Canon RF 50mm 1.8 vs EF 50mm 1.4: Lens Comparison!

Introduction to 50mm Primes

The 50mm focal length is often called the “normal” lens because it closely mimics human vision. It’s versatile, great for portraits, street photography, and low-light shooting. The Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM are two lenses that embody this versatility but cater to different Canon ecosystems. The RF lens is designed for the EOS R mirrorless system, while the EF lens is a classic for DSLRs, though it can be adapted for mirrorless use.

I’ve used both lenses in various scenarios, from bustling city streets to dimly lit wedding venues, and each has its own personality. This comparison will cover their specifications, build, optical performance, autofocus, compatibility, and real-world applications, with insights from other photographers to round out the picture.

Canon RF 50mm 1.8 vs EF 50mm 1.4 Comparison

Key Points

• The Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM are popular 50mm prime lenses designed for different Canon camera systems: RF for mirrorless and EF for DSLRs.
• The RF lens seems sharper, lighter, and better suited for modern mirrorless cameras, with smoother bokeh and less chromatic aberration.
• The EF lens offers a wider f/1.4 aperture, which may be preferred for low-light shooting, but it’s softer wide open and heavier.
• Choosing between them likely depends on your camera system and priorities, such as portability or low-light performance.
• There’s no major controversy, but some users report autofocus reliability issues with older EF 50mm f/1.4 lenses.

Overview

As a photographer, picking the right lens can transform your images. The Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM are two 50mm primes I’ve used extensively. The RF lens is built for Canon’s mirrorless cameras, while the EF lens is designed for DSLRs, though it can be adapted for mirrorless use. Let’s explore which might suit your needs best.

Performance Comparison

The RF 50mm f/1.8 appears to deliver sharper images, especially wide open at f/1.8, with minimal chromatic aberration and smooth bokeh, making it great for portraits. The EF 50mm f/1.4, with its wider aperture, excels in low-light conditions but is softer at f/1.4, requiring you to stop down for optimal sharpness. The RF’s autofocus feels faster and quieter, while the EF’s can be slower and less reliable over time.

Practical Considerations

If you’re using a Canon mirrorless camera, the RF lens is a natural choice for its native compatibility and compact design. For DSLR users or those with EF lenses, the EF 50mm f/1.4 is appealing, especially for low-light work. Using the EF lens on a mirrorless camera with an adapter is possible but adds bulk. Your decision will hinge on your camera system, shooting style, and whether you prioritize portability or low-light performance.

A Deep Dive into the Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM vs. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

Hey, friends! As a seasoned photographer, I’ve spent countless hours behind the lens, and today, I’m excited to share my thoughts on a comparison that’s been on my mind: the Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM versus the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. These 50mm primes are staples in many kits, but they’re built for different worlds—RF for Canon’s mirrorless cameras and EF for DSLRs. Let’s break down the Canon RF 50mm 1.8 vs EF 50mm 1.4 debate and see which one might be your perfect match.

In this deep dive, I’ll share my experiences with both lenses, highlight their strengths and weaknesses, and provide insights from other photographers to help you make an informed decision. Whether you’re a portrait photographer, a street shooter, or someone who loves low-light conditions, there’s something here for you. Let’s get started.

Specifications Comparison

Let’s start with the specs. The RF 50mm f/1.8 STM is a lightweight lens at 160 grams, with a 43mm filter size and a minimum focus distance of 0.3 meters. It offers a 0.25x magnification, 7 circular aperture blades, and a stepping motor (STM) for autofocus. It’s built for Canon’s RF mount, making it a native fit for mirrorless cameras like the EOS R, R5, or R6 (Canon USA).

The EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is heavier at 290 grams, with a 58mm filter size and a minimum focus distance of 0.45 meters. Its 0.15x magnification is less impressive, but it features 8 aperture blades and a Micro USM autofocus system. Designed for the EF mount, it’s a staple for Canon DSLRs but can be used on mirrorless cameras with an EF-EOS R adapter (DPReview).

The RF lens’s closer focusing distance and higher magnification make it better for close-up shots, while the EF lens’s wider aperture gives it an edge in low-light scenarios. These differences set the stage for their performance in various shooting conditions.

Build and Design

The RF 50mm f/1.8 feels like a modern gem. Its compact size (69x41mm) and 160-gram weight make it a joy to carry, whether I’m shooting street scenes or portraits. The dark grey semi-matte finish and metal mount give it a premium vibe, and the textured focusing ring is smooth for manual focus. Photographers on forums like Reddit praise its portability, noting it’s perfect for all-day shooting without fatigue (Reddit Thread).

