit more protection from the elements.
If there is such a product, it would go a long way toward alleviating my concerns with the RF 35mm f/1.8’s build quality by both protecting the moving barrel and adding some weatherproofing. I haven’t seen one but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Hi Spencer, I have to apologise for the nonsense I wrote. Before playing the smart guy I should have read your review more careful. My bla-bla does not count for the Canon 35 as it has only that one 52mm thread not two different ones like my Nikon Z MC 50. So my “smart” advice works only for the Nikon Z MC 50.
No problem, it got me thinking. There might be a way to manufacture something for the RF 35mm f/1.8 that would function similarly. It wouldn’t be based on a filter thread, but there is a tapered section on the lens’s outer barrel where a lens hood could be able to clamp.
Kamuran Akkor
November 22, 2023 3:24 am
I think for the price it is an excellent lens. IS, f1.8, control ring, external controls and macro being together in one lens is unique at this price range.
The number of features and performance for a $500 lens is highly unusual. It was a tricky lens to review — if the build quality works for you, it’s a no-brainer kind of lens, it’s just that good. But if you need weather sealing for your photography, it may not even be worth a second glance. I’m sure it will be polarizing. (We’ve already seen that from the few comments so far.)
Dmitry
November 21, 2023 10:20 pm
Too expensive for its quality. But there is no choice.
I guess I should put the value down to 4.5 stars instead of 5, but honestly I think it’s a great value for the price. For example, it’s cheaper than Nikon’s 35mm f/1.8 by quite a bit and performs on almost the same level, adds near-macro capabilities and image stabilization.
But with the build quality this bad, it’s questionable whether it should be even less expensive. I don’t know, I’ll have to put more thought into it.
The fact is that I consider the Z 35mm 1.8S one of the most unsuccessful lenses in the S series) I love 35mm, and I still have 35mm 2D and a big, heavy Tamron 35 1.4. But the Z 35mm 1.8S is not and will not be. And so. When I was choosing where to switch from the bayonet, I actively investigated the issue of glasses in other systems. And Canon’s policy didn’t suit me. Especially in the aspect of base glasses with an RF bayonet. Starting with the fact that there is no hermetic structure, and ending with spherochromatism, which I do not like. Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 STM IS a macro good lens. Knowing his weaknesses, you can get an excellent result. Its direct competitor Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens costs even more) This and the fact that Canon has closed the RF bayonet allows them to play with the price in a larger range. So, it turns out an interesting situation. Formally speaking, a new lens with similar optical characteristics is even cheaper than its mirror counterpart. And cheaper than analogues from Sony and Nikon. This is a plus. But, but! Nikon, even in the budget Z40mm 2.0, was able to implement a sealed design. And I remember how my life was ruined by a speck of dust that got on the inner surface of the lens next to the bayonet in AF-S 24-70 2.8G. And the second point. You yourself have shown in comparison that the Canon zoom has sharper angles when closed.
Hi Spencer, good review!
I don’t have this lens, but I have rf 24-105 stm, 50 1.8 and 16 2.8, I assume that all these lenses are in the same build quality league. I use them with canon rp for family and travel photos, and also mountaineering and climbing. And having a lot of hobbies ;-), I really appreciate low weight and specially low price of this kit, so I tend to like cheaper canon oferings (85 f2, 100-400..). I accept shortcomings in build quality, and image quality is more than enough for me.
Next lenses in my wish list will be 100-400 rf and this 35 1.8
Yes, pretty similar! Glad you’re enjoying those lenses. My 16mm f/2.8 review is coming up soon. It sounds like you’ve got a great kit.
Is it possible that being a macro helps this lens with test chart performance (those are usually not sooo far away ;) ) compared to the two higher-end lenses that do not test quite as well? Or are the results visually different (in the way suggested by the test charts) also at longer focus distances?
Test charts can only tell you for certain about test chart distances. But with the very large chart that we use, it does a great job indicating sharpness in the range from moderate distances to infinity.
I’ll put it this way—I’ve never yet seen a lens’s real-world infinity sharpness deviate significantly from how it measures on this test chart in our lab.
However, when it comes to super-telephotos, we test those on a different, much smaller chart by necessity of the long focal length. Because of that, our telephoto MTF results are skewed toward measuring near-to-middle-distance sharpness performance rather than performance at infinity. So what I’ve written above only applies to lenses of approximately 200mm and wider.
QUOTE Our Canon and Sony Lens Reviews Will Have Imatest Data Comparable to Nikon by Nasim Mansurov
(LAST UPDATED ON OCTOBER 27, 2023)
The resolving power test performed at Photography Life is Imatest SFRPlus with LW/PH MTF50 measurements on our 7-foot Imatest chart.
photographylife.com/our-c…e-to-nikon
END OF QUOTE
That “7-foot” appears to refer to the 217 cm diagonal of the largest SFRPlus chart, which measures 110×187 cm.
On a full-frame sensor, the required magnification is very much smaller than the maximum magnification of the lens under test:
• magnification of chart ≈ 0.02×
• magnification ratio ≈ 1:50
Thanks for putting it to numbers! Yeah, 1:50 magnification is not exactly macro range :)
And the focus distance is what – 2-3 meters? Hardly infinity either. ;)
True, but it’s much closer to it, optically speaking. The focusing group doesn’t need to move very much to get from 1:50 to infinity, whereas it would need to move substantially if going toward close focus.
Using the thin lens approximation of this f=35 mm lens for illustration…
The distance from the lens to the image plane (Si) is given by:
Si = (1 + | m |)f, where
f = focal length = 35 mm
| m | is the modulus of the magnification.
