Rock and Rollei
Senior Member
They can't with AF. Or any electronics at all.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Canon RF24mm F1.8 Macro IS STM
- Thread starter bclaff
- Start date
For me too which is why I won't be buying the kit lens. In other respects the 18-45mm is better than the 15-45mm which has had big problems with build consistency.
I have this lens and the 15-45mm. The 24mm equivalent wide end is very useful.
I got the RF 24-240mm for $600 shipped and use it quite a lot. It is so good I never bought the 24-105mmL. There is too much redundancy between them. It is the best super zoom ever made by a wide margin, IMO.
I went from the M system to the SL2.
Canon has not shown enough commitment to the M system for me to buy into it any more than I have currently. Especially so since the R system was announced.
It is what R owners want. Both FF and APS-C users. It is a lens that will serve double duty and fill a niche many want filled.
M users had better just buy the Sigma because we very likely are seeing the end of any new EF-M lenses showing up.
It is a great value small lens that is useful on FF and APS-C. I would think you would appreciate it for the same reasons you appreciate M lenses.
It is great for an EF-M lens. When it competes with other mounts it isn't as much of a standout. Still good but not head and shoulders above other lenses.
After ten years, when a person has to rely on third party lenses to fill basic lens slots it isn't a good sign for this system's long term viability or commitment from the manufacturer.
At this point it is nit picking. If few RF-S lenses exist in 2 years then pick away.
What did you expect to see lens wise at the very beginning of the RF-S launch? It took over half a decade to get the paltry number of mostly mediocre EF-M lenses we have today. You are also ignoring the existing number of RF lenses that will work very well on APS-C R crop cameras. There are far more than two lenses that can be used on them. Even at this point there is arguably a better selection of native mount lenses for crop R cameras than there are for M cameras.
It will do well on any R camera. Crop or FF. It will never work on an M camera and there never will be a lens like this with an EF-M mount.
We have no idea what Canon will do. This is just more nit picking at this point in time.
You seem to always default to bashing the R crop system before you know if there is any reason to do so. Then ignore all the known shortcomings in the M system.
The M6/2 is being phased out. It is likely that the M system is being phased out.
Alone in what respect? The R10 is the size and weight of the M5 and not much larger than the M50. You know I am right but can't seem to accept this.
You are nit picking again.
Should and will have two completely different meanings.
Answer the question instead of dodging it.
This is just an ignorant statement. Sorry to be blunt but there is no better way to respond to the comment.
None of this changes the fact that the R7 and R10 are far better spec'ed than their M counterparts.
It is Canon's lack of commitment to the M system is why I will not buy any M gear. This hasn't changed since its launch.
Once again you are blinded by emotion to see that the R7 is a general use camera just as much as the M6/2 or any other APS-C camera. By your logic every other APS-C camera with a built in EVF isn't a general use camera. The form of the M6 is an outlier and actually never sold all that well so saying it is a general use camera is arguably incorrect. A general use camera is one that covers all the bases well and the M6 does not do this at all. The lack of a built in EVF is a complete non starter for the overwhelming majority of people looking to buy a MILC. Hence the poor historic sales numbers of the M6 form factor. Had Canon made the M6/2 the M5/2 it would have sold in far bigger numbers. The fact that Canon did not do this it another tell as to where they are taking, or not taking, the M system.
You have no idea what third party support will be for the R system in the future. As the user base grows for a camera system, third parties will provide lenses. This is how it has always been and always will be.
Access to a dying lens system (EF/EF-S and likely EF-M) and not to a new thriving one (RF/RF-S) isn't a good sign for the M system's future.
Many M users are not satisfied with the EF-M catalog. It has a lot of holes in it that will never be filled with native mount lenses. Many M users like me stopped buying into the M system or never bought into it at all for this reason along with the lack of commitment to providing competitive camera bodies.
In ten years the M system has two Canon lenses that are considered stellar. Heck, throw in the 22mm and make it three. The R crop cameras have access to far more stellar native mount lenses than any M camera with only one camera body currently being sold. When a lens catalog is heavily supplemented by third parties it is a very bad sign for the long term viability of the system. Canon makes no profit from third party lens sales. Profit from lens sales is vital to a camera maker and the long term future of a camera system. IMO, we will see the RF-S system fill out nicely and will eclipse the M system as it currently stands. Anyone that expects the RF-S catalog to mirror the EF-M catalog will be disappointed. Or likely not since odds are it will be better. Especially with having native access to all the RF mount lenses.
