Canon RF24mm F1.8 Macro IS STM

I added the Canon RF24mm F1.8 Macro IS STM to the PhotonsToPhotos Optical Bench Hub based on a near match patent. (You can follow the link to play with it interactively. Follow the link to Hub to see other lenses.)



Yes, 0.5x rather than 1x; some people will say that's not "macro".
Distortion is rather high at about 11%
Image circle is not quite full frame so there will be light fall-off in the corners.

--
Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

bclaff said:

I added the Canon RF24mm F1.8 Macro IS STM to the PhotonsToPhotos Optical Bench Hub based on a near match patent. (You can follow the link to play with it interactively. Follow the link to Hub to see other lenses.)



Yes, 0.5x rather than 1x; some people will say that's not "macro".
Distortion is rather high at about 11%
Image circle is not quite full frame so there will be light fall-off in the corners.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the analysis Bill. It looks like Canon is following the same pattern of absurd optical flaws in their non-L lenses and saying "good enough!" once software corrected.

unhappymeal said:

bclaff said:

I added the Canon RF24mm F1.8 Macro IS STM to the PhotonsToPhotos Optical Bench Hub based on a near match patent. (You can follow the link to play with it interactively. Follow the link to Hub to see other lenses.)



Yes, 0.5x rather than 1x; some people will say that's not "macro".
Distortion is rather high at about 11%
Image circle is not quite full frame so there will be light fall-off in the corners.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the analysis Bill. It looks like Canon is following the same pattern of absurd optical flaws in their non-L lenses and saying "good enough!" once software corrected.

Click to expand...

If you mean that Canon is following the pattern of using the ability of modern image processing to allow the design and sale of smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses that allow the user to produce images that formerly could only be produced by much bigger, heavier, more expensive lenses, I agree with you. Very smart move. I'm certainly benefiting from this with my 16 F2.8, which gives me excellent results with DXO PL5, and is a lens I could only have dreamed about a few years ago. An ultra-wide tiny, light, cheap prime? Simply amazing. I'm looking forward to getting the 24 F1.8 too.

--
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

Alastair Norcross said:

unhappymeal said:

bclaff said:

I added the Canon RF24mm F1.8 Macro IS STM to the PhotonsToPhotos Optical Bench Hub based on a near match patent. (You can follow the link to play with it interactively. Follow the link to Hub to see other lenses.)



Yes, 0.5x rather than 1x; some people will say that's not "macro".
Distortion is rather high at about 11%
Image circle is not quite full frame so there will be light fall-off in the corners.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the analysis Bill. It looks like Canon is following the same pattern of absurd optical flaws in their non-L lenses and saying "good enough!" once software corrected.

Click to expand...

If you mean that Canon is following the pattern of using the ability of modern image processing to allow the design and sale of smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses that allow the user to produce images that formerly could only be produced by much bigger, heavier, more expensive lenses, I agree with you. Very smart move. I'm certainly benefiting from this with my 16 F2.8, which gives me excellent results with DXO PL5, and is a lens I could only have dreamed about a few years ago. An ultra-wide tiny, light, cheap prime? Simply amazing. I'm looking forward to getting the 24 F1.8 too.

Click to expand...

Agree, that's the wat to travel and enjoy photography. I can't stand heavy lenses anymore. They are good enough for me and what I do.

Alastair Norcross said:

unhappymeal said:

bclaff said:

I added the Canon RF24mm F1.8 Macro IS STM to the PhotonsToPhotos Optical Bench Hub based on a near match patent. (You can follow the link to play with it interactively. Follow the link to Hub to see other lenses.)



Yes, 0.5x rather than 1x; some people will say that's not "macro".
Distortion is rather high at about 11%
Image circle is not quite full frame so there will be light fall-off in the corners.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the analysis Bill. It looks like Canon is following the same pattern of absurd optical flaws in their non-L lenses and saying "good enough!" once software corrected.

Click to expand...

If you mean that Canon is following the pattern of using the ability of modern image processing to allow the design and sale of smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses that allow the user to produce images that formerly could only be produced by much bigger, heavier, more expensive lenses, I agree with you. Very smart move. I'm certainly benefiting from this with my 16 F2.8, which gives me excellent results with DXO PL5, and is a lens I could only have dreamed about a few years ago. An ultra-wide tiny, light, cheap prime? Simply amazing. I'm looking forward to getting the 24 F1.8 too.

