Certainly not worth a "group test", but considering this is now a clear product segment: which of the Sony FE 28-60 mm F4-5.6, Nikon Z 24‑50mm f/4‑6.3, or Canon RF 24-50mm F4.5-6.3 is the WORST? 😆
LOL - the Sony is definitely sharper than this Canon lens. I haven't tested the Nikon, but I am soon purchasing a Z8 and will starting to do Z mount reviews.
@@Cony989 IMHO the Sony APS-C 16-50 is old design and a pure garbage of a lens - not sure I ever owned a worse lens. Nikon 24-50 is decent - it has moderate distortion and it is always sharp in the center and has decent sharpness in the corners too. Also Nikon doesn't offer only this lens in a kit but also the great 24-70 f/4.
I got it with my R8 cause it wasn’t a big difference when I got it and wanted an RF lens, bought the nifty 50 with it too and only ended up using that. Took it out of my bag when I found the kit 24-105 for really cheap. This lens really isn’t worth it unless you really want that range and don’t want another lens
Hello Dustin! I think this lens can be summed up with: ANYWAY! Canon sure is doing a great job of releasing some uninspiring lenses. On a side note, I think it would be useful to dedicate an episode to some mid range or budget options for Canon mount. Most of these, I suppose, would be adaptable lenses, but I think that now more than ever is a great time to buy some great dslr lenses. I mean, I recently got my Tamron 35mm F1.4 lens for just 500$, which is an absolute steal. Most DSLR lenses these days are sold for cheaper but are often still competitive in performance!
I'm sorry, but this might just be the worst kit lens currently in production... Edit: this really spiraled out of control 😅 calm down everyone, this lens will still make people happy 😇
It's a beginners' cheapo lens costing (currently on Amazon UK) £200. It does what it is supposed to do for those who have just acquired their first "proper" camera.
I quite like it , and I own a sigma 40mm f/1.4, an RF 15-35, and an RF 70-200 f/2.8 (all top of the line lenses in their category). When shooting in JPEG with a 24MP sensor , i think it punches above its price point. And it’s tiny paired with my R8. For raw photos or 35+ MP sensors, I can see your point, but this is a kit lens.
No need to sorry...it is made to fit in canon lens lineup catalogue... if u want to buy it then buy it, if u dont want to buy it, canon doesnt lose anything also
@@xkben90 I disagree, narrow focal range, dark aperture... Don't really see the point except for video. That being said I went from never buy the kit lens to thinking that the super cheap EF-M 15-45 was actually quite decent for holiday videos and a few pictures here and there although I would mainly use my EF-M 22mm f2... So I was quite pleased having purchased this baby kit lens. But 24-50 instead of 24-72 equivalent range (16-45 x1.6) with an aperture range so dark and 2-3x the price is just so uninspiring that I don't think I would buy it even as part of a bundle with an R8 or RP and even less so if I was to buy an R6II. (which I am not as I own an R5)
Looking to get an R7 which is a crop sensor camera (moving up from a 10D dslr). I don't really like either of the 'kit' lenses that come packaged with the R7. Been looking at this lens and was wondering if the distortions inherent to this lens fall outside of the sensor in the R7?
@@DustinAbbottTWI Not too worried about the zoom range - I need a relatively simple lens to learn the system and then I can get the EF/RF adapter to use my 10D lenses which are all full frame.
try adapting the sigma 24-35 f2 to RF mount. the lens is old and discontinued, the AF is clunky but it still suffices, the image it produces is decent along with a very tolerable price for used copies. it's not a 24-50 f2 but it's close enough.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I think they could do much better for the same price and I don't think it would be difficult at all. The purpose is just to put off the customers and get them to buy more expensive lenses and in particular L lenses.... just like there was no roof in third class train coaches when these existed... it isn't the price of the roof, it is just so painful that you will pay for second class even if it is a financial stretch. This is meant to be a "painful" lens that cannot achieve a good result, maybe 24 is ok-ish but 50 is useless for a portrait. And people who buy these cameras do a lot of (family) portraits. In this use case, a phone can do almost as well, and better with AI background blurring. So if you want to upgrade from a phone, it will really cost you because the kit lens will disappoint you.
