No, 24 and 50 f/2.0 would be enough"WE WANT MORE AFFORDABLE AND LIGHT RF LENSES"
*Canon gives*
"WE WANT MORE AFFORDABLE AND LIGHT RF LENSES THAT ARE AS SHARP AND FAST AS THE 50 1.2"
It does depend on the user. This is a consumer lens designed to hit a price point. Its not intended for professional use. There will be a lot of compromises, but for those who do not need wide apertures or the best IQ, it will be just fine. They will be a kit for the R6 and possibly the RP.LOL the 7.1 comments popping up all over the interwebs are hilarious. I shoot at f/8-22 all the time. Ever do macro? Landscapes? A long tele with a TC? What happened to the film rules which still hold true about f/8 and be there. the sunny f/16 rule. This lens is not an L series piece of glass and is consumer grade with an appropriate focal length and aperture spread for the price. It is super compact, versatile and probably wonderful optics (we shall see) Any early dismissals are purely internet knee jerk spec sheet bravado. It's clearly not for everyone but it will be a wonderful addition to many peoples kits.
Akin to using a macro add on on a Lensbaby?It somewhere in the press materials, it means the corners get very, very blurry, which is why they turned off autofocus for that range.
Yes! And furthermore, shouldn't all you wrote be obvious to these complainers from the price? Once again, so many delusional and greedy people wanting a 1DX at a Rebel cost, a 50 1.2 for the price of a Nifty 50.All the negative comments about this lens are just crazy. No-one at Canon is saying: "look how clever we are - this is our cutting-edge, best lens we are technically capable of making, at money-no-object levels".
It is clearly a lens built down to a price, for those not at the bleeding edge of photography (be that creative, forensic, or anything in-between), who may want something light, or cheap, or small, or all the above.
If the lens doesn't hit the spot for you - don't get it. Canon have a growing range of better lenses for you, if that's what you need.
Not very surprising, the RF 24-105MM f/4L IS USM is much sharper.
Also not much bigger either, although it is heavier and more expensive.
It is what it is: basically a FF replacement for the "world's most popular" EF-S APS-C kit lens variants to use with a cheap body like the RP.Yikes, and at 7.1 too.
Doesn’t appear to be THAT much smaller either, although it’s hard to really tell on paper - have to get them in hand.
I would technically be in the market for a nice compact RF zoom for my RP, but I may wait to see what else is offered first. I’m willing to give up some reach to get a faster lens overall (and a smaller size).
Yes, I'm sure many forum dwellers think that 7.1 is 2 stops slower than 5.6 - rather than only 2/3rds of a stop. And with lens IS, you won't have any trouble shooting on a cloudy day. Somehow, in the film days we shot at f/8, on ISO 100 film with no lens or body stabilization. We must have been geniuses!LOL the 7.1 comments popping up all over the interwebs are hilarious. I shoot at f/8-22 all the time. Ever do macro? Landscapes? A long tele with a TC? What happened to the film rules which still hold true about f/8 and be there. the sunny f/16 rule. This lens is not an L series piece of glass and is consumer grade with an appropriate focal length and aperture spread for the price. It is super compact, versatile and probably wonderful optics (we shall see) Any early dismissals are purely internet knee jerk spec sheet bravado. It's clearly not for everyone but it will be a wonderful addition to many peoples kits.
4-7.1? Useless in my book, sorry ....
If "center focus macro" means that the lens at macro distances is unsharp in the corners, $400 is a bit too much to pay for it.Wow! A $400 lens is not as good as a $1000 lens!
Who would have guessed?
Not very surprising, the RF 24-105MM f/4L IS USM is much sharper.
Also not much bigger either, although it is heavier and more expensive.
Official MTF charts from CanonWhat is the source of these MFTs? - To me the RF f/4-7.1 looks sharp and contrasty wide open - that is good. The chart for the f/4 is of course sharper and a with little more contrast.
Ah, I found them on the canon japan siteOfficial MTF charts from Canon