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

thunder storm wrote:

F119 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

charisgratia wrote:

drsnoopy 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?

As yet there are NO samples that I can find on dpreview or indeed anywhere else. You may not like the specifications, but it’s a bit premature to call it “worthless”. It would make a nice compact walk around solution with an RP/R8 size body. Not everyone needs - or can afford - a large aperture or L-level construction. The low cost 24-105 STM shows that Canon can make very good budget zooms.

There are a bunch of images taken with the RF 24-50 in the R8 sample gallery (e.g., images 10, 14, 15, 20, 22, 23, 31, 33, 36, 40, 53 & more... 35 images in total).

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1916332853/canon-eos-r8-sample-gallery/0277863660

Well, that's not for my R5. I'll skip this one. FE 28-60mm is definitely better.

For its price tag, I still think RF 24-50 performs OK, . Please don't forget that the 28-60 is marked 66% more expensive yet without any OSS.

In that focal range IBIS will work fine.

You missed F119's point. FE 28-60 is optically better since it has a different formula: it starts at 28mm which makes its optical design easier/cheaper. Extra 10mm f/5.6 at long end is easier to design than extra 4mm F/4 at the wide end. It has no IS which makes its optical and mechanical design easier/cheaper. And still the FE is notably more expensive which creates more room to use better optics.

So no wonder there that you assume it performs better. And only side by side comparison under controlled condition will tell if this assumption is correct and how big will be the possible difference.