This lens is becoming my favorite lens right now. 24mm on my R7 is around 38mm FF equivalent and for me at least, the field of view is perfect as a travel/sight seeing lens. It´s quite shocking how similar the image quality is compared to the ef-s 24mm 2.8 on the R7.
That's such a ridiculous price for this lens. Shame Canon locked down the RF mount for 3rd parties, I'm sure Sigma and others would make some killer primes that don't break the bank.
For sure. I got the Viltrox RF 85mm 1.8 AF and although its noticably worse than a canon lens, its fully metal, has AF and cost me 300 dollars. Canons own 85mm 1.2 is obviously better but I need to add a zero to the price! For 1500 dollars I would consider it but not at double. Not to talk down on Viltrox but if they can make decent lenses I bet Sigma and Tamron can make excellent ones.
I just typed this as well, i have a Sigma 16mm F1.4 and a 17-55 f2.8 constant aperture, although they're for APSC bodies, they costed me around 300$ each and they're sharp from corner to corner, Canon would never bring that level of quality for at least twice the price.
It’s $599. Nikon charges $899 for their 24mm f/1.8. Sony charge $1399 for their 1.4, $599 for their 2.8, and they charge $648 for their crop 15mm which is comparable. Sigma 24mm f2 is $639. Samyang is the only one that charges less, at $399. None of them have image stabilization or close focus. I actually think Canon’s entry level RF lenses are fairly priced. I think they’re foolish for not allowing third party glass and I’m a Sony shooter, but this is the wrong lens to make that argument with. I’d love the Macro IS options for Sony because there is nothing like it on E mount: reasonably priced but excellent optics with image stabilization and close focus.
I love seeing you test on an R7 aswell as an R5. Canons APSC Lineup is lacking pretty much anything except for the entry level Superzoom, which is why buying FF equipment is the way to go right now if you don't want to go EF adapted.
Hey Chris! I bought this lens before any reviews came out and I 100% agree with your conclusion. It’s sharp in the middle of the image, but those corners are not great. I think it’s a perfectly capable lens and has lots of use cases, but I do wish those corners were just a little sharper
I have been playing with my copy of the lens for about a month now. I like the results. There weren't any reviews when I bought the lens, so I did tests myself. I have never been so bored in all my life. In future, I'll stick to just taking ordinary photographs!
Thank you so much for all the work you have put in on all your reviews, you have helped me make more lens decisions than any other youtuber and you are much appreciated.
I’m really fine with the 35mm on FF. That tends to be as wide as I need to go. Still it is nice to have at times. The distortion is pretty much on par with every other RF lens Ali have seen that starts at 24mm. Canon just doesn’t seem to want to push their 24mm designs harder right now. Where I see this lens having a ton of value however is on the R7 and R10. The APSC crop should help reduce most of this lenses short comings. While the RF APSC line has limited lens choices right now I do feel like many of the affordable Canon RF primes make up for most of that right now. Since I shoot and love the R6 right now I’m pretty sure I will be skipping this lens. Good to know I have a better walk around option for APSC in the future however. Another good use for this lens could be on the R5 which handles 4K 60p much better with a APSC crop.
Thanks so much for putting together another excellent review! You are definitely a rarity in the ocean of RUclips camera equipment reviewers. I trust your assessment enough to conclude that this lens is yet another overpriced, under-performing Canon RF lens. I can't help but wonder what the pricing would be, if 3rd parties had the rights to use RF mounts and actual Canon auto-focus programming. The entire point of a prime lens, for my purposes, is the boost in overall sharpness. Without edge to edge sharpness, the lens simply isn't fit for my needs. My Canon L 24 - 70mm is close enough to the quality of this lens, so I would gain little or nothing by adding this to my arsenal. I compared a Tamron 35mm 1.8 with a Canon RF 35mm 1.8 macro. As 2nd hand lenses, the Tamron is less expensive and outperforms the RF. The only downside is the need for an adapter. BUT I have ND filters in my RF to EF adapter, so I like using it.
