Another excellent and thorough review Dustin, thank you. I must confess here in the UK this lens is simply too expensive for what it is. The current price here is over £700 - basically £200 more than the RF 35mm 1.8 macro, which appears to be its 'twin' in much the same manner of the 16/50mm lenses. Is it really worth that much more for yet another consumer grade Canon lens with no weather sealing, no hood and an STM motor? It seems to do a similar trick with corrections as does the 16mm macro - and I was able to pick that little lens up for £260. Particularly given the current economic climate, I feel Canon is not helping enthusiast-level photographers get into the RF system.
I would call me an enthusiast. I do own and use the RF50mm 1.2 and RF50mm1.8. I do get excellent results out of either lens but photos style and usage is rather different .As soon as you start correlating tubers of shots taken and time either lens is with me the 1.8 is the clear winner. (but it costs less than 10%) Regarding the RF24mm (I was early in preordering): No, it is no astro lens. Beside of this it is basically very capable and performant in wide variety of usage. Regarding STM: This AF simply does all the jobs I ever brought to the lens. The weakest is the joy in manual focus. Regarding the missing hood: I do hate Canon's policy. Just putting a hood to this lens takes away a gook part of the lens's talents (size) Regarding weather sealing: I never had any issues with non protected Canon lenses - but i once had a temporarily partly dysfunctional L lens in heavy rain. This no scenario an "enthusiast" is shooting in. Regarding correction: The downside this to be done per SW: Less resolution and depending on the conditions more noise in the edges. In many cases you even can't detect it as a pixel peeper. The upsides are; Lens size, weight, costs - and even more leeway sometimes using "hidden areas" of the RAW in post, i.e. while correcting verticals. My other 24 is TS-E 24 3.5 II L, but the RF will do 99% of the jobs. The RF 24 brings lots of added fun and shooting options to my kit.
I just bought 24RF for $850AUD tax included which is $200 more than 35RF. RP is $1300 and R5 is a little over $5200 AUD and 85L non DS is around $4k AUD.
I purchased the both the 35 and 50 RF 1.8s and returned them. Partly focusing and vignetting issues but mostly because I preferred the results from the older EF primes. These new lenses just feel like a cash grab. What happened to the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8? Do people want a 35mm or 24mm macro lens? I'm happy if they focus to say 24-35cm and offer more in terms of speed and accuracy of focus.
@@clintnorthwood8058 You prefer the EF 50mm 1.4 to those RF 1.8s? Really??? BTW: I use the macro capabilities a lot and I am happy for no more need for those extension tubes, what a pain they were.
@@peterebel7899 I mean the 35/2, 28 IS, 50 STM and 40 STM. All optically better and focus better on a DSLR than the RF 35 and 50 1.8s do on my R6 and R5. The 35 RF and 50 RF 1.8s are trash for video AF and the 50 1.2 RF has the same pump action focusing system as well!!
As usual, thank you for the great review. I was looking forward to this lens because I love 24mm and the IS and Macro capabilities are interesting, but the price in Italy feels a bit too high and I already own the RF 35mm 1.8 and HATE the STM focusing with a passion. It's a pity, the photos in your review look great, but I suspect the STM focusing performance would be pretty much the same as the 35mm and that lens drives me crazy
Great review Dustin! I’m an older viewer that was a while since the last time I watch one of your videos BUT as in the past when it comes to viewing a useful content you are the best! Cheers from Italy!
Always love your reviews Dustin! ... Looking at the results of this new RF 24mm lens, I have to say that I think the Sigma 24mm f1.4 Art does a better job optically than this new RF24mm lens for the same price if not a bit cheaper.
Hi Dustin. My favorite reviewer! A quick question for you if you have the time. The RF 24 mm 1.8 is approx the same price as a EF 24 mm 1.4 in very good/excellent condition so I am debating which one to get. Aside from the macro feature of the RF version, is there any other reason you would purchase the RF over the EF? I think perhaps the EF version's image quality is better in all regards. I need to make a decision so I am curious (and would be grateful) to get your thoughts before I make my decision. Thanks and cheers. Ernst Jacobsen (p.s. I shoot primarily weddings).
Hi Dustin, Thanks for the thorough review. So does the heavy crop on the Canon JPG mean that the R5 sensor is actually capturing more than 45MP, and Canon is using that headroom for optical designs like this, or does it mean that the R5 is actually delivering a less-than-45MP equivalent image after the Canon JPG crop?
My guess is that there is actually a little scaling after correction to go back to the full resolution, as the R5's sensor is locked at its resolution. It can't resolve higher than that.
I'm planning to sell all my Canon kit, it's a shame not having RF lenses with usm autofocus without spending crazy amounts of money (I already have the 15-35L and the 70-200 RF). Sony users just have more choices
@@len.whistler I could, but I'm not willing to use an adapter after spending more than 10k on a system, also many EF lenses are out of production now and they couldn't even be repaired if needed. Canon should have opened the RF mount to third-party companies as Sony did
I have the EF 24mm f/2.8 IS lens that I use with the R5 mostly for video. Will this RF 24mm lens give a significant improvement in auto focusing capability or in image?
I'm actually not overly familiar with the EF 24mm F2.8, but I would lean towards yes...particularly if you are doing a lot of video. STM motors are better tuned to video focus, and you would be eliminating the factor of an adapter.
I just got mine for xmas this year and im having a hard time with the touch screen. It won't let me do my photo settings. Do you know how I can fix that?
