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

thunder storm wrote:

Dave King 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?

Do this: open the jpeg link on image 23 in the R8 sample gallery

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1916332853/canon-eos-r8-sample-gallery/5690368506

click the jpeg link on the right and after it uploads click on her face to enlarge.

This lens is not super high res, but it is far from horrible. Seems to me the problem with this lens is that it is slooow, which I'd guess explains the variability in the sample gallery image quality.

We all know it's not impossible these days to make a cheap mid focal length lens that is pretty darn good optically. This lens appears to fall into that category. It's plastic, has a plastic mount, it's cheap. Optically it appears to be pretty good, but perhaps inconsistent because because it is slow.

To me the jury is still out. Put it on a tripod in a studio with strobes and see what it does. Or outdoors in axis light on a tripod. And if you don't get that quality in random handheld perhaps the blame is not the optics, its the slow max aperture.

It's all about shutter speeds and stabilization. You can see the shutter speeds of the dpreview samples. Can't be the problem for all pictures imo.

Some of those shots that do not look sharp are at ISO 640 and 1/80, enough for clean and sharp images. I still believe that lens is subpar.

In the same gallery, there are samples from other lenses that look notoriously better.