Click to expand...

I am seriously considering focusing my R efforts on getting the L lenses and skipping the consumer stuff.

--
KEG

KEG said:

Alastair Norcross said:

unhappymeal said:

bclaff said:

I added the Canon RF24mm F1.8 Macro IS STM to the PhotonsToPhotos Optical Bench Hub based on a near match patent. (You can follow the link to play with it interactively. Follow the link to Hub to see other lenses.)



Yes, 0.5x rather than 1x; some people will say that's not "macro".
Distortion is rather high at about 11%
Image circle is not quite full frame so there will be light fall-off in the corners.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the analysis Bill. It looks like Canon is following the same pattern of absurd optical flaws in their non-L lenses and saying "good enough!" once software corrected.

Click to expand...

If you mean that Canon is following the pattern of using the ability of modern image processing to allow the design and sale of smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses that allow the user to produce images that formerly could only be produced by much bigger, heavier, more expensive lenses, I agree with you. Very smart move. I'm certainly benefiting from this with my 16 F2.8, which gives me excellent results with DXO PL5, and is a lens I could only have dreamed about a few years ago. An ultra-wide tiny, light, cheap prime? Simply amazing. I'm looking forward to getting the 24 F1.8 too.

Click to expand...

I am seriously considering focusing my R efforts on getting the L lenses and skipping the consumer stuff.

Click to expand...

Yes, who needs both kidneys?

--
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
Equipment in profile

Alastair Norcross said:

KEG said:

Alastair Norcross said:

unhappymeal said:

bclaff said:

I added the Canon RF24mm F1.8 Macro IS STM to the PhotonsToPhotos Optical Bench Hub based on a near match patent. (You can follow the link to play with it interactively. Follow the link to Hub to see other lenses.)



Yes, 0.5x rather than 1x; some people will say that's not "macro".
Distortion is rather high at about 11%
Image circle is not quite full frame so there will be light fall-off in the corners.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the analysis Bill. It looks like Canon is following the same pattern of absurd optical flaws in their non-L lenses and saying "good enough!" once software corrected.

Click to expand...

If you mean that Canon is following the pattern of using the ability of modern image processing to allow the design and sale of smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses that allow the user to produce images that formerly could only be produced by much bigger, heavier, more expensive lenses, I agree with you. Very smart move. I'm certainly benefiting from this with my 16 F2.8, which gives me excellent results with DXO PL5, and is a lens I could only have dreamed about a few years ago. An ultra-wide tiny, light, cheap prime? Simply amazing. I'm looking forward to getting the 24 F1.8 too.

Click to expand...

I am seriously considering focusing my R efforts on getting the L lenses and skipping the consumer stuff.

Click to expand...

Yes, who needs both kidneys?

Click to expand...

More like the realization that I don't actually like compromizes and that I feel like I have 1 small system and I don't actually need to build 2 small systems, you can also read this as getting RF 24-105 f/4L IS and maybe 14-35L, with the RF 24-105 f/4.0L IS I would have 24-300 mm system based around weatherproofed L lenses, with the downside of not exactly being small or lightweight.

--
KEG

KEG said:

Alastair Norcross said:

KEG said:

Alastair Norcross said:

unhappymeal said:

bclaff said:

I added the Canon RF24mm F1.8 Macro IS STM to the PhotonsToPhotos Optical Bench Hub based on a near match patent. (You can follow the link to play with it interactively. Follow the link to Hub to see other lenses.)



Yes, 0.5x rather than 1x; some people will say that's not "macro".
Distortion is rather high at about 11%
Image circle is not quite full frame so there will be light fall-off in the corners.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the analysis Bill. It looks like Canon is following the same pattern of absurd optical flaws in their non-L lenses and saying "good enough!" once software corrected.

Click to expand...

If you mean that Canon is following the pattern of using the ability of modern image processing to allow the design and sale of smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses that allow the user to produce images that formerly could only be produced by much bigger, heavier, more expensive lenses, I agree with you. Very smart move. I'm certainly benefiting from this with my 16 F2.8, which gives me excellent results with DXO PL5, and is a lens I could only have dreamed about a few years ago. An ultra-wide tiny, light, cheap prime? Simply amazing. I'm looking forward to getting the 24 F1.8 too.