This lens in particular but the canons approach for the 3rd party lenses in general was the reason me partially switching. I'm going to buy second camera with 24 mm from other manufacture where multiple 24mm are available and some of them are great value for money. Thanks for the review any way.
Huge fan of the 35mm. I use it along side my L series lenses for pro work all the time. One if the most versatile lenses I've ever owned. I always thought it was bit under priced compared to other lenses. Glad to see Canon are making more lenses in the same vein!
I find the RF 35mm frustrating and slow to focus compared to Sigma Art and Tamron EF primes. I still keep it in my bag because of its small size, but in spite of its extremely useful focal length, I wish I'd spent that $400 on getting the Tamron 35/1.4 in the first place.
@@likefunbutnot Really? I find it quite snappy on my R5, except in the macro range. It can be a bit slow very close up. But the Tamron doesn't even have macro range, no stabilisation either, and it's a lot more expensive. Wouldn't mind the weather sealing though, but that would probably make the Canon more expensive than the Tamron. I have the L series EF 35mm F1.4, but I actually prefer using the RF 1.8.
@@thedondeluxe6941 I generally shoot with an R6 and while I'm not saying that the Canon RF 35 is a garbage lens by any means,, it's actually the slowest focusing lens I own aside from a 20 year old EF 100mm macro lens. I find it hunting a lot, something I really notice from the rest of the stuff in my bag. Ls aren't ALWAYS the best lenses, weird as that is. I bought a Sigma Art 50/1.4 in favor to the very soft Canon EF 50/1.2 that I rented at the same time and that's a choice I don't regret at all. I'm also going to say I barely notice the IS on the RF 35. Given that it doesn't lock on in the same way as my other lenses, I can't tell if it's helping or not. Video from the RF vs the Tamron SP seems to be about the same as well. Thanks, R body with IBIS.
Thank you for your review, especially for testing it on an APS-C body! I‘m looking forward to Canon releasing some smaller APS-C body (M6-ish). With this lens that would be my dream combo for travel.
Yayyy been waiting for this! :) You inspired me to do my own review for this lens, can't wait to see your conclusions, see how they are compared to mine.
it may be an idea to test sharpness at the edge of the frame as well as extreme corners, some, lenses can be pretty soft in the extreme corner but sharpen up quickly as you move away from the corner especially modern lenses that use software connection but some lenses can be soft a fair way in from the corner..i think edge sharpness is important to me but not extreme corner as i cannot remember the last time i had a photo where the extreme corner was in focus.. especially wide open where corner sharpness is at its worst but DOF is at its thinnest
Absolutely! There are genres you want corner sharpness (landscape, architecture): There you need lots of DOF as well, so stopping down to f8 or so is the thing (btw: me shooting landscape is 100% zoom usage) There are genres you want steep perspectives, selective sharpness, minimum bulk to fit into narrow spaces, ....: This is the arena for primes. Test chart edge to edge sharpness is never the thing you need shooting in those genres. You may want to shoot very open with spot sharpness close to the edge. This is never be tested with those test chart shots due to slightly bended plane of focus with minimum DOF. In real life you set your focus on your subject no matter may it be close to the edge, may it be in the center. I love the versatility of the RF24 and while shooting with this lens for 2 months now there is not a single shot with any complaints about a lack of corner sharpness.
It's the IBIS. Not needed. People assume for macro, but in the macro world IBIS does very little if you're not locked down. I agree, overpriced not true macro. Marketing to Jack $ up.
I mean, unless those 700£ are a last minute pricing decision (seeing recent events), it's a pretty bad look to charge 200£ more than they did for the 35mm.
First adapter tax it will probably drop by 1/3 in few months. The same overpricing was done with 85 f2 and 16. But at that time you could buy Samyang 85.
Would this Full Frame lens make sense for APS-C camera owners too... For the sake of amateurs, could you please compare this lens with the RF-S 18-150mm kit lens. Thanks in Advance.