Last edited:
m100
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,744
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,600
I am almost as fast manually focusing my manual focus f/0.95 lens on my M50 as my original M was at auto focusing my EF-M 22mm ?
BirdShooter7
Forum Pro
The F4L has its foot indoors and outdoors
The RF 24-240 is an outdoors lens
before M6II
before m32 f1.4
before siggy f1.4 trio, 16, 30, 56
the m32 F1.4 and siggy trio came along about three years ago and breathed new life into m.
what folks who own m want is the new siggy 18-50 F2.8 available for Sony and by xmas available for fuji
you speak for owners? how many owners want?
Canon better get it together with lenses as good as the value proposition siggys
for aps-c, the lens of choice is the siggy 16 f1.4
what? you haven't used one
yeah right, the digital picture review describes the m32's IQ as on par with the Canon 200 F2L costing 12 times the price
yeah right, just look at the weaker EF-s lenses -- Canon has a history of not developing APS-c to potential -- and you expect RF-s will be developed to potential -- yeah right...
if RF-s 11-22 and RF-s 32 f1.4 exist in two years, I'll quit complaining
11-22 is not mediocre (my/your 10 -18 is mediocre). 32 f1.4 is GREAT. m28 is not mediocre. The siggy trio are not mediocre
you are ignoring existing EF lenses that work well on the m
why spend all that money on crop when you get better IQ out of RF on RP
I'll stick with RP/M6II combo
I've worked with a 32.5 mpxl sensor for a year now -- good luck with IQ on 32.5 mpxl crop with some of these consumer lenses
a point in time when Canon expects folks to buy into crop when they've been promoting RF for FF for years -- btw I spent $850 on my RP a few years ago -- and the IQ beats your new Crop
R7 with Sports and birding and macro lenses make sense
your quest with this crop stuff for general purpose is your quest
we should listen to you for Canon's official announcements then, yeah right
as I said, the R10 needs glass -- who knows what RF-s glass it will get -- there is no roadmap
not publishing a roadmap is nit picking? yeah right
long live m -- when they see m users are passionate about their purchases of m, they will keep m -- it is a significant part of their business
ok, the 24 mpxl sensor is long in the tooth, I expect the 24 mpxl sensor to be discontinued like the 18 mpxl sensor was overused by Canon for way too many years
Ask Alastair-- he is buying an R7 for his EF 70-200 F2.8 L II (sports)
Ask R2 -- he is buying the R7 for his RF 100 L for macro and RF 100-500 for birding
Reviewers are calling the R7 a sports/wildlife/macro camera so they are not likely to listen to you and your lack of knowledge on technology -- the camera is about reach and speed and AF -- there are other camera like the RP and R that do general stuff better and the M6II does some general stuff better because it is smaller and has the glass
not on size
not on glass
not on price
most of us enthusiasts have both m and RF
haha, nope
where is the 11-22 and 32 and 28 and 16 f1.4 and 56 f1.4 -- nowhere
no, my logic is based on glass and size rules
what? there are two available evf's for m6II and many of us use both evf and back screen and triggers and receivers
the m6II has great small character with a large 32.5 mpxl punch with the right available glass
again, you seem to be the official Canon representative doing a negative spin to your own SL2 preference
I don't invest when there is a lack of general use RF-s lenses - whether or not third party is present or not
cart (body) before the horse (RF-s lenses) - or at least give prospective users a roadmap
oh, now you are killing off all of EF/EF-S -- see how that goes over
essentially they want a fast bright zoom -- M18-55 f2.8
as I said, many m users are satisfied with the smaller m system as an adjunct system and travel system
m6II/M50Ii are still very competitive with other brands
heck, in addition, throw in the 16 f1.4, the 30 f1.4, the 56 f1.4, the m28 and the m 18-150
more cost, bigger, not enough RF-s glass - not as travel worthy
Canon doesn't want any third party RF - that doesn't bode well
so discontinue the m system to get rid of siggy sales - you got a risky plan there - fuji and sony will have something to say about that in new user migration from m if that happens
just like EF-s did - yeah right
NOT - not as long as Canon protects its FF business
give us RF-s access to siggy 16 f1.4, m22, m28, m32 f1.4, 56 f1.4, m11-22 -- 6 lenses -- and make a great RF-s16-55 f2.8 - then we can have the glass that sony and fuji APS-c have access to
Last edited:
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
You mean before the firmware update? I read that the original focus speed was slow. I got my M after the firmware update, so never experienced the slow focusing.I am almost as fast manually focusing my manual focus f/0.95 lens on my M50 as my original M was at auto focusing my EF-M 22mm ?
