-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
R8 / RF28 initial thoughts
- Thread starter RLight
- Start date
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,669
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,958
So you don't need anything between the 24mm and the 100-400mm when playing with the R8?The R50 gets to be a content creators camera.I remember Dustin Abbott being quite critical on the IS of the 100-400mm.My RF 24mm is sharp wide open but the IS is the best !I can make another if you’d like? It’ll be a mixed bag though.2nd most popular camera right now on the DPR Most Popular Cameras list is the R50. Most popular is the a6700 for sure.The RF 24-105 stm doesn't need a whole lot of lens changes either, and if you keep the aperture around f/8.0 or so IQ will be fine, especially at 24Mp only. In terms of aperture equivalence that's about the same as using an aps-c lens around f/5.3 or so. Beats the RF 18-45mm at the wide end, the long end, and for equivalent aperture, even when stopped down for best IQ.the best pictures he has taken are with the R8 + 28 - his most used setup these days28+50mm stm primes + RF 100-400mm is maybe a better idea?Yes, the 28 / R8 get along with me.I managed to get the 35 1.8 on some Amazon deal for almost USD price here in U.K. (not grey market, registers fine on Canon U.K. website)As I said, SOOC is a treat from the R8.It's uncanny how well exposed and well rendered this came out SOOC ! Most of the image is just shadows.
Candid test, f/2.8
The R50 is similar btw, but, with less interesting lenses. That 28 does scratch the itch. A 35 1.8 should, too.
Hopefully will get to try the 28 this weekend. Quite like the 35 on R8 with the IS … but the focusing action seems a bit last gen… not a deal breaker though.
Anyways, not to detract from the main topic, you seem to be getting along fine with the 28 I guess ? Sample images look pretty good and the setup is almost M compact.
—C
The rest of the system? That’s the rub. The 28 goes a long ways though as the pancake only solution is arguably my most heavily used and 28 agrees more than a 35 fov. The other being the 18-150, which the 24-240, is just much bigger. I do get FF quality but I get FF footprint too.
I agree there's no light weight good quality normal zoom. F/4.0 L is the best option, but that's still 700ish g. My f1.2 prime is only 60g more...
Yup.
Good zooms come with a footprint. M-zooms are compact, but, let's face it, those are no competion to full frame zooms. At that point I would even prefer 24-105 stm and go 24-105 + 100-400mm.
and when he had the R50 + RF-s 55-210
There is nothing wrong with carrying both -- no lens changes - MULTIPLES as I've said.
I've used the 55-250mm stm on M next to the R + 24-70mm f/2.8. Been there, done that. Now I have the Sigma 100-400mm contemporary it's either full frame telephoto or no telephoto, simply because the IQ of the full frame lens is much much better. The RF version weights a lot less. It gives you 400mm, which is more than 210*1.6. The best thing about it a 100-400mm: you can leave it at home and use the 24-105mm only. That's the disadvantage of the 24-240mm: you can't split it. Sure, the 55-210mm is more compact than the 100-400mm, but it will always add the weight of that R50 as well. An single R8 weights less, and the aps-c equivalence of that 28mm pancake would be 17.5mm f/1.8. If that's your minimum requirement you would need to go Sigma 16mm f/1.4 on aps-c, which is over 3 times the weight of the 28mm, and that one doesn't fit the R50 anyway.
Aps-c is dead. Ef-m has better prime options than full frame RF, but Ef-m is discontinued. RF crop bodies are worse than full frame RF bodies because of the lack of RF-s options. Sony has better compact lenses for full frame than aps-c, because of the overwhelming amount of full frame glass options.
Again, aps-c is dead.
R50 only has a user review. One.
Too long didn’t read; great body, poor, lens options.
My RF-S 18-150mm also very good IS.
Same with my RF 100-400mm. Great IS.
I love the IS of my 85mm f/2.0 IS stm. It's my only RF lens, and it's one of my best two ILIS systems. The other one is the Sigma 70-200mm ff/2.8 Sports, that one has impressive ILIS as well, although it is EF and third party. It's a heavy beast though.
That modern ILIS is nice. The weakness of my lens collection: it's heavily dependent on IBIS.I am so sold on modern RF lens IS that I will put up with a lot of other things for sure !
For low light needs I would add the 35mm for the R8 in stead of going 24mm on the R50.Sometimes I think I could do with just those 3 lenses. And a R8 too.
