OK (but borderline hateful) kit lens

thunder storm wrote:

julyas43 wrote:

(+) affordable, compact, feels nice to touch and operate, image stabilization is included (and very effective too), fast & silent focusing despite using STM, focus by wire is effective & predictable (still doesn't feel as good as full time MF tho), and includes basic RF lens capabilities like control ring, 1/8th aperture increment for video

(-) terrible wide angle image quality, the aperture stopping down too much for only 4.4x zoom level, only has one electronic ring for either control or focus, no dedicated AF/MF switch, have I said way too dark maximum aperture at the long end zoom?

My standard zoom goes up to only 70mm. If I need more light combined with good stabilization the RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm does a good job.

One thing angers me the most is the 24-240mm superzoom "only" looses 4/3rd stops of aperture compared to this which is 5/3rd, while only (barely) zoom 5x instead of 10. Surely they could've made this only looses 1 stop of aperture if they don't cheap out too much,

Not just a matter of cheaping out only, this also would make the lens bigger and heavier.

and leave the stupid & difficult-to-use macro thing.

Yeah, that's a feature making this lens longer than it should be.

When I say terrible wide angle IQ, just look at the lens correction menu, you can't turn off the lens distortion correction. So shoot RAW, open the file in Lightroom, turn the lens distortion correction off, boom, disappointment. It's almost like as if they took some elements from a 10mm fish eye lens, put it in front of this lens, and forcefully ask the camera processor to crop & stretch to "compensate". On the same note actually the RF 16mm f/2.8 and RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 has the same issue.

If you don't like this you simply should buy another lens and pay more, or switch to a 24mm prime or a wide angle zoom. Personally I don't need 24mm that much. If I have it I will use it sometimes, but it's not essential for my photography. 28 or 30mm feels more natural to me.

With all that being said, it is pretty affordable for the zoom level it offers, giving quite a big opportunity for people just came into the full frame market such as the RP itself. I somewhat think of this lens as the EF-S 18-55mm we all know and love(?) that's been the bog standard kit lens for the APS-C Canon DSLRs throughout the years. Yes the 18-55 is cheaply made and left a lot to be desired, but after some generations it makes such a perfect sense, it offers an okay zoom range (the 24-105 has even more obv), produce good enough image for the sensor, and most importantly, affordable.

I can actually see what's happening in Canon R&D after the burst of RF lenses in 2020. They pushed out a lot of non-L lenses with either a cheap and dirty development from scratch (this, the 24-240, the 16, the 100-400, 600 & 800 f/11) and see what sticks, or just copy an older design (the 35 macro, nifty fifty) that's been proven good but not much improvements.

Not sure if you can call these RF lenses "just copies" from older designs. I agree with you there's not a whole lot of improvement. At the same time the prices aren't very steep.

Some of the new designs are actually good, especially the tele lenses. I kinda hope this means more affordable EOS R cameras (probably even APS-C), and they're over with this cheap & dirty method.

I'm simply not buying these lenses, but I do see they do full fill some needs for lots of photographers. The 24-240mm is still good value for money when used as a 30-135mm.

I was in Leuven / Louvain last weekend, and I used the Sigma 100-400mm to shoot some ornaments of the impressively detailed town hall of this city. It worked well, but the RF 100-400mm is almost half the weight of the 1200 grams Sigma. The Sigma is brighter and the corner sharpness could be better, however, the RF lens will appeal more to lots of photographers simply due to it's low weight. Add the fast AF and great IS and you know it's simply a winner. It might be good enough for most photographers to save some money by not buying a 70-200mm. Who cares about distortion and corner sharpness?

I also don't see what the 800mm f/11 is a dirty design. A design choice has been made, but that's not dirty. This design is adding and option, which is always a good thing imo.

Holding back on AF speed for compact lenses is the opposite. That's kind of dirty, as there simply are no compact fast focusing lenses. 700 grams is the minimum for fast AF. But dark apertures is simply the result of prioritizing other features. That's fine, especially when other options are available. For 800mm there's the f/5.6 L if that's your thing, and for the 24-105 stm there's the f/4.0 L, the 24-70mm f/2.8 L, the f/2.0 28-70mm, lot's of options in the standard zoom range here from Canon. The f/2.8 and f/2.0 options are crazy expensive, but the f/4.0 L is reasonably priced, and was even more so at it's introduction. Sorry, but I see no reason to complain here.

It is a step down from the Ef 24-105 STM IQ wise.

One would think it would be a step up ?