The EF 50mm f/1.4 is sturdier but bulkier at 290 grams and 73.8×50.5mm. Its black plastic barrel is solid, but it lacks the sleekness of the RF lens. Introduced in 1993, its design feels dated, and the larger 58mm filter size adds to its heft. Despite this, many photographers, including DPReview user PhilOlenick, appreciate its build quality, noting it holds up well even after years of use, though some report autofocus issues over time (DPReview).

The RF lens’s compact design makes it a favorite for mirrorless shooters, while the EF lens’s robust build appeals to those who value durability over portability.

Optical Performance

This is where the lenses truly shine—or falter. Let’s break it down.

Sharpness

The RF 50mm f/1.8 is impressively sharp, even wide open at f/1.8. I’ve captured crisp portraits and detailed street shots with fine lines and great microcontrast. It’s sharpest at f/5.6 to f/8, but even at f/1.8, it’s very usable with only slight corner softness. Cameralabs confirms it’s noticeably sharper across more of the frame when wide-open compared to the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, especially in the APS-C imaging circle (Cameralabs).

The EF 50mm f/1.4 struggles when wide open at f/1.4. The center is decent, but corners are soft, and there’s a dreamy halation effect that some love for creative shots. Stop it down to f/2.8, and it sharpens up nicely, rivaling the RF lens at similar apertures. DPReview users note that while it can be sketchy wide open, it performs well when stopped down, with some preferring its unique character for artistic photography (DPReview).

Bokeh

Bokeh is critical for 50mm primes. The RF lens, with 7 circular blades, produces smooth, creamy bokeh with soft-edged highlights. It’s ideal for portraits where you want the background to melt away seamlessly. Transitions from in-focus to out-of-focus areas are gradual and pleasing. Cameralabs notes that its bokeh is similar to the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM at f/1.8, with oval blob shapes and no onion-ring textures (Cameralabs).

The EF lens, with 8 blades, creates a more intense bokeh that can be striking but sometimes shows sharper edges or onion-ring effects. It’s still beautiful for portraits, but the RF’s bokeh feels a touch more refined. DPReview users like T800 model 101 praise the EF’s bokeh for its unique character, especially wide open, making it a favorite for dramatic portraits (DPReview).

Low-light Performance

The EF 50mm f/1.4’s f/1. cause it’s a lifesaver in dim venues. DPReview users highlight its effectiveness in low-light conditions, with Neuropsychology calling it a perfect walkaround lens for low-light shooting (DPReview).

The RF 50mm f/1.8 holds its own, especially with IBIS-equipped cameras like the EOS R5 or R6, offering up to 7 stops of shake correction (Canon USA). This allows handheld shooting at slower shutter speeds, making it competitive in low light despite the narrower aperture. PhilOlenick notes that the RF’s sharpness when stopped down makes it a viable alternative, especially with IBIS (DPReview).

Chromatic Aberration

Chromatic aberration (CA) can be a hassle in high-contrast scenes. The RF 50mm f/1.8 keeps CA to a minimum, thanks to its modern optical design and Super Spectra coating. I rarely need to correct for color fringing in post-processing. Versus.com reports that the RF lens has less CA at 4 µm compared to the EF lens’s 12 µm (Versus.com).

The EF 50mm f/1.4 shows more CA, especially at f/1.4, with noticeable purple or green fringing in bright conditions. It’s manageable with editing software, but the RF lens saves you that step. DPReview user cberry reported issues with front-focusing at f/1.4, which can exacerbate CA in challenging lighting (DPReview).

Distortion and Transmission

The RF 50mm f/1.8 has slightly higher distortion at 0.5% compared to the EF’s 0.2%, but this is rarely noticeable in real-world shooting. Its light transmission is 1.9 TStop, slightly less efficient than the EF’s 1.8 TStop, meaning the EF lets in marginally more light (Versus.com). These differences are minor but worth noting for technical shooters.

Autofocus and Handling

Autofocus performance can make or break a shoot. The RF 50mm f/1.8’s STM motor is whisper-quiet and fast, with minimal hunting. It’s a dream for video, where silent focus transitions are crucial. The customizable control ring lets me tweak settings like aperture or ISO on the fly. However, Cameralabs notes that the focusing can be audible, with occasional hesitations, which might be a minor drawback for video shooters (Cameralabs).