No doubt many do it to make money and are pro photographers.
Mine is stuck on a tripod doing product photography and making pictures that sell.
I find the Canon R50 to be very good product photography camera.
MPB sold me one for $540. For the price it is the best product photography camera with in camera focus stacking, great SOOC JPEGs and all I am thinking.
R8 will be for play. R50s at work.
--
Dr. says listen to this every morning.
--
R2D2
Forum Pro
+1 This is indeed a great division of labor. You don’t need all those extra capabilities for general product photography, esp if it’s only going to for instance a web catalog. A simple camera shooting jpegs is extremely efficient!
In the studio I actually dedicate an M6 w/18-55 kit lens for this task. My R6ii covers everything else there! :-D
R2
I’m thinking R6II+R8…Obsessions with both the best capable and the most compact stuff are legit, but 2x R6II in stead of R3+R8 would greatly simplify the kit without a huge penalty.I truly despise more than two bodies. And I need something bigger for my larger Ls…this is saying a lotYes, the 28 / R8 get along with me.I managed to get the 35 1.8 on some Amazon deal for almost USD price here in U.K. (not grey market, registers fine on Canon U.K. website)As I said, SOOC is a treat from the R8.It's uncanny how well exposed and well rendered this came out SOOC ! Most of the image is just shadows.
Candid test, f/2.8
The R50 is similar btw, but, with less interesting lenses. That 28 does scratch the itch. A 35 1.8 should, too.
Hopefully will get to try the 28 this weekend. Quite like the 35 on R8 with the IS … but the focusing action seems a bit last gen… not a deal breaker though.
Anyways, not to detract from the main topic, you seem to be getting along fine with the 28 I guess ? Sample images look pretty good and the setup is almost M compact.
—C
The rest of the system? That’s the rub. The 28 goes a long ways though as the pancake only solution is arguably
my most heavily used
think of it as a better than FUJIFILM X100V
take it everywhere
agree, it's better than FUJIFILM X100V 35 mm FOV
understood - take it also when you need too, along with the 11-22
multiples
each's
sometimes take one, sometimes take two
minimize lens changes
Just one R8 and a "laser printer produced screw on bigger maker" might do as well for all the lenses.
--
Bingo!I’m thinking R6II+R8…Obsessions with both the best capable and the most compact stuff are legit, but 2x R6II in stead of R3+R8 would greatly simplify the kit without a huge penalty.I truly despise more than two bodies. And I need something bigger for my larger Ls…this is saying a lotYes, the 28 / R8 get along with me.I managed to get the 35 1.8 on some Amazon deal for almost USD price here in U.K. (not grey market, registers fine on Canon U.K. website)As I said, SOOC is a treat from the R8.It's uncanny how well exposed and well rendered this came out SOOC ! Most of the image is just shadows.
Candid test, f/2.8
The R50 is similar btw, but, with less interesting lenses. That 28 does scratch the itch. A 35 1.8 should, too.
Hopefully will get to try the 28 this weekend. Quite like the 35 on R8 with the IS … but the focusing action seems a bit last gen… not a deal breaker though.
Anyways, not to detract from the main topic, you seem to be getting along fine with the 28 I guess ? Sample images look pretty good and the setup is almost M compact.
—C
The rest of the system? That’s the rub. The 28 goes a long ways though as the pancake only solution is arguably
my most heavily used
think of it as a better than FUJIFILM X100V
take it everywhere
agree, it's better than FUJIFILM X100V 35 mm FOV
understood - take it also when you need too, along with the 11-22
multiples
each's
sometimes take one, sometimes take two
minimize lens changes
Just one R8 and a "laser printer produced screw on bigger maker" might do as well for all the lenses.
m100
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 2,744
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,600
Right ? What is up with that ?I remember Dustin Abbott being quite critical on the IS of the 100-400mm.My RF 24mm is sharp wide open but the IS is the best !I can make another if you’d like? It’ll be a mixed bag though.2nd most popular camera right now on the DPR Most Popular Cameras list is the R50. Most popular is the a6700 for sure.The RF 24-105 stm doesn't need a whole lot of lens changes either, and if you keep the aperture around f/8.0 or so IQ will be fine, especially at 24Mp only. In terms of aperture equivalence that's about the same as using an aps-c lens around f/5.3 or so. Beats the RF 18-45mm at the wide end, the long end, and for equivalent aperture, even when stopped down for best IQ.the best pictures he has taken are with the R8 + 28 - his most used setup these days28+50mm stm primes + RF 100-400mm is maybe a better idea?Yes, the 28 / R8 get along with me.I managed to get the 35 1.8 on some Amazon deal for almost USD price here in U.K. (not grey market, registers fine on Canon U.K. website)As I said, SOOC is a treat from the R8.It's uncanny how well exposed and well rendered this came out SOOC ! Most of the image is just shadows.
