Stock Notice: Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM $599

Canon Rumors Guy

Canon EOS 40D
CR Pro
  • Jul 20, 2010
    9,731
    2,396
    Canada
    www.canonrumors.com
    Adorama has stock of the brand new Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM for $599 and it’s ready to ship.
    Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM Key Features

    Dedicated, programmable Control Ring with click-stop operation
    Equivalent to approximately 38mm coverage when used on cameras with
    APS-C size image sensors
    Impressively compact and light at only 270g
    Circular (9 blades) aperture for beautiful, soft backgrounds
    Lens Format: APS-C, Full Frame
    Fixed Focal Length: Focal Length: 24mm
    Lens Type: Wide Angle Lens
    Image Stabilization: Image Stabilization: Yes (OIS)

    Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM $599

    Continue reading...


     
    Hi all, there seems to be a complete lack of reviews of this lens despite being available in shops. This seems very strange. None of the usual lens reviewers interested in the 24? If it's like the 35mm it could be a great lens. I want one but, as always I want independent trusted reviews first. Or am I missing something??
    I was wondering the same thing the other day. Kinda weird.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 users
    Upvote 0

    LogicExtremist

    Lux pictor
    Sep 26, 2021
    501
    350
    I was wondering the same thing the other day. Kinda weird.
    I suspect it won't be as good as the the RF 35mm f/1.8m macro which is optically better with low distortion. The RF 24mm f/1.8 has around 11% rectilinear distortion, and is quite heavily software corrected, though not as bad as the RF 16mm f/2.8, which probably excludes it from any of the typical UW applications that need sharp corners, such as landscape, astro, architecture, real-estate.

    I've seen Canon promo interviews where they seem to talk about it as lens for vloggng and YouTube type uses. If the focus works well, (unlike the 16mm which can't track focus well on moving subjects, okay for static talking head video) then it might be good for general video work. It would also work as a 38mm f/2.88 equivalent on the RF-S platform, but maybe a bit expensive for a crop sensor 35mm substitute.
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: 2 users
    Upvote 0

    Bonich

    EOS 90D
    Apr 29, 2019
    130
    127
    Hi all, there seems to be a complete lack of reviews of this lens despite being available in shops. This seems very strange. None of the usual lens reviewers interested in the 24? If it's like the 35mm it could be a great lens. I want one but, as always I want independent trusted reviews first. Or am I missing something??
    There is a great "review" done within the spare time of one evening on YT.
    Sorry, it is spoken in German, but the reviewer (member of stuff at my photo dealer) was close to euphoric.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 5 users
    Upvote 0
    I picked up my copy today and can give some first impressions and comparisons with my other wide angle option the RF 15-35 f/2.8
    I did a little sharpness comparison on the R5. Wide open (f/1.8 on the prime vs. f/2.8 on the zoom) the lenses are pretty similar regarding sharpness in the center. In the corners the new 24mm is a bit softer tough.
    Stopped down to f5.6 the prime is noticeable sharper in the middle but still a tad softer in the corners again. Not soft in general, but a bit less detailed.
    Overall I would say the 24mm is a good performer (especially compared to the 15-35mm which is an awesome lens), outresolving the L lens in the middle and being not too far off in the corners.
    And yes, the lens has pretty severe barrel distortion but is of course automatically corrected in camera. Lightroom also already offers the lens profile.
    Chromatic aberration is definitely present, especially LoCa. Quite similar to the RF 50mm f1.2 in that regard.
    The bokeh is definitely nicer on the RF 24mm - if the RF 15-35mm f/2.8 has one weakness it‘s bokeh, especially trees and leaves that can look quite harsh. But the rendering of the 24mm is definitely softer there.
    The Macro ability impressed me quite a bit. You can get fairly close (around 4cm to an object) and the sharpness holds up. Only problem here is the LoCa wide open, but it is greatly reduced, once stopped down.
    The sunstars are nice and pointy when positioned at an edge, but have the "double-spike" effect similar to the Rf 35mm f/1.8. Flare is absolutely no issue, there is a bit of ghosting but nothing too distracting.
    Lastly the IS works nice, giving similar results as the RF 15-35mm, which means for me that I can usually hand hold around 1s.
    From my first test I think it‘s a very well rounded lens. Sharp, very good close up capabilities and nice bokeh. The only downsides are the corners that are not quite as sharp and a bit of LoCa. Hope that was useful for anyone interested in this lens.
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    • Love
    Reactions: 11 users
    Upvote 0