Click to expand...

I am seriously considering focusing my R efforts on getting the L lenses and skipping the consumer stuff.

Click to expand...

Yes, who needs both kidneys?

Click to expand...

More like the realization that I don't actually like compromizes and that I feel like I have 1 small system and I don't actually need to build 2 small systems, you can also read this as getting RF 24-105 f/4L IS and maybe 14-35L, with the RF 24-105 f/4.0L IS I would have 24-300 mm system based around weatherproofed L lenses, with the downside of not exactly being small or lightweight.

Click to expand...

I can definitely recommend the 24-105L. I got it refurbished with my refurbished R for a great deal (it was around $600). It's my only RF L lens (so far). It's not overly big and heavy, but it's certainly bigger than all my RF primes (the 85 is close). It's an outstanding lens. I had the original EF version for around 9 years, and got lots of great use out of it. The RF version is definitely better. The 14-35L won't cost you a kidney either, but I decided that almost all my ultra wide shooting with a zoom is at the wide end, so there's really no point in me having the zoom (and the 16 F2.8 is actually wider than 16 when processed with DXO). I still have my EF 70-200 F2.8L IS II, which is the most expensive lens I ever bought (and more expensive than any camera I've bought). It's a great workhorse, and ultra sharp. My go-to lens for track meets. Also my EF 100 L macro. Another fantastic lens. I'm not averse to L lenses at all. In fact, I love them. But most of the recent RF L lenses are just too expensive for me. And I do like the small size and weight of most of the non-L RF primes.

--
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
Equipment in profile

Alastair Norcross said:

KEG said:

Alastair Norcross said:

KEG said:

Alastair Norcross said:

unhappymeal said:

bclaff said:

I added the Canon RF24mm F1.8 Macro IS STM to the PhotonsToPhotos Optical Bench Hub based on a near match patent. (You can follow the link to play with it interactively. Follow the link to Hub to see other lenses.)



Yes, 0.5x rather than 1x; some people will say that's not "macro".
Distortion is rather high at about 11%
Image circle is not quite full frame so there will be light fall-off in the corners.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the analysis Bill. It looks like Canon is following the same pattern of absurd optical flaws in their non-L lenses and saying "good enough!" once software corrected.

Click to expand...

If you mean that Canon is following the pattern of using the ability of modern image processing to allow the design and sale of smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses that allow the user to produce images that formerly could only be produced by much bigger, heavier, more expensive lenses, I agree with you. Very smart move. I'm certainly benefiting from this with my 16 F2.8, which gives me excellent results with DXO PL5, and is a lens I could only have dreamed about a few years ago. An ultra-wide tiny, light, cheap prime? Simply amazing. I'm looking forward to getting the 24 F1.8 too.

Click to expand...

I am seriously considering focusing my R efforts on getting the L lenses and skipping the consumer stuff.

Click to expand...

Yes, who needs both kidneys?

Click to expand...

More like the realization that I don't actually like compromizes and that I feel like I have 1 small system and I don't actually need to build 2 small systems, you can also read this as getting RF 24-105 f/4L IS and maybe 14-35L, with the RF 24-105 f/4.0L IS I would have 24-300 mm system based around weatherproofed L lenses, with the downside of not exactly being small or lightweight.

Click to expand...

I can definitely recommend the 24-105L. I got it refurbished with my refurbished R for a great deal (it was around $600). It's my only RF L lens (so far). It's not overly big and heavy, but it's certainly bigger than all my RF primes (the 85 is close). It's an outstanding lens. I had the original EF version for around 9 years, and got lots of great use out of it. The RF version is definitely better. The 14-35L won't cost you a kidney either, but I decided that almost all my ultra wide shooting with a zoom is at the wide end, so there's really no point in me having the zoom (and the 16 F2.8 is actually wider than 16 when processed with DXO). I still have my EF 70-200 F2.8L IS II, which is the most expensive lens I ever bought (and more expensive than any camera I've bought). It's a great workhorse, and ultra sharp. My go-to lens for track meets. Also my EF 100 L macro. Another fantastic lens. I'm not averse to L lenses at all. In fact, I love them. But most of the recent RF L lenses are just too expensive for me. And I do like the small size and weight of most of the non-L RF primes.

