[toni-a]

After lacking a 35mm lens I went and bought yongnuo 35mmf2.0, it had compatibility issues on EOS RP resulting in often underexposed shots.  I exchanged plus difference  to pancake 40mmf2.8 the guy is very happy using it on his  on his  1200D.
I had last year bought Canon 35mmf1.4, had some issues, after repairs it's  an excellent lens by all means, fast focus, excellent colors very sharp and never disappoints when it comes to low light, it's a little bit big but that's not a big issue.
Yesterday I found Canon RF35mmf1.8 for an excellent price and bought it.
Didn't have time to thoroughly test it yet, but first impressions, autofocus seems slow and rather noisy, rest all good.
Now I have Canon EF 35mmf1.4, Canon RF35mmf1.8, Canon Ef40mmf2.8
40f2.8 is staying since it doesn't take space in my bag and costs almost nothing.
Was planning to see 35mmf1.4, but after trying the RF35f1.8 I am rather hesitating...
so if you were in my shoes which one should stay ? of course I can keep both but it doesn't sound like a great idea

[Rover]

I see GAS has caught up with you after all, my friend. I think the best way to decide would be to revisit the reasoning you've used when choosing between the 1.4 and 1.8 the first time around?
I've got no experience with either lens so can't say more (the only 35 prime I've ever used was the Sigma Art in EF mount...)

[wim]

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

[mariahcarey]

Both lenses are capable of producing excellent image quality, but the EF 35mm f/1.4 may have a slight edge in terms of sharpness and overall optical performance, especially at wider apertures. However, the differences may not be noticeable in real-world shooting situations for many photographers.

[wim]

Both lenses are capable of producing excellent image quality, but the EF 35mm f/1.4 may have a slight edge in terms of sharpness and overall optical performance, especially at wider apertures. However, the differences may not be noticeable in real-world shooting situations for many photographers.

Yes, that is basically what all the reviews say.
Having said that, apart from the views I used to have on 35 mm FL lenses, I got the 24L, basically because the 35Ls never convinced me like the 24Ls did. For my shooting style they felt better. The exception became the RF 35 F/1.8, basically at first because I could get it at a very good price, and because it is so light. I like it a lot more than I ever thought I would, however.