    OskarB

    EOS 90D
    Jul 17, 2021
    116
    384
    500px.com
    I picked up my copy today and can give some first impressions and comparisons with my other wide angle option the RF 15-35 f/2.8
    I did a little sharpness comparison on the R5. Wide open (f/1.8 on the prime vs. f/2.8 on the zoom) the lenses are pretty similar regarding sharpness in the center. In the corners the new 24mm is a bit softer tough.
    Stopped down to f5.6 the prime is noticeable sharper in the middle but still a tad softer in the corners again. Not soft in general, but a bit less detailed.
    Overall I would say the 24mm is a good performer (especially compared to the 15-35mm which is an awesome lens), outresolving the L lens in the middle and being not too far off in the corners.
    And yes, the lens has pretty severe barrel distortion but is of course automatically corrected in camera. Lightroom also already offers the lens profile.
    Chromatic aberration is definitely present, especially LoCa. Quite similar to the RF 50mm f1.2 in that regard.
    The bokeh is definitely nicer on the RF 24mm - if the RF 15-35mm f/2.8 has one weakness it‘s bokeh, especially trees and leaves that can look quite harsh. But the rendering of the 24mm is definitely softer there.
    The Macro ability impressed me quite a bit. You can get fairly close (around 4cm to an object) and the sharpness holds up. Only problem here is the LoCa wide open, but it is greatly reduced, once stopped down.
    The sunstars are nice and pointy when positioned at an edge, but have the "double-spike" effect similar to the Rf 35mm f/1.8. Flare is absolutely no issue, there is a bit of ghosting but nothing too distracting.
    Lastly the IS works nice, giving similar results as the RF 15-35mm, which means for me that I can usually hand hold around 1s.
    From my first test I think it‘s a very well rounded lens. Sharp, very good close up capabilities and nice bokeh. The only downsides are the corners that are not quite as sharp and a bit of LoCa. Hope that was useful for anyone interested in this lens.
    Great summary, thank you!
    How do you find the 24mm compared to the RF 24-105 f4 at 24mm?
     
    Upvote 0
    I picked up my copy today and can give some first impressions and comparisons with my other wide angle option the RF 15-35 f/2.8
    I did a little sharpness comparison on the R5. Wide open (f/1.8 on the prime vs. f/2.8 on the zoom) the lenses are pretty similar regarding sharpness in the center. In the corners the new 24mm is a bit softer tough.
    Stopped down to f5.6 the prime is noticeable sharper in the middle but still a tad softer in the corners again. Not soft in general, but a bit less detailed.
    Overall I would say the 24mm is a good performer (especially compared to the 15-35mm which is an awesome lens), outresolving the L lens in the middle and being not too far off in the corners.
    And yes, the lens has pretty severe barrel distortion but is of course automatically corrected in camera. Lightroom also already offers the lens profile.
    Chromatic aberration is definitely present, especially LoCa. Quite similar to the RF 50mm f1.2 in that regard.
    The bokeh is definitely nicer on the RF 24mm - if the RF 15-35mm f/2.8 has one weakness it‘s bokeh, especially trees and leaves that can look quite harsh. But the rendering of the 24mm is definitely softer there.
    The Macro ability impressed me quite a bit. You can get fairly close (around 4cm to an object) and the sharpness holds up. Only problem here is the LoCa wide open, but it is greatly reduced, once stopped down.
    The sunstars are nice and pointy when positioned at an edge, but have the "double-spike" effect similar to the Rf 35mm f/1.8. Flare is absolutely no issue, there is a bit of ghosting but nothing too distracting.
    Lastly the IS works nice, giving similar results as the RF 15-35mm, which means for me that I can usually hand hold around 1s.
    From my first test I think it‘s a very well rounded lens. Sharp, very good close up capabilities and nice bokeh. The only downsides are the corners that are not quite as sharp and a bit of LoCa. Hope that was useful for anyone interested in this lens.
    Great, thanks for the info. looks like an interesting lense
     
    Upvote 0
    Great summary, thank you!
    How do you find the 24mm compared to the RF 24-105 f4 at 24mm?
    Unfortunately I don‘t own the RF 24-105mm, and it’s been a while since I last used one, so I can‘t directly compare them.

    From memory the wide end of the 24-105mm was definitely weaker than the long end, so you might see an image quality boost with the new 24mm prime. But that‘s only guesstimating. You probably want to wait for someone else to do a better comparison of those two lenses.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 user
    Upvote 0

