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

Dave King wrote:

Dave King wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Dave King wrote:

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.

You only need to see one good image to know optics are not horrible.

The average of all images may not be good, if so, and if you already know optics are not horrible, the problem is not optics. With a slow lens, handheld, you're shooting a larger

smaller

aperture with shallower

not shallower, deeper

DOF and higher

lower

probability of slight misfocus. And you're shooting longer shutter speeds

A slow lens doesn't cause longer shutter speeds, as you can simply use auto ISO eventually combined with a minimum shutter speed.

which means slight movement of subject or camera is more likely.

It's just about the shutter speeds, and these are shown with the samples provided.

at longer shutter speeds.

You are right, I wasn't clear, I meant larger aperture relative to the end stops on that specific lens. Lenses are generally sharpest 2-3 stops down (but not expensive apos), and that very probably applies to this lens too.

Yep auto ISO, but I saw a lot of shots that were are 1/30 1/60. There isn't much cushion there with handheld.

And if the optics are good in ideal conditions they are good, variations from "best" level have to be attributed to other factors.

that wasn't clear either, what I meant was many of the shots were close to wide open.

Yeah, o.k., that's a good point. Imo a lens should be at it's sweet spot at least at f/8.0 no matter how dark the max aperture is.  I also have never seen a lens performing significantly better at f/11.0  than f/8.0  (beside the 600&800mm f/11 primes   ).  I did see at least one shot in the dpreview samples at f/8.0, and that one didn't look great either. Theoretically it's possible the lens performs a lot better at f/9.0, but that would be a big surprise to me.

And ISO on many of the shots was also on the low side.

Anyway I'm not trying to give an impression that I'm going to run out and get this lens.

I think it's nice to have such a compact zoom, and it's also nice it's as wide as 24mm, but the price is probably too low to make it great value for money.

I got the EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM as a non distorted compact option and there's and EF 50mm f/1.8 stm around as well. I can also add the 40mm f/2.8 stm and the 35mm f/2.0 IS USM to the bag. I've sold the 24mm f/2.8 IS USM as I don't like that focal length so much. Around f/5.6 with a drop in polarizer filter those aging primes will do a whole lot better job than this brand new zoom.