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

I was wondering: Is the RF 24-50mm a serious threat for crop RF camera's?  The R7 will be fine as a teleconverter the luxe, but the R10 and R50 might get some competition from used RPs and Rs flooding the second hand market to be paired with this very compact RF 24-50mm.  The RF-s zooms are starting at 18mm (29ish equivalent), and the ef-m 15-45mm will never see future M bodies. A used R is only 1000 euro, and that price will even go down further in the future. That 24-50mm is 300 euro or so? 1300 euro.  Who's buying an R10 or R50 with this kind of competition around?

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?

Even at the same price (which is not!) I would pick my RP + RF 35mm f1.8 combo over an R8 with that sLowly 24-50mm anyday.

If 24-50 has good corners on R wide open then I might get one for fun.

RobertoHUN wrote:

fullframe body with a cr@p lens

BirdShooter7 wrote:

The R and RP lack the eye detection AF of the R10 and R50 and that alone would make me pass on them at this point.

Of course for your needs the newer cameras are better. For people, the RP eye detection is fine, and gladly I use it mostly for product photography

Foskito wrote:

Even at the same price (which is not!) I would pick my RP + RF 35mm f1.8 combo over an R8 with that sLowly 24-50mm anyday.

Sometimes I'm shooting my 24-70mm f/2.8 around f/7.1 for hours.  Those hours I would happily change to a light weight option as long as IQ is o.k. at those narrower apertures.

Even when you like a bright 35mm it doesn't necessarily hurt to have the option to change to a 24-70mm.  That's why I like ILCs.

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.

BirdShooter7 wrote:

The R and RP lack the eye detection AF of the R10 and R50

There's eye detection available, albeit not at the same level when it comes to tracking at certain speeds. For posed portraits it's fine.

and that alone would make me pass on them at this point.

And which fast focusing shallow DOF lens would you choose for the R10 or R50 to benefit from those fancy eye tracking capabilities?

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.

I would be very pleased if RobertoHUN would be so kind to give us a link to those samples.

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.

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.

I couldnt find any samples either. It might be decent optically but extremely slow for such a short range. I also have the 24-105 and love to play with its super macro capabilities, pretty unique

Foskito 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.

I couldnt find any samples either. It might be decent optically but extremely slow for such a short range.

Slow + short range could be promising for a small size + yet good IQ

I also have the 24-105 and love to play with its super macro capabilities, pretty unique

thunder storm wrote:

I was wondering: Is the RF 24-50mm a serious threat for crop RF camera's? The R7 will be fine as a teleconverter the luxe, but the R10 and R50 might get some competition from used RPs and Rs flooding the second hand market to be paired with this very compact RF 24-50mm. The RF-s zooms are starting at 18mm (29ish equivalent), and the ef-m 15-45mm will never see future M bodies. A used R is only 1000 euro, and that price will even go down further in the future. That 24-50mm is 300 euro or so? 1300 euro. Who's buying an R10 or R50 with this kind of competition around?

So the R10 smokes the RP and R with controls and autofocus capability - and has the "reach" (OK some purist will correct me) also for telephoto work.   Shooting CRAW and a fast card coupled with amazing eye tracking AF makes it a great action camera - kicking the R and RP, the latter is incredibly slow frames per second in servo mode.   No joystick on either of those cameras either.   R50 I'd not buy personally though but YMMV.

Agree re wide angle on zooms - why canon went for 18-45 not 15-45 is a mystery.  Long live the old M6II's in their retirement.

I might just buy the 24-50 for my R5 though if I can get a cheap mint used copy or grey import separated from a kit if the IQ is good.

KevinRA wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

I was wondering: Is the RF 24-50mm a serious threat for crop RF camera's? The R7 will be fine as a teleconverter the luxe, but the R10 and R50 might get some competition from used RPs and Rs flooding the second hand market to be paired with this very compact RF 24-50mm. The RF-s zooms are starting at 18mm (29ish equivalent), and the ef-m 15-45mm will never see future M bodies. A used R is only 1000 euro, and that price will even go down further in the future. That 24-50mm is 300 euro or so? 1300 euro. Who's buying an R10 or R50 with this kind of competition around?

So the R10 smokes the RP and R with controls and autofocus capability - and has the "reach" (OK some purist will correct me) also for telephoto work. Shooting CRAW and a fast card coupled with amazing eye tracking AF makes it a great action camera - kicking the R and RP,

And which fast focusing lens with an aperture sufficient to get fast shutter speeds for action shots still avoiding high ISO noise on those crop sensors did you have in mind to benefit from that great eye tracking AF of the R10 and R50?  Is that lens also providing a DOF - on that crop sensor - so thin face AF isn't sufficient making eye AF an absolute need?  And is that lens making eye tracking AF shine in the same price segment of that affordable crop body or rather 1.5, double or triple the price?

the latter is incredibly slow frames per second in servo mode. No joystick on either of those cameras either.

I hardly ever use the joystick on my R5 to be honest. Sometimes I prefer it over the touch screen, but often the touch screen works just as well if not better.

R50 I'd not buy personally though but YMMV.

Agree re wide angle on zooms - why canon went for 18-45 not 15-45 is a mystery. Long live the old M6II's in their retirement.

I've never used an 15-45mm on my M cameras anyway.  I also don't care for the 24mm equivalent perspective so much, but I know a lot of shooters do.

I might just buy the 24-50 for my R5 though if I can get a cheap mint used copy or grey import separated from a kit if the IQ is good.

Yeah, same here.  I don't care if I have to stop down till around f/7.1 or f/8.0 or so, but at that point I don't want to skimp too much on the IQ.  The other option is the 28-60mm for my A7IV. Of just stick with the 24-70mm and the peak design capture.

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

I examine those samples closely, and that lens's IQ is terrible.

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.

Foskito 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

I examine those samples closely, and that lens's IQ is terrible.

That was my conclusion as well. In Canon land compact is the same as cheap and low end.