I'm not sure why someone would buy a full frame camera and then attach such a slow and 'meh' lens. But then again the middle ground lenses are still nowhere to be seen on Canon RF, so if you rarely use that focal range it's probably better than nothing.
they will sold with a R8 then it will be used 7 times and lands in a drawer because their iPhone / Samsung gives more pleasing and much more easy results
I got it for my son's soccer games. It draws MUCH less attention than my RF 15-35 and RF 70-200, and if you're using it for JPEGS or video, its' actually pretty good. I think the hate it gets isn't justified considering its size, built in IS, and price point. I got mine for $180, and I don't know another lens that can match its versatility for outdoor situations.
The R8 is way to good for this cheap thing. I use the 24-105 f/4 L. If you want to buy this lens, do not insult the R8 with it. Get the cheapest body you can.
@@DustinAbbottTWIAgreed! So why does Canon make such a lens? The R8 is as good as the R6 II when it comes to sensor and autofocus. As you did, I used it with the RF 28 f/2.8 pancake and the results are nothing short of fabulous at this price point. I guess this lens is more for R10 or R50. And since APS-C is now open to Sigma and Tamron, why bother?
@@DustinAbbottTWI as dumb as it might sound, but in these days the images might be not seen on displays bigger as a phone or an macbook air or on a awful laptop screen and then the iphone might still win because the whitebalance, sharpness etc might look more pleasing
This is clearly a cash grab. Lenses getting more expensive and a new generation of entry level kit lenses that are worse than the previous ones whilst being the same price or more expensive. I really think it isn't that Canon cannot do better for cheaper, it is that they are trying to put people off the entry level to charge them a lot more for the decent lenses. For example the EF-M 15-45 not only has a wider focal length range and is brighter than the RF-S 18-45? Why? They could just change the mount but they didn't. (Although a conspiracy theory would be that it is actually the same lens with some hardware/firmware restrictions preventing access to the full range ... who knows, cheaper than designing a new lens!) Also, not everybody needs an L lens for all situations, I own some but I also like to travel light sometimes and a mid range weather sealed lens is all I need and want to carry because I would never take a 4.5-6.3 nor a 5.6-8 or 5.6-11 lens! I have been reluctant to take my R5 everywhere because the 24-70L is too heavy and there is no decent alternative ... the 24-105 which I don't own maybe but it isn't super sharp on the R5, not sharper than the non-L 24-105 which is dark. To be honest, as a client and user of Canon gear both for leisure and business for over 30 years, this behaviour really puts me off, I haven't changed brand yet but was very very close multiple times and in particular when I was late to the game buying the R5, the Z8 came out 4 months after I bought the R5 and if it had been out, I would have jumped ship. That being said, I was thinking of selling my M50 to buy an R50 or more likely an R10 as a third body and lightweight travel companion and I haven't, the lens line up is just too crap and there is no image quality benefit for photography in comparison to the M50. The Fuji X-S20 is so so so much more compelling a product ... but then i would have the same problem of having lenses for another camera system too and not being able to use my flashes. Thankfully Tamron and Sigma will be coming to the rescue soon and hopefully Canon will stop treating us like stupid cash cows.
@@csmith917 it depends where I go and what type of trip. I have travelled with some M50 kit all or just 22mm (all is 15-45, 22mm, normal adapter + focal reducer, EF50mm and EF 85mm). That is my light small and cheaper kit, holds in a small bag. Otherwise I can go heavy R5, 16mm 2.8, Sigma 35 1.4, 24-70L, 50 1.8, EF 100-300L. And yes that is a bit "messy" because I have EF-M, EF and RF lenses and I don't have a compact RF setup. I would love to simplify and sell stuff, I have been thinking of replacing the M50 with an R10 and selling most of my DSLR gear... But I haven't because of the lack of RF-S lenses, I would love a better kit lens that is brighter and goes wider (like the 15-45 or better like the Fuji 18-55 2.8-4), a 22mm... The other EF-M lenses with RF mounts! Also, I am happy to just take the 24-70 in a lot of situations but it is big, heavy and very visible. I might buy the RF28 2.8 pancake and I could have a relatively light setup with 16,28 and 50 non-L lenses.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I agree, not a cheap combo... 70-200L can be replaced by EF L 100-300 which is still a great lens and is now very very cheap. And I would add the R 16mm/2.8 to the 24-105.
