I don't think it is true that this lens does not cover a full frame sensor at 24mm. I think it is showing a wider view at the marked 24mm (about 22mm). This way it can give a "corrected 24mm". That does mean you are not getting the compete resolution as the corrected image is cropped. I have this lens and have no complaints.
I’ve considered selling my other L lenses to purchase this lens. What do you think? I’ve got 2 camera bodies and I’m nervous to sell my Canon 14-35, 50, & 85mm. That’s my trio. & I’d have to keep one of the three. I’m a wedding photographer and videographer.
It would be nice to compare this lens to the F4L version. I never take video and therefore think this lens is maybe a waste of money and extra weight for me. I do have the F4L. I would like an f2.8, but not this one. In reviewing my metadata I see the majority of my photos taken with 24 - 105mm are at 24 or 105. I often think a 21 - 135mm f2.8 would be the perfect do all lens. However, would this be a useable or affordable lens? I doubt it. The current solution is two bodies which is a lot of extra weight to lug around on hikes.
@@robertkemple1608 I don't think there's really a sharpness difference with this lens compared to the F4 version. Just comes down to whether you need 2.8 at the 24-105 range. I use this lens to shoot kids baseball and soccer where I am quite close to the action. Its a peach for that. I specifically bought it to replace my F4 version, because I didn't like the lack of background separation I was getting with that lens. However, this lens is quite big to use as a walking around do everything lens. I think the best walk around do everything lens is RF 15 - 35 2.8 lens. If I can only bring one lens I always bring that one and I'm never disappointed.
Cool hand strap on the camera grip at 0:56 …I need one of those!
I don't think it is true that this lens does not cover a full frame sensor at 24mm. I think it is showing a wider view at the marked 24mm (about 22mm). This way it can give a "corrected 24mm". That does mean you are not getting the compete resolution as the corrected image is cropped. I have this lens and have no complaints.
No one, not even the photographer themself will notice a loss of a couple of megapixels via cropping.
I’ve considered selling my other L lenses to purchase this lens. What do you think? I’ve got 2 camera bodies and I’m nervous to sell my Canon 14-35, 50, & 85mm. That’s my trio. & I’d have to keep one of the three. I’m a wedding photographer and videographer.
Yes. It’s killer. Heavy, though.
It is for RF cams only.
HI
Which one is better in showing details and reselution.....compared to RF 24-70?
Thank you😊
It would be nice to compare this lens to the F4L version. I never take video and therefore think this lens is maybe a waste of money and extra weight for me. I do have the F4L. I would like an f2.8, but not this one. In reviewing my metadata I see the majority of my photos taken with 24 - 105mm are at 24 or 105. I often think a 21 - 135mm f2.8 would be the perfect do all lens. However, would this be a useable or affordable lens? I doubt it. The current solution is two bodies which is a lot of extra weight to lug around on hikes.
@@robertkemple1608 I don't think there's really a sharpness difference with this lens compared to the F4 version. Just comes down to whether you need 2.8 at the 24-105 range. I use this lens to shoot kids baseball and soccer where I am quite close to the action. Its a peach for that. I specifically bought it to replace my F4 version, because I didn't like the lack of background separation I was getting with that lens. However, this lens is quite big to use as a walking around do everything lens. I think the best walk around do everything lens is RF 15 - 35 2.8 lens. If I can only bring one lens I always bring that one and I'm never disappointed.
@@yankiefrankiethank you. That is good information and feedback