No video :(

Canon RF 24-50mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM lens review

Подписаться 342 тыс.

Просмотров 56 тыс.

50% 1

Canon have been busy recently filling out their lower-budget camera and lens offerings - can this rather limited kit lens offer much to those who get it with their camera?
Support me on Patreon! / christopherfrost
Find it here (Amazon affiliate link - thanks for the support!):
geni.us/CanonR...
All pictures taken by me on a Canon EOS R5 cameras.
Equipment I use to make my videos (Amazon affiliate links):
Canon EOS R5: geni.us/CanonE...
Canon EF-RF Adaptor: geni.us/CanonE...
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 'Art': geni.us/Sigma5...
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM: geni.us/CanonR...
Marumi Fit and Slim CPL Filter: geni.us/Marumi...
AudioTechnica AT2020USB+ Microphone: geni.us/AT2020...
Rode Smartlav+ Microphone: geni.us/RodeSm...
Rode SC3 adapter: geni.us/RodeSC...
Zoom H1n Recorder: geni.us/ZoomH1...
DJI Mini 2 Drone: geni.us/DJIMin...
Music: 'Opportunity Walks', Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 creativecommons....

Опубликовано:

5 сен 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 235

@michaeljkeeney Год назад

These damn 6.3 lenses at the long end are going to be the death of me. 😵‍💫😕🤮

@crisotunity Год назад

It’s really sweet of Canon to provide free advertising for smartphone cameras.

@CrashPCcz Год назад

Bhaha good one. Yep, left for Nikon.

@Jones5121 Год назад

I almost feel like a basic compact camera provides a better zoom range😂

@GungKrisna12 Год назад

And Canon themselves wanted to work together with smartphone makers

@zegzbrutal Год назад

Not really, the AF tracking and the relative "poor" low light capabilities of this lens puts smartphones to shame. If this lens deserves the hate of the internet. Why no one trash talk FE28-60 an Z24-50. Such double standards.

@haydennettleton3272 Год назад

@@zegzbrutal because unlike the Canon the Nikon version is actually quite a decent lens, sure it's plasticky but it's quite sharp and the image circle covers the sensor it's designed to be used with.

@klklkl427586 Год назад

5:00 Should we even call this a full frame lens?

@Al.j.Vasquez Год назад

Should we call it a regular zoom lens and not a fish eye zoom lens?

@richardchaitt774 Год назад

Would you consider testing this on a crop sensor body?

@TimLucasdesign Год назад

Seems like a 50mm f1.8 is a much better option for about the same money. Just zoom out by backing up! :) The lack of marginal wide angle is a low price to pay for all that extra light and bokeh!

@opalyankaBG Год назад

Since when is 24mm marginal wide angle? And please stop the 'zoom by your feet' nonsense. Sometimes you can't step back, and using an actual wide angle optic gives you a completely different perspective.

@TimLucasdesign Год назад

@@opalyankaBG simply stating that for similar money, the 50mm 1.8 is a far better lens.

@kain0m Год назад

@@TimLucasdesignwell obviously a prime is a better lens than a zoom lens given the same price. Duh. Even the best zooms have problems keeping up with a decent prime that costs 1/4 of the zoom... But they don't zoom.

@TimLucasdesign Год назад

@@kain0m I obviously see the advantages of a zoom lens, but 24-50 isn't very useful. In this case it isn't worth the compromise over the similarly priced 50mm.

@CT9wasmyhandle Год назад

@@TimLucasdesign you never held a camera in your life, did you?

@KaydenHusky 7 месяцев назад

I bought this lens when i bought my R6 mk2 as a starter ( switched over from Nikon) to figure out what better lens to buy, i got the same results but over all coming from really good lens on my Nikon to this cheap kit lens was hard at first but now i enjoy what it has to offer, firstly it's light and focus is ok price is good, photo's are good ( no awards will be won ) and lets face it canon lens are very expensive with no aftermarket ones available yet so this one fits the bill for everyday use.

@brugj03 Месяц назад

If you want a better lens than this, it`s easy. You can take any lens and it will be better. Those results look so cheap and uneasy. It hurts your eyes.

@malekith13 Год назад

I think nikon did a better job with their 24-50.

@Rollergold4 Год назад

At least nikon one covers the full image circle, the amount of the sensor not covered by this lens is pretty shocking when not using corrections.

