EF 35mm vs. RF 35mm?

Having recently purchased a R6, I am considering a wider angle lens than the EF 50mm f1.8 STM that I already own. Between the EF 35mm f2 USM and RF 35mm f1.8 STM, does anyone have experience or an opinion as to whether one is better than the other? I already have the EF-RF adapter so either will work.

Have a read, a nice direct comparison of 'vital statistics', plus direct links to reviews.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com …px?Lens=1224&Le​nsComp=824

Thank you for the link!

Have you used either lens?

I have not yet made the leap to mirrorless, so no experience with RF lenses.
I suffered the repeated depreciation in dSLR generations as the technology matured. And as exhibited by the R vs. the R5/R6, the technology in mirrorless continues to mature. I have merely opted not to suffer the depreciation losses thru multiple mirrorless generations of evolution, but to wait for slowdown in evolution befor jumping in with both feet.
IMHO, mirrorless is 'different'...it is an alternative way to capture an image. The technology enables certain advantages (such as eye tracking of both humans and animals), but so far those advantages over dSLR are not essential tools for the kind of shooting that I do, Ergo, I can wait for further technology advancement before buying in and accepting a new round of gear depreciation. Not being a Luddite and refusing the technology, merely being wiser after enduring more than 10 years of dSLR evolution...spending money more wisely than when I could earn a new camera in half a month of discretionary income or less.

I owned the EF version and currently the RF. I liked the EF version better. Bokeh seemed smoother on the EF version. Sort of harsh on the RF version. The EF focuses much faster, but can't focus as close as the RF of course. The RF is smaller and shorter considering the converter needed for the EF version. Probably easier to find a good price on a used EF vs most likely paying full for the RF. Some things to consider I suppose

Thank you for that information! Very helpful

I've always been more of a fan of 24/50 over 35 and last year I got the R with the 35 RF and this year a Fuji X100f ( 35mm eq ) so go figure. Anyway, if you only have an R6 I'd would go with the RF 35. It's a nice light combo and I find the image quality outstanding. The macro ability is a nice plus. Adaptors work well but it's one more thing to make it bigger and heavier so why bother unless you have some DSLR bodies you may use it on.

I already owned some nice EF lenses before getting the R. They work so well I'd never bother to replace them but if I was moving forward with mirrorless I'd stick with native lenses.

I owned the EF35mm f/2 IS for several years (and if you check the lens image thread on here you'll see my photos flooding it ) and it was my all time favorite lens on EF mount. I swapped brands then came back to the R6 and currently own the RF. I find the RF to be better in almost every way compared to the EF, I wouldn't see any reason to use the EF over the RF, especially when you need to use the adapter.

I personally prefer the rendering on the new RF lens too and the only thing I would say bad about it is that the AF noise isn't silent like the Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 was when I used it. It's probably worth checking out the image threads, although the RF one doesn't have as much posts.

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS images
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS images

Every compact EF lens I have tried on RP was kind of ruined by adapter. It just looks ugly. IMO. With EF longer lens, it doesn't matter.

35 RF 1.8 gives great images, but every time I look at its focusing via extending tube, I just don't want it. It reminds me old, plastic 35/2 EF focusing tube and noise.

I use tiny RF 35 1.4 Nokton lens via slim M-RF adapter.

kf095 wrote in post #19213847
Every compact EF lens I have tried on RP was kind of ruined by adapter. It just looks ugly. IMO. With EF longer lens, it doesn't matter.

35 RF 1.8 gives great images, but every time I look at its focusing via extending tube, I just don't want it. It reminds me old, plastic 35/2 EF focusing tube and noise.

I use tiny RF 35 1.4 Nokton lens via slim M-RF adapter.

Funny, at one time (before AF) EVERY LENS telescoped as it focused closer!

kf095 wrote in post #19213847
Every compact EF lens I have tried on RP was kind of ruined by adapter. It just looks ugly. IMO. With EF longer lens, it doesn't matter.

I have to admit using the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM with the adapter does feel somewhat cumbersome and I'm not looking to sell mine for the RF version.