I’m not too fussed about it being L, just a RF 24-70 F4 IS would suffice.I'd prefer an RF24-70 F/4L IS USM, but that doesn't exist.
When you think back to the ef 24-85 3.5-4.5 usm, makes me wonder why canon are pi$$ing about.
Upvote
0
I’m not too fussed about it being L, just a RF 24-70 F4 IS would suffice.I'd prefer an RF24-70 F/4L IS USM, but that doesn't exist.
At this point I think there won't be any constant-aperture FF RF zooms without the L branding.I’m not too fussed about it being L, just a RF 24-70 F4 IS would suffice.
When you think back to the ef 24-85 3.5-4.5 usm, makes me wonder why canon are pi$$ing about.
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.At this point I think there won't be any constant-aperture FF RF zooms without the L branding.
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!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.
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.… 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 noticed that comment before about rotating barrels. Does any RF lens do this?I can understand complaints here about built quality or extending or rotating barrels.
Lol. You're welcome to your opinion. Personally, I think choice is a good thing. It's a $200 (kit cost) standard zoom lens for FF. Nothing crippled about it, you're getting what you pay for. If you can't afford 'stupidly expensive' high-quality zooms, you're not alone. Canon is offering a FF camera with a standard zoom for $1700.
The 24-105/4L that I'll use often on the R8 will overbalance the body...
View attachment 208287
...and it cost nearly as much as the R8.
The 24-50 is the right size for the R8, and a good match...
View attachment 208288
As I said, you don't like...don't buy. But if there wasn't a market for this lens, Canon would not have made it.
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.How about comparing the new 24-50 to the 24-105/4-7.1 IS STM, rather than the much more expensive 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.But, the 24-50 is a tad heavier and more expensive.
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.
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.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.
Not that I'm aware of.I noticed that comment before about rotating barrels. Does any RF lens do this?
I noticed that comment before about rotating barrels. Does any RF lens do this?
Same here!Not that I'm aware of.
What I really need to do is re-read before I post (slaps forehead) - I meant to say that the 24-50 is lighter and less expensive. Anyways, thanks for pointing this out.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.
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?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.
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?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?
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.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?
Exactly. A tamron 28-75 on the R8 would be a dream come true, but Canon seems against that so in the meantime I have to go with a different brand, losing them a customer.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.