Rock and Rollei
Senior Member
It was ridiculously slow. Close to unusable for anything that moved, especially with the 22mm f2, which was half the EF-M lens range at the time (and people complain about the range now!)You mean before the firmware update? I read that the original focus speed was slow. I got my M after the firmware update, so never experienced the slow focusing.I am almost as fast manually focusing my manual focus f/0.95 lens on my M50 as my original M was at auto focusing my EF-M 22mm ?
If you left it on continuous AF it helped, but still, that firmware update saved the camera. I still use several M bodies now, IR converted, and love the tactility of that metal nody and the wonderful touch screen but without that AF improvement, I probably wouldn't.
I've been with APS-c since the beginning, owning ($2K) d30, 10d, 30d, 40d, 60d, 7dII, xt, SL1, T4i, T7i, M6II
I've owned two EF 50 f1.4's and three 50 F1.8's and three FF's -- 5d, 6d, RP -- these 50's were not as good as Nikon's 1.8 G's and had to be stopped down to f2.8 for sharpness
I've owned EF 35 f2 and EF 35 F2 IS. The EF 35 F2 IS is sharp at f2.2
I waited FOREVER for Canon to produce an EF 50 F2 IS as sharp at F2.2 as the EF 35 F2 IS AND they wouldn't do it. Why? Because their EF 50 F1.2 had to be stopped down to F2.0 to be sharp and they didn't want any 50 of theirs to compete with their 50 L
Then in 2019 they released the great M 32 F1.4 which is FF equivalent of 50 mm F2.2. The m32 f1.4 is SHARP across the frame WIDE OPEN and Bryan at the digital picture shows that it has the IQ of an EF 200 F2 L lens costing 12 times as much and says many will buy M just for this lens
I bought M6II just for this lens, the m32 F1.4 with FF equivalent of 50 f2.2 and sharp across the frame instead of buying an EF 50 F1.2 L which was about the same money for lens only, and had to be stopped down to F2 to be sharp.
I hope they release an RF-s 32 f1.4 -- it would be a game changer as R2 said because this setup, R7 + RF-s 32 F1.4 + DXO PL5 with deep prime Noise Reduction approaches FF IQ for less money !!!!
but I would not hold my breath -- they want you to buy FF instead -- RF 50 F1.2
Another example -- the small 11-22 is a great travel setup with the m6II
but Canon wants you to buy more expensive RF setups for landscape photography
In other words - Canon is COMPETING with ITSELF -- and the FF setups will win because they will exclude the APS-c development where there would be cannibalization from their own FF higher profit centers. Therefore, APS-c lens development will not reach its full potential
The m32 f1.4 was an outlier that took until 2019 and was allowed by Canon because the M system was viewed as an orphan mount and would not compete with RF mount. I agree with you they would sell a lot more R7's with an RF-s 32 F1.4, but the issue for them would be how many less FF would they sell ... there is the rub
I say to them -- continue with M. Give M a fast zoom. Give M a long lens and animal eye, etc. But then you might not spend all that money on your RF birding gear and join the smaller M crowd. For many of us, SMALL and POWERFUL matters. Canon risks losing travel gear to the Fujis and Sonys who will have siggy 16,30,56, 18-50 and just need another iteration or two of their bodies to knock it out of the park. I'll stay with Canon if they move forward and don't dumb down small and powerful
Last edited:
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,313
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
The design of the EF 50mm f/1.8 goes back to the time when it was expected that you would stop it down to at least f/3.5, preferably f/5.6-11. It was also well known that the f/1.2 lenses were specialist lenses, as they weren't as sharp as the slower lenses at apertures smaller than f/4. The reviews at the time when Canon brought out the FD 55mm f/1.2 at just over ⅓ the price of the aspherical model mocked people who bought an f/1.2 lens to use at f/8.
Well... The EF-M 32mm is the FF equivalent of f/2.2 for photon noise and depth of field, which is just about the point at which the (less than half the price) RF 50mm lens starts to become acceptable. I don't think Canon are worried that a $500 lens is going to take sales from a $2300 weather sealed lens effectively 2 stops faster; they're more likely to worry that they can sell it at all when they have a faster FF equivalent in the same mount that's at least $300 cheaper.