There are genres you want corner sharpness (landscape, architecture): There you need lots of DOF as well, so stopping down to f8 or so is the thing (btw: me shooting landscape is 100% zoom usage) There are genres you want steep perspectives, selective sharpness, minimum bulk to fit into narrow spaces, ....: This is the arena for primes. Test chart edge to edge sharpness is never the thing you need shooting in those genres. You may want to shoot very open with spot sharpness close to the edge. This is never be tested with those test chart shots due to slightly bended plane of focus with minimum DOF. In real life you set your focus on your subject no matter may it be close to the edge, may it be in the center. I love the versatility of the RF24 and while shooting with this lens for 2 months now there is not a single shot with any complaints about a lack of corner sharpness.
I don't understand why landscape has to be shot at smaller aperture. It could be shot at F4 or even F2.8 focused at infinity and still provide enough DOF for the subject. You are trying to say RF24 has mild field curvature issue which it doesn't, or not to the extent of corner softness. A lens flaw is a flaw, there is no denying. RF24 suffers from soft corners due to significant amount of digital distortion correction regardless of focal plane flatness.
Mr. Frost, do you think the 24 is quieter to focus than is the 35? I had the 35 but sold it, partly due to the noise, and am hoping Canon would work that out in future lenses (like this one, perhaps?)
The corners didn't look that bad at f/4 already, and it's an R5. When I need perfect corners I stop down to f/5.6 or f/8 anyway... I have an R6, and with the much lower resolution we shouldn't notice those imperfections that much. Chris, perhaps you could test it again on your R5 but at a lower resolution setting, to show what us R6 users can expect? Would be awesome! Thank you
Thank you for making these videos and telling us these are trash before we waste our money! I really appreciate that! I was just about to buy this too! You're the best!
For example compare the RF-S 18-150 to the RF full frame 24-240: At less than half the price you're getting a very sharp lens at the focal length rage up to 60mm while the full frame lens is not particularly sharp at any focal lenth. Imagine what dope ass APS-C lens you could get for the price and size of the 24 1.8
This lens is just not sharp enough. It's missing that micro contrast you get with lenses that have all glass elements. The resin elements Canon uses to save money on their 1.8 lenses take away that lifelike contrast you get with the older EF models.
I think I can reply, because there is no reply to bé given, quality wise it seem to be the same, so it only goes down to what you intend do to with it, and your personnal preference in focal length, no one can Say it for you :)
The image quality of the 35mm is much better, less distortion and corners are much sharper. But if you need the wider angle…well that’s the real question
Thank you Chris for this RF 24 STM review.. Too bad this lens not as good as EF 24 F2.8 USM. Hope one day you will re-review EF 24 2.8 IS USM on R5 and R7, that will be interesting !
@@Caveman2085 2.8 vs 1.8 🤣🤣🤣 Very funny 👍 and 2.8 has NO stabilisation at all !!!!!!!!!! For nonstabilized camera its VERY impotent !!!! So 1.8 in 10.000 times is better then 2.8.
The one I’ve been waiting for 😍 You seemed to be very forgiving of the reliance on profile corrections. Much more so than you were with the 24-105 STM or the 24-240. What are your thoughts?
My guess is that software correction is seriously affecting image corner sharpness. Just look at the absurd barrel distorsion for a damned prime lens...
Could You please test RF35mm on the R7? I beg You! I read somewhere that often when You use full frame glass on apsc sensor camera overall effective resolution might be worse, more soft. So I’m trying to find out if there is any sense for using full frame lenses on smaller sensor cameras… Cheers
This is why Canon won't allow for third party lenses. They have a list of really interesting lenses that will do a lot to compel buyers to enter the Canon RF system.
I got 24mm 1.8 and makes a lot of knocking sound in video mode that it cannot be used for video at all. Even mic from 1 meter away pics it up. I sent it to the canon service. Been 1 month now and ticket is still "Open" and "In Progress". My kit lenses 18-45 and 55-210 are totally dead silent while in video mode and even EF-S 55-250 is dead silent on video mode. With 24mm 1.8 it felt like something is even loose inside the lens. Very disappointed for the market "silent lens for video" and canon service time been now freaking 1 month and still waiting. God i hate camera lenses even in 2024. Camcorders had dead silent focus and zoom motors in the 1990s ........ !
