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

Canon_Guy wrote:

MAC wrote:

Canon_Guy wrote:

Foskito wrote:

Fjzk wrote:

KEG wrote:

RobertoHUN wrote:

Judging by the dpreview samples, the RF 24-50 is absolutely worthless, I'd rather buy a cheaper body and some better lenses. What's the point of using a fullframe body with a cr@p lens?

Hyperbole like yours makes me want to purchase it, chances are that it is less compromized than 24-105 stm.

Just saw the dpreview samples with the R8, it could work for day time travel photography. It was a quick look using my cell but is the IQ from this lens really any worse than the IQ from other similar entry level kit lenses?

I saw those 24-50mm samples on my 27" monitor and they look bad, there is one picture of a couple walking to the camera that seems to be out of focus, so I don't know if it is the user's error or the lens is really that unsharp.

That picture is apparently motion blur affected.

aka- we shouldn't be so harsh on the lens just yet -- need production lenses, proper settings and shooting raw

All the samples are shot in RAW + JPG. And I am sure Richard and Chris can set the camera properly ;-).

got it

image #36 shows good sharpnesss in the bricks at f6.3 across the frame but even at ss 1/200, her foot in motion is blurred

I think this 24-50 puppy lens was meant to provide wide enough and light weight enough  --  view for vloggers on a gimble.

I'm sticking with my RF 24-105 F4 L when I get the R8

though canon may play the 3+ extra months game and service the kit buyers first like they did with the R7 body only buyers