The minimum magnification m=0 when focussed at ∞ :
Si = (1 + 0)f = 35 mm
ΔSi = 0 mm
The maximum magnification of this lens m=0.5 :
Si = (1 + 0.5)f = 52.5 mm
ΔSi = 17.5 mm
When focussed on the test chart m=0.02 :
Si = (1 + 0.02)f = 35.7 mm
ΔSi = 0.7 mm,
which is only 4% of its travel forward to its maximum magnification position.
In other words, when focussed on the test chart, the focus ring of an equivalent unit-focussing lens would be rotated 96% of the way towards its ∞ position. The difference in performance at this 96% position and its ∞ position will be negligible; probably unmeasurable.
Man, I always enjoy your comments, Pete—thanks for the additional technical background!
Following in the footsteps of “The lack of weather sealing significantly dampens the lens’s versatility”…
I presented above only a watered-down version of the mathematics, because I wanted to avoid flooding the comments with equations, while being substantially more rigorous than using a wet finger in the air approach.
Regarding weather sealing: one can’t be optimistic when all one has is a misty optic.
You mention that “The lack of weather sealing significantly dampens the lens’s versatility,” but I don’t think that’s quite correct. Instead it’s the moisture ingress that the lack of weather sealing allows that dampens not only the versatility, but the inside of the lens itself.
Har! Excellent bad pun, but I suspect one that’s completely unintended. Apologies …. I couldn’t resist ….
That was an excellent bad pun!
It wasn’t deliberate in the article, but I’m keeping it anyway! 😂
It reminds me of Tamron’s, now discontinued, 35mm f/1.8 SP Di VC without the cons, but not a macro. Because it focuses pretty close, for a non-macro lens, I always bring it when armed with my 90mm macro lens.
The 35mm + 85mm prime combo (or in your case 90mm) is a classic.
This lens reminds me of the barrel-style that my Nikon Z MC 50 has, where the frontelement moves out of the inner barrel in close-up position.
Even though Nikon provides a little ring that they call lens hood but this can seriously only help to avoid contact to you subject. Only 46mm-filters can be used with the filter-thread of the inner barrel.
Fortunately Nikon included a second 62mm-Filter thread on the outer part of the barrel, which can’t be used for filters because the inner barrel would touch the filter when moving out.
So my solution to give my Nikon Z MC 50 a little more protection on the front element was to buy an after-market lens hood that screws into the 62mm thread of the outer barrel.
It long enough to easily cover the inner barrel when moving out to the 1 : 1 position.
This after-market lens hood is made from aluminum and has a filter-thread that can take 67mm-filters (and a 67mm-lens cap!!!).
It doesn’t cause any vignetting, improves handling and can take a polariser in the 67mm filter-thread of the (outer) lens hood.
For me it works absolutely perfect.
Maybe this would be something that works on the reviewed Canon 35mm as well to give the lens a bit more protection from the elements.
If there is such a product, it would go a long way toward alleviating my concerns with the RF 35mm f/1.8’s build quality by both protecting the moving barrel and adding some weatherproofing. I haven’t seen one but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Hi Spencer,
I have to apologise for the nonsense I wrote.
Before playing the smart guy I should have read your review more careful.
My bla-bla does not count for the Canon 35 as it has only that one 52mm thread not two different ones like my Nikon Z MC 50.
So my “smart” advice works only for the Nikon Z MC 50.
No problem, it got me thinking. There might be a way to manufacture something for the RF 35mm f/1.8 that would function similarly. It wouldn’t be based on a filter thread, but there is a tapered section on the lens’s outer barrel where a lens hood could be able to clamp.
I think for the price it is an excellent lens. IS, f1.8, control ring, external controls and macro being together in one lens is unique at this price range.
The number of features and performance for a $500 lens is highly unusual. It was a tricky lens to review — if the build quality works for you, it’s a no-brainer kind of lens, it’s just that good. But if you need weather sealing for your photography, it may not even be worth a second glance. I’m sure it will be polarizing. (We’ve already seen that from the few comments so far.)
Too expensive for its quality. But there is no choice.
I guess I should put the value down to 4.5 stars instead of 5, but honestly I think it’s a great value for the price. For example, it’s cheaper than Nikon’s 35mm f/1.8 by quite a bit and performs on almost the same level, adds near-macro capabilities and image stabilization.
But with the build quality this bad, it’s questionable whether it should be even less expensive. I don’t know, I’ll have to put more thought into it.
The fact is that I consider the Z 35mm 1.8S one of the most unsuccessful lenses in the S series) I love 35mm, and I still have 35mm 2D and a big, heavy Tamron 35 1.4. But the Z 35mm 1.8S is not and will not be.
And so. When I was choosing where to switch from the bayonet, I actively investigated the issue of glasses in other systems. And Canon’s policy didn’t suit me. Especially in the aspect of base glasses with an RF bayonet. Starting with the fact that there is no hermetic structure, and ending with spherochromatism, which I do not like.
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 STM IS a macro good lens. Knowing his weaknesses, you can get an excellent result.
Its direct competitor Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens costs even more) This and the fact that Canon has closed the RF bayonet allows them to play with the price in a larger range.
So, it turns out an interesting situation. Formally speaking, a new lens with similar optical characteristics is even cheaper than its mirror counterpart. And cheaper than analogues from Sony and Nikon. This is a plus. But, but! Nikon, even in the budget Z40mm 2.0, was able to implement a sealed design. And I remember how my life was ruined by a speck of dust that got on the inner surface of the lens next to the bayonet in AF-S 24-70 2.8G.
And the second point. You yourself have shown in comparison that the Canon zoom has sharper angles when closed.