Bla bla bla another nice review. Interesting to see it do rather well on the R7. I'm guessing a large central part of the lens is quite sharp, and the APS-C field of view doesn't use those outer edges.
I do wish Canon remove the macro so the lens will focus faster. Compared to EF 24mm f2 IS USM is a one step forward (f1.8) but 2 steps back(STM+macro). I can see why Canon obsses with macro, theses primes tend to be brought by users that used to be shooting on smartphones only. Having that macro allows those types of users not changing their shooting style. And they don't tend to demand extremely fast AF like the youtube comments section.
Yeah, when I first got in to photography, minimum focus issues was the first problem I ran into ans had to learn about. Plus on the video end, people walking and vlogging or doing videos where the person wants to show something close up (like something they're reviewing) also make use of close focusing distances. It makes sense on their end to design it that way.
Just churning them reviews out Chris. You're a machine.
This lens is becoming my favorite lens right now. 24mm on my R7 is around 38mm FF equivalent and for me at least, the field of view is perfect as a travel/sight seeing lens.
It´s quite shocking how similar the image quality is compared to the ef-s 24mm 2.8 on the R7.
That's such a ridiculous price for this lens.
Shame Canon locked down the RF mount for 3rd parties, I'm sure Sigma and others would make some killer primes that don't break the bank.
For sure. I got the Viltrox RF 85mm 1.8 AF and although its noticably worse than a canon lens, its fully metal, has AF and cost me 300 dollars. Canons own 85mm 1.2 is obviously better but I need to add a zero to the price! For 1500 dollars I would consider it but not at double. Not to talk down on Viltrox but if they can make decent lenses I bet Sigma and Tamron can make excellent ones.
I use my tamrons with the ef adaptor. But I'm very sad about canon locking things down. I love the look the tamrons give.
100 % agreed your comment. But after watching the review for fe 24 2.8 G, I think this price is very reasonable.
I just typed this as well, i have a Sigma 16mm F1.4 and a 17-55 f2.8 constant aperture, although they're for APSC bodies, they costed me around 300$ each and they're sharp from corner to corner, Canon would never bring that level of quality for at least twice the price.
It’s $599. Nikon charges $899 for their 24mm f/1.8. Sony charge $1399 for their 1.4, $599 for their 2.8, and they charge $648 for their crop 15mm which is comparable. Sigma 24mm f2 is $639. Samyang is the only one that charges less, at $399. None of them have image stabilization or close focus. I actually think Canon’s entry level RF lenses are fairly priced. I think they’re foolish for not allowing third party glass and I’m a Sony shooter, but this is the wrong lens to make that argument with. I’d love the Macro IS options for Sony because there is nothing like it on E mount: reasonably priced but excellent optics with image stabilization and close focus.
I love seeing you test on an R7 aswell as an R5. Canons APSC Lineup is lacking pretty much anything except for the entry level Superzoom, which is why buying FF equipment is the way to go right now if you don't want to go EF adapted.
Please always test RF lenses on both bodies (FF & APS-C), this is the practice you use to follow in your old videos...please continue the same. thanks
Hey Chris! I bought this lens before any reviews came out and I 100% agree with your conclusion. It’s sharp in the middle of the image, but those corners are not great. I think it’s a perfectly capable lens and has lots of use cases, but I do wish those corners were just a little sharper
Dann wäre der Preis nicht zu halten!
I have been playing with my copy of the lens for about a month now. I like the results. There weren't any reviews when I bought the lens, so I did tests myself. I have never been so bored in all my life. In future, I'll stick to just taking ordinary photographs!
how about the edge performance wide open? bad or good ?
Thank you so much for all the work you have put in on all your reviews, you have helped me make more lens decisions than any other youtuber and you are much appreciated.
