Do you think this is a better option than the RF sigma 18-50m f2.8 ? I have the r7 and I know the sigma is for my specific sensor but idc about the focal length. I’m talking build quality and optical quality . Thank you
Well, Sigma has a similar lens that is without IS/OS, which is a couple hundred dollars less. And take into consideration, it's not on the RF mount. That makes the Canon not too bad of a deal.
I came here for this comment. I ended up picking up the 24-105 F4 due to many reasons and one being L quality glass for just a few bucks more. Sure the aperture isn’t there but I have noticed I don’t shoot a lot faster than f4 and I have my 3 primes for portraits if I need to get down to f2 and f1.8.
@@harambesminion9266 I have the same, 24-105 L is my favorite focal length and its amazing, despite I afford 24-70 2.8 that reach is just not enough for me
I just pre-ordered mine for all the reasons you just mentioned. I have an R8 which is nice and light and when i put my 24-70L Mk I L on it, it just feels so heavy and unbalanced. The IS (especially for video) and the weight/size is what sold it to me. Cant wait for it to arrive.
Would this lens with an RF 70-200 f2.8 be a preferred combo on an R7 verses, say the Sigma pairing of the older 18-35 f1.8 and 50-100 f1.8 adapted to the same platform? Sure, there are focal length gaps, but those could be filled with some primes that would bring this package up to a similar price range. Because the Sogma pairing would still be that much cheaper. In Canadian dollars, its easily $5000 for the Canon option vs $2200 on the Sigma end.
Creatives: Canon needs to open up RF mount to 3rd party manufacturers Canon: Hold my beer (makes a better lens than Sigma WITH stabilization) I’ll say it again, Canon is playing the long game. They allowed the competition to play all their cards. Now watch.
Yeah they played the long game so hard they waited 5yrs after sony alpha series to catch up lol They weren't playing the long game. they were caught with their pants down. That said, I did just buy an R8, RF100-400, and will buy this lens soon too, to replace the kit lens.
@@irishRocker1 it’s a banger lens, with IS and IBIS im getting gimbal shots handheld with the R6ii. Can’t do that with the sigma 28-70 and FX3 that I also have. Canon hasn’t gone anywhere dude, they control 46% of the entire market
Thanks for the review. I've seen a couple others. Good lens. But you saved me from going to Canon or B&H to see the price. At $1099, I think I'll look for another used 24-105 f/4 to replace the one that I had stolen due to carelessness. I've seen them as low as $600..and am in no hurry as I have fallen back on my superb Tamron 24-70 G2 (which I got for about $900--a lot less than you got your version 1 for. I don't mind f/4 for that lens...I shoot astro and have 24, 28 and 35mm f/1.4 lenses for that, plus my RF 15-35 f/2.8. And my EF and RF 70-200 f/2.8's are great for wildlife when I don't need the big lenses.
Canon needs to ger serious about creating superzooms in this design category, like a 24-200 mm or a 28-300 mm . Their older RF 24-240 has serious imaging issues and not worth the investment. From what I've researched, they call this new lens weather resistant, not weather sealed like the "L" category of lenses. There may be a difference.
1k + is not quite affordable. If you look back a little bit you can by two used primes 24 f1.4 l and 50 1.2 l for the price of this non L zoom lens. Sure you will need an adapter for the EF glass and you loose IS feature. But you will get a high quality glass with low light capabilities. Maybe this lens will be a bargain in few years when price will come down on them.
It’s not affordable, but it’s competitively priced against Sony’s 24-50 and “Nikon’s” 28-75. (The Nikon lens is just a rebadged Tamron lens) If you want a lens this good, you pay the price. Cheap primes are the way to go if you don’t make money off your photography and need the versatility.
Overpriced. Ive been shooting professionally for 20 years and it just keeps getting worse. The camera industry is in a very sad place when an $1,100 lens is considered "affordable". No wonder it's a dying industry.....
It's embarrassing that Canon is dropping subpar, overpriced models that don't match the quality of third party lenses such as Sigma and Tamron. Since they've allowed third party lenses to RF system, they should allow those third party brands to improve the limited, choked RF lineup.
Just another reason I sold my RF mount gear and went back to EF mount DSLR cameras and lenses. They are a steal right now, especially compared to RF which is overpriced in nearly everything. Those old DSLRs and EF lenses still take excellent photos.
"subpar"????? nonsensical.... "overpriced" Maybe, but RF L glass IS spendy, but so is Nikon's and Sony's pro glass... So.... And, yes, Canon has almost 50% of the market.....
Do you think this is a better option than the RF sigma 18-50m f2.8 ? I have the r7 and I know the sigma is for my specific sensor but idc about the focal length. I’m talking build quality and optical quality . Thank you
I’m a hobbyist. Thank you for the review. I bought it and love it! It’s the perfect all around lens for a non-professional.
Too bad we have a different image about what is affordable :(
Well, Sigma has a similar lens that is without IS/OS, which is a couple hundred dollars less. And take into consideration, it's not on the RF mount. That makes the Canon not too bad of a deal.
I came here for this comment.