@alexokanenas7456 Год назад

Canon cutted all corners, literally on this one

@djchips Год назад

Wow.. Canon lens department was asleep for this one. The Nikon version blows it out of the water.

@coltoncyr2283 Год назад

thats an embarrassing bad lens! lol

@Badonicus Год назад

Just a shame the Nikon cameras themselves are way behind Canon

@coltoncyr2283 Год назад

@@Badonicus just remember all those years Sony was spanking Canon? Lol. I will admit Nikon failed with the AF. But they finally figured it out with Probably the best Camera ever made. Z9. Now the z8. You're just talking out of your a$$ Fan Boy. Nice try with that "way behind" hahaha.

@thephotoyak Год назад

@Badonicus they are getting there, just need Z9/8 AF in cheaper bodies now. Canon and Nikon (and Sony) have all gone through periods where they are king of the hill, it never takes too long for the others to catch up.

@djchips Год назад

@@Badonicus Not so much anymore. Canon/Sony are ahead in focus automation for sure but that gap is closing fast. Every firmware update for the Z9 has come with big improvements in that area and the Z8 has all of those updates too. Z6 and and Z7 lines are in dire need of an update tho, they are def behind the competition. Z5 too kinda but at entry level with its feature set I would say it actually offers a lot for the price.

@itacatv2146 Год назад

Why making a lens this slow? Not even providing a lens hood? I don’t get it. 200 is way too much for this. This makes Nikon kit look like the noctilux. The distortion is terrible.

@leitaotomas Год назад

Looks like Canon still have something to learn with Nikon about glass development. Sure they can produce great lenses, but c'mon! If the competitors were able to deliver the same thing with much less shortcomings, why not Canon? Would like to see how the Sony 28~60 fares in these tests, just to close the cicle of the small plastic FF kit lenses. Thank you Chris.

@ericvaleraphotography27 Год назад

You'd be surprised by that 28-60mm, I have all G or GM, Art or I series lenses.........apart from that kit lens ;)

@borgdylan Год назад

I think this was meant to be an RF-S lens...that vignetting is so bad. I do not feel bad at all for rmy EF-M 18-150mm kit lens.

@JesusCorrea_ Год назад

Why canon make very dark lenses? who is going to buy them?

@CrashPCcz Год назад

Not me. Just jumped the ship for what they do.

@todanrg3 Год назад

Someone who wants small and light. This lens exists because the R8 and similar small cameras needed a similarely small lens. The are many brighter and much bigger lenses if you want one.

@todanrg3 Год назад

@mipmipmipmipmip It's pretty small for a full frame zoom.

@GungKrisna12 Год назад

it's a kit lens, included with your camera

@xkben90 9 месяцев назад

I bought one, even though I own a RF 15-35, a RF 70-200, and a sigma art 40mm f/1.4. It’s actually much better than people give it credit for. Not everyone shoots raw for every single photo, and the autofocus, small size, and sharpness of this lens in center is surprising. I’ve taken it to a few of my kid’s soccer games, and it does surprisingly well. I don’t think anybody should expect greatness out of a $200-300 kit lens. If you want a sharp budget lenses, you’d be looking at prime lenses anyways. You gotta invest a little more if you’re wanting a very good zoom lens. It’s just the nature of physics.

@networm64 Год назад

I had to re-watch your Nikon 24-50 review to believe again what was imprinted in my mind. Wow it blows this lens out of water in every single aspect! This lens design looks too insulting to the whole photography community indeed! Can't wait to see Sony 28-60 review and a comparison of the 3. It's the most expensive one. But also the only one with metal mount and full weather sealing. I hope you test it at three focal length and not only two. Thank you

@slimphotog Год назад

5:00 That is just awful. Canon should be embarrassed.

@CrashPCcz Год назад

They are always proud accoring to their annoucements. What a waste.

@jnhkx Год назад

its not even a vignette, it just a black bar all corner hahaha

@GungKrisna12 Год назад

@@CrashPCcz Canon might just want to sell their products into, you guess what, photography schools

@okaro6595 2 месяца назад

That is the design. You never see that in the real life. The image is corrected even in the viewfinder.

