Three 35mm prime lens kits 22 June 2020

The 35mm focal length has long been favoured by street, documentary and travel photographers for its versatility in a range of circumstances.

The discipline of a single focal length can sharpen the user’s situational awareness and  ability to visualise a shot before bringing the camera to the eye.

For general photography most prime lens users opt for 28mm, 35mm or 50mm focal length or equivalent on a crop sensor model.

In the 1960s and 1970s, I used a 50mm lens, there being no consumer zooms and no decent quality affordable 35 or 28mm lenses.

Ricoh GR compacts have for years used the 28mm focal length and various compact models from other makers have used the 35mm focal length.

The Leica Q/Q2 models use the 28mm focal length.

This post briefly describes three approaches to the prime 35mm (equivalent) focal length formula with some comments on advantages and disadvantages of each based on my personal experience.

Each of the three kits described here can make excellent pictures.

 Each goes about producing those pictures in a different way resulting in a different user experience which in my view is the main basis on which a person might prefer one of these cameras to the others.

The X100V is the fifth and current iteration of Fujifilm’s classic fixed lens compact line which began with the original X100 in 2010.  These cameras are distinctive in trying to combine a retro-classic rangefinder look with modern electronic operation. The Fuji looks different from the two Canons reviewed in this post and in many ways it provides a quite different type of user experience.

The Canons are mirrorless interchangeable lens models, each fitted for this comparison with a lens which gives the same angle of view as the Fuji.

You can see in the photo that the Fuji although a fixed lens compact, is only slightly smaller than the 

M50 with the pancake style 22mm f2 lens fitted.

The EOS RP can accept Canon RF mount lenses directly and EF lenses via an adapter. The EOS M50 takes EF-M mount lenses directly and EF lenses via an adapter.

 The X100V doesn’t allow for interchangeable lenses like the Canons but Fuji does offer two accessory lenses which can be fitted in front of the fixed lens.

One of these increases focal length to 50mm (equivalent) the other reduces it to 28mm (equivalent).

Some dedicated Fuji X camera users might like this arrangement however I suspect most photographers wanting a 28/35/50mm prime lens trio would opt for an interchangeable lens body and three lenses as this is a more familiar system for most users.

Each of these cameras has a small battery so it would seem prudent to invest in one or two spares even if these are just third party offerings.

Both Canons come with a separate charger, the Fuji does not. Those users who like to charge batteries outside the camera will need to invest in an aftermarket charger for the Fuji.

Canon offers the nicely designed EG-E1 extension grip the EOS RP which is nice to have with larger lenses but probably not required with the 35mm f1.8.

Various aftermarket suppliers offer accessory grips and cases for the M50 but I find the camera handles nicely as it comes and no accessory is really needed.

The X100V comes without a handle or thumb support or an accessory attachment ring for mounting filters and/or lens hood(s). This has led to a brisk aftermarket in such items from third party suppliers.

Based on listed prices in Australian dollars at a Sydney retailer on the day of writing we have

We can see the M50 is the lightest and least expensive of the three and the price includes a kit 15-45mm EF-M lens as a bonus.

It will surprise nobody that the full frame EOS RP is the largest, heaviest and most expensive of the three.

However if the X100V is kitted out with accessory handle, thumb support,  filter attachment ring and battery charger the price differential is not so great.

Each of the three kits has a very good lens capable of producing very sharp, clear pictures with minimal faults.

The X100V and RF 35mm lenses are sharp to the corners right from the maximum aperture with  best sharpness across the frame at about f4.

The older EF-M 22mm f2 lens on the M50 is a bit soft in the corners at f2 but by f4 the lens is tack sharp right across the frame including the corners.

None of the camera bodies has a stabiliser built in. Only the RF 35mm f1.8 has a stabiliser in the lens.

Some reviewers have dismissed the lack of stabiliser in the X100V and M50 as being of little importance but I have found that modern sensors with high pixel densities are sensitive to the slightest amount of camera shake. I ran many tests to find the slowest practicable shutter speed which I can hand hold with each of these kits.

With IS I can hand hold the RP/35mm combination down to about 1/15 second with tack sharp results.

Without IS I find the M50 and RP deliver reliably sharp results at around 1/60 second.

The X100V requires a slightly higher shutter speed, around 1/80 to 1/100 second for reliably sharp output.

I think the difference has to do with the location of the EVF.

That on the RP and M50 is directly over the lens axis but the viewfinder on the X100V is off to the far left side. This off-axis location could put a twisting force onto the camera as it is held and the shutter pressed, possibly accounting for the requirement for a higher shutter speed.

The EF-M 22mm and the RF 35mm are both described as having “macro” capability although the RF35mm can get closer to the subject, giving about half life sized reproduction.

Both Canons use a sensor (one full frame, one APSC) recycled from earlier models so they do not deliver the latest technology.

The X100V uses a much newer 26Mpx APSC sensor with all the latest technology.  You would therefore expect the X100V  to show less high ISO noise than the M50 and that is emphatically so.

In fact the X100V sensor on my tests has about the same level of high ISO noise as the full frame sensor in the EOS RP.