Candid test, f/2.8
The R50 is similar btw, but, with less interesting lenses. That 28 does scratch the itch. A 35 1.8 should, too.
Hopefully will get to try the 28 this weekend. Quite like the 35 on R8 with the IS … but the focusing action seems a bit last gen… not a deal breaker though.
Anyways, not to detract from the main topic, you seem to be getting along fine with the 28 I guess ? Sample images look pretty good and the setup is almost M compact.
—C
The rest of the system? That’s the rub. The 28 goes a long ways though as the pancake only solution is arguably my most heavily used and 28 agrees more than a 35 fov. The other being the 18-150, which the 24-240, is just much bigger. I do get FF quality but I get FF footprint too.
I agree there's no light weight good quality normal zoom. F/4.0 L is the best option, but that's still 700ish g. My f1.2 prime is only 60g more...
Yup.
Good zooms come with a footprint. M-zooms are compact, but, let's face it, those are no competion to full frame zooms. At that point I would even prefer 24-105 stm and go 24-105 + 100-400mm.
and when he had the R50 + RF-s 55-210
There is nothing wrong with carrying both -- no lens changes - MULTIPLES as I've said.
I've used the 55-250mm stm on M next to the R + 24-70mm f/2.8. Been there, done that. Now I have the Sigma 100-400mm contemporary it's either full frame telephoto or no telephoto, simply because the IQ of the full frame lens is much much better. The RF version weights a lot less. It gives you 400mm, which is more than 210*1.6. The best thing about it a 100-400mm: you can leave it at home and use the 24-105mm only. That's the disadvantage of the 24-240mm: you can't split it. Sure, the 55-210mm is more compact than the 100-400mm, but it will always add the weight of that R50 as well. An single R8 weights less, and the aps-c equivalence of that 28mm pancake would be 17.5mm f/1.8. If that's your minimum requirement you would need to go Sigma 16mm f/1.4 on aps-c, which is over 3 times the weight of the 28mm, and that one doesn't fit the R50 anyway.
Aps-c is dead. Ef-m has better prime options than full frame RF, but Ef-m is discontinued. RF crop bodies are worse than full frame RF bodies because of the lack of RF-s options. Sony has better compact lenses for full frame than aps-c, because of the overwhelming amount of full frame glass options.
Again, aps-c is dead.
R50 only has a user review. One.
Too long didn’t read; great body, poor, lens options.
My RF-S 18-150mm also very good IS.
Same with my RF 100-400mm. Great IS.
He said that he found the stabilization to be effective though not magical – getting stable shots at 1/15th of a second at 150mm was possible but not consistent in the RF-s 18-150mm review .
Not on my R50 with my RF-s 18-150mm. 1/15 sec at 150mm no problem.
It is because he is using a R7 ? He only tests one sample ?
--
Dr. says listen to this every morning.
Last edited:
Rock and Rollei
Veteran Member
Well I won an Amazon voucher in a competition, and the RF 28 appeared on Amazon the same day, so what the Heck, I was feeling GASsy and it's just turned up.
First thought is something that I don't recall being mentioned - how good the feel of the ring is in manual focus. Very nicely weighted.
Apart from that, testing will have to wait until tomorrow, but I think it looks like fun.
First thought is something that I don't recall being mentioned - how good the feel of the ring is in manual focus. Very nicely weighted.
Apart from that, testing will have to wait until tomorrow, but I think it looks like fun.
Another longtime Canon shooter here who just got RF28mm to be used with R8. I god rid of M series few years ago because it was just too small for my hands. RP and R8 is much nicer to use and now with RF28mm I have also one small lens to pair with it, when RF24-240mm is too much. Most of the time I will still carry R5 and RF 28-70mm f/2 with me, this is for those times when I really need to go with lighter setup.
After one photowalk I must say that I like this and it is a definite keeper. I did not found anything negative about it when I took price of the lens in to account.