I’m really fine with the 35mm on FF. That tends to be as wide as I need to go. Still it is nice to have at times. The distortion is pretty much on par with every other RF lens Ali have seen that starts at 24mm. Canon just doesn’t seem to want to push their 24mm designs harder right now.
Where I see this lens having a ton of value however is on the R7 and R10. The APSC crop should help reduce most of this lenses short comings. While the RF APSC line has limited lens choices right now I do feel like many of the affordable Canon RF primes make up for most of that right now.
Since I shoot and love the R6 right now I’m pretty sure I will be skipping this lens. Good to know I have a better walk around option for APSC in the future however.
Another good use for this lens could be on the R5 which handles 4K 60p much better with a APSC crop.
I was deciding between this and the ttartisan 40mm macro. Went with the ttartisan and couldn’t be happier! 1/3 the price but 10x the fun
I love this channel so much, so much reviews that are all perfect :)
Excellent review! Exactly what I needed to know about this lens. Thx
Thanks so much for putting together another excellent review! You are definitely a rarity in the ocean of RUclips camera equipment reviewers.
I trust your assessment enough to conclude that this lens is yet another overpriced, under-performing Canon RF lens. I can't help but wonder what the pricing would be, if 3rd parties had the rights to use RF mounts and actual Canon auto-focus programming.
The entire point of a prime lens, for my purposes, is the boost in overall sharpness. Without edge to edge sharpness, the lens simply isn't fit for my needs.
My Canon L 24 - 70mm is close enough to the quality of this lens, so I would gain little or nothing by adding this to my arsenal.
I compared a Tamron 35mm 1.8 with a Canon RF 35mm 1.8 macro. As 2nd hand lenses, the Tamron is less expensive and outperforms the RF. The only downside is the need for an adapter. BUT I have ND filters in my RF to EF adapter, so I like using it.
This lens in particular but the canons approach for the 3rd party lenses in general was the reason me partially switching. I'm going to buy second camera with 24 mm from other manufacture where multiple 24mm are available and some of them are great value for money.
Thanks for the review any way.
Sony 24mm f2.8 G is slower, also requires digital corrections... And cost more.. Why the hate is only on Canon
@@zegzbrutal coma smearing. I can't shoot the sky basically. Check out the samyang 24 1.8 on this channel.
Finally!! when advertisement pop up in this video,. i fully wached all advertisement because,. i really waited for this reviews,.
Huge fan of the 35mm. I use it along side my L series lenses for pro work all the time. One if the most versatile lenses I've ever owned. I always thought it was bit under priced compared to other lenses. Glad to see Canon are making more lenses in the same vein!
I find the RF 35mm frustrating and slow to focus compared to Sigma Art and Tamron EF primes. I still keep it in my bag because of its small size, but in spite of its extremely useful focal length, I wish I'd spent that $400 on getting the Tamron 35/1.4 in the first place.
@@likefunbutnot if you are lucky, find some used Yongnuo RF 35mm f2. It's good and without the macro, making much more reliable+fast on AF
@@likefunbutnot Really? I find it quite snappy on my R5, except in the macro range. It can be a bit slow very close up. But the Tamron doesn't even have macro range, no stabilisation either, and it's a lot more expensive. Wouldn't mind the weather sealing though, but that would probably make the Canon more expensive than the Tamron. I have the L series EF 35mm F1.4, but I actually prefer using the RF 1.8.
@@thedondeluxe6941 I generally shoot with an R6 and while I'm not saying that the Canon RF 35 is a garbage lens by any means,, it's actually the slowest focusing lens I own aside from a 20 year old EF 100mm macro lens. I find it hunting a lot, something I really notice from the rest of the stuff in my bag. Ls aren't ALWAYS the best lenses, weird as that is. I bought a Sigma Art 50/1.4 in favor to the very soft Canon EF 50/1.2 that I rented at the same time and that's a choice I don't regret at all.
I'm also going to say I barely notice the IS on the RF 35. Given that it doesn't lock on in the same way as my other lenses, I can't tell if it's helping or not. Video from the RF vs the Tamron SP seems to be about the same as well. Thanks, R body with IBIS.
