Canon to announce RF 24-50mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM this month

[FabFR]

Honestly, sounds like a super cheap kit-lens which drives customer back to the store just two days after a camera purchase in order to get a capable and/ or versatile lens...

Zoom range is extremely small, aperture is pretty dark... it must be super cheap (less than the 50mm F1.8 imho) and extremely small. Otherwise, this lens will be irrelevant.

Sure it will be a basic quality lens and low price, but that's just a plug for a new low end 24x36 body soon (RP replacement ?)...
As far as marketing and prices are concerned, the price for a cheap FF camera kit is strategic. If owners hesitate on lens choices at the beginning, they'll have the possibility to point and shoot immediately ! Then, they'll be free to buy other better lenses, of course... and Canon will be happy too!!

 

[entoman]

Honestly, sounds like a super cheap kit-lens which drives customer back to the store just two days after a camera purchase in order to get a capable and/ or versatile lens...

Zoom range is extremely small, aperture is pretty dark... it must be super cheap (less than the 50mm F1.8 imho) and extremely small. Otherwise, this lens will be irrelevant.

Maybe it sounds like that, but don't underestimate what Canon can produce - Their 600mm F11, 800mm F11 and 100-400mm F5.6-8 lenses all fall into the budget, low-specification category, but all are excellent and more than capable of making the most of the R5 sensor. I can barely distinguish the difference in sharpness between my RF100-500mm and my RF100-400mm. Many of the other budget lenses are also very underrated - the 85mm F2 macro, 16mm F2.8 and 24mm F1.8 also turn in very good performances, assisted by Canon's firmware corrections.

 

[nunataks]

The only good thing about this lens coming out is other brands have released an entry level full frame camera along with it (hopefully this is our RP successor).

 

[Skux]

I may be interested, but only if it's a pancake.

 

[entoman]

I may be interested, but only if it's a pancake.

More likely IMO to be a retractable lens.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

All I would care about is the imagine quality. f/6.3 would be okay, as I use f/8 and f/11 anyway.

 

[Gino_FOTO]

Against smartphones with smartphone\' like results?
Lenses like this somewhat degrades concept of a full frame cameras.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Although this is pretty slow, it's equivalent to a 15-32 F2.8-4 crop lens.

I wasn't aware that the f-number changes when one uses a full-frame lens on crop sensor camera. Is there a formula to calculate the difference in the f-number?

 

[Frodo]

I owned a Zoom-Nikkor 24-50mm f/3.3-4.5 in the late 80's. It was a relatively small and lightweight lens that I took hiking. The zoom range covered 3 key focal lengths and the aperture was adequate. Clearly the limited aperture of the RF lens lens means the target audience does not include me.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I wasn't aware that the f-number changes when one uses a full-frame lens on crop sensor camera. Is there a formula to calculate the difference in the f-number?

Perhaps @Alastair Norcross was implying use of a speed booster, in which case you simply multiply the aperture by the reduction factor of the speed booster (e.g. 0.71x). However, this is an RF lens and I'm not aware of a speed booster that uses an RF lens (rather, they are used to mount FF lenses for DSLRs on a MILC; Canon even makes one for EF-RF, intended for the C70 but why not use it on an R7 or R10?).

If he's just referring to the effect of a crop vs. FF sensor, he's done the math backwards...

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Maybe it sounds like that, but don't underestimate what Canon can produce - Their 600mm F11, 800mm F11 and 100-400mm F5.6-8 lenses all fall into the budget, low-specification category, but all are excellent and more than capable of making the most of the R5 sensor. I can barely distinguish the difference in sharpness between my RF100-500mm and my RF100-400mm. Many of the other budget lenses are also very underrated - the 85mm F2 macro, 16mm F2.8 and 24mm F1.8 also turn in very good performances, assisted by Canon's firmware corrections.

Yeah, you're right about the IQ of some lenses. I saw a few reviews between the 85mm F2 and 85mm F1.2 and the IQ seemed to be very close to each other. For the 600mm F11, I personally found the IQ is lower than the IQ of the RF 100-500mm, especially when you start cropping. I am eagerly waiting to test the RF 100-400mm because a lot of people are raving about it
But still, wouldn't the 24-105mm F4-7.1 be a good enough kit lense? If this one is smaller, the starting aperture narrower (and let's face it: 6.3 at 50mm as maximum aperture sounds very low) and cheaper, I figure it'll be less capable than the 24-105mm F4-7.1 and that doesn't seem to be intriguing.