The one thing they haven't got in RF-s is an ultra wide-angle lens - for now there's the EF-s 10-18mm or the EF-s 10-22mm which is discontinued but still available new. You'll soon be able to buy a slow 15-30mm zoom for the R7 / R10 for $550 that's also an attractive FF lens for people wanting to dip a toe into ultra wide-angle zoom photography without shelling out $1650 or more. The cheaper RF 16mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm primes and 15-30mm, 24-105mm, 24-240mm and 100-400mm zooms all more-or-less make sense on APS-C; all with three-digit prices, yet all are still attractive enough for newcomers to FF and to allow upgraders keep them on. This is Canon listening to all those of you who wanted a single mount for FF and APS-C, and all of you wanting a single mount upgrade path. Just be careful what you wish for.
Personally, I wouldn't buy an R10 because it's too big and expensive for what I use APS-C for, and it doesn't do ultra wide-angle. The R7 is more attractive, but just far too big and expensive for me. It would be many, many years from now before I considered buying an RF-s mount camera, even if they stopped EOS M tomorrow. I'm too invested in EOS M and none of my APS-C lenses are usable on RF-s.
Last edited:
crazy - use a zoom instead
well, I'd have to disagree -- the RF 50 f1.8 is like its EF predecessor and doesn't become sharp across the frame until f2.8
Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)
I'd buy the R7 + RF 32 f1.4 if they released it
I owned the 10-18, and gave away -- the 11-22 runs circles around it
no IS, though the barrel distortion is well controlled
more or less?
well, f2.8 on FF becomes F4.5 on crop -- and then sharpness, IQ suffers on crop, and lens defects creep in even more on high mpxl crop -- takes processing to correct/remove
the focal lengths don't always make sense
heck -- just get an RP
Canon didn't listen to me
exactly
exactly
yes, for sports, birding and macro with long L
I don't like the other general photography glass options -- needs more RF -s which I think they'll be hesitant to develop to its full capability
Many of us will be keeping our M setups
In my case, M6II + 32 f1.4 + 11-22 + dxo PL5 rocks
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,313
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
That's effectively half a stop slower than the 32mm lens, which is why I haven't got one - I'm just not fond enough of that angle of view to spend £510 on a lens to duplicate my FF lens, even if it is ½ faster with better image quality. I won't even buy the RF version until my EF lens dies.
No, an f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens. An FF 16mm f/2.8 lens is still a 16mm f/2.8 lens on crop, it's just the equivalent of 26mm f/4.5 on FF. But using the RF 16mm lens on a cropped sensor crops out most of the barrel distortion and vignetting, so not only are you using the best 40% of the lens, you're stretching the corners a whole lot less and there's very much less difference between centre and corner image quality.
No they don't. That's why I think the common mount is generally a fallacy unless you're using the camera as an expensive teleconverter. But I would find 15-30mm more useful on APS-C than 18-45mm, the RF 24mm would be a slightly wide standard prime 1⅓stops faster than the EF-s 24mm, 35mm is a slightly long standard prime, 50mm is a shortish portrait prime and 85mm is almost the equivalent of the classic FF 135mm. The other zoom ranges aren't standard, but are still manageable. And, from Canon's point of view, they are a powerful incentive to upgrade to an RP or better.
Or me
Also with a TS-E lens and 32Mpx
As they should be.
The first two are too expensive for me, but I would jump on a 32Mpx M100 successor.
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
The design brief for all affordable RF wide angle lensesI 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.
--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/
the 1/2 stop is one thing, but also consider the thin f2.2 dof for portrait work to blur out the backdrop
mine stays on f1.4 (f2.2 ff equivalent) and is in the portrait range on high 32.5 mpxl for cropping power for portraits
if a F1.8 lens forces me to use F2.8 to get sharp across the frame, might as well use a zoom instead - which many photographers just get f2.8 zooms, and skip these consumer primes
on the other hand, the m32 f1.4 gives sharp across the frame, f2.2 FF equivalent, nice blur, sharp eyes, nice cropping power with 32.5 mpxl, pixel level sharpness, and on high mpxl, because of the cropping power, and pixel sharpness, I don't even need to reach for my 85 mm portrait lens in some cases
btw - Nikon historically had those low cost 1.8 G's that were more expensive than Canon's - but they were sharper near wide open - and that was one key reason some pros went with Nikon
with a ff equivalent f4.5 dof
ok
I get some of what you are saying
but - that f2.8 is no free lunch on a high 32.5 mpxl body giving an effective f4.5 ff dof
for me, rather than carry all those consumer primes and messing with crop, just slap on my RF 24-105 F4 L on my RP and I get the flexibility and the IQ
we agree
and that is what birders and sports shooters are doing, using the crop cameras as teleconverters versus buying longer more expensive lenses
me too
yeah, if you can combine to suit
as I said, I slap on the RF 24-105 L on my RP and don't carry all those primes and lenses on crop
exactamundo
maybe they'll read this
ok
yep - protect FF
m300 is definitely a camera they should produce
Last edited:
R2D2
Forum Pro
Gotta have AF for me. I spent too many decades shooting manual focus for me to ever want to go back! :-DI am almost as fast manually focusing my manual focus f/0.95 lens on my M50 as my original M was at auto focusing my EF-M 22mm ?
