Exactly, think we have to accept that we are now in an age where software plus hardware produce an over all result that is good or bad. There is little point taking the software component out and then saying this is terrible. Try that with a Tesla and see how you go. The problem I have is that the price for performance is much worse than the 35mm, canon are going with a closed ecosystem and that is the apple model.unfortunately they are not apple and any new people with no existing glass would be mad to buy into canon vs Sonys ecosystem. Love my canon, but never again.
Most landscape photography is not done at f2.8. It would have been good to see the following. 1. What the sharpness in the corners is like at f4, f5.6 & f11. 2. The image quality in the actual corners, not 25% down the frame. 3. Stating you are losing information with lens correction is not true, you are still getting the same as you would from any 24mm lens. 4. It would have been good to see if the purple fringing was gone at f4,f5.6 and comparison of the corners vs the middle. I guess overall, diff people are looking for diff things out of a lens. For me I’m looking for a lens that is light weight and sharp at f4 corner to corner as I will be doing a lot of travel photography. Does this lens meet that criteria with corrections switched on?
I have a few thoughts on this lens as I have also picked it up over the last week. A strong part of me feels like this was geared more towards the two APSC cameras that just came out. Because of the crop the lost information in the corners would be a non-issue. I can imagine that this on an R7 take some pretty damn good photos and comes in at about 36 to 38 mm. The second thing I think this is geared more towards is video as this is actually the reason that I purchased it. I plan on using this on my R5 mainly for talking head videos on my channel and may be a little bit wider angle B roll where I need a decent bokeh in the back. Just like you said in the video any photos that I use with this lens on my R5 will be things for Instagram and things of that nature where the corners won’t be as much of an issue. Knowing that there is issues with the corners I will probably compose my shots accordingly so that I can crop in a little bit more. I think being priced at about 499 like the 35 mm would have made this a little bit of a better buy for most people.
600$ for a none weather sealed 1.8 lens which has old school focus motors of dslrs and is suitable to be used on apsc? Nice! Canon users are always happy with what they get!
Sony users are getting great third party 24mm 1.4 glass, meanwhile Canon just announced they will not allow third party companies like Sigma, Tamron, Samyang (they have to pull theirs off the market) to make RF lenses... so we are stuck with these sorts of lenses. I mean they are OK "budget" lenses but I'd rather have small, high quality, affordable third party lens options.
Sigma make a mirrorless 24mm f2 lens that has faster AF, comes with a magnetic lens cap, better build quality and doesn’t rely on digital corrections and sells in the UK for £549 - This same Canon 24mm f1.8 has a price of £719. If a Sony/Panasonic user wants to save even more money they can go for the Sigma 24mm f3.5 for sure £479
Canon blocking 3rd party lenses in so petty and embarrassing to me as an R5 user… just another thing to bash canon for. Also, with the last update MY SAMYANG lenses stopped working!!! Im done. Selling and switching… probably to Sony for all the great sigma and tamron glass.
lol after seeing your review I’m sticking to my 24mm 1.4L II for weddings. I won’t switch until canon makes a RF 24mm L with a proper optical formula instead of relying on software for lens corrections
It’s all about the use of the lens , I am using gimbal for 6-9 hours in weddings, you think the 15-35 2.8 is easy for that ? 900+grams , your arms fall after 1h of dancing… your back will break. So I mix in rf 24-70 2.8 L and 24 1.8 for on the go when your body needs the break.
quite an interesting review. I have the 35/1.8 but was considering the 24/1.8 just for a different perspective on my daily candid street photography. I'm really liking the 50 and 35 1.8, but thinking seriously thinking about the 24mm to add to my bag. thanks for the honest review! keep up the great work
Got my copy last week. Brought it more for video then photo the AF in video is very quiet at some points barely audible. It will be in my camera bag when I go Japan to keep the weight down and to have a fast prime. I skipped the 16mm and the 50mm because I was not overly impressed with them.
in the market for it now. This video was extremely clear and confirmed everything I was speculating. I do more video than photos but that warping is a real issue. If it applies to video then it's a deal breaker. Might just stick with the 35 which is my prime.
I am a TH-camr that want to upgrade my M50 Mark ii and thinking about the new R8 but lack of prime lenses is an issue for me who primarily shoots TH-cam. Then I've been battling between the f1.8 35mm vs the 24mm but the difference in the motor noise means the 24mm is the clear winner. Have you done more video test with the 24mm? Does the edge issues show up much in videos without correction and how's the corrections on video? Saving up money to upgrade my camera towards the end of the year so I hope Canon will bring out more lenses before then. Thanks for your honest review. You just got a new sub
Hello and thank you for this video. A few days ago I bought this RF 24mm f1.8 Macro is stm lens. I find this lens fantastic! It is in my opinion much better than the RF 16mm that I had the opportunity to test and that I did not like at all ! This new 24mm RF has very little distortion and very little purple fringing on high contrast ! On my Canon RP camera, for Landscapes and Street Photo, it will be a very good complement to my RF 50 f1.8 which I use for Portraits !... I can't wait for DxO to provide us with the RAW+JPEG Correction Profiles for use in DxO Photolab Friendships, Philgood...😜
are there any wide angle lenses that don't have distortion on the corners at all ? i mean i thought all wide angles do have distortions .. its the nature of wide angle in general the correction does a pretty good job all things considered , but im not a pro and i don't really mind even the pics without correction , its actually kind of pleasant for me to know that i can get wider than 24 with this lense
Great video. However, I wanted to remind people of something. When we talk about how fast a lens is, we're not talking about how fast it can focus. We're talking about how wide it is it's appreture.
I know a lot of people like the budget RF lenses, but I can honestly say I have not been happy with any of them. I've relegated to buying good used EF glass and adapting it until Canon lets 3rd party manufactures join the fold. I love my R6 II, but it's time for Canon to open up 3rd party or I may dabble in Nikon.
Hi I've got many question is the correction mode the same when you set the aperture to 4.0? Are the more expensive lenses better than the "budget" lenses? Have you ever compared Sony to Canon cause Sony is highly recommended while Canon is not ... im also thinking at buying Canon eos rf 6 or 7 .... we'll c Kind regards André
Excellent video! Thank you so much for such a honest perspective. You're the first person to "actually" show the mechanics of this lens. Telescoping front elements are a absolute deal breaker for me on any lens. The only RF lens I currently own is the 24-105mm L, where barrel extension is to be expected. Canon has chose this design for almost every single RF series lens, even super expensive L glass. Sony has also heavily relied on lens corrections in some of their designs too. Modern lenses have increased in price, while dropping down in build quality...shame.
Thanks for the thoughts! Just watched Brent Hall's video, and I'm a little disappointed. Less so in the capability, Canon is gonna make what they make and clearly are shutting down third party. But the price point for what it is doesn't feel great. Would be a lot happier to see this priced the same as the 35mm and for the 16mm to be the same as the 50mm, for all the same reasons. Love the footprint and the fact that it's quieter than the 35mm though.
Well, you never talked about or showed the image portrait silkiness of the bokeh at 1.8???? Most landscaping shots are cropped any way, and presumably the lens correction is embedded into software editing, which is a bit of pincushion correction that WILL involve a bit of image edge cropping.
Great video Alex, I was kinda hoping for a good lightweight 24mm, because my 24-70 2.8 is kinda heavy and I mostly use it for filming at 24mm - but the RF 24mm 1.8 is such a huge letdown compared to the 24-70 2.8 at 24mm. I wish they would stop trying to sh*t on 3rd party lens manufacturers and start making competitive (cheap) lenses instead. I have only the 35mm 1.8 consumer grade lens for my r6 because many lenses without a red ring are huge letdowns. RF 85 f2 --> I would rather use the samyang rf 85 1.4 AF. RF 16mm f2.8 is really bad as well with huge corrections, kinda usable at f5.6. 24mm 1.8 --> same as 16mm f2.8. Also very slow and laggy AF in video mode. All the L lenses are great though. But there is no inbetween - and sometimes you dont even have a choice. There is no 35mm L-lens for example.
I've been very disappointed with Canons new approach to lens design with many of their lenses. Lets make cheap crap, charge a premium price and fix it in camera/post. Cheap builds, slow aperture, moving barrel for focusing, vignetting and distortion nightmares etc.. WTF Canon? Their next lens will probably be a F11-22 zoom that when used without corrections will seem like an acid trip. I've been a Canon camera user since the EOS 620 so I'm no hater but that is starting to change.
it seems since Canon enter the mirrorless world which is very attuned to video making now Canon has to make lenses that are specialised for photography and lenses specialised for video and vloging. the rf lenses like the 50 mm f/,2 and the f/2,8 holy trinity and f/4 L trinity are great photographic lenses for photography and photographers. the 24 mm 1,8 and 16 mm 2,8 are not meant for photography but tools for vlogging being tools designed for vlogging and vlogers. So you must know your needs and which tools are great for photography and be indifferent for lenses designed for vloging and for vlogers and let them choose the lenses that will serve their purpose best. But stay awake for Canon has to satisfy the needs for both photographers and video creators and supply the lenses they need, for now the new cameras will be cameras that can take photos and be vlogging tools, so Canon will make both type of lenses to satisfy all the needs of the market and each one of us must select the tools we need most, knowing to which segment they refer.
Really tempting to sell my trusty old EF 24MM Sigma Art F/1.4 for this 24mm Native mount F1.8 similare to F1.4 Much Lighter Much smaller Stabilisation ANDDDDD MACRO!!!!
great review once again! I liked how you used the touch screen to piss of the Fro. LOL I would love to see a compassion of this and the 28mm EF lens. I bought the EF version after seeing your previous review of the Q2 vs R5 with @28EF. If you are open to cropping, i wonder if the 24 would perform similar to or better to the 28mm? At least if you are traveling you might save a few inches. And how much chromatic fringing on the 35mm STM?
These are the lenses that are unusable at the wide end without lens correction profiles: - RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM - RF 24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM - RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM - RF 16mm F2.8 STM - RF-S 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM - RF 24mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM - RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM
When a 24mm Macro lens is as expensive as a 100-400mm this feels strange to me. I know that a 100-400mm has a different target group than the 24mm Macro lens. Fürthermore I think it's also strange that Canon uses 2 different filter sizes 43mm (50mm & 16mm) and 52mm (35mm & 24mm both Macro lenses). I don't understand why Canon did this? But I don't need to understand it. (Personally I'd avoid both the 35 and 24mm Macro lenses.) For a Macro I have the 100mm 2.8L Macro IS USM in mind. IMHO, as an L-lens the far better (but also far more expensive) lens! 🤔
From a Sony mirroless user standpoint, man I almost laughed at 3:45 hearing all that noise and protruding front element reminding me of my DSLR Sony lenses way back in time! I'm deeply sorry for Canon users cause now I understand what a closed mount mean. No competition has brought Canon to this point that they can charge 600$ for such a dated technology. Me looking at my sigma 24mm and Sony G 40mm both at the same price and both absolutely silent and fully weather sealed with a great tactile built! I have no idea why Canon bothered to put IS on such a wide angle lens while all cameras have ibis these days.
Why have this extending mechanism on prime lenses that cost this much? The 35, 50, 24 etc all have this extending front !!! No one is doing this. It seems like something from the bygone era.
@@correlation-vs-causation Yup. I mean the Sony 35f1.8, 85 1.8 and the 50 2.5 can be had for £500 each. None of them have this cheap build quality and are internally focussing and weather sealed to boot. If it's primes one wants to shoot with, Canon RF makes no sense. They have no budget, good quality primes.
In my opinion, all these new Canon shortcuts on wide angles are disgusting. Starting with the 14-35, then 16mm stm, now even 24? If the RF-mount's design philosophy is so heavily relied on digital correction, the term full frame is really gone. The glorious first RF glasses (28-70, 85 f1.2, 24-105, 50 f1.2, 35 f1.8) are the last few great RF glasses. Their sensors' corners all always reserved for cropping. 45mp = effective 35 mp as a result of cropping and warping. Third-party RF mount cameras like the RED will not be able to benefit from Canon lenses because lens profiles not being able to applied in camera. Also, no third party lenses.... The RF mount is essentially killed by Canon's greediness.
Time will tell whether your opinion holds true. The RF mount is relatively new. And third party manufacturers like Sigma or Tamron will see whether there will be enough customers for them to invest in the RF mount. Also "no third party lenses" is not entirely true: Meike is producing some RF lenses. 🤔 IMHO, there is also some great RF glass like the RF 100-500 or the rather cheap 100-400. The RF 600 or 800 f11 have no competition what so ever on the Nikon or Sony side! 😍 This is more colorful than only black & white! 😇
@@MusikPiratCH How about no third party auto focus lenses? Last time I checked the only AF lens made it to the market for a little bit was Samyang 85 1.4. Viltrox is under lawsuits with them, which is not a news
Landscape is by far better done with a zoom anyway. (15-35, 14-35, ...) Me taking a wide prime am in search of strong perspectives, depth separation, street and things. I like Canons approach creating lenses with some strong talents while accepting some flaws in use cases when other lenses are better anyway.
Even with the corrections the lens is not worth the $600 price tag. This is also a major deal breaker for filmmakers looking to use this lens on the Red Komodo since it does not apply lens corrections. Accepting this approach will only allow Canon to continue to make sub par lenses.
Corrections do not only have advantages but also disadvantages to the image quality. If this was way cheaper it would make a great budget lens but at this price point the disadvantages cannot be ignored.
@@ABarrera looks like your just a youtuber not a real photographer or videographer,. no wonder why you don't know when to use 1.8 and whats its purpose to some photographers and videographers,.
@@ABarrera - I think you can ask the same about every lens available - why should one buy anything. Good phone is cheaper (as a system) and lighter. And needing something is different than wanting. I can honestly say that I need 35 and 85 combo - the rest are nice to haves. But lenses and cameras are just tools (and/or toys) - for me 24-105 is a tool I do not want, but I bought rf 24 1.8 (and I do have 15-35 + 24-70). Why? Wedding: dance floor, reception, late evening (24mm, 50mm combination) even wedding portraits. After long hours, it's nice to have relatively lightweight set (R6, 24mm, Godox V350 or trigger). Wedding hydrid: Gimbal shots (no need to rebalance if I change between this and 35 1.8). Hobby: casual street, travel even landscape (I do not like using phone) - corner sharpness is not very good, but I haven't sold that many big landscape pictures and I have limited amount of wall space. And for landscapes I use 15-35 2.8 (and rf 100-400). Sharpness is quite overrated thing anyways (I shoot with R5/R6 combo and even difference between those is generally irrelevant). It's easier to crop from 24 than combine with 35 - I prefer to shoot too wide than too narrow when I have to deliver - although cropping right in the camera is a better way, but sometimes things just move too fast. Do I recommend RF 24 - yes and no, but that same goes with any lens/camera combo in the world. Is it good value for the money - there is no objective measure for that, but it's the only lightweight 24 prime available for rf-system and changing system is more like yt wannabe thing - grass is always greener on the otherside so one cannot beat the system (as long as the system is not totally garbage or obsolite). Samples www.flickr.com/photos/toni_neffling/albums/72177720302297019/with/52376197730/ Long story short - AF is quite sluggish (both video and stills) - the rest is more than good enough for my purposes (except when I'm alone in the dark and pixel peeping pictures on a 4k monitor, but I know that's more like an illness that goes away when the sun rises).
@@tonineffling9308 I am thinking of getting this lens for a gimbal I have but never use because my lenses are too heavy lol. What are your thoughts for gimbal usage? I have a R5 body as well.
"I've never seen such an extreme use of profile corrections on a lens" - mate have you seen the Canon 16mm f2.8 RF!? 🤣🤣🤣
Now I am scared to check 😳
@@ABarrera don’t lol
@@ABarrera I sold that lens after ONE street photography session. No joke.
Exactly, think we have to accept that we are now in an age where software plus hardware produce an over all result that is good or bad. There is little point taking the software component out and then saying this is terrible. Try that with a Tesla and see how you go. The problem I have is that the price for performance is much worse than the 35mm, canon are going with a closed ecosystem and that is the apple model.unfortunately they are not apple and any new people with no existing glass would be mad to buy into canon vs Sonys ecosystem. Love my canon, but never again.
@@Bigtbone205 are you saying youd be mad to buy into Sony and Canon
Most landscape photography is not done at f2.8. It would have been good to see the following. 1. What the sharpness in the corners is like at f4, f5.6 & f11. 2. The image quality in the actual corners, not 25% down the frame. 3. Stating you are losing information with lens correction is not true, you are still getting the same as you would from any 24mm lens. 4. It would have been good to see if the purple fringing was gone at f4,f5.6 and comparison of the corners vs the middle. I guess overall, diff people are looking for diff things out of a lens. For me I’m looking for a lens that is light weight and sharp at f4 corner to corner as I will be doing a lot of travel photography. Does this lens meet that criteria with corrections switched on?
I have a few thoughts on this lens as I have also picked it up over the last week. A strong part of me feels like this was geared more towards the two APSC cameras that just came out. Because of the crop the lost information in the corners would be a non-issue. I can imagine that this on an R7 take some pretty damn good photos and comes in at about 36 to 38 mm. The second thing I think this is geared more towards is video as this is actually the reason that I purchased it. I plan on using this on my R5 mainly for talking head videos on my channel and may be a little bit wider angle B roll where I need a decent bokeh in the back. Just like you said in the video any photos that I use with this lens on my R5 will be things for Instagram and things of that nature where the corners won’t be as much of an issue. Knowing that there is issues with the corners I will probably compose my shots accordingly so that I can crop in a little bit more. I think being priced at about 499 like the 35 mm would have made this a little bit of a better buy for most people.
600$ for a none weather sealed 1.8 lens which has old school focus motors of dslrs and is suitable to be used on apsc? Nice! Canon users are always happy with what they get!
@@shahabh2108Is there a better 24mm f1.8 5.5-stops Image stabilized Macro lens with RF Quality Sharpness for a better price?
Sony users are getting great third party 24mm 1.4 glass, meanwhile Canon just announced they will not allow third party companies like Sigma, Tamron, Samyang (they have to pull theirs off the market) to make RF lenses... so we are stuck with these sorts of lenses. I mean they are OK "budget" lenses but I'd rather have small, high quality, affordable third party lens options.
Not many people talking about this 👀. People need to call canon out.
Sigma make a mirrorless 24mm f2 lens that has faster AF, comes with a magnetic lens cap, better build quality and doesn’t rely on digital corrections and sells in the UK for £549 - This same Canon 24mm f1.8 has a price of £719.
If a Sony/Panasonic user wants to save even more money they can go for the Sigma 24mm f3.5 for sure £479
and this is why i jumped ship and went sony
Canon blocking 3rd party lenses in so petty and embarrassing to me as an R5 user… just another thing to bash canon for. Also, with the last update MY SAMYANG lenses stopped working!!! Im done. Selling and switching… probably to Sony for all the great sigma and tamron glass.
Sigma 24mm 1.4 + adapter? whats the difference??
lol after seeing your review I’m sticking to my 24mm 1.4L II for weddings. I won’t switch until canon makes a RF 24mm L with a proper optical formula instead of relying on software for lens corrections
It’s all about the use of the lens , I am using gimbal for 6-9 hours in weddings, you think the 15-35 2.8 is easy for that ? 900+grams , your arms fall after 1h of dancing… your back will break. So I mix in rf 24-70 2.8 L and 24 1.8 for on the go when your body needs the break.
thank you for your videos, I honestly don't understand why your channel doesn't have 1M subscribers yet
Let’s hope one day 🙌🏼
quite an interesting review. I have the 35/1.8 but was considering the 24/1.8 just for a different perspective on my daily candid street photography. I'm really liking the 50 and 35 1.8, but thinking seriously thinking about the 24mm to add to my bag. thanks for the honest review! keep up the great work
11 months later, going to grab the 24mm at my local store this afternoon!
Got my copy last week. Brought it more for video then photo the AF in video is very quiet at some points barely audible. It will be in my camera bag when I go Japan to keep the weight down and to have a fast prime. I skipped the 16mm and the 50mm because I was not overly impressed with them.
Perfect light weight lens
in the market for it now. This video was extremely clear and confirmed everything I was speculating. I do more video than photos but that warping is a real issue. If it applies to video then it's a deal breaker. Might just stick with the 35 which is my prime.
Thank you for keeping it real! I would buy it in a heartbeat for around 300$ to 350$, but not for its current price.
I am a TH-camr that want to upgrade my M50 Mark ii and thinking about the new R8 but lack of prime lenses is an issue for me who primarily shoots TH-cam. Then I've been battling between the f1.8 35mm vs the 24mm but the difference in the motor noise means the 24mm is the clear winner.
Have you done more video test with the 24mm? Does the edge issues show up much in videos without correction and how's the corrections on video? Saving up money to upgrade my camera towards the end of the year so I hope Canon will bring out more lenses before then. Thanks for your honest review. You just got a new sub
Hello and thank you for this video. A few days ago I bought this RF 24mm f1.8 Macro is stm lens. I find this lens fantastic! It is in my opinion much better than the RF 16mm that I had the opportunity to test and that I did not like at all ! This new 24mm RF has very little distortion and very little purple fringing on high contrast ! On my Canon RP camera, for Landscapes and Street Photo, it will be a very good complement to my RF 50 f1.8 which I use for Portraits !...
I can't wait for DxO to provide us with the RAW+JPEG Correction Profiles for use in DxO Photolab
Friendships,
Philgood...😜
I'll be using this lense mainly for video so it actually works out perfect for me with the enhanced auto focusing 😎
THANK YOU!! Recently Canon has had a battle with 3rd party alternatives and to see this what they are doing instead.... Thanks for the insight!
Love your video former Fort Lauderdale, Florida, you are now the second person on youtube from Florida.😻Just sub to your channel.
are there any wide angle lenses that don't have distortion on the corners at all ? i mean i thought all wide angles do have distortions .. its the nature of wide angle in general
the correction does a pretty good job all things considered , but im not a pro and i don't really mind even the pics without correction , its actually kind of pleasant for me to know that i can get wider than 24 with this lense
Nice vid. I was thinking “don’t touch the screen!! The fro is watching” 😂🤣
Its not "Pro" lol
Great video. However, I wanted to remind people of something. When we talk about how fast a lens is, we're not talking about how fast it can focus. We're talking about how wide it is it's appreture.
yeah! this is what i am waiting for a while,.
I know a lot of people like the budget RF lenses, but I can honestly say I have not been happy with any of them. I've relegated to buying good used EF glass and adapting it until Canon lets 3rd party manufactures join the fold. I love my R6 II, but it's time for Canon to open up 3rd party or I may dabble in Nikon.
Have you done this with the Leica Q2... not too dissimilar!
Hi. Thank you for the video. Are you sure that the final is 24mm after correction? Or is it less?
Hi I've got many question is the correction mode the same when you set the aperture to 4.0? Are the more expensive lenses better than the "budget" lenses?
Have you ever compared Sony to Canon cause Sony is highly recommended while Canon is not ... im also thinking at buying Canon eos rf 6 or 7 .... we'll c
Kind regards André
Great! This lens cost like great condition second-hand 24 1.4 L II EF, or almost the same price as sigma 24 1.4 ART EF;)
Excellent video! Thank you so much for such a honest perspective. You're the first person to "actually" show the mechanics of this lens. Telescoping front elements are a absolute deal breaker for me on any lens. The only RF lens I currently own is the 24-105mm L, where barrel extension is to be expected. Canon has chose this design for almost every single RF series lens, even super expensive L glass. Sony has also heavily relied on lens corrections in some of their designs too. Modern lenses have increased in price, while dropping down in build quality...shame.
Thanks for the thoughts! Just watched Brent Hall's video, and I'm a little disappointed. Less so in the capability, Canon is gonna make what they make and clearly are shutting down third party. But the price point for what it is doesn't feel great. Would be a lot happier to see this priced the same as the 35mm and for the 16mm to be the same as the 50mm, for all the same reasons. Love the footprint and the fact that it's quieter than the 35mm though.
Excellent review, thanks for posting.
Well, you never talked about or showed the image portrait silkiness of the bokeh at 1.8???? Most landscaping shots are cropped any way, and presumably the lens correction is embedded into software editing, which is a bit of pincushion correction that WILL involve a bit of image edge cropping.
Hey Alex, enjoy your channel since a while now. One request, can you consider using labeled time stamps on longer videos like this one? Cheers
Fixed! Sorry about that one
@@ABarrera Solid!
Great video Alex, I was kinda hoping for a good lightweight 24mm, because my 24-70 2.8 is kinda heavy and I mostly use it for filming at 24mm - but the RF 24mm 1.8 is such a huge letdown compared to the 24-70 2.8 at 24mm. I wish they would stop trying to sh*t on 3rd party lens manufacturers and start making competitive (cheap) lenses instead. I have only the 35mm 1.8 consumer grade lens for my r6 because many lenses without a red ring are huge letdowns. RF 85 f2 --> I would rather use the samyang rf 85 1.4 AF. RF 16mm f2.8 is really bad as well with huge corrections, kinda usable at f5.6. 24mm 1.8 --> same as 16mm f2.8. Also very slow and laggy AF in video mode.
All the L lenses are great though. But there is no inbetween - and sometimes you dont even have a choice. There is no 35mm L-lens for example.
I’ve been waiting on this review 😂
I've been very disappointed with Canons new approach to lens design with many of their lenses. Lets make cheap crap, charge a premium price and fix it in camera/post. Cheap builds, slow aperture, moving barrel for focusing, vignetting and distortion nightmares etc.. WTF Canon? Their next lens will probably be a F11-22 zoom that when used without corrections will seem like an acid trip. I've been a Canon camera user since the EOS 620 so I'm no hater but that is starting to change.