The excellent noise performance of the X100V makes up to some extent for the missing stabiliser.

The only downsides of the Fuji sensor/processor are

a) a tendency to smooth out fine texture detail especially noticeable on human faces and

b) an odd appearance with some types of foliage often described as “worms”.

The old 24Mpx sensor in the M50 gets noisy at high ISO settings, limiting this camera’s low light capability.

The X100V can potentially become weatherproof if you buy the filter adapter ring (not supplied in the box !) and fit a compatible filter.

The EOS RP is billed as weatherproof but Canon says this is achieved by close fitting panels, not with gaskets. There is no way to weatherproof the RF 35mm lens as it is a front focussing type.

The EOS M50 makes no claim to weatherproofing. The 22mm f2 lens is also not weatherproofed.

So if weatherproofing is required, the Fuji would clearly be preferred.

The X100V has a diaphragm type leaf shutter in the lens which operates with a faint click. The camera is almost silent if beeps are turned off.

The Canons use a focal plane shutter which is much louder. They can operate silently but only

a) in a scene mode with fully automatic exposure

b) by using the electronic shutter which introduces several problems including banding with some light sources, incompatibility with flash and rolling shutter.

The X100V would be preferred in situations where quiet operation is required.

All three cameras focus accurately and consistently.

All three focus decently fast although they are a bit slow compared to many current model zooms. In addition the RF35mm and the Fuji engage in a fair bit of chugging back and forth in low light, reminiscent of old style contrast detect AF even though these cameras actually have phase detect AF.

The M50/22mm f2 combination is the quickest of the three possibly because it has the smallest amount of glass to move back and forth.

All three kits have well implemented manual focus which is easy to use, with peaking and image zoom if required.

But the Fuji has a very nice distance scale which allows focus to be pre-set to any desired distance. This can be very useful for situations where you want to establish zone focus such that the focus distance remains constant even when people or whatever move around in the frame.

The M50 is easily controlled by an enthusiast photographer with one mode dial, one control dial, a focus ring on the lens and a good touch screen interface. It gets the job done quite nicely with just enough control  points but no more.

The EOS RP adds a second control dial to the mix which can give direct access to exposure compensation. This is also a well considered design which does the job in streamlined fashion without too much complexity.

The Fuji has a focus ring, an aperture ring, an exposure compensation dial, a shutter speed dial, a lift-and-turn ISO dial, a front control dial and a rear control dial. The function of each of these control access points depends on the settings allocated to other control points.

I call this “complexification” in other words making things more complicated and therefore more confusing than they need to be. I ended up setting the Fuji to aperture priority and auto ISO and leaving it there all the time as I found changing from one mode to another requires more actions, each more complex than is the case on the Canons.

The Fuji has style. It has bling with all those neo-techo looking dials especially on the silver top version.

A lot of people on user forums say they really like the appearance of the Fuji.

Some people even say the Fuji has “soul”.

The Canons are more utilitarian, functional devices.  And that is the point. They are utilitarian and functional.  

The RP is the most straightforward of the three to setup and the easiest to change from one group of settings to another as the photographic situation changes. This is aided by three Custom Mode dial settings which the M50 lacks.

The X100V might initially seem more straightforward than the Canons but the more I got into setting up and using the camera the more I understood the extent of the idiosyncrasies which the Fuji brings to the user experience.

The RP provides the best holding experience with or without the extension grip.

The M50 has a slightly unusual handle shape but it is well designed and complements the size and mass of the camera well.

Out of the box the X100V provides little by which to get a secure hold on the device. This can be rectified by various aftermarket handles and thumb supports. But those which fit the X100T do not fit the X100V,  go figure.

In addition some thumb supports impede access to the shutter speed dial.

Again the RP provides the best experience with an excellent EVF and  very good fully articulated touch screen.

The M50 EVF is over contrasty to the extent that shadows get blocked up in sunlit scenes. The fully articulated touch screen monitor is nice though.

The Fuji has a high specification EVF which doesn’t quite work as well in practice as one might hope. Compare to the Canons the Fuji EVF has less clarity which somewhat diminishes the viewing experience. The monitor screen is flip-up-down type which some users prefer.

Each of these cameras can do competent 1080p video. The RP and M50 are popular with vloggers because they have the fully articulated screen.

I give this to the M50. It is by a considerable margin the least expensive of the three with the lowest specification level. It is small, light and unpretentious in appearance and operation.

But it gets the job done competently and is fun to use once you understand what it can do and how to get the best performance from it.

I could say “the one in your hand” which sounds trite and is although still true like many aphorisms.

If style, weather resistance, focus by scale and quiet operation are high on your priority list go for the Fuji and learn to work with its operational idiosyncrasies.

The EOS RP provides the best overall user experience and the RF 35mm lens has a stabiliser.

For the lowest cost and arguably the most fun factor I nominate the M50.

I suspect the days of the traditional small, cheap compact cameras have come to an end.

But I think there is a  place for high priced fixed lens models which engender pride of ownership because of  an exclusive brand or appealing style.