I ended up picking up the 24-105 F4 due to many reasons and one being L quality glass for just a few bucks more. Sure the aperture isn’t there but I have noticed I don’t shoot a lot faster than f4 and I have my 3 primes for portraits if I need to get down to f2 and f1.8.
@@harambesminion9266 I have the same, 24-105 L is my favorite focal length and its amazing, despite I afford 24-70 2.8 that reach is just not enough for me
I just pre-ordered mine for all the reasons you just mentioned. I have an R8 which is nice and light and when i put my 24-70L Mk I L on it, it just feels so heavy and unbalanced. The IS (especially for video) and the weight/size is what sold it to me. Cant wait for it to arrive.
Would this lens with an RF 70-200 f2.8 be a preferred combo on an R7 verses, say the Sigma pairing of the older 18-35 f1.8 and 50-100 f1.8 adapted to the same platform? Sure, there are focal length gaps, but those could be filled with some primes that would bring this package up to a similar price range. Because the Sogma pairing would still be that much cheaper. In Canadian dollars, its easily $5000 for the Canon option vs $2200 on the Sigma end.
Creatives: Canon needs to open up RF mount to 3rd party manufacturers
Canon: Hold my beer (makes a better lens than Sigma WITH stabilization)
I’ll say it again, Canon is playing the long game. They allowed the competition to play all their cards. Now watch.
Yeah they played the long game so hard they waited 5yrs after sony alpha series to catch up lol
They weren't playing the long game. they were caught with their pants down.
That said, I did just buy an R8, RF100-400, and will buy this lens soon too, to replace the kit lens.
@@irishRocker1 it’s a banger lens, with IS and IBIS im getting gimbal shots handheld with the R6ii. Can’t do that with the sigma 28-70 and FX3 that I also have. Canon hasn’t gone anywhere dude, they control 46% of the entire market
Thanks for the review. I've seen a couple others. Good lens. But you saved me from going to Canon or B&H to see the price. At $1099, I think I'll look for another used 24-105 f/4 to replace the one that I had stolen due to carelessness. I've seen them as low as $600..and am in no hurry as I have fallen back on my superb Tamron 24-70 G2 (which I got for about $900--a lot less than you got your version 1 for. I don't mind f/4 for that lens...I shoot astro and have 24, 28 and 35mm f/1.4 lenses for that, plus my RF 15-35 f/2.8. And my EF and RF 70-200 f/2.8's are great for wildlife when I don't need the big lenses.
Canon releases a competitive 1st party lens and people are still complaining. 😂
Canon needs to ger serious about creating superzooms in this design category, like a 24-200 mm or a 28-300 mm . Their older RF 24-240 has serious imaging issues and not worth the investment. From what I've researched, they call this new lens weather resistant, not weather sealed like the "L" category of lenses. There may be a difference.
great review thanks
now I need some telephoto 2.8 IS STM non-L 1:1 macro... they I can leave EF world
AFFORORDABLE
Canon lenses are girthy as always
I with is could be an internal zoom. I know it’s not a L lens but 1100 dollars still not pretty cheap one.
I’m pretty sure there isn’t a single internally zooming standard zoom lens
@@justinburley8659 rf 24-105 f2.8
@@justinburley8659 at least not with the RF mount
@@metron2590 RF 24-105 f2.8
1k + is not quite affordable. If you look back a little bit you can by two used primes 24 f1.4 l and 50 1.2 l for the price of this non L zoom lens. Sure you will need an adapter for the EF glass and you loose IS feature. But you will get a high quality glass with low light capabilities.
Maybe this lens will be a bargain in few years when price will come down on them.
It’s not affordable, but it’s competitively priced against Sony’s 24-50 and “Nikon’s” 28-75. (The Nikon lens is just a rebadged Tamron lens)
If you want a lens this good, you pay the price. Cheap primes are the way to go if you don’t make money off your photography and need the versatility.
You speak so well, but doesn't convinced me ....
Overpriced. Ive been shooting professionally for 20 years and it just keeps getting worse. The camera industry is in a very sad place when an $1,100 lens is considered "affordable". No wonder it's a dying industry.....
Its dying because of the creativity isn't there anymore
What lens would you suggest for family photography for canon r8?
@@michaelautumapu4256RF 50mm 1.8 would handle all of that!
Imaginary talk?? 😊
It's embarrassing that Canon is dropping subpar, overpriced models that don't match the quality of third party lenses such as Sigma and Tamron. Since they've allowed third party lenses to RF system, they should allow those third party brands to improve the limited, choked RF lineup.
Just another reason I sold my RF mount gear and went back to EF mount DSLR cameras and lenses. They are a steal right now, especially compared to RF which is overpriced in nearly everything. Those old DSLRs and EF lenses still take excellent photos.
subpar….?! holy fk do you have any knowledge about lenses…?! the RF lenses are such high quality… jeeeeez…. just shut up if you have no clue
Lmao lens isn’t even out yet and you’re saying it’s subpar
"subpar"????? nonsensical....
"overpriced" Maybe, but RF L glass IS spendy, but so is Nikon's and Sony's pro glass... So.... And, yes, Canon has almost 50% of the market.....