    LogicExtremist

    Lux pictor
    Sep 26, 2021
    501
    350
    I picked up my copy today and can give some first impressions and comparisons with my other wide angle option the RF 15-35 f/2.8
    I did a little sharpness comparison on the R5. Wide open (f/1.8 on the prime vs. f/2.8 on the zoom) the lenses are pretty similar regarding sharpness in the center. In the corners the new 24mm is a bit softer tough.
    Stopped down to f5.6 the prime is noticeable sharper in the middle but still a tad softer in the corners again. Not soft in general, but a bit less detailed.
    Overall I would say the 24mm is a good performer (especially compared to the 15-35mm which is an awesome lens), outresolving the L lens in the middle and being not too far off in the corners.
    And yes, the lens has pretty severe barrel distortion but is of course automatically corrected in camera. Lightroom also already offers the lens profile.
    Chromatic aberration is definitely present, especially LoCa. Quite similar to the RF 50mm f1.2 in that regard.
    The bokeh is definitely nicer on the RF 24mm - if the RF 15-35mm f/2.8 has one weakness it‘s bokeh, especially trees and leaves that can look quite harsh. But the rendering of the 24mm is definitely softer there.
    The Macro ability impressed me quite a bit. You can get fairly close (around 4cm to an object) and the sharpness holds up. Only problem here is the LoCa wide open, but it is greatly reduced, once stopped down.
    The sunstars are nice and pointy when positioned at an edge, but have the "double-spike" effect similar to the Rf 35mm f/1.8. Flare is absolutely no issue, there is a bit of ghosting but nothing too distracting.
    Lastly the IS works nice, giving similar results as the RF 15-35mm, which means for me that I can usually hand hold around 1s.
    From my first test I think it‘s a very well rounded lens. Sharp, very good close up capabilities and nice bokeh. The only downsides are the corners that are not quite as sharp and a bit of LoCa. Hope that was useful for anyone interested in this lens.
    How is the image quality for macro with the lens stopped down, which is how it's usually done, around f/8? Thanks! :)
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 user
    Upvote 0
    How is the image quality for macro with the lens stopped down, which is how it's usually done, around f/8? Thanks! :)
    I did a quick comparison with the RF 100mm f2.8L IS USM Macro. Both at the maximum magnification of the 24mm of x0.5, stopped down to f8. For the 100mm I moved the tripod back to match the frame of the 24mm as best as I can. Both were shot on the R5 on a tripod with a flash to get enough light.

    I attached a screenshot from Lightroom, where both images are at 100%. Unfortunately it is not quite the same frame.
    The RF 100mm f2.8 Macro is on the left and the RF 24mm f1.8 is on the right. And yes, I didn't mix that up - the new 24mm seems quite a bit sharper to me. I double checked the shot of the 100mm, but couldn't find that I missed focus or anything. I am really impressed by these results.
    The only downside of the 24mm for Macro is, that you are really close to your subject and might cast a shadow. I also had troubles positioning my tripod close enough. Bildschirmfoto 2022-08-30 um 08.58.09_web.jpg
     
    • Like
    • Love
    Reactions: 3 users
    Upvote 0

    LogicExtremist

    Lux pictor
    Sep 26, 2021
    501
    350
    I did a quick comparison with the RF 100mm f2.8L IS USM Macro. Both at the maximum magnification of the 24mm of x0.5, stopped down to f8. For the 100mm I moved the tripod back to match the frame of the 24mm as best as I can. Both were shot on the R5 on a tripod with a flash to get enough light.

    I attached a screenshot from Lightroom, where both images are at 100%. Unfortunately it is not quite the same frame.
    The RF 100mm f2.8 Macro is on the left and the RF 24mm f1.8 is on the right. And yes, I didn't mix that up - the new 24mm seems quite a bit sharper to me. I double checked the shot of the 100mm, but couldn't find that I missed focus or anything. I am really impressed by these results.
    The only downside of the 24mm for Macro is, that you are really close to your subject and might cast a shadow. I also had troubles positioning my tripod close enough. View attachment 205378
    Thanks for doing the test. Maybe something odd happened with the RF 100 macro there, but it's good to see the results of the 24mm at half-macro, it looks decent! :)
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 user
    Upvote 0
    Thanks for doing the test. Maybe something odd happened with the RF 100 macro there, but it's good to see the results of the 24mm at half-macro, it looks decent! :)
    I wouldn‘t rule that possibility out, since I‘m not really experienced in high magnification macro photography, so it might be user error.
    I use the 100mm only for product photography where it‘s rare to get that close. In my books the 100mm is a very sharp lens overall.
    But in this setup I was able to reproduce the sharpness advantage of the 24mm.

    Either way, the 24mm f1.8 is definitely a good lens for macro!
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 user
    Upvote 0

    neuroanatomist

    I post too Much on Here!!
    CR Pro
    Jul 21, 2010
    27,915
    7,997
    I double checked the shot of the 100mm, but couldn't find that I missed focus or anything.
    Thanks for doing the test. Maybe something odd happened with the RF 100 macro there
    The RF 100 is known to suffer from focus shift, and macro distance at f/8 with a flat subject is where that would be evident.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 2 users
    Upvote 0