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

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.

Exactly. Although the new RF 24-50 is not a stellar performer (which is logical and OK for its price), it delivers very decent results considering its price. As for its purpose - entry level FF zoom kit lens - it is just fine.

If not sufficient then there are RFs 24-105 STM, 24-240, 24-105L, 24-70L or 28-70L. Enough options for everyone.

Canon_Guy 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.

Exactly. Although the new RF 24-50 is not a stellar performer (which is logical and OK for its price), it delivers very decent results considering its price. As for its purpose - entry level FF zoom kit lens - it is just fine.

If not sufficient then there are

You can't get an option that compact performing better.

RFs 24-105 STM, 24-240, 24-105L, 24-70L or 28-70L. Enough options for everyone.

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.

thunder storm wrote:

Canon_Guy 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.

Exactly. Although the new RF 24-50 is not a stellar performer (which is logical and OK for its price), it delivers very decent results considering its price. As for its purpose - entry level FF zoom kit lens - it is just fine.

If not sufficient then there are

You can't get an option that compact performing better.

Sure, still it is a result of a logical balance between size, optical quality, aperture size, zoom range and price.

RFs 24-105 STM, 24-240, 24-105L, 24-70L or 28-70L. Enough options for everyone.

pyla wrote:

MikeJ9116 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?

The R8 has me reevaluating whether I will buy a crop camera moving forward. It is small, lightweight, extremely capable and comes it at a very good price point. Plus, it negates the whole issue of whether Canon will provide a decent set of RF-S lenses. Right now if I had to choose the R8 or the R7 the R8 wins hands down.

I bought the R7 for 1650 Euros. When the R8 was announced at the same price as the R7, I started to regret my decision to buy the R7. I then went and checked the price of the R8. 1939 Euros!!!!! In the U.K. 1700 pounds or 1920 Euros/ 2049 dollars. That regret has now gone away.

I pre ordered the R8 for 1500€. It was available at the two big German retailers as part of a Superbowl special offer. With lens it cost ~1630€. I like.

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.

For travel, street, and landscape photography, which seem to be the main uses of this lens, I would much rather have the 4 extra mm at the wide end than 10 mm at the long end. For those use cases, shooting outdoors, during the day, the IQ difference should be minimal versus the Sony and Nikon versions.

Fjzk wrote:

For travel, street, and landscape photography, which seem to be the main uses of this lens, I would much rather have the 4 extra mm at the wide end than 10 mm at the long end. For those use cases, shooting outdoors, during the day, the IQ difference should be minimal versus the Sony and Nikon versions.

Yessir, just like the tire ad goes… “Wider ist Besser.”  

R2

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?

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.

That is right, not everyone does need, or could afford a "L"uxury Lens. But the mentioned 24-105/4-7.1 RF STM is really being underdesigned, and way slow from lens speed, too. It's less good, than even the RF 24-105/3.5-5.6 STM predecessor.

The truth is out here

It's a cheapskate Zoom, which goes 2nd hand for like 200 bucks, this clearly shows. The distortions speak also it's very own language - which is being digitally corrected via Body Firmware.

"In absolute terms, it's clearly a sub-standard lens. Its native characteristics range from good to downright terrible. The miserable vignetting and distortions have to be seen to be believed. Conversely, the resolution is actually pretty decent - which is a bit of a pity because you just won't use this lens without auto-correction."

"Of course, everything in life is a compromise, and the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 STM IS is all about making it possible to a budget. However, if you can stretch it, you'd really be better off with the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS. While more expensive, it's just a better investment."

Good light.