Certainly not worth a "group test", but considering this is now a clear product segment: which of the Sony FE 28-60 mm F4-5.6, Nikon Z 24‑50mm f/4‑6.3, or Canon RF 24-50mm F4.5-6.3 is the WORST? 😆
LOL - the Sony is definitely sharper than this Canon lens. I haven't tested the Nikon, but I am soon purchasing a Z8 and will starting to do Z mount reviews.
thats exactly what i was asking myself! i would also throw the sony apsc kit lens in here because of its reputation
@@DustinAbbottTWI \o/ Nikon reviews!
@@Cony989 IMHO the Sony APS-C 16-50 is old design and a pure garbage of a lens - not sure I ever owned a worse lens.
Nikon 24-50 is decent - it has moderate distortion and it is always sharp in the center and has decent sharpness in the corners too. Also Nikon doesn't offer only this lens in a kit but also the great 24-70 f/4.
You should review the rf 15-30 STM, I’ve been quite impressed with it
It really takes a genius to make use of this lens, it's insane that at 50mm f6.3 the inadequate image quality still persists.
You can get good images with it, but don't expect much on the margins.
I think this is a lens for stupid people, because you have to be really stupid to pay a lot of money for this piece of plastic crap
I got it with my R8 cause it wasn’t a big difference when I got it and wanted an RF lens, bought the nifty 50 with it too and only ended up using that. Took it out of my bag when I found the kit 24-105 for really cheap.
This lens really isn’t worth it unless you really want that range and don’t want another lens
I thin that's a fairly solid take.
Hello Dustin! I think this lens can be summed up with: ANYWAY! Canon sure is doing a great job of releasing some uninspiring lenses.
On a side note, I think it would be useful to dedicate an episode to some mid range or budget options for Canon mount. Most of these, I suppose, would be adaptable lenses, but I think that now more than ever is a great time to buy some great dslr lenses. I mean, I recently got my Tamron 35mm F1.4 lens for just 500$, which is an absolute steal. Most DSLR lenses these days are sold for cheaper but are often still competitive in performance!
That's fair. On a positive note, I got my first announcement from a major third party brand that they have an upcoming RF mount lens!
@DustinAbbottTWI Well that's exciting! I will be waiting for more news to come.
Tamron 35mm F1.4 is the sharpest lens I ever owned. The only downside for me is the onion ring inside bokeh balls.
@joliver4083 it's really not too visible. I only noticed it slightly on a couple of occasions.
Appears Tamron will be the 1st, third party lens maker for the RF system
I'm sorry, but this might just be the worst kit lens currently in production...
Edit: this really spiraled out of control 😅
calm down everyone, this lens will still make people happy 😇
It's a beginners' cheapo lens costing (currently on Amazon UK) £200. It does what it is supposed to do for those who have just acquired their first "proper" camera.
I quite like it , and I own a sigma 40mm f/1.4, an RF 15-35, and an RF 70-200 f/2.8 (all top of the line lenses in their category).
When shooting in JPEG with a 24MP sensor , i think it punches above its price point. And it’s tiny paired with my R8.
For raw photos or 35+ MP sensors, I can see your point, but this is a kit lens.
No need to sorry...it is made to fit in canon lens lineup catalogue... if u want to buy it then buy it, if u dont want to buy it, canon doesnt lose anything also
There was definitely some corner cutting here.