Click to expand...

I have RF 35/1.8, 50/1.8 and 16/2.8, if 24/1.8 turns out to be decent performer (means it covers the the frame) then I might get it.

I have found RF 16 to be very good video lens with my R, I have just found my EF-M setup to be more flexible (and fun in fact) but R is better in lousy light and miserable weather.

--
KEG

Interesting. Might consider it for some astro landscape work especially.

KEG said:

KEG said:

....

Click to expand...

I have RF 35/1.8, 50/1.8 and 16/2.8, if 24/1.8 turns out to be decent performer (means it covers the the frame) then I might get it.

I have found RF 16 to be very good video lens with my R, ....

Click to expand...

The Canon RF35mm F1.8 Macro IS STM , Canon RF50mm F1.8 STM , and Canon RF16mm F2.8 STM are all in the PhotonsToPhotos Optical Bench.

The 16mm also doesn't really cover full frame and has high optical distortion (17%).
So if you're happy with the 16mm I think you'll like to 24mm too.

--
Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

bclaff said:

KEG said:

bclaff said:

....

Click to expand...

I have RF 35/1.8, 50/1.8 and 16/2.8, if 24/1.8 turns out to be decent performer (means it covers the the frame) then I might get it.

I have found RF 16 to be very good video lens with my R, ....

Click to expand...

The Canon RF35mm F1.8 Macro IS STM , Canon RF50mm F1.8 STM , and Canon RF16mm F2.8 STM are all in the PhotonsToPhotos Optical Bench.

The 16mm also doesn't really cover full frame and has high optical distortion (17%).
So if you're happy with the 16mm I think you'll like to 24mm too.

Click to expand...

R in 4K is aps-c camera...

robgendreau said:

Interesting. Might consider it for some astro landscape work especially.

Click to expand...

Depending on the amount of coma …

No inclusion of a "Ring Light" was a surprise. This lens RF lens first appeared at first to be a virtual clone of the EF-M 28mm Macro lens prior to the media release, but has neither the magnification (neither 1:1 or 1.2x) nor the all-popular and innovative Ring Light which benefits the EF-M lens. Quite a disappointment.
.
The other lens they announced today (RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM) apparently requires manual focus to be used in order to access the "extended range" closeup option. Seriously?! Nothing but limitations and disappointment with these new lenses. I expected the RF lenses to genuinely exceed the EF-M lenses yet that's clearly not the case so far.
.


Controllable Ring Light on the end of the EF-M 28mm Macro lens... which also offers up to 1.2x magnification plus infinity focus from 1:1 Macro.

--
Regards,
Marco Nero.

Marco Nero said:

No inclusion of a "Ring Light" was a surprise. This lens RF lens first appeared at first to be a virtual clone of the EF-M 28mm Macro lens prior to the media release, but has neither the magnification (neither 1:1 or 1.2x) nor the all-popular and innovative Ring Light which benefits the EF-M lens. Quite a disappointment.

Click to expand...

It's nothing like the EF-M 28 macro, and never was supposed to be. It's a fast full frame wide angle, with close up (semi-macro) capability. The RF equivalent of the 28 macro would be a 45mm lens with a much slower maximum aperture. The close focusing ability on this RF 24 is a bonus, not the main point of the lens. It's a lot closer focusing than other full frame 24mm lenses, just as the RF 35 F1.8 and RF 85 F2 have much closer focusing abilities than other full frame 35 or 85 lenses.

Marco Nero said:

.
The other lens they announced today (RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM) apparently requires manual focus to be used in order to access the "extended range" closeup option. Seriously?! Nothing but limitations and disappointment with these new lenses.

Click to expand...

A full frame ultra-wide zoom that's small, light, and cheap? How is that a disappointment? The close focusing capability is not the headline feature, and never was. It's a much cheaper way to get an UW zoom for full frame than either of the RF L options, or any of the EF options.

Marco Nero said:

I expected the RF lenses to genuinely exceed the EF-M lenses yet that's clearly not the case so far.

Click to expand...