 

[Sporgon]

If he's just referring to the effect of a crop vs. FF sensor, he's done the math backwards...

I think he means that that lens he mentions on a crop camera would give the same dof as this proposed lens on FF ?

Actually if this new lens doesn’t require and use excessive digital corrections, and is designed sufficiently to produce the results optically, I’d be very interested in it as a hiking lens. The problem I have with the RP is that as soon as I put any lens on it other than a small prime, I might as well just use a 5D.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think he means that that lens he mentions on a crop camera would give the same dof as this proposed lens on FF ?

Gotcha.

 

[splatrabbit]

I'd love to see something similar to the Sony A7C with a compact lens like this.

 

[Antono Refa]

I don't see a slow 24-50mm living in the shadow of the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 at $399. Maybe a 24-70mm f/5.6

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don't see a slow 24-50mm living in the shadow of the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 at $399. Maybe a 24-70mm f/5.6

The 24-105 non-L adds $300 to the RP as a kit. The RF-S 18-45 adds $130 to the R10 as a kit. For an $800 FF camera, a slow 24-50 means the kit price lands under $1000. I'd say that's a bright light, not a shadow.

 

[entoman]

Yeah, you're right about the IQ of some lenses. I saw a few reviews between the 85mm F2 and 85mm F1.2 and the IQ seemed to be very close to each other. For the 600mm F11, I personally found the IQ is lower than the IQ of the RF 100-500mm, especially when you start cropping. I am eagerly waiting to test the RF 100-400mm because a lot of people are raving about it
But still, wouldn't the 24-105mm F4-7.1 be a good enough kit lense? If this one is smaller, the starting aperture narrower (and let's face it: 6.3 at 50mm as maximum aperture sounds very low) and cheaper, I figure it'll be less capable than the 24-105mm F4-7.1 and that doesn't seem to be intriguing.

Personally, for telephoto and macro work, where the subject is typically fairly central in the frame, I'd have no hesitation in using the budget RF lenses.

The 100-400mm is a huge bargain, super sharp, fast focusing, compact, light, has excellent IS, and focuses down to half life-size. I use it far more often than my 100-500mm, the latter being reserved for animal photography on safari, or bird photography from a hide, where I need a wider max aperture, and the extra size and weight aren't an inconvenience.

The 800/11 is also excellent and is my go-to lens for bird photography in the tropics, where the bright light means that I don't have to be worried about the limitations of an F11 lens.

I probably wouldn't get the 16mm, as it would be used exclusively for landscape work where I need the highest edge to edge sharpness and detail rendering. *When* I can afford it, I'll go for the 14-35mm L, but in the meantime the T/S-E 24mm and 24-105mm F4L serve me well enough.

A friend of mine has the 24-105mm F4-7.1 on his R6, and from what I've seen of his photographs, the sharpness is probably good enough for non-critical use and yes it makes an excellent kit lens for anyone on a tight budget.

I think the 24-50mm will be a retractable zoom, and that the limited zoom range and aperture are indicative of two things - firstly that it will be very small and light, and secondly that it will be very affordable. It's almost certainly intended as a bottom end kit lens for the bottom end RF bodies, and I think it will *only* be sold as part of a kit.

 

[MartinVLC]

There is still not a single fast zoom (2.8) for less 2000 $/€ and canon releases a 24-50 4.5-6.3 lense, WTF? When will there be a 24/28 - 70/75 mm 2.8 for around 1000 $/€? Or affordable 1.4 primes? That´s what is missing, not yet another f 6.3 lense ot another 3000 $ + lense.

 

[SwissFrank]

Still no 35 1.2 L?
Hopefully we get some news at CP+

Still no 35 1.0 L?
Hopefully we get some news at CP+

 

[MartinVLC]

The only way that this lense makes sense is if Canon releases a very compact entry level full frame body that´s a succesor to the rp maybe even without viewfinder. I still hope that that one will be called R9 and that the rumored R8 will not be APS-C but FF and a succesor to the EOS R. But that´s just wishfull thinking.