@@xkben90 I disagree, narrow focal range, dark aperture... Don't really see the point except for video. That being said I went from never buy the kit lens to thinking that the super cheap EF-M 15-45 was actually quite decent for holiday videos and a few pictures here and there although I would mainly use my EF-M 22mm f2... So I was quite pleased having purchased this baby kit lens. But 24-50 instead of 24-72 equivalent range (16-45 x1.6) with an aperture range so dark and 2-3x the price is just so uninspiring that I don't think I would buy it even as part of a bundle with an R8 or RP and even less so if I was to buy an R6II. (which I am not as I own an R5)
Costs about as much as 18-55 STM bought separately.
Will make a lot of sense used under $100 as a walkaround / landscape / sunny weather lens
Yes - the equivalent lens for the R50 (APS-C) comes in kit for about $120, and that feels like a fairer price.
Looking to get an R7 which is a crop sensor camera (moving up from a 10D dslr). I don't really like either of the 'kit' lenses that come packaged with the R7. Been looking at this lens and was wondering if the distortions inherent to this lens fall outside of the sensor in the R7?
A lot of them would, yes. It's not an exciting zoom range on crop, though.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Not too worried about the zoom range - I need a relatively simple lens to learn the system and then I can get the EF/RF adapter to use my 10D lenses which are all full frame.
Interesting lens that I think needed more coverage, thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
I think it needs a one way ticket to the landfill. Typical example of e-waste.
A faster L version of this lens would be amazing, a 24-50 f/2 L or something.
Agreed - though it would obviously be WAY bigger and much more expensive.
try adapting the sigma 24-35 f2 to RF mount. the lens is old and discontinued, the AF is clunky but it still suffices, the image it produces is decent along with a very tolerable price for used copies. it's not a 24-50 f2 but it's close enough.
Wow! You get this lens and then it can become a fisheye lens for free!
Right... those fish eye lens makers sell their lens for such a hefty price
LOL
Canon Non-L RF lenses are getting darker and darker. One of the most poor performing lens in modern time.
You wonder how much darker Canon can go...
@@DustinAbbottTWI I think they could do much better for the same price and I don't think it would be difficult at all. The purpose is just to put off the customers and get them to buy more expensive lenses and in particular L lenses.... just like there was no roof in third class train coaches when these existed... it isn't the price of the roof, it is just so painful that you will pay for second class even if it is a financial stretch.
This is meant to be a "painful" lens that cannot achieve a good result, maybe 24 is ok-ish but 50 is useless for a portrait. And people who buy these cameras do a lot of (family) portraits. In this use case, a phone can do almost as well, and better with AI background blurring. So if you want to upgrade from a phone, it will really cost you because the kit lens will disappoint you.
This is probably the only positive review of this lens lol.
....and it's not all that positive :)
I'm not sure why someone would buy a full frame camera and then attach such a slow and 'meh' lens. But then again the middle ground lenses are still nowhere to be seen on Canon RF, so if you rarely use that focal range it's probably better than nothing.
they will sold with a R8 then it will be used 7 times and lands in a drawer because their iPhone / Samsung gives more pleasing and much more easy results
I got it for my son's soccer games. It draws MUCH less attention than my RF 15-35 and RF 70-200, and if you're using it for JPEGS or video, its' actually pretty good. I think the hate it gets isn't justified considering its size, built in IS, and price point. I got mine for $180, and I don't know another lens that can match its versatility for outdoor situations.
I think this is a fair take, @xkben90. No, it isn't a fantastic lens, but the compact nature, good AF, and decent IS deserves a little credit.
The R8 is way to good for this cheap thing. I use the 24-105 f/4 L. If you want to buy this lens, do not insult the R8 with it. Get the cheapest body you can.
Other than the RP, there is no cheaper body!
@@DustinAbbottTWIAgreed! So why does Canon make such a lens? The R8 is as good as the R6 II when it comes to sensor and autofocus. As you did, I used it with the RF 28 f/2.8 pancake and the results are nothing short of fabulous at this price point. I guess this lens is more for R10 or R50. And since APS-C is now open to Sigma and Tamron, why bother?
comparing only jpgs from this camera lens to an iphone pro would make somehow sense
Yes, though I'm still not sure if the iPhone would win...particularly in low light!
