01-17-2024, 05:00 PM
I happen to own the 40 F/2.8 as well, and the RF 35 F/1.8.
In the end the question is really what you use it for. If you shoot a lot indoors, I'd probably keep de 35L. However, they both have their uses. I never was a 35 mm optics shooter, hated it really, I didn't see it, and back in the day I tried out quite a few different ones, including a bunch of 35Ls. However, that changed with the advent of the RF 35, after I gad gotten myself my EOS R. I actually like it, and because it is relatively small and light, that is the lens I have mounted by default. Its close-up focusing capabilities help a lot too.
I never did like the 35L, but that was its Mark I incarnation. I thought it didn't render as nicely as a lot of the other L-glass, although I could not get around to a focal length that was awkward to me in the first place. I still have my 24L II, and that I used a lot, including indoors, but with the RF 35 I don't really use it as much anymore.
In a way, if you like the 35 mm FL, one could argue that there is space for both, as they really are different lenses with different use cases, even if they overlap. The thing to figure out is really whether it is worthwhile keeping both for the areas where they do not overlap. Size, weight, close focus, aperture, focusing speed, and possibly noise are things to consider in this equation, as resolution is approximately the same.
HTH, kind regards, Wim
In the end the question is really what you use it for. If you shoot a lot indoors, I'd probably keep de 35L. However, they both have their uses. I never was a 35 mm optics shooter, hated it really, I didn't see it, and back in the day I tried out quite a few different ones, including a bunch of 35Ls. However, that changed with the advent of the RF 35, after I gad gotten myself my EOS R. I actually like it, and because it is relatively small and light, that is the lens I have mounted by default. Its close-up focusing capabilities help a lot too.
I never did like the 35L, but that was its Mark I incarnation. I thought it didn't render as nicely as a lot of the other L-glass, although I could not get around to a focal length that was awkward to me in the first place. I still have my 24L II, and that I used a lot, including indoors, but with the RF 35 I don't really use it as much anymore.
In a way, if you like the 35 mm FL, one could argue that there is space for both, as they really are different lenses with different use cases, even if they overlap. The thing to figure out is really whether it is worthwhile keeping both for the areas where they do not overlap. Size, weight, close focus, aperture, focusing speed, and possibly noise are things to consider in this equation, as resolution is approximately the same.
HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....