@brugj03 Месяц назад

It`s quite handy when you don`t have your fisheye ready,

@andrewb5345 9 месяцев назад

It’s probably fine for black and white street photography. That would be my use for it. Small and lightweight.

@blackbugmedia Год назад

This is the focal length I want for travel, but I wish it was at least f/4 throughout. They should make a L version of this. Just like they have done with 24-105. Two different levels of same focal length.

@saikatray3472 Год назад

Blocking third party is the biggest mistake canon make ... consequence will be irreparable ... I am also a canon user , bt trying to switch in sony as soon as possible

@GungKrisna12 Год назад

Only if someone don't make petitions for Canon to just dissolve the company altogether

@droneyeshots Год назад

If you have time please test R7 with the old ef-s 17/55 f2.8 and maybe vs sigma 18-35 f1.8.

@dougwatling3764 Год назад

I have an R7. Just ordered a used 17-55; I’m sure it’ll be great, just like my other ef-s lenses on the R7. Would like to see it reviewed, too!

@GungKrisna12 Год назад

Looks like some comments turned from just wanting third party lenses from Canon, to just wanting Canon cameras to just disappear from this world

@zegzbrutal Год назад

Canon haters are filling the internet

@GungKrisna12 Год назад

@@zegzbrutal they wanted Canon to dissolve and the cameras ended up in landfills

@ColonelRuiz 9 месяцев назад

I thought one of the benefits of removing the mirror chamber was that they could make better lenses? the high end ones are great but are they purposefully making the low end worse?

@MiguelBorgesphotography Год назад

This is an APS C lens with a fake full frame tag

@dunnymonster Год назад

You can see why Canon don't allow 3rd party lenses. Even the most budget lens maker could produce a better lens than this! Truly terrible, why did they even bother?

@briancooperwildlife Год назад

To justify high prices for their quality glass

@dunnymonster Год назад

@@briancooperwildlife The problem is that it gives me the impression their quality glass isn't particularly great when their entry level stuff is so bad. You expect optical compromises at the entry level price point but this is truly dire and gives me zero confidence investing in their higher end glass no matter how good its supposed to be.

@briancooperwildlife Год назад

@@dunnymonster their quality glass is overpriced. It is good glass but not for that money. In my opinion, Nikon has great glass but somehow heavy. That is the trade many don’t want to make.

@GungKrisna12 Год назад

Or maybe Canon has some even more sinister plan ahead

@quikee9195 Год назад

3rd parties don't even bother releasing lenses like this...

@afcl1984 Год назад

Are you going to review the new 28mm pancake soon? Thanks for the video, it’s a good warning not to buy this one.

@stigthe5531 Год назад

I appreciate that you tell us when something is not good. 👍

@JSarmat86 Год назад

I wonder what's next masterpiece from Canon - a 35-45mm F8-11? This lens should be avoided like a plague.

@pilarpsp127 Год назад

When will you review RF 28mm f2.8 ? You’re the only one I trust 😊

@JustForPhotography Год назад

rf 24-105 f4-f7.1 is better, right ?

@rrrrrrr303 Год назад

Marginally

@hoatd1993 Год назад

This lens should be f3.5-5.6 and gets a fudging metal lens nount.

@bernardopatarra Год назад

Been waiting for this review! Thank you!

@ritrattoaziendale Год назад

The old EF 24-85 and 28-105 both f3.5-4.5 cost 50€ and are much better then this dark and short crap. Embarrassing.

@Home4520 8 месяцев назад

I have the EF 35-80mm iii that I use on my RP that I was hoping to replace with this bit, but after this review...I think not. I hope canon steps up their game on this glass range

@stiinta-1948 2 месяца назад

The focal length and even the aperture are good for travelling (a little bit wide, a little bit zoom - for visiting we do not need f/1.8). BUT the performance is bad. So, what cheap zoom alternative do we have? What cheap fixed alternative do we have (24mm it's expensive). Thank you

@justcurious4321 Год назад

Thanks for a great review. Clearly, this lens is not for people buying an R5 with 45MP, so why not showing test results on 24MP cameras? I think this would be more relevant for potential buyers.

@vietviet1310 Год назад

firstly, i think it's best to show this lens' true potential by fitting it on a 45mp full frame camera. secondly, maybe he didn't have the 24mp camera at that time

@thephotoyak Год назад

You would think they could have at least matched the Nikon equivalent. That little Nikon kills this lens.

