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

MAC wrote:

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.

For me the RF 24mm f/1.8 stm any day.

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

That's the match made in heaven.

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

But it with the lens, and resell that lens asap. Some current RP owners will likely want it to get the most compact kit they can get.