I’m not too fussed about it being L, just a RF 24-70 F4 IS would suffice.
When you think back to the ef 24-85 3.5-4.5 usm, makes me wonder why canon are pi$$ing about.
Upvote
0
What lenses do you feel are "missing" from RF still?
- Thread starter nunataks
- Start date
When you think back to the ef 24-85 3.5-4.5 usm, makes me wonder why canon are pi$$ing about.
Agreed. Canon seems to be drawing a clear distinction between consumer lenses and L-series lenses, beyond just weather sealing. People here frequently ask for 'mid-range' lenses, i.e. f/1.4 primes falling between expensive f/1.2L and consumer f/1.8 or constant aperture non-L zooms. I suspect there's a very good reason we haven't seen such lenses and won't – Canon wants people to buy the more expensive, high margin L-series lenses to drive their bottom line.
Having said that, Canon is offering some really good values in their non-L lenses. As I've said before, there's not another brand where you can build a three-zoom kit covering 15-400mm for $1550 (or less if you catch one of the discount periods), or an OEM 800mm lens for $1000.
Upvote
0
Comparing the EF and RF prices, I feel that RF only has 'mid-range' and L lenses. The bottom tier is missing compared to EF. The RF15-30 STM is about twice as expensive as I expected an EF version of that to be, but it's also performing a lot better than I expected it to. The EF17-40L I compared it to sets a really low bar, but it does have a red ring!
Having said that, my copy of the RF50 STM performs poorly most of the time and the RF50L has "Let me explain our privacy and recording policies to you" vibes, so 50mm that sits in between those does appeal to me. But Sony showed that people will pay €1700 for a 50/1.4, so I'm not optimistic about the price point Canon will pick for those not-quite-L lenses.
Upvote
0
From what I’ve seen in tests and reviews I think, one should take into account, that the new consumer primes offer better IQ at f/1.8 wide open than the old „f/1.4 midrange“ did at f/2 or f/2.8.
If this is fits in the real world and comes with a good QC in production I see no more reason for three lines/levels but just two.
I can understand complaints here about built quality or extending or rotating barrels.
But if Canon decided to build a lens that way it means just to take or leave it.
Upvote
0
How about comparing the new 24-50 to the 24-105/4-7.1 IS STM, rather than the much more expensive L.
Bryan Carnathan has a handy comparison in his review
Canon RF 24-50mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens Review
Is the Canon RF 24-50mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!
www.the-digital-picture.com
The 24-105 has:
- bigger range of focal lengths (obviously)
- is a tad faster, aperture-wise
- less peripheral shading, wide open
- Sharper over much of the overlapping range
- Much higher magnification (0.5x versus 0.19x for the 24-50)
I'm sure the 24-50 must have a market, but on the whole I see little to recommend the 24-50 over the 24-105.
Upvote
0
Certainly a good comparison, and optically the 24-105 non-L has minor advantages in IQ and a major advantage of covering a much broader focal range with the same wide end.
Incidentally, I was comparing the 24-50 to the 24-105/4L because I have the latter (and I have no intention of getting either the 24-50 or the 24-105 non-L).
You need to check your facts on those points. RF 24-105/4-7.1 weighs 395 g compared to 210 g for the RF 24-50, meaning the 24-50 is not a 'tad heavier' as you suggest but rather about half the weight of the 24-105 non-L. The 24-50 is also almost 1 cm thinner and 3 cm shorter.
Also, the RF 24-105/4-7.1 sells (in the US) for $399 alone or $300 in a kit, while the RF 24-50 sells for $299 alone or $200 in a kit, so the 24-50 is not more expensive as you suggest, but rather costs 25-33% less.
So what the 24-50 has to recommend over the 24-105 non-L is that it's significantly smaller, lighter and cheaper.
As I said, with the 24-50 you're getting what you pay for – a small, light, inexpensive lens covering the wide-normal range that is a very good match for a small FF body like the R8.
Upvote
0
That's a fair point from the standpoint of price, although the EF lenses you're talking about are generally much older and inflation relative to launch price matters for such comparisons. But I'd say that from a performance perspective, the consumer RF lenses are generally comparable to the 'mid-range' EF lenses from an optical standpoint (albeit with slower apertures in general), as @Maximilian stated above.
Upvote
0
Same here!
But I read some complaint here.
Sorry for causing confusion.
But I also don't have the time to check each and every feature.
I only wanted to say, that people might have complaints.
But if so, everyone has to think about what is a no-go for them.
Upvote
0
RF 28mm f/1.8 or 1.4 USM
RF 50mm f/1.4 USM
I don't even care if they're L lenses or not, though I'd prefer they were.
And maybe a 40mm f/1.8.
RF 50mm f/1.4 USM
I don't even care if they're L lenses or not, though I'd prefer they were.
And maybe a 40mm f/1.8.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 393686
Guest
I think that there are numerous lenses missing in the RF- line: the third party lenses. Canon produces consumer lenses and high end lenses, but there is a gap in between. Why not open the market for e.g. Irix and Tokina? Manual focus will do fine! Canons keeps control over the market that way.
Upvote
0
Lol, best to check your facts before you post, it helps you avoid looking foolish. What makes you think the RF mount is closed? Are you unaware of the dozens of 3rd party manual focus RF lenses currently available from Laowa, TTArtisans, Irix, and Cosina’s recently-announced 50/1.0?
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 393686
Guest
Well, i tried several Irix lenses on my R10. Non of them worked, not Af and not Mf. Irix admits that (see my earlier thread). Checking facts you said?
Upvote
0
Perhaps I misinterpreted your post. The fact is that there are many manual focus RF-mount lenses by 3rd parties, including Irix, that work perfectly on R-series cameras.
IRIX Cine Production Set (15/21/30/45/150mm, RF Mount)
Buy IRIX Cine Production Set (15/21/30/45/150mm, RF Mount) featuring 15/21/30/45/150mm RF-Mount Lenses, Magnetic Filter Kit: UV, CPL, ND8 + Case, Hard-Shell Carry Case with Foam Insert, Nanuk Case with Set Weighs 20 lb. Review IRIX null
Shop - LAOWA Camera Lenses
Filter by Mounts Canon EF Canon RF EOS-M Nikon F Nikon Z Sony A Sony E Leica M L mount Pentax K Fuji X MFT GFX PL DJI DL Accessories Filter by Mounts Canon EF Canon RF EOS-M Nikon F Nikon Z Sony A Sony E Leica M L mount Pentax K Fuji X MFT
www.venuslens.net
Ttartisan Rf Mount | B&H Photo Video
Shop B&H's in stock, large inventory for fast shipping, great service and everyday low prices on Ttartisan Rf Mount. For more info, please call 800-947-4415
www.bhphotovideo.com
Yes, old EF-mount Irix lenses when used on some R bodies via the EF-RF mount adapter do not work. Is that what you mean by 'open the market' – that you believe it's Canon's responsibility to make old, reverse-engineered lenses for a previous mount compatible with their R-series cameras? Lol. Don't hold your breath.
Judging by the number of responses —zero— to your post about this ‘issue’, why would Canon even care? Especially since the incompatibility is almost certainly due to the lens, it’s an Irix problem (and apparently a you problem), not a Canon problem.
Also, if your actual concern is that Canon’s RF lens lineup lacks a ‘middle tier’ there are a wide variety of EF lenses that fill that gap, including L-series lenses with used prices that have fallen into the range of non-L RF lenses, along with an array of 3rd party lenses from Sigma/Tamron/Tokina, that are fully compatible with R-series bodies.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