@hughjohns9110 11 месяцев назад

On the copy I looked at on the shelf in Currys, the extending barrel part had a load of play in the fixed barrel. I don't know if this would cause any optical problems, it certainly feels like it would as the lens elements cannot maintain alignment. Whether this is normal or it was a (very) bad copy, I don't know.

@ericvaleraphotography27 Год назад

Hi Christopher, could you tell us how this compares to the Sony 28-60mm F4-5.6. I have mine on a A7RIII and it's very surprising

@clintnorthwood8058 Год назад

I think it's a great lens. Great colour, sharp enough, doesn't extend much at all when you zoom in. Fast and silent AF.

@juancarloshorta1934 2 месяца назад

which lens would be a nice upgrade from this one?

@el_fucko Год назад

Literally any other major camera and/or lens manufacturer: Releases decent-to-compelling kit lens options that usually never go darker than f/4 while maintaining benefits such as low price and relatively small build Canon: "Is it possible to learn this power?"

@GungKrisna12 Год назад

"never go darker than f/4" I thought it's for high end kits

@bjornkeizers 2 месяца назад

I just found a store that actually sells R8's with this one for the exact same price as body-only. Basically... they're tossing in this lens for free. But it honestly feels like it's not worth the bother. Especially with that whole 'rotate it to unlock'. I'd rather have a bit bigger lens than one that I'd need to manhandle like this in order to get it ready.

@eos1d3 Год назад

Built-in fisheye lens? 5:00

@Stop-All-War 2 месяца назад

Canons 16-35mm F4 was my favourite.

@AB-fy7zw Месяц назад

Very good lens for the Money

@cutsandcodas 7 месяцев назад

I think a more compelling kit lens would be an RF 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS STM. This type of kit lens sounded boring back then with EF-S, but this would be a slightly faster and wider focal range than this lens here, and the EF-S STM lenses were surprisingly sharp back then. Mount this imaginary lens on an RF-S body, and it would behave exactly like the old EF-S kit lens with respect to focal lengths and DOF. Maybe this reviewed lens would appeal to certain people who want a very compact setup, but the RF 24-50 f/4.5-6.3 seems like a step back for Canon kit lenses.

@sharpskilz Год назад

looks very similar to that ef_m kit lens 🤔

@bobchristensen4897 5 месяцев назад

I'd like to see the performance on the R7

@spvideowedding Год назад

Greeting. Are you planning to test the Canon RF 28mm 2.8 soon? Thank you

@JeneralMat-zp2ii Год назад

Sucks that it doesn't cover the whole area of the sensor. Mate could u revist oldskool sigma ex 17-50 2.8 for canon apsc please? Thanks

@zae5159 4 месяца назад

Great review, thank you for this!

@trulsdirio Год назад

This wouldn't be that bad if only we could have good budget lenses from third party manufacturers. But with locking down their lens mount this will not do. They may make good cameras, but like that they are not really an option in my opinion. I am currently trying to figure out what system to move to and have not for a minute thought about going back to Canon, even tho I have fond memories of them as I started with a canon more than ten years ago.

@Axonteer Год назад

Interesting lense. Im still looking for something compact on my r5 to take it along with me randomly but i think ill prob wait and aim for smth of the fujifilm xt40 ish king if they ever make one. Just something more than a compact camera but kess than my chunky r5 with the 24-105 f4 Nevertheless, i like that canon at least tries to come up with sonething different. I could test out the 24-280 (?) superzoom and it was better than expected. No comparison to the l series ofc but still, i was positively surprised. Ps: Yes i know the R50 exists 😅

@monoffoto Год назад

I own the EOS R8 and owned a Fujifilm X-T3. The thing is fuji doesn't have really sharp standard zoom lenses. The 18-55 is evenly sharp (or evenly unsharp like I realised when I compared to a prime lens) and the 16-80 is too big of a compromise. It's nowhere near the RF24-105 f4 L. So I sold all my fuji stuff. The R8 is only a bit larger that a X-T3 and is lighter and has a far better grip. The cheaper STM prime lenses are compact as well so no need to invest in fuji IMHO

@JasonMcLoud-lq8kn Год назад

This is why I don't shoot Canon anymore. I'm an enthusiast who likes to buy middle range equipment. Canon either produce garbage like this or ridiculously priced lenses.