The RF 28 and RF 16mm pancakes are very good with the R8. Just thought I'd add we'll get there on a formal write-up one of these days on the state of say an R8 upending my M setup.
Now granted, I still think the M system is peak-compactness. But, you are making some tradeoffs by both staying M, or, going R8 and some RF pancakes... But it's not a bad trade. The RF 16mm does a good job at wide angle duty, despite not being a zoom or having IS like the 11-22. Likewise, the 28mm pancake does a good job too vs say the EF-M 22mm pancake... They're both suitable "replacements" is the short answer of a full write-up.
Now this doesn't speak to other lenses though.
Now granted, I still think the M system is peak-compactness. But, you are making some tradeoffs by both staying M, or, going R8 and some RF pancakes... But it's not a bad trade. The RF 16mm does a good job at wide angle duty, despite not being a zoom or having IS like the 11-22. Likewise, the 28mm pancake does a good job too vs say the EF-M 22mm pancake... They're both suitable "replacements" is the short answer of a full write-up.
Now this doesn't speak to other lenses though.
Last edited:
the RF 24-105 F4L IS is a lens that the M system doesn't even come close
the RF 85 F2 IS is a lens that beats the siggy 56 because it has IS and the AF and speed of the R8
M4Mobility
Veteran Member
Rock and Rollei
Veteran Member
Yup. I love the 24-105, but it weighs about 50% more than the M6 II and 15-45 combined, or as much as the M6 II, 18-150 and 22 combined.
It's a silly comparison really, because they're such different compromises.
I love both lenses. Both excellent, and really good value for money. The RF lens has IS and the near macro ability. The Siggy is much smaller and lighter. Depending on your use scenario, either can beat the other. There's no clear winner in absolute terms, as ever, equipment choice is about deciding the right compromise for the individual and their needs.You are right. The M system does not have anything as large and heavy as that. Far from it.
I prefer the Sigma 56, because it is way smaller, almost half the weight and has excellent IQ.
you keep buying both
unless you save money and simplify and don't buy both
no need to keep buying bothI love both lenses. Both excellent, and really good value for money. The RF lens has IS and the near macro ability. The Siggy is much smaller and lighter. Depending on your use scenario, either can beat the other. There's no clear winner in absolute terms, as ever, equipment choice is about deciding the right compromise for the individual and their needs.You are right. The M system does not have anything as large and heavy as that. Far from it.
I prefer the Sigma 56, because it is way smaller, almost half the weight and has excellent IQ.
Rock and Rollei
Veteran Member
Don't need to, I've already got both.you keep buying both
Save money yes; simplify? Not so sure it does.unless you save money and simplify and don't buy both
Indeed, because again, I've already got both.no need to keep buying bothI love both lenses. Both excellent, and really good value for money. The RF lens has IS and the near macro ability. The Siggy is much smaller and lighter. Depending on your use scenario, either can beat the other. There's no clear winner in absolute terms, as ever, equipment choice is about deciding the right compromise for the individual and their needs.You are right. The M system does not have anything as large and heavy as that. Far from it.
I prefer the Sigma 56, because it is way smaller, almost half the weight and has excellent IQ.
got itDon't need to, I've already got both.you keep buying both
Save money yes; simplify? Not so sure it does.unless you save money and simplify and don't buy both
Indeed, because again, I've already got both.no need to keep buying bothI love both lenses. Both excellent, and really good value for money. The RF lens has IS and the near macro ability. The Siggy is much smaller and lighter. Depending on your use scenario, either can beat the other. There's no clear winner in absolute terms, as ever, equipment choice is about deciding the right compromise for the individual and their needs.You are right. The M system does not have anything as large and heavy as that. Far from it.
I prefer the Sigma 56, because it is way smaller, almost half the weight and has excellent IQ.
question for you, if you had nothing, and were to invest today, would you buy both?
my answer is the R8 has changed everything for me, no more m purchases
Having used the R8 for several months now, I really have no complaints about it. I knew its compromises before I bought and I haven't found any others so far. In fact, it has made me realize the compromises I thought it had aren't really a compromise at all. The R8 has been the most satisfying experience I have had with buying a new camera in the digital era. It has far exceeded my expectations.