The EF 50mm f/1.4’s Micro USM is quieter than older systems but slower and sometimes noisier than the RF’s STM. Some users, like paul simon king on DPReview, report autofocus reliability issues with older copies, with the AF occasionally failing, requiring manual focus (DPReview). I’ve been lucky with mine, but it’s something to consider for long-term use.

Handling-wise, the RF lens’s compact size makes it easier to maneuver, especially for handheld shooting. The EF lens’s larger size and weight can be a bit cumbersome, particularly when paired with an adapter on a mirrorless body. The RF’s control ring adds a modern touch, while the EF’s traditional design feels more straightforward but less versatile.

Compatibility and Mount Considerations

The RF 50mm f/1.8 is tailor-made for Canon’s EOS R system. It syncs perfectly with mirrorless cameras, leveraging features like IBIS and advanced autofocus. If you’re shooting with an R5 or R6, this lens feels like it was born for your camera. Photographers transitioning from DSLRs to mirrorless often praise its native compatibility and seamless integration (Cameralabs).

The EF 50mm f/1.4, designed for DSLRs, works on mirrorless cameras with an EF-EOS R adapter. The adapter adds bulk, which can feel clunky, but performance is generally good for stills. For video or fast-action shooting, the native RF lens has a slight edge. PhilOlenick successfully used the EF 50mm f/1.4 on an R7 with an adapter, noting its sharpness when stopped down, but the added bulk was noticeable (DPReview).

If you’re invested in the EF ecosystem, the EF lens is a natural fit. However, for those building a mirrorless kit, the RF lens offers future-proofing and a more streamlined experience.

Real-world Usage Scenarios

Let’s get practical. Here’s how these lenses perform in different situations.

Portrait Photography

Both lenses excel at portraits, but the RF 50mm f/1.8’s sharpness and smooth bokeh give it a slight edge. Its light weight is a blessing during long sessions, letting me focus on composition rather than arm fatigue. I’ve shot stunning headshots with creamy backgrounds that clients love. Cameralabs highlights that at f/1.8, the RF version is slightly sharper than the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, particularly in areas like eyes and beards, while maintaining similar background blurring (Cameralabs).

The EF 50mm f/1.4 offers a shallower depth of field at f/1.4 for dramatic portraits. You’ll need to stop down to f/2 or f/2.8 for peak sharpness, but the results are worth it. DPReview user T800 model 101 calls it “amazing for portraits” due to its strong quality and unique bokeh, making it a classic choice for portrait photographers (DPReview).

Street Photography

For street photography, the RF 50mm f/1.8 is my go-to. Its compact size makes it discreet, perfect for candid shots in busy markets or city streets. The fast autofocus keeps up with moving subjects, and the sharpness captures every detail. Reddit users note that its lighter weight and smaller size make it ideal for all-day shooting, a significant advantage in street photography where mobility is key (Reddit Thread).

The EF 50mm f/1.4 is bulkier, which can draw attention in tight spaces. Its wider aperture is great for low-light street scenes, like capturing neon signs at dusk. With an adapter on a mirrorless camera, it’s functional but less nimble. Some users prefer the EF for its wider aperture in challenging lighting, but they acknowledge the trade-off in portability.

Low-light Events

The EF 50mm f/1.4 shines at low-light events like weddings or concerts. That f/1.4 aperture lets me shoot at lower ISOs, reducing noise in dark venues. I’ve captured sharp, vibrant images in candlelit settings with this lens. DPReview user Neuropsychology praises its effectiveness as a walkaround lens in low-light conditions (DPReview).

The RF 50mm f/1.8 holds its own, especially with IBIS-equipped cameras. The stabilization lets me shoot at slower shutter speeds without blur, making it great for handheld shots in dim conditions. It’s a close call, but the EF’s wider aperture gives it a slight advantage in the lowest light situations.

Video Shooting

For video, the RF 50mm f/1.8 is the clear winner. Its silent STM autofocus ensures smooth, quiet focus pulls, critical for professional footage. The control ring adds flexibility for adjusting settings mid-shot. Cameralabs notes that it’s effective for video with face/eye detection, enhancing its usability for videographers (Cameralabs).

The EF 50mm f/1.4’s Micro USM can be noisier, which might get picked up by a camera’s microphone. It’s still usable for video, but you’ll need to plan around the autofocus sound. For vloggers or filmmakers, the RF lens is the better bet due to its quieter operation and better integration with mirrorless camera features.