@kifley19 Год назад

I agree. It's either trash lenses or great bazooka lenses.

@andriimartynov83 Год назад

Well, I agree that recent Canon’s budget zooms are mediocre. however, canon produces pretty good budget friendly primes.

@andrewdoeshair Год назад

Exactly my boat. I bought some pricey RF lenses with the plan to own them only temporarily until I could get some mid range lenses to take their place long term- like I KNEW that I had wayyyy too nice/much kit for what I do but it was just a temporary overspend to get me future proofed to eventually build an RF kit more suited to my needs. Once the “no third party” news dropped I sold all of my RF lenses and went back to EF for the time being, with one foot out the door until it’s time to replace my R6. If I can get some solid mid-range lenses for RF by that time I’ll probably stick with canon, but if not then Sony, Rokinon, Sigma, and Tamron will get my money.

@rrrrrrr303 Год назад

Why anyone would buy into Canons RF system is beyond me. Ridiculous. They're late to the party, overpriced and now have closed the system to boot. Sony is the obviously superior choice for professionals. And it hurts me to say it as a previous Canon fanboy, but they've really ruined everything.

@gavthane Год назад

@@rrrrrrr303I can hear the tears from here 💦

@mohamadavakian Год назад

Hi Chris Pls do review canon EF 16-35 f2.8 ii and iii on eos r system

@EXkurogane Год назад

Buy a kit lens, get a free fish eye lens. Canon is so generous.

@monoffoto Год назад

The focal length is unusual (let's say that way :P ) the mount is made of plastic (my old EF-S 55-250 STM lens is like new even with the plastic mount though) but the image quality forlandscapes an cityscapes is fantastic in my opinion on the EOS R8. And I'm a pixel peeper by the way ^^ I tested several RF 24-105 f4-7.1 (and EF 24-105 f4 L) lenses and they had terrible corner sharpness at 24mm. I'm glad Canon did it right in this case. The RF 24-105 f4L is a bit better though in my tests but not much on a 24 or 26 megapixel body.

@meiyingyu6523 Год назад

When will you test the canon RF 100-300 f2.8L ?

@kxsaintj 2 месяца назад

Thank you, very helpful video.

@alexm1126 Год назад

At least the sony 28-60 isn't that bad and if you get it cheap used it's actually an okay lens, wish it started at 24mm tho like this one but without the image problems

@budthecyborg4575 Год назад

The distortion is a real letdown, it's an overall reasonably sharp lens but comes with major flaws.

@thegreatvanziniphotos5976 Год назад

4.5 at 24mm? 6.3? Really?

@senseofeverthing Год назад

Hy, nice review! Could you do a comparison with the Nikon 24-50 and the Sony 28-60. I'm one of these landscape guys who climb mountains :D.

@user-uh3il1mx1o Год назад

I originally thought it was a biased review, when I went to see the same Nikon lens, I can only say that this lens is really bad.

@rodmehta5356 Год назад

You forgot to mention how far this lens could be thrown

@asystole_ Год назад

No idea why they made this when the 24-105 f/4-7.1 exists - that one only costs a little bit more and at least has a useful zoom range.

@giklab Год назад

This lens must be wider than 24mm. If you look at the distortion chart, the black edges are outside of the area Chris usually composes. Not great, not terrible.

@victorlim5077 Год назад

Yes, wider than 24mm then the camera uses de-fisheye corrections to stretch back the photo to a rectangle which is around 24mm field of view (FOV).

@clintnorthwood8058 Год назад

Not sure the lens can be classed as full frame can it?

@user-jr5xy4cv5o 7 месяцев назад

Thank you

@EST84x Год назад

Ouff. Didn't actually know you could lock the camera corrections on Canon shooters 😅

@jeremytheoneofdestiny8691 Год назад

I’m actually kind of impressed with this lens, that image quality is completely usable at 45mp. Especially considering how wild the distortion is… with corrections turned on, the final result is actually much better than I would expect.

@zegzbrutal Год назад

Digi X is pulling it off

@brugj03 Месяц назад

You must practically blind if you say a thing like that. It could also be that you`re used to nothing, because this is nothing. If you compare this to a really good zoom it`s already day and night. Compaired to a prime it`s another universe. This is not even a lens in my book.