I've been spoiled by the Tamron SP 35/1.4. That lens is a thing of absolute beauty.
Love your reviews Chris - Do you plan on reviewing the new budget RF 15-30mm at any stage?
Thank you for your review, especially for testing it on an APS-C body! I‘m looking forward to Canon releasing some smaller APS-C body (M6-ish). With this lens that would be my dream combo for travel.
Excellent review, thank you for this! Just what I needed to know!!!
Yayyy been waiting for this! :) You inspired me to do my own review for this lens, can't wait to see your conclusions, see how they are compared to mine.
it may be an idea to test sharpness at the edge of the frame as well as extreme corners, some, lenses can be pretty soft in the extreme corner but sharpen up quickly as you move away from the corner especially modern lenses that use software connection but some lenses can be soft a fair way in from the corner..i think edge sharpness is important to me but not extreme corner as i cannot remember the last time i had a photo where the extreme corner was in focus.. especially wide open where corner sharpness is at its worst but DOF is at its thinnest
Absolutely!
There are genres you want corner sharpness (landscape, architecture): There you need lots of DOF as well, so stopping down to f8 or so is the thing (btw: me shooting landscape is 100% zoom usage)
There are genres you want steep perspectives, selective sharpness, minimum bulk to fit into narrow spaces, ....: This is the arena for primes. Test chart edge to edge sharpness is never the thing you need shooting in those genres. You may want to shoot very open with spot sharpness close to the edge. This is never be tested with those test chart shots due to slightly bended plane of focus with minimum DOF. In real life you set your focus on your subject no matter may it be close to the edge, may it be in the center.
I love the versatility of the RF24 and while shooting with this lens for 2 months now there is not a single shot with any complaints about a lack of corner sharpness.
Looking for the same review in Canon R10.
$600, no weather sealing, no internal focus, not so great IQ, lots of focus breathing. should probably be closer to $400.
It's the IBIS. Not needed. People assume for macro, but in the macro world IBIS does very little if you're not locked down.
I agree, overpriced not true macro. Marketing to Jack $ up.
nice focal for APS-C Rf
"bla bla bla" Patreon outro was gold! 😂
I mean, unless those 700£ are a last minute pricing decision (seeing recent events), it's a pretty bad look to charge 200£ more than they did for the 35mm.
First adapter tax it will probably drop by 1/3 in few months. The same overpricing was done with 85 f2 and 16. But at that time you could buy Samyang 85.
Would this Full Frame lens make sense for APS-C camera owners too... For the sake of amateurs, could you please compare this lens with the RF-S 18-150mm kit lens. Thanks in Advance.
Thanks. I was waiting to compare between your review and Gordon Laing. It looks promising.
There are genres you want corner sharpness (landscape, architecture): There you need lots of DOF as well, so stopping down to f8 or so is the thing (btw: me shooting landscape is 100% zoom usage)
There are genres you want steep perspectives, selective sharpness, minimum bulk to fit into narrow spaces, ....: This is the arena for primes. Test chart edge to edge sharpness is never the thing you need shooting in those genres. You may want to shoot very open with spot sharpness close to the edge. This is never be tested with those test chart shots due to slightly bended plane of focus with minimum DOF. In real life you set your focus on your subject no matter may it be close to the edge, may it be in the center.
I love the versatility of the RF24 and while shooting with this lens for 2 months now there is not a single shot with any complaints about a lack of corner sharpness.
I don't understand why landscape has to be shot at smaller aperture. It could be shot at F4 or even F2.8 focused at infinity and still provide enough DOF for the subject. You are trying to say RF24 has mild field curvature issue which it doesn't, or not to the extent of corner softness. A lens flaw is a flaw, there is no denying. RF24 suffers from soft corners due to significant amount of digital distortion correction regardless of focal plane flatness.
I wonder how mad that "Stop using coins" guy is about this video.