Agree! It’s making me reconsider the system
it seems since Canon enter the mirrorless world which is very attuned to video making now Canon has to make lenses that are specialised for photography and lenses specialised for video and vloging. the rf lenses like the 50 mm f/,2 and the f/2,8 holy trinity and f/4 L trinity are great photographic lenses for photography and photographers. the 24 mm 1,8 and 16 mm 2,8 are not meant for photography but tools for vlogging being tools designed for vlogging and vlogers. So you must know your needs and which tools are great for photography and be indifferent for lenses designed for vloging and for vlogers and let them choose the lenses that will serve their purpose best. But stay awake for Canon has to satisfy the needs for both photographers and video creators and supply the lenses they need, for now the new cameras will be cameras that can take photos and be vlogging tools, so Canon will make both type of lenses to satisfy all the needs of the market and each one of us must select the tools we need most, knowing to which segment they refer.
Maybe it will be better on the R7 and R10
Really tempting to sell my trusty old EF 24MM Sigma Art F/1.4 for this
24mm Native mount
F1.8 similare to F1.4
Much Lighter
Much smaller
Stabilisation
ANDDDDD MACRO!!!!
I would watch the video first :)
Only $860 in Europe(!). With all these corrections going on i can see why some FD glass is appealing.
Would you recommend the EF 1.4 over this one then? Have you tested it on the R system?
The RF version is sharper and has less purple fringing wide open.
great review once again! I liked how you used the touch screen to piss of the Fro. LOL I would love to see a compassion of this and the 28mm EF lens. I bought the EF version after seeing your previous review of the Q2 vs R5 with @28EF. If you are open to cropping, i wonder if the 24 would perform similar to or better to the 28mm? At least if you are traveling you might save a few inches. And how much chromatic fringing on the 35mm STM?
BTW do you have a review of the 35mm STM?
I sure do! Its about a few years old. Might need an update
@@ABarrera link? could not find it.
These are the lenses that are unusable at the wide end without lens correction profiles:
- RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM
- RF 24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM
- RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM
- RF 16mm F2.8 STM
- RF-S 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM
- RF 24mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM
- RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM
i can see the mark II is coming hehe
When a 24mm Macro lens is as expensive as a 100-400mm this feels strange to me. I know that a 100-400mm has a different target group than the 24mm Macro lens.
Fürthermore I think it's also strange that Canon uses 2 different filter sizes 43mm (50mm & 16mm) and 52mm (35mm & 24mm both Macro lenses).
I don't understand why Canon did this? But I don't need to understand it. (Personally I'd avoid both the 35 and 24mm Macro lenses.)
For a Macro I have the 100mm 2.8L Macro IS USM in mind. IMHO, as an L-lens the far better (but also far more expensive) lens! 🤔
Would be great to pair with the R7
Pizza. 👍🏻
I mean all of these are capable of good results, but I can't help but feel very underwhelmed by the entire STM line for RF so far.
This seems to be a new path in lens making. Make cheap ass lenses and use software to cover up flaws.
From a Sony mirroless user standpoint, man I almost laughed at 3:45 hearing all that noise and protruding front element reminding me of my DSLR Sony lenses way back in time! I'm deeply sorry for Canon users cause now I understand what a closed mount mean. No competition has brought Canon to this point that they can charge 600$ for such a dated technology. Me looking at my sigma 24mm and Sony G 40mm both at the same price and both absolutely silent and fully weather sealed with a great tactile built! I have no idea why Canon bothered to put IS on such a wide angle lens while all cameras have ibis these days.
IS is Ibis! 😛 But STM is outdated here you're right! 🤣
@@MusikPiratCH IS is image stabilization. Well in lens, not in body like ibis.
Was this lens made for R7?
This lens was made for Full Frame
Why have this extending mechanism on prime lenses that cost this much? The 35, 50, 24 etc all have this extending front !!! No one is doing this. It seems like something from the bygone era.
Totally agree, this is a complete "no-go" for me. It leaves me speechless.
@@correlation-vs-causation Yup. I mean the Sony 35f1.8, 85 1.8 and the 50 2.5 can be had for £500 each. None of them have this cheap build quality and are internally focussing and weather sealed to boot. If it's primes one wants to shoot with, Canon RF makes no sense. They have no budget, good quality primes.
This was deflating…but I think that, as a result of having the RF 24-70 f/2.8, is only use this as my studio talking head glass.
As long as you are in the center it should do the job.
@@ABarrera yeah, that’s ultimately the only reason I’d use this lens. I sold my Sigma f/1.4 and this is the only thing that comes remotely close.