@@DustinAbbottTWI as dumb as it might sound, but in these days the images might be not seen on displays bigger as a phone or an macbook air or on a awful laptop screen and then the iphone might still win because the whitebalance, sharpness etc might look more pleasing
@@TasteofTaboo RF Canon WB & sharpness easily beats iPhone, if you managed to get worse photos on camera. The problem is the user.
@@zegzbrutal unless you are in mixed light and know how to use a raw converter. most people don't
What a nice tripod!
Oben Tabletop Tripod shown in video: bhpho.to/3vL8YWy
This is clearly a cash grab. Lenses getting more expensive and a new generation of entry level kit lenses that are worse than the previous ones whilst being the same price or more expensive. I really think it isn't that Canon cannot do better for cheaper, it is that they are trying to put people off the entry level to charge them a lot more for the decent lenses.
For example the EF-M 15-45 not only has a wider focal length range and is brighter than the RF-S 18-45? Why? They could just change the mount but they didn't. (Although a conspiracy theory would be that it is actually the same lens with some hardware/firmware restrictions preventing access to the full range ... who knows, cheaper than designing a new lens!)
Also, not everybody needs an L lens for all situations, I own some but I also like to travel light sometimes and a mid range weather sealed lens is all I need and want to carry because I would never take a 4.5-6.3 nor a 5.6-8 or 5.6-11 lens! I have been reluctant to take my R5 everywhere because the 24-70L is too heavy and there is no decent alternative ... the 24-105 which I don't own maybe but it isn't super sharp on the R5, not sharper than the non-L 24-105 which is dark.
To be honest, as a client and user of Canon gear both for leisure and business for over 30 years, this behaviour really puts me off, I haven't changed brand yet but was very very close multiple times and in particular when I was late to the game buying the R5, the Z8 came out 4 months after I bought the R5 and if it had been out, I would have jumped ship. That being said, I was thinking of selling my M50 to buy an R50 or more likely an R10 as a third body and lightweight travel companion and I haven't, the lens line up is just too crap and there is no image quality benefit for photography in comparison to the M50. The Fuji X-S20 is so so so much more compelling a product ... but then i would have the same problem of having lenses for another camera system too and not being able to use my flashes.
Thankfully Tamron and Sigma will be coming to the rescue soon and hopefully Canon will stop treating us like stupid cash cows.
I don't think you're alone is being very frustrated with Canon's lens philosophy on RF.
what's your choice of lens for travel?
@@csmith917 it depends where I go and what type of trip. I have travelled with some M50 kit all or just 22mm (all is 15-45, 22mm, normal adapter + focal reducer, EF50mm and EF 85mm). That is my light small and cheaper kit, holds in a small bag.
Otherwise I can go heavy R5, 16mm 2.8, Sigma 35 1.4, 24-70L, 50 1.8, EF 100-300L.
And yes that is a bit "messy" because I have EF-M, EF and RF lenses and I don't have a compact RF setup. I would love to simplify and sell stuff, I have been thinking of replacing the M50 with an R10 and selling most of my DSLR gear... But I haven't because of the lack of RF-S lenses, I would love a better kit lens that is brighter and goes wider (like the 15-45 or better like the Fuji 18-55 2.8-4), a 22mm... The other EF-M lenses with RF mounts!
Also, I am happy to just take the 24-70 in a lot of situations but it is big, heavy and very visible. I might buy the RF28 2.8 pancake and I could have a relatively light setup with 16,28 and 50 non-L lenses.
@@csmith917 On Canon? Probably the 24-105mm F4L IS. Pair that with the 70-200mm F4L IS and you've got a high quality pairing.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I agree, not a cheap combo... 70-200L can be replaced by EF L 100-300 which is still a great lens and is now very very cheap.
And I would add the R 16mm/2.8 to the 24-105.
1
:)
Its basically a very cheapskate F8 only lens.
Not far off.
@@DustinAbbottTWI The Nikon 24-50 is really much better.
@@DustinAbbottTWI sorry for dragging you into this😅
Still look better than iphone 15 pro max stupid lens setup 😌
That's entirely possible.