Landscape Photography

While 50mm primes aren’t typically the first choice for landscapes, both lenses can perform well. The RF 50mm f/1.8 offers high detail in the center at f/1.8, but corners are fuzzy until f/4, with optimal sharpness at f/5.6 to f/8. Its compact size makes it easy to carry on hikes, and the close focusing distance is great for capturing foreground details (Cameralabs).

The EF 50mm f/1.4 requires stopping down to f/2.8 for sharp corners, but its lower distortion (0.2%) makes it slightly better for landscapes with straight lines, like architectural shots. Its heavier weight can be a drawback for long treks, but its robust build withstands outdoor conditions (Versus.com).

User Experiences and Community Feedback

To get a broader perspective, I’ve looked at what other photographers are saying. On DPReview, PhilOlenick finds the EF 50mm f/1.4 sharper than the RF 1.8 when stopped down, especially at f/2.8 and beyond, and appreciates its performance on an R7 with IBIS. Neuropsychology calls it a “perfect walkaround lens” when adapted to a Sony A7rIII, highlighting its light weight for a f/1.4 lens (DPReview).

However, some users report issues with the EF lens’s autofocus. Paul simon king notes that the AF died after years of use, a known issue, forcing a switch to manual focus. Cberry mentions front-focusing at f/1.4, making it tough to focus wide open, which can be frustrating for fast-paced shoots (DPReview).

For the RF 50mm f/1.8, Cameralabs praises its sharpness and compact design, noting it’s a significant upgrade over the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM in terms of mid-frame sharpness and close focusing distance. Reddit users on the Canon subreddit echo this, with many preferring the RF for its portability and modern optics, especially for mirrorless shooters (Reddit Thread).

Versus.com provides quantitative data, showing the RF lens scoring 35 on DxOMark compared to the EF’s 19, with a sharpness result of 29 P-MPix versus 10 P-MPix. This suggests the RF lens delivers superior image quality overall (Versus.com).

Technical Insights: Lens Construction

The RF 50mm f/1.8 STM uses 6 elements in 5 groups, including one aspherical element to reduce aberrations and improve sharpness. Its Super Spectra coating minimizes flare and ghosting, contributing to its low chromatic aberration. The design is optimized for the shorter flange distance of the RF mount, allowing for better optical performance in a compact package (Canon USA).

The EF 50mm f/1.4 USM has 7 elements in 6 groups, including 2 high-refraction glass elements to enhance clarity. Its optical design, based on the 1971 FD 50mm f/1.4, prioritizes a natural background blur but is less corrected for aberrations compared to modern lenses. This contributes to its characteristic halation effect at f/1.4 (DPReview).

The RF lens’s modern design gives it an edge in sharpness and aberration control, while the EF lens’s older design offers a unique aesthetic that some photographers cherish.

Comparison Table

Here’s a side-by-side look at the key features:

Feature	Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM	Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
Mount	RF (mirrorless)	EF (DSLR)
Aperture	f/1.8	f/1.4
Weight	160 g	290 g
Filter Size	43 mm	58 mm
Minimum Focus Distance	0.3 m	0.45 m
Maximum Magnification	0.25x	0.15x
Autofocus	STM (silent, fast)	Micro USM (quieter but slower)
Sharpness (wide open)	Very sharp	Soft, improves stopped down
Bokeh	Smoother, softer edges	More intense, sharper edges
Low-light	Good with IBIS	Better with wider aperture
Chromatic Aberration	Less (4 µm)	More (12 µm)
Distortion	0.5%	0.2%
Transmission	1.9 TStop	1.8 TStop
DxOMark Score	35	19

Decision-Making: Which Lens Should You Choose?

So, where does this leave us in the Canon RF 50mm 1.8 vs EF 50mm 1.4 debate? It depends on your setup and priorities.