Does the 24mm has the same problem like 35mm that goes to the macro mode in video, when there isn't any other point to focus
Mr. Frost, do you think the 24 is quieter to focus than is the 35? I had the 35 but sold it, partly due to the noise, and am hoping Canon would work that out in future lenses (like this one, perhaps?)
Yes, it is quieter.
The corners didn't look that bad at f/4 already, and it's an R5. When I need perfect corners I stop down to f/5.6 or f/8 anyway... I have an R6, and with the much lower resolution we shouldn't notice those imperfections that much.
Chris, perhaps you could test it again on your R5 but at a lower resolution setting, to show what us R6 users can expect? Would be awesome! Thank you
Do you think this lens is worth buying for filming and filmmaking? Is the focus speed good for filming?
Great review, thank you!
How does the RF24 compare to the RF24-70 2.8 when both @ 24mm and 2.8?
they should add a ‘s’ behind the RF
Thank you for making these videos and telling us these are trash before we waste our money! I really appreciate that! I was just about to buy this too! You're the best!
Trash? How so?😳
Der Rezensent würde niemals ein Objektiv als Müll bezeichnen! Das ist der Unterschied!
Do you NOT have an APSC cam with a 24megapixel sensor? THAT would be interesting
its a decent walkaround on apsc ，hope tamron or sigma make a similar ff version of 35mm or 50 macro
For example compare the RF-S 18-150 to the RF full frame 24-240: At less than half the price you're getting a very sharp lens at the focal length rage up to 60mm while the full frame lens is not particularly sharp at any focal lenth. Imagine what dope ass APS-C lens you could get for the price and size of the 24 1.8
nice review of the lens :D
i have the 35, might just jump to the 24
So for 350 bucks, why not? More, No way.
This lens is just not sharp enough. It's missing that micro contrast you get with lenses that have all glass elements. The resin elements Canon uses to save money on their 1.8 lenses take away that lifelike contrast you get with the older EF models.
£700 release price and you get resin elements... it's a disgrace to be honest
So Chris, if you were to choose between the RF24mm and the RF35mm, which would you choose and why?
I think I can reply, because there is no reply to bé given, quality wise it seem to be the same, so it only goes down to what you intend do to with it, and your personnal preference in focal length, no one can Say it for you :)
The image quality of the 35mm is much better, less distortion and corners are much sharper. But if you need the wider angle…well that’s the real question
I'm making a whole special video all about that very question :-)
@@christopherfrost cool
Chris! Meike released a 35mm f0.95 apsc lens ! You gotta review it 🙏🏻🙏🏻
0.95 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 What for 0.95 ?))
Thank you Chris for this RF 24 STM review..
Too bad this lens not as good as EF 24 F2.8 USM.
Hope one day you will re-review EF 24 2.8 IS USM on R5 and R7, that will be interesting !
It actually seems to outperform the old EF 24/2.8 IS by a noticeable amount, but it would definitely make sense to see a direct comparison.
@@Caveman2085 2.8 vs 1.8 🤣🤣🤣 Very funny 👍 and 2.8 has NO stabilisation at all !!!!!!!!!! For nonstabilized camera its VERY impotent !!!! So 1.8 in 10.000 times is better then 2.8.
@@Dmitrii_88 The EF 24/2.8 IS has a stabilizer, that's what the IS in the lens name stands for. But yes, I'd rather the RF.
The one I’ve been waiting for 😍 You seemed to be very forgiving of the reliance on profile corrections. Much more so than you were with the 24-105 STM or the 24-240. What are your thoughts?
It's increasingly becoming just a fact of life these days TBH
Another vlogging lens from Canon?
My guess is that software correction is seriously affecting image corner sharpness. Just look at the absurd barrel distorsion for a damned prime lens...
which one has more good quality between rf 35 and rf 24? im considering buy one of them for wedding/prewedding (i have 50mm lens), thanks a lot guys
A special video all about that is coming out soon :-)
@@christopherfrost ill wait for it bro (y)
@@leonardwijaya3179 24 IS better
This or the sigma ef 1.4?