R2
R2D2
Forum Pro
+100 Saved me a LOT of typing MAC! :-D
Canon has indeed been historically uber-protective of its upper lines, even to the detriment of the lower and mid levels. As you point out this has esp been true at 50mm.
I don’t see the Tiger changing its stripes any time soon though. But I’d certainly welcome it if it ever did come to pass! ;-)
R2
thx, old timers like us have been around a long time and know the dumbing down distinguishing downers...
yep, 50 mm is the classic example
probably not
the m32 f1.4 was a nugget
we can only hope
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
Canon's reluctance to make a truly high quality midrange standard prime is flat out bizarre
Others have shown it can be done.... the old Sigma 50 1.4 EX was decent; Sony's 55 1.8 was a little expensive but still decent; I think both Nikon F 50s handily outperformed Canon's for the same money (and we don't even need to talk about the Z 50 1.8) et
Why continually cheap out on and sandbag such an important and popular lens? At the minimum I wish they had just smoothed out the bokeh.
Others have shown it can be done.... the old Sigma 50 1.4 EX was decent; Sony's 55 1.8 was a little expensive but still decent; I think both Nikon F 50s handily outperformed Canon's for the same money (and we don't even need to talk about the Z 50 1.8) et
Why continually cheap out on and sandbag such an important and popular lens? At the minimum I wish they had just smoothed out the bokeh.
m100
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,744
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,600
There are none ? Would be nice !
Even with the the 32mm STM I sometimes need to use manual focus.
I am not so sure Canon put that so handy focus peaking feature in to use with 3rd party manual focus lenses ?
All their instruction manuals say manual focusing may sometimes be needed ?
They put focus peaking in mainly for use with their auto focus lenses when they are needed to be used in manual focus mode ?
Canon's focus peaking and the digital zoom feature make it possible for my old eyes to quickly get what I want to be in focus with a manual focus f/0.95 lens.
I can only wonder how fast I would be with my young eyes ?
My firmware does seem to be updating every time I shoot with it and I like shooting with it a lot.
I really like the way it blurs the background.
I am tempted to get this for my RP.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...ric_a005b_r_50mm_f_1_05_lens_for.html/reviews
Take pictures where almost nothing is in focus ?
I am kinda real sure if it was hard I would not like doing it ?
--
Dr. says listen to this every morning.
Last edited:
2ndact scene1
Senior Member
I had an Olympus 12-45mm f/4 lens that I used exactly once for interior architectural images pre-pandemic. The HDR software I was using didn’t include lens corrections and the distortion at 12mm was highly visible, making the images unusable with my standard workflow. I guess I was spoiled by my Canon TS-E 24mm for which there are no corrections but minimal distortion also. I think I used Lightroom to re-process the Olympus images (or possibly DXO) to get better results but I didn’t use my Olympus gear for that purpose again and eventually sold it.I have yet to see a m4/3 lens with black corners and that much barrel distortion without software correction.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.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.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.
What I see now is that Canon is following the Olympus playbook and using software to overcome the results of budget focused lens designs. I suppose they have been doing that for a long time but they are pushing the envelope a lot harder now as high ISO speeds become more palatable via improved noise reduction software. That allows them to produce long lenses with f/11 or f/8 minimum apertures.
And I think the strategy is working. If you look at M4/3 right now for light weight gear, the budget end of the Canon line, especially with the R10/R7 bodies and the lower cost RF and RF-S lenses just introduced, is very competitive in terms of cost and features. The lenses also have the added benefit of possible dual use for both APS-C and Full Frame.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum