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.
@@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.
@@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.
@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.
@@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.
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!
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 😅
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)...
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
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?
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 - Exactly. Chris explicitly made the point about the lens being sharper for a camera with 24 Megapixels (and by extension 26 for the RP).
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.
@@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..."
If the calendar said 2004 I would agree with you. Unfortunately for Canon, the year is 2023 and competitors made better kit lenses ten years ago. I don't believe Canon's own lens factories are even set up to make crap like this. I am quite certain they get this one made at a manufacturer that normally serves the toy/security/disposable camera businesses. To make a worse lens than this in 2023 you have to actively try; there are no suppliers below this level so you would have to customize it down.
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
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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
@@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.
These damn 6.3 lenses at the long end are going to be the death of me. 😵💫😕🤮
It’s really sweet of Canon to provide free advertising for smartphone cameras.
Bhaha good one. Yep, left for Nikon.
I almost feel like a basic compact camera provides a better zoom range😂
And Canon themselves wanted to work together with smartphone makers
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.
@@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.
5:00 Should we even call this a full frame lens?
Should we call it a regular zoom lens and not a fish eye zoom lens?
Would you consider testing this on a crop sensor body?
Wow.. Canon lens department was asleep for this one. The Nikon version blows it out of the water.
thats an embarrassing bad lens! lol
Just a shame the Nikon cameras themselves are way behind Canon
@@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.
@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.
@@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.
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!
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.
@@opalyankaBG simply stating that for similar money, the 50mm 1.8 is a far better lens.
@@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.
@@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.
@@TimLucasdesign you never held a camera in your life, did you?
Canon cutted all corners, literally on this one
It’s probably fine for black and white street photography. That would be my use for it. Small and lightweight.
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.
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.
I think nikon did a better job with their 24-50.
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.
I agree! I recently switched to canon and I am looking for something similar. Nikon made it nice & lightweight as well.
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?
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.
You'd be surprised by that 28-60mm, I have all G or GM, Art or I series lenses.........apart from that kit lens ;)
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
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.
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
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.
Looks like some comments turned from just wanting third party lenses from Canon, to just wanting Canon cameras to just disappear from this world
Canon haters are filling the internet
@@zegzbrutal they wanted Canon to dissolve and the cameras ended up in landfills
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
Only if someone don't make petitions for Canon to just dissolve the company altogether
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.
If you have time please test R7 with the old ef-s 17/55 f2.8 and maybe vs sigma 18-35 f1.8.
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!
5:00 That is just awful. Canon should be embarrassed.
They are always proud accoring to their annoucements. What a waste.
its not even a vignette, it just a black bar all corner hahaha
@@CrashPCcz Canon might just want to sell their products into, you guess what, photography schools
That is the design. You never see that in the real life. The image is corrected even in the viewfinder.
It`s quite handy when you don`t have your fisheye ready,
Why canon make very dark lenses?
who is going to buy them?
Not me. Just jumped the ship for what they do.
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.
@mipmipmipmipmip It's pretty small for a full frame zoom.
it's a kit lens, included with your camera
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.
Been waiting for this review! Thank you!
When will you review RF 28mm f2.8 ? You’re the only one I trust 😊
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
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
I wonder what's next masterpiece from Canon - a 35-45mm F8-11?
This lens should be avoided like a plague.
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.
I appreciate that you tell us when something is not good. 👍
rf 24-105 f4-f7.1 is better, right ?
Marginally
This is an APS C lens with a fake full frame tag
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.
You would think they could have at least matched the Nikon equivalent. That little Nikon kills this lens.
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.
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.
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
Canons 16-35mm F4 was my favourite.
You forgot to mention how far this lens could be thrown
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.
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.
Greeting. Are you planning to test the Canon RF 28mm 2.8 soon? Thank you
which lens would be a nice upgrade from this one?
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?
To justify high prices for their quality glass
@@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.
@@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.
Or maybe Canon has some even more sinister plan ahead
3rd parties don't even bother releasing lenses like this...
The distortion is a real letdown, it's an overall reasonably sharp lens but comes with major flaws.
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
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.
This lens should be f3.5-5.6 and gets a fudging metal lens nount.
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
I'd like to see the performance on the R7
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.
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
Great review, thank you for this!
When will you test the canon RF 100-300 f2.8L ?
Are you going to review the new 28mm pancake soon? Thanks for the video, it’s a good warning not to buy this one.
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.
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).
Ouff. Didn't actually know you could lock the camera corrections on Canon shooters 😅
Buy a kit lens, get a free fish eye lens. Canon is so generous.
looks very similar to that ef_m kit lens 🤔
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.
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
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.
Built-in fisheye lens? 5:00
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.
I agree. It's either trash lenses or great bazooka lenses.
Well, I agree that recent Canon’s budget zooms are mediocre. however, canon produces pretty good budget friendly primes.
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.
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.
@@rrrrrrr303I can hear the tears from here 💦
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.
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 😅
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
Thank you, very helpful video.
Hi Chris
Pls do review canon EF 16-35 f2.8 ii and iii on eos r system
The aperture seems like a punishment for not buying L lenses.
It`s not only a punishment for that.
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.
Not sure the lens can be classed as full frame can it?
Very good lens for the Money
4.5 at 24mm? 6.3? Really?
Хороший объектив для бюджетной съёмки. Гораздо лучше если бы вы снимали на камеры с кропом 1.6.
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.
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.
best review for this lens in the web. Thank you!
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.
Wow, that’s a tiny zoom lens.
please review Sony 70200gm2!
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.
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.
Digi X is pulling it off
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.
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)...
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
In Italy it's the same 😀 "culo di bottiglia" 😀
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?
Check nikon 24-50 and reget
f/4.5-6.3 still to bright
canon should make f8-16
Thank you
Oof. I'll just stick with my LX100 from 2014.
ah cool ... parys mountain!
Barely better than a pinhole.
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!
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
@@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).
Those comments sound like they wanted Canon to disappear altogether
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.
@@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..."
Seems solid for a cheap kit lens, but could have been a bit longer.
If the calendar said 2004 I would agree with you. Unfortunately for Canon, the year is 2023 and competitors made better kit lenses ten years ago.
I don't believe Canon's own lens factories are even set up to make crap like this. I am quite certain they get this one made at a manufacturer that normally serves the toy/security/disposable camera businesses. To make a worse lens than this in 2023 you have to actively try; there are no suppliers below this level so you would have to customize it down.
@@jensdanbolt6953 or maybe 1987?
If you consider buying this lens, just stop and use your phone 💀💀. Or just get a fast prime
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
you might want canon cameras to end up in landfills :v
But why....
canon lenses seem to get worse and worse
Damn, I know it's designed to be crap, but why Canon? Why?
6.3 at 50mm? Omg no.
Is that a plastic mount?? It`s a plastic mount, kinda says it all. It hurts your eyes.
what the hell are Canon doing... some of these lenses are beyond terrible, lenses in the 80's were so much better...
Canon what we really wanted is 35mm 1.2, 24mm 1.2 and 105mm 1.4 or 135mm 1.4 come on canon stop making crap lenses,.
This lens is a very expensive piece of junk. The best value for money of Canon's input RF is the RF 50mm f1.8. It's the best RF lens for the price.
You can find them secondhand for $100-$130 bucks U.S. in great shape. It’s a decent travel or hiking lens. The RF 50mm f/1.8 is a beat for the price.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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
@@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.
Why is Canon making such bad lenses and not allowing third party manufacturers 😞