• Choose the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM if: You’re using a Canon EOS R series camera and want a native lens that’s lightweight, sharp, and modern. It’s perfect for mirrorless shooters who value portability, smooth bokeh, and reliable autofocus. Its close focusing distance and low chromatic aberration make it versatile for portraits, street photography, and even close-up shots. This lens is a fantastic entry point into the RF system, offering excellent performance for its size.
• Choose the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM if: You’re shooting with a Canon DSLR or have a collection of EF lenses and prefer the wider f/1.4 aperture for low-light work. It’s a classic choice for photographers who don’t mind stopping down for sharpness or using an adapter on mirrorless cameras. Its unique bokeh and low-light capabilities make it a favorite for dramatic portraits and event photography, though be aware of potential autofocus issues with older copies.
• If you’re transitioning to mirrorless: Consider whether you want to invest in RF glass or continue using EF lenses with an adapter. The RF 50mm f/1.8 is compelling for its performance and future-proofing, especially if you’re building a mirrorless kit. However, the EF 50mm f/1.4 remains viable if you’re not ready to switch mounts or value its wider aperture for specific scenarios.
• Other considerations: If you’re on a budget and already own EF lenses, the EF 50mm f/1.4 might be more practical, especially if you shoot with a DSLR. If you’re starting fresh with a mirrorless system, the RF 50mm f/1.8’s modern optics and compact design make it a no-brainer. For those who shoot both stills and video, the RF lens’s silent autofocus and control ring offer a clear advantage.

Conclusion

Both the Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM are stellar lenses with distinct personalities. The RF lens offers modern optics, portability, and seamless integration with Canon’s mirrorless ecosystem, making it ideal for today’s mirrorless shooters. The EF lens, a time-tested classic, delivers exceptional low-light performance and a unique character that many photographers adore, despite its quirks. Whichever you pick, you’re getting a lens that can elevate your photography. So, grab your camera, choose your lens, and start shooting—happy creating!

FAQ Section

Hey there! I know you might have some burning questions about these two lenses, so let’s tackle them one by one. Whether you’re deciding which one to buy or just curious about their differences, here’s everything you need to know.

1. Which one is sharper, the RF 50mm f/1.8 or the EF 50mm f/1.4?

From my experience, the RF 50mm f/1.8 is sharper, especially when you’re shooting wide open. It delivers crisp images right from f/1.8, with minimal corner softness. The EF 50mm f/1.4 can be a bit soft at f/1.4, especially in the corners, but it really shines when you stop it down to f/2.8 or narrower. So, for tack-sharp images, I’d go with the RF.

2. Which is better for shooting in low light?

If you’re working in really dim conditions, the EF 50mm f/1.4 has that extra half-stop of aperture, which can make a difference. That f/1.4 aperture is a lifesaver for weddings, concerts, or any low-light event where you need to keep your ISO low. That said, don’t underestimate the RF 50mm f/1.8—especially if you’re using it on a camera with IBIS like the EOS R5 or R6. That stabilization can let you shoot handheld at slower shutter speeds.

3. Can I use the EF 50mm f/1.4 on my mirrorless camera?

Absolutely! Just grab the EF-EOS R mount adapter, and you’re good to go. It’ll work, but keep in mind it’ll add a bit of bulk, and the autofocus might not be as snappy as with native RF lenses. Still, it’s a great way to use your existing gear with the new system.

4. What are the biggest differences between these two lenses?

Here’s a quick rundown:

• Mount Type: RF for mirrorless, EF for DSLRs.
• Aperture: EF has a wider f/1.4, while RF tops out at f/1.8.
• Size and Weight: RF is lighter (160g) and more compact than EF (290g).
• Autofocus: RF’s STM is quieter and faster; EF’s USM can be noisier and slower.
• Optical Performance: RF is sharper wide open with less chromatic aberration.

5. Should I upgrade from the EF 50mm f/1.4 to the RF 50mm f/1.8?

If you’re already deep into the mirrorless world, the RF 50mm f/1.8 is worth considering for its size, weight, and modern features. But if you’re happy with your EF 50mm f/1.4, especially if you love that f/1.4 aperture for low light, you might not need to rush into upgrading. It’s about what you value more: portability or that extra bit of light.

6. How do their autofocus systems stack up?

The RF 50mm f/1.8 has a fantastic STM autofocus—it’s so quiet and smooth, perfect for video or quiet environments. The EF 50mm f/1.4 uses an older USM system, which is still good but can be louder and slower. Plus, some older EF lenses have had autofocus issues, so that’s something to watch out for.

7. Which is better for video?

Hands down, the RF 50mm f/1.8 is better for video. That silent autofocus is a game-changer for smooth focus pulls, and it integrates seamlessly with the EOS R system’s features.

8. Are there any problems I should know about with these lenses?

With the EF 50mm f/1.4, there’s a known issue where the internal focusing mechanism can break, especially if you’re rough with your gear. The RF 50mm f/1.8, being newer, doesn’t have as many reported issues, but handle it with care.

Hope that clears things up! If you have more questions, just let me know—I’m here to help.