Hi Guest!
Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
Share this page
Offline
Speaking of 35mm, this is an RF lens that has piqued my interest. It's one of the less expensive RF mount lenses (I think only the "RF nifty fifty" is less). This lens, from most reviews, has excellent IQ that belies its relatively low cost.
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8
Oh, and it has Macro capability.
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8
Oh, and it has Macro capability.
OP
Offline
Interesting that 35mm has added stabilization control and the 50mm "normal" doesn't. Your R5 has in-body stabilization, does it not? Also, the 1:2 macro feature is not in the 50. I think they got it bass-ackwards! The 35 on the full-frame sensor is a medium wide-angle, really not as prone to the effect of motion blur (with steady hands!) at lower shutter speeds as a longer F.L. would be, methinks.
Either one would be great as a short prime lens.
Either one would be great as a short prime lens.
Offline
I concur about the question of why does the 35mm have IS but not the 50mm? Probably just that the "nifty fifty" has always been Canon's el cheap entry level lens and adding IS would have added to cost. As for why IS with the 35mm, it's probably not necessary in most cases, but I can see that it can be helpful when shooting in very low light situations with slow shutter speed. It may also be that it can really help stabilize hand-held video.
Interestingly, the RF 50mm f/1.2, which is a VERY expensive piece of glass, also doesn't have in-lens IS. In fact none of the EF mount 50mm lenses have IS either (f/1.8, f/1.4 (which I own) and f/1.2). In could be that when they made the 35mm, the only RF-mount camera at the time was the Canon EOS R (their first mirrorless RF mount) which did not have IBIS. Just guessing that may have been part of the reason they included it in the 35 at the time.
Interestingly, the RF 50mm f/1.2, which is a VERY expensive piece of glass, also doesn't have in-lens IS. In fact none of the EF mount 50mm lenses have IS either (f/1.8, f/1.4 (which I own) and f/1.2). In could be that when they made the 35mm, the only RF-mount camera at the time was the Canon EOS R (their first mirrorless RF mount) which did not have IBIS. Just guessing that may have been part of the reason they included it in the 35 at the time.
OP
Offline
That makes sense. And the RF 50mm ∱1.2 was likely built with IBIS in mind. No need to go to the expense of making it in the lenses.
Nikon kinda lags behind Canon with some features, as if they wait to see what Canon comes out with, then makes changes. The-Z series Nikons were likely an answer to Canon's leap ahead. The "pins" on the breech of Nikkor optics up to the Z stuff were kinda subject to issues when people would set them mount down without a rear cap. The aperture actuating arm especially. And Canon did away with that entirely by changing to all electronic lens control. Clever. Nikon has had to play "catch up". Seeing a lot more pros using Canon as a result.
OP
Offline
On a segue journey thinking about this, I'm seeing a fair number of what would be considered "sports coverage" lenses, Nikon 300 or 400mm prime fast glass, listed as "Repair/parts" sales. The things are usually beat up externally, one even had a bashed-in front element! Most I'll guess were not privately owned, rather the photo departments of various publications' "gear pool" equipment. Talked myself out of a 300mm ∱2.8 yesterday. Seller asking just over $300 for it. Most are the older D-series AF but considering the original cost of the things, there's bound to be one show up that could be made operational with a little effort. Been downloading some of the Nikon lens Service Manuals today, too.