The R8 is such a unique FF camera that it made me rethink, and change, my whole approach to the gear I will be using moving forward.got itDon't need to, I've already got both.you keep buying both
Save money yes; simplify? Not so sure it does.unless you save money and simplify and don't buy both
Indeed, because again, I've already got both.no need to keep buying bothI love both lenses. Both excellent, and really good value for money. The RF lens has IS and the near macro ability. The Siggy is much smaller and lighter. Depending on your use scenario, either can beat the other. There's no clear winner in absolute terms, as ever, equipment choice is about deciding the right compromise for the individual and their needs.You are right. The M system does not have anything as large and heavy as that. Far from it.
I prefer the Sigma 56, because it is way smaller, almost half the weight and has excellent IQ.
question for you, if you had nothing, and were to invest today, would you buy both?
my answer is the R8 has changed everything for me, no more m purchases
Rock and Rollei
Veteran Member
Thought you would.got itDon't need to, I've already got both.you keep buying both
Save money yes; simplify? Not so sure it does.unless you save money and simplify and don't buy both
Indeed, because again, I've already got both.no need to keep buying bothI love both lenses. Both excellent, and really good value for money. The RF lens has IS and the near macro ability. The Siggy is much smaller and lighter. Depending on your use scenario, either can beat the other. There's no clear winner in absolute terms, as ever, equipment choice is about deciding the right compromise for the individual and their needs.You are right. The M system does not have anything as large and heavy as that. Far from it.
I prefer the Sigma 56, because it is way smaller, almost half the weight and has excellent IQ.
It's a good question, and I'm not sure I actually know the answer - it's actually not far from what I'm asking myself about what I'm going to do over the next few years. Right now, the answer is probably yes. I'm travelling by air, cabin baggage only, several times a year; R just can't match M in ultimate size, so M still wins here. Would I buy as much M kit as I have? No, probably not. I need Rs (currently R and R6) for my paid work, and that woudn't change - at the extemes of low light, full frame wins every time. But I'm looking to retire in probably 2 years. At that point, we're planning to actually drive a lot more on tours, rather than fly, so the ultimate in compactness doesn't matter, and that's where I think my ideal setup would be an R5 and an R8 - lots of pixels for serious landscapes etc, a lovely light and highly capable camera for carry round.
Thought you would.got itDon't need to, I've already got both.you keep buying both
Save money yes; simplify? Not so sure it does.unless you save money and simplify and don't buy both
Indeed, because again, I've already got both.no need to keep buying bothI love both lenses. Both excellent, and really good value for money. The RF lens has IS and the near macro ability. The Siggy is much smaller and lighter. Depending on your use scenario, either can beat the other. There's no clear winner in absolute terms, as ever, equipment choice is about deciding the right compromise for the individual and their needs.You are right. The M system does not have anything as large and heavy as that. Far from it.
I prefer the Sigma 56, because it is way smaller, almost half the weight and has excellent IQ.
interesting
understood
I'm now retired also
agree, will be interesting also to see what the R5II brings, I'd personally like to see the 32.5 mpxl sensor upscaled to 32.5 * 1.6 *1.6 = 83.2 Mpxl FF camera that would shoot 32.5 Mpxl in the crop mode
That FF reach might get me to buy one. We shall see! The R8 does give so much of the differentiation between ILC cameras and smartphone cameras in such a light low-cost solution. You get the speed/responsiveness (events, sports, wildlife), DR (print-able portraits and landscape) and massive lens selection. To me it is a great companion to a high quality smartphone and clearly provides capabilities a smartphone still doesn't.got itDon't need to, I've already got both.you keep buying both
Save money yes; simplify? Not so sure it does.unless you save money and simplify and don't buy both
Indeed, because again, I've already got both.no need to keep buying bothI love both lenses. Both excellent, and really good value for money. The RF lens has IS and the near macro ability. The Siggy is much smaller and lighter. Depending on your use scenario, either can beat the other. There's no clear winner in absolute terms, as ever, equipment choice is about deciding the right compromise for the individual and their needs.You are right. The M system does not have anything as large and heavy as that. Far from it.
I prefer the Sigma 56, because it is way smaller, almost half the weight and has excellent IQ.
question for you, if you had nothing, and were to invest today, would you buy both?
my answer is the R8 has changed everything for me, no more m purchases
Meanwhile, smartphones continually raise the bar for everything else as they are with you anyway and getting better every year.
Pixel 7 Pro
Pixel 7 Pro
Pixel 5a
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum