Is the RF 24-50mm a serious threat for crop RF camera's?

KevinRA wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

That one doesn't have the max aperture to shoot action at decent high ISO noise levels on a crop camera.

My EF 500mm f/4L IS USM and EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM also work beautifully with it.

I believe you, but those lenses aren't in the same price segment as the bodies. When owning these lenses the R7 would be the natural choice I guess.

After getting used to the eye-tracking offered by Digic X I really have no motivation to own any of the older cameras.

I get that, but when on a budget you don't have the lenses to benefit from fast eye tracking AF anyway. Either the aperture is too dark for action on crop or the stm AF is too slow, and sometimes both. The RP and especially the R will at least bump up the IQ with lenses like the 24-105mm stm or 35mm f/1.8 stm or even the 50mm stm at landscape apertures. Slow AF, yes, but better IQ. With the R50 and R10 it's worse IQ, but still slow AF or too dark apertures for action on crop unless you're jumping to f/2.8 USM options. At that point - financially - the R8 + RF 24-240mm makes more sense imo, as that sensor can handle higher ISO values for shooting action making up for the dark aperture, while the USM AF unlocks the full potential of that Digic X processor.

So one is looking a 1 stop noise penalty really with R10 vs RP - so it has to be pretty low light to make a huge difference - and only ever one stop difference in noise. I know this is not a DxO or Topaz thread - but these packages have given me back at least one stop of light vs my use or lightroom only before.

IQ is more than just noise levels, and shooting situations aren't limited to low light situations. In good light the RP will be better than the R10. In low light situations (or action at dark apertures) it's the R8 making a difference to the R10, not the RP.

If you don't need the 24mm focal length then R10 + 18-150 is pretty good and cheaper than R8 plus 24-240.

It would be interesting to watch a comparison between R10 + 18-150mm, R8 + 24-240 and R + 24-240mm.

The attraction on the latter for me is 24mm...... Shame also the RF 24mm f/1.8 is quite expensive

not to mention the not so prime like distortion

- the 16mm f/2.8 works nicely on the R10 though.

That's 25.6mm equivalent, not a true 24mm.

And I'd take the 35mm f/1.8 on crop ahead of the 50mm f/1.8 on FF unless shallow DoF but the IQ not amazing on the latter at f/1.8.

Something being better than the RF 50mm f/1.8 stm isn't necessarily the same as something being great. That 35mm is probably the best of the non L RF primes, and yeah, that might kind of work on crop, however, we had the 32mm f/1.4 on M, that was the best portable 50mm field of view lens Canon has ever made. The rest is pretty boring imo.

I went with the A7IV to get nice 50&85mm lenses.

The good news is we have choice now - noiser but brilliant AF crop cameras which can be DxO'd, more budget friendly but slow full frame - and top end super fast full frame excelling at all