@NOBODY-oq1xr Год назад

Can you please do a R6 II review ? I just got one and i would really like to hear your opinion on it :)

@ritrattoaziendale Год назад

Why you need review? You just bought one, so use it and see for yourself how it performes

@user-xe1pn7ed9o Год назад

please review Sony 70200gm2!

@k8tv546 Год назад

Check nikon 24-50 and reget

@timog7358 Год назад

canon lenses seem to get worse and worse

@coltoncyr2283 Год назад

I dont ever really crap on other brands, but holy crap Canon, noooo one is going to buy that POS!! 50mm 6.3!!! 24mm 4.5!! indoors, NOPE, travel, NOPE, landscape, NOPE, portraits, NOPE. Family group photos... CELL PHONE! that's embarrassing for Canon

@GungKrisna12 Год назад

you might want canon cameras to end up in landfills :v

@Al.j.Vasquez Год назад

I wish another mainstream manufacturer had the touch controls that Canon has, i grew accustomed to my M50, i change iso, shuter speed, aperture and the focal point by touching the screen, it would take me a while to get used to a regular system with specific buttons to change values and slower focus selection, but i just refuse to buy another Canon camera because they keep releasing shit like this and stop 3rd party manufacturers from adding good lenses at affordable prices for their cameras.

@jeez0r Год назад

I hate mine lol , I got it kit . The extend to shooting position is disgusting . It's even making me doubt my R8 , this lens is a fail

@jesdyzhou 11 месяцев назад

best review for this lens in the web. Thank you!

@magicscorner Год назад

That lens reminds me of EF 28-80 II when at that point the main accountant of Canon started to run the company... and that one was better (!). Thanks for putting so much time and energy into finding any good thing about the lens. I won't buy it.

@keegantheveganat0r Год назад

ah cool ... parys mountain!

@BrunoGabrielTV Год назад

Wow, that’s a tiny zoom lens.

@frankseophotos9633 Год назад

The aperture seems like a punishment for not buying L lenses.

@brugj03 Месяц назад

It`s not only a punishment for that.

@Ben-rz9cf Год назад

Canons kit lenses are always trash. FYI, Tokina makes a 17-35mm F4.0 for about 400$ you can sometimes get on sale for about 300$. Its an EF mount not an RF mount, but the way i see it, RF lenses are so expensive still and EF are still affordable, you can get an adapter and still basically get full functionality. So for just slightly more you can get an aspherical zoom with a slightly wider aperture and a wider zoom range that could conceivably compete with the still insanely expensive 16-35mm THAT ACTUALLY STILL TAKES GOOD PHOTOS. There has never been a canon kit lens i liked, and i will always just buy the body without it.

@conrod87 Год назад

f/4.5-6.3 still to bright canon should make f8-16

@hector5851 Год назад

Barely better than a pinhole.

@G95G95 Месяц назад

It should be illegal to market a lens as full frame if it doesn't cast an image circle that covers a full frame sensor

@larvenfritson Год назад

Damn, I know it's designed to be crap, but why Canon? Why?

@zegzbrutal Год назад

This compact lens is OK in my eye as it's built for jpeg straight out. I was despised with the RF24-105STM until brought it for a short trip. I end up use it more than my Yongnuo RF 35mm f2. Smartphones are similar to this lens where huge digital processing to overcome the optical inferiority. There are a few frustrated camera manufacturers not embracing smartphone technology. When Canon actually does, millions complained about this. It's hard to please everyone right?

@Al.j.Vasquez Год назад

But why....

@marcp.1752 Год назад

Thanks for the review, Chris. It clearly shows, this is a cheapskate alibi lens - it's only for the 1st tries, when you saved all pennies for the EOS R8, and Canon wants you to buy something better, even more, that you'll invest into their L lens lineup. 🙂Poorly underdesigned lens, best @F/8, this was clear when the rumors came along this 24-50.

@vasiliykotorov3665 10 месяцев назад

5:00 thx

@hedley.bradstone-unbridled Год назад

The comments herein are laughable. This lens is a cheapo starter/kit lens meant for beginners. If you are serious about photography you wouldn't touch it with a barge pole, but it is not meant for the likes of us. The Nikon version is more expensive and not much better. I'd add, as Chris alludes, the photos are not that bad (and other reviewers say for what the lens is, it's quiite good). For a moment there I thought I'd dropped into the Canon Rumors site by mistake during a Sony Fanboy comment frenzy!