Could You please test RF35mm on the R7? I beg You! I read somewhere that often when You use full frame glass on apsc sensor camera overall effective resolution might be worse, more soft. So I’m trying to find out if there is any sense for using full frame lenses on smaller sensor cameras… Cheers
Your wish is my command :-) I will be re-testing a few RF lenses on the R7, and the 35mm is scheduled in.
@@christopherfrost oh wow 🤩 so cool 😎
Do you read the comments? 😅 I told you before that us price is without tax always. That's why in the USA after tax tbe price is identical to the uk
Yes, I read the comments. Even WITH average extra cost for US sales tax, considering the exchange rate, the lens is more expensive in the UK
How does it it compare to Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM ?
Usm is better than stm
@@kifley19 no
Not first
"Liberation" of the Falkland islands 😂😂😂 English humor
This is why Canon won't allow for third party lenses. They have a list of really interesting lenses that will do a lot to compel buyers to enter the Canon RF system.
Wenn das stimmt was sie beschreiben dann hat ja Canon alles richtig gemacht! Oder?
Todo bien con las reviews, las veo siempre.. pero se llaman Malvinas, y son Argentinas
Not first too
DId you guys notice youtube being refreshed its weird
Canon locked 3rd party lenses because they know damn well that Sigma could come up with a lens better than this one for 300 or 350$
Niemand muss eine Canon kaufen! Das ist freiwillig!😊
2:12 Why don't you shut it off?
I got 24mm 1.8 and makes a lot of knocking sound in video mode that it cannot be used for video at all. Even mic from 1 meter away pics it up. I sent it to the canon service. Been 1 month now and ticket is still "Open" and "In Progress". My kit lenses 18-45 and 55-210 are totally dead silent while in video mode and even EF-S 55-250 is dead silent on video mode. With 24mm 1.8 it felt like something is even loose inside the lens. Very disappointed for the market "silent lens for video" and canon service time been now freaking 1 month and still waiting. God i hate camera lenses even in 2024. Camcorders had dead silent focus and zoom motors in the 1990s ........ !
What's up with Canon and having crappy corners in their lenses.
Auch der STM Antrieb ist zweitklassig!
❤👏👍
Bla bla bla another nice review. Interesting to see it do rather well on the R7. I'm guessing a large central part of the lens is quite sharp, and the APS-C field of view doesn't use those outer edges.
Im subscribing because he said "blah blah nlah"
I do wish Canon remove the macro so the lens will focus faster. Compared to EF 24mm f2 IS USM is a one step forward (f1.8) but 2 steps back(STM+macro).
I can see why Canon obsses with macro, theses primes tend to be brought by users that used to be shooting on smartphones only. Having that macro allows those types of users not changing their shooting style. And they don't tend to demand extremely fast AF like the youtube comments section.
I love macro!
Yeah, when I first got in to photography, minimum focus issues was the first problem I ran into ans had to learn about.
Plus on the video end, people walking and vlogging or doing videos where the person wants to show something close up (like something they're reviewing) also make use of close focusing distances.
It makes sense on their end to design it that way.
Mediocre sharpness from RF lens are you sure this is not EF mount one :)
Nice lens. Not £700's worth, though
R7 has higher pixel density than R5, and the center was better on R7.
Does not make sense claim that will be more sharpness on R10 or R6.
👍 for "bla bla bla".
For the price, the lens appears to be … disappointing. I’d say a fair price would be around $400 at most.
$250. Stm motor is crap
@@kifley19 crap ?))) You are SOOOO funny )) Like a CLOWN 🤡🤡🤡
Blah blah blah Thanks for the review
disgusting distortion
why does it sound like you need a drink all i hear is mouth smacking
Poor quality of the lens in the corners, not worth buying.
Doubtful “corner sharpness” really matters in most applications. Lens qualities outweigh negatives imho. ☺️
NOT that bad compared to others.
No CA in corners just soft A little Wide Open COMMON.
What's your recommendation for 24mm EF/RF mount?
@@efreutel Das ist aber ein Wiederspruch!
canon is just crap
Mit Mist kann man die Erde fruchtbarer machen…