These lenses were never supposed to be equivalents to the EF-M lenses. They are a whole different category. The 2 RF-S lenses so far released are more like EF-M equivalents. In fact, the RF-S 18-150 looks to be pretty much exactly the same as the EF-M 18-150, which I have.

I have a bunch of EF-M lenses, both Canon and Sigma, and love their performance. I am also not even a little bit disappointed in these RF lenses. I have all the affordable primes (except the super teles), and they are all great performers, especially for the prices.

Marco Nero said:

.


Controllable Ring Light on the end of the EF-M 28mm Macro lens... which also offers up to 1.2x magnification plus infinity focus from 1:1 Macro.

Click to expand...

--
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
Equipment in profile

Marco Nero said:

Nothing but limitations and disappointment with these new lenses.

Click to expand...

This should read: "I don't like the limitations and am disappointed with these new lenses".

Different people have different needs and expectations.

Myself, for instance, am ecstatic that Canon has finally come up with a fast 24mm prime (...a crucial FL, for me...) that, given the price and the already traditional RF optical quality, will certainly offer a very positive price-to-performance ratio.

You see, I have been waiting 6/8 years and almost bought a second hand Sony camera, on accout of this particular lack in their line-up.

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
https://www.instagram.com/lisboa_ao_voo_do_passaro/
http://www.humbertoborgesfotografia.com/
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------

Marco Nero said:

No inclusion of a "Ring Light" was a surprise. This lens RF lens first appeared at first to be a virtual clone of the EF-M 28mm Macro lens prior to the media release, but has neither the magnification (neither 1:1 or 1.2x) nor the all-popular and innovative Ring Light which benefits the EF-M lens. Quite a disappointment....

Click to expand...

The Canon EF-M28mm f3.5 Macro IS STM has a working distance of only 15.53mm at closest focus so an integrated ring light makes sense.
By comparison the working distance for the Canon RF24mm F1.8 Macro IS STM at closest focus is 42.01mm

--
Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

Alastair Norcross said:

These lenses were never supposed to be equivalents to the EF-M lenses. They are a whole different category. The 2 RF-S lenses so far released are more like EF-M equivalents. In fact, the RF-S 18-150 looks to be pretty much exactly the same as the EF-M 18-150, which I have.

...

Click to expand...

Yeah, the EF-M18-150mm f3.5-6.3 IS STM (left) looks like the identical optical prescription as the RF-S18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM (right)



So, same lens design adjusted for different mount.

--
Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

Alastair Norcross said:

unhappymeal said:

bclaff said:

I added the Canon RF24mm F1.8 Macro IS STM to the PhotonsToPhotos Optical Bench Hub based on a near match patent. (You can follow the link to play with it interactively. Follow the link to Hub to see other lenses.)



Yes, 0.5x rather than 1x; some people will say that's not "macro".
Distortion is rather high at about 11%
Image circle is not quite full frame so there will be light fall-off in the corners.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the analysis Bill. It looks like Canon is following the same pattern of absurd optical flaws in their non-L lenses and saying "good enough!" once software corrected.

Click to expand...

If you mean that Canon is following the pattern of using the ability of modern image processing to allow the design and sale of smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses that allow the user to produce images that formerly could only be produced by much bigger, heavier, more expensive lenses, I agree with you. Very smart move. I'm certainly benefiting from this with my 16 F2.8, which gives me excellent results with DXO PL5, and is a lens I could only have dreamed about a few years ago. An ultra-wide tiny, light, cheap prime? Simply amazing. I'm looking forward to getting the 24 F1.8 too.

Click to expand...

I have yet to see a m4/3 lens with black corners and that much barrel distortion without software correction.

bclaff said:

Alastair Norcross said:

These lenses were never supposed to be equivalents to the EF-M lenses. They are a whole different category. The 2 RF-S lenses so far released are more like EF-M equivalents. In fact, the RF-S 18-150 looks to be pretty much exactly the same as the EF-M 18-150, which I have.

...

Click to expand...

Yeah, the EF-M18-150mm f3.5-6.3 IS STM (left) looks like the identical optical prescription as the RF-S18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM (right)



So, same lens design adjusted for different mount.

Click to expand...

That makes sense. It's a good lens for what it is, so no need to change it.

--
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
Equipment in profile