krashdragon

I posted a few weeks back asking for opinions about a new camera, etc.
Got a lot of very good answers.

I actually did something intelligent, went to a local camera store ... Arlington Camera near Dallas, and tried on a couple cameras. Ended up with a Canon R6 with RF 24-240mm lens. Felt nice.

So when I get back to the house, I think I'll sell my 6D, the nifty fifty, and the 24-105 lens, but will keep the 100-400. I also got an adapter.
Believe it or not, the camera store was totally out of 5R's and had a waiting list.

Next question... I loved my old 50mm 1.4 lens. But it's way too old to use.
Now trying to decide on a 50mm 1.4 lens or the 35mm 1.4 lens. Just something smaller than the telephoto.
Only used a 35 with film. Preferred the 50 at the time. Don't like either the 2.8 or 1.2.... 2.8 not quite enuf light, 1.2 too expensive.
Suggestions/ comments?
Thanks.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I have three 50mm and one 35mm. I shot the 35mm for more often. The RF 50 f/1.8 is getting great reviews. For a small package, you might consider this lens.

The new 35L II has been out long enough you might look at used prices of the original 35L. Rent a copy and see what you think. Compare with the EF 50 f/1.4 on the EOS R6. You might look at the EF 28 options too.

User ID

My friend loves the 35 on her RP. IIRC it’s a 1.8, and FWIW I use an EF35/2.0 on both Sony a7iii and Canon SLR. Get you a mid-fast 35 ... all the really cool kids have one. You’re correct that 2.8 isn’t suitable as a normal, and the 1.2 too ridiculous. 1.8 or 2.0 is the ticket.

Over many years I have accumulated many 35/2.0 “normals”. All still in use. Join up. It’s the ultimate prime among real users.

krashdragon

Ok, I'll have to do some lens hinting and try stuff out.
Thanks.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

You will see little light gathering differences between the 1.4 and the 1.8. You will see no difference in the quality of the image between the 1.4 and the 1.8. You will however, see a big difference in price.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

As a working pro using Nikons in the 1980s, I used my 35mm f/2 lens more than any other prime. I had two 50mm f/1.4 lenses at one point, but traded them for a 55mm f/2.8 macro lens. These days, my kit includes Micro 4/3 equivalents of the full frame 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom, the 55mm f/2.8 macro, and the 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. If I were to add a couple more primes, they would have the rough equivalent of full frame 35mm and 85mm focal lengths. After that, I'd add a longer zoom.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I'm not a fan of 50mm lenses (on full frame, like your 6D and all the R-series mirrorless... I use one a lot on APS-C cameras, where it acts as a fast, short telephoto).

I anticipate some day buying an R-series myself. I'd get the RF 35mm f/1.8 and RF 85mm f/2 lenses instead. They're fairly compact, lightweight, mildly wide and short telephoto lenses. It's a bonus, in my opinion, that both of those are also 1:2 macro lenses AND they both have IS. The RF 50mm f/1.8 doesn't have IS and only has about 1:4 magnification.

There is no RF 35mm f/1.4. There's just an RF 35mm f/1.2L, which is a whole lot bigger and pretty hefty. There is an EF 35mm f/1.4L II (as well as 35mm f/1.4 from Tamron and Sigma). There also is the EF 35mm f/2 IS. Were you considering one of these with the adapter?

Like you, I'd probably use my EF 100-400mm II for a while longer, with the appropriate EF to RF adapter of course (I like the drop-in filter version). Eventually I'd plan to add the RF 100-500mm and RF 1.4X teleconverter, though.

I'm sort of waiting for the rumored RF 14-35mm f/4 lens that's on the "roadmap" and expected sometime this year or in 2022.

krashdragon

Thanks to all for all the good answers.