@mvp_kryptonite Год назад

Maybe the R8 wasn’t around to test or RP. The R5 was really extreme for this lens. But yes, this is one to skip u less it’s practically free as a kit

@hedley.bradstone-unbridled Год назад

@@mvp_kryptonite - Exactly. Chris explicitly made the point about the lens being sharper for a camera with 24 Megapixels (and by extension 26 for the RP).

@GungKrisna12 Год назад

Those comments sound like they wanted Canon to disappear altogether

@spaqin Год назад

The R system doesn't seem to be oriented towards beginners anyway (although with EOS-M killed off...), and the lens covering FF even less so. It's too long for a kit lens for APS-C, and too awful for full frame. Who is that lens for? Seems like a body cap, but at a premium price.

@hedley.bradstone-unbridled Год назад

@@spaqin - It certainly started that way, but the R50 and R100 now indicate otherwise. Obviously Canon has the data as to what is likely to sell well, so I understand the reason for the APS-C R7 and, given the unceremonious dumping of the EF-M mount, the R50, but the R100? One can only conclude that Canon are trying hard to provide relatively inexpensive starter cameras and lenses, but for the uninitiated, choosing between budget lenses such as the the 24-50mm which is OK and say the 35mm F1.8, which is almost excellent (taking into account its price and specs) will be well nigh impossible. I suppose you can't expect Canon to say on its website, "the RF 24-50mm, an excellent lens for the beginner and casual photographer, but a bit rubbish if you are serious about your photography..."

@kevindiossi Год назад

I would say this review just highlights how good you are with general photography and landscape/travel images. The lens isn’t necessarily anything great, but it didn’t hold back a talented photographer.

@sebastienlagneau358 Год назад

In french, such a lens is called a "cul de bouteille", or litteraly a "bottle bottom". Poor Canon mirrorless users, who can't have third-party lenses for their system (well, they still can use DSLR lenses with an adapter, but still)...

@GungKrisna12 Год назад

just wait (althought unlikely) until Canon decided to launch a campaign that attacks third party lenses and any camera companies that allow third party lenses

@ritrattoaziendale Год назад

In Italy it's the same 😀 "culo di bottiglia" 😀

@josh6499 Год назад

Oof. I'll just stick with my LX100 from 2014.

@NasrAhmadTv Год назад

مميز

@brugj03 Месяц назад

Is that a plastic mount?? It`s a plastic mount, kinda says it all. It hurts your eyes.

@julianhieu5252 Год назад

If you consider buying this lens, just stop and use your phone 💀💀. Or just get a fast prime

@IliasKoureas Год назад

I hate canon from the bottom of my heart lol. Amazing cameras with garbage lenses and no third party support. Worse company to choose if you are a beginner or enthousiast.

@julius4858 Год назад

Not sure what you mean, Canon has the best high end lens lineup period. The 85mm 1.2, the 28-70mm 2.0, the 100-500mm are all amazingly sharp and special in their own way. The 100-500 is extremely lightweight for example. Then you have the 800mm f/11 which enables extreme wildlife photography on a budget. And you have access to all the great EF lenses as well. Really don’t know what you’re on about.

@julius4858 Год назад

And the 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 which are super small and lightweight, yet extremely sharp as well. If you only buy the cheapest shit from other manufacturers you will be similarly disappointed with them as you would be with the lens in this video. But how does that reflect what the company is doing? It doesn’t.

@IliasKoureas Год назад

@@julius4858 I specifically said for beginners and enthusiasts who don't make a huge living from photography. Don't know what high end pro gear has to do with my comment.

@IliasKoureas Год назад

@@julius4858 and that's not the case at all. Nikons kit lenses are magically sharp. Fuji has amazing options with beautiful rendering glass and Sony has the best third party support ever (so does Fuji and Nikon gets some love as well). Again for beginners or enthusiasts, there's no reason to pick up a canon because the glass is limiting your really capable camera

@julius4858 Год назад

@@IliasKoureas you said enthusiasts, and those are typically willing to spend a bit on lenses. If you are a beginner and buy the cheapest shit, you get the cheapest shit, no matter the brand.