Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM

I am curious by what criteria you consider the optics of the EF 16–35 f/2.8 II to be "superior" to the RF 35mm f/1.8. The latter is: - Much sharper at 35mm f/2.8 - Much better contrast at 35mm f/2.8 - Much better controlled for flare at 35mm f/2.8 - Is much better at close focus distance (naturally, since it's a 1:2 macro design)

The RF 35mm f/1.8 is much sharper than the EF 16-35 II at 35mm.

RF 35mm is said to be a surprisingly good macro lens.

You could probably get a used RF 35mm 1.8 for that price, it's a lovely lens.

Parent context: Do you think this one works enough taking photos of kids? I can’t spend money on too many lens so I’d prefer to have one lens only. Between the one you have and 18-50mm sigma, what would you choose if you were me? 😬 Reply: That lens is good, but will preform a little less well in lowlight, due to the narrower aperture, but it's not a huge difference. I don't know for sure, but I expect the 35mm to be a bit sharper because it's a Canon RF prime. It's also very nice as a macro lens.

I use the RF 35mm 1.8 on my R10, and i love It, it's a phenomenal lens!

The RF 35mm 1.8 does have image stabilization, i'd definitely recommend that one.

The RF 24/1.8 and 35/1.8 could both be purchased for significantly less than the 28-70/2.8

Take a look at the RF 35/1.8 or RF 24/1.8 — both are wider than 50mm (you can use your zoom lens to work out which focal length you prefer), and both have IS, which can help stabilise the camera when shooting at slower shutter speeds due to lower light levels.

Or you could look at prime lens options (RF 35/1.8, RF 85/2) which sacrifice the convenience of zoom for fixed focal length optical designs that step up the optical quality significantly.