The average guy with a camera doesn't need to spend a lot on lenses.
In my opinion, all these new Canon shortcuts on wide angles are disgusting. Starting with the 14-35, then 16mm stm, now even 24? If the RF-mount's design philosophy is so heavily relied on digital correction, the term full frame is really gone. The glorious first RF glasses (28-70, 85 f1.2, 24-105, 50 f1.2, 35 f1.8) are the last few great RF glasses. Their sensors' corners all always reserved for cropping. 45mp = effective 35 mp as a result of cropping and warping. Third-party RF mount cameras like the RED will not be able to benefit from Canon lenses because lens profiles not being able to applied in camera. Also, no third party lenses.... The RF mount is essentially killed by Canon's greediness.
Time will tell whether your opinion holds true. The RF mount is relatively new. And third party manufacturers like Sigma or Tamron will see whether there will be enough customers for them to invest in the RF mount.
Also "no third party lenses" is not entirely true: Meike is producing some RF lenses. 🤔
IMHO, there is also some great RF glass like the RF 100-500 or the rather cheap 100-400. The RF 600 or 800 f11 have no competition what so ever on the Nikon or Sony side! 😍
This is more colorful than only black & white! 😇
@@MusikPiratCH How about no third party auto focus lenses? Last time I checked the only AF lens made it to the market for a little bit was Samyang 85 1.4. Viltrox is under lawsuits with them, which is not a news
Eww an external focusing lens ! I'd take a longer barrel 😜
😂
Oh my god, that is horrible.
Landscape is by far better done with a zoom anyway. (15-35, 14-35, ...)
Me taking a wide prime am in search of strong perspectives, depth separation, street and things.
I like Canons approach creating lenses with some strong talents while accepting some flaws in use cases when other lenses are better anyway.
People shoot and post/print photos without corrections? Wild…
Even with the corrections the lens is not worth the $600 price tag. This is also a major deal breaker for filmmakers looking to use this lens on the Red Komodo since it does not apply lens corrections. Accepting this approach will only allow Canon to continue to make sub par lenses.
Corrections do not only have advantages but also disadvantages to the image quality. If this was way cheaper it would make a great budget lens but at this price point the disadvantages cannot be ignored.
your complaing the corncer is not sharp,. because of distortion,. probably dont shoot land scape at 1.8 its so weird you shoot at 1.8
Then why buy a 1.8 lens? Go save money and buy the kit 24-105
@@ABarrera looks like your just a youtuber not a real photographer or videographer,. no wonder why you don't know when to use 1.8 and whats its purpose to some photographers and videographers,.
@@ABarrera - I think you can ask the same about every lens available - why should one buy anything. Good phone is cheaper (as a system) and lighter. And needing something is different than wanting. I can honestly say that I need 35 and 85 combo - the rest are nice to haves. But lenses and cameras are just tools (and/or toys) - for me 24-105 is a tool I do not want, but I bought rf 24 1.8 (and I do have 15-35 + 24-70).
Why? Wedding: dance floor, reception, late evening (24mm, 50mm combination) even wedding portraits. After long hours, it's nice to have relatively lightweight set (R6, 24mm, Godox V350 or trigger). Wedding hydrid: Gimbal shots (no need to rebalance if I change between this and 35 1.8). Hobby: casual street, travel even landscape (I do not like using phone) - corner sharpness is not very good, but I haven't sold that many big landscape pictures and I have limited amount of wall space. And for landscapes I use 15-35 2.8 (and rf 100-400). Sharpness is quite overrated thing anyways (I shoot with R5/R6 combo and even difference between those is generally irrelevant). It's easier to crop from 24 than combine with 35 - I prefer to shoot too wide than too narrow when I have to deliver - although cropping right in the camera is a better way, but sometimes things just move too fast.
Do I recommend RF 24 - yes and no, but that same goes with any lens/camera combo in the world. Is it good value for the money - there is no objective measure for that, but it's the only lightweight 24 prime available for rf-system and changing system is more like yt wannabe thing - grass is always greener on the otherside so one cannot beat the system (as long as the system is not totally garbage or obsolite). Samples www.flickr.com/photos/toni_neffling/albums/72177720302297019/with/52376197730/
Long story short - AF is quite sluggish (both video and stills) - the rest is more than good enough for my purposes (except when I'm alone in the dark and pixel peeping pictures on a 4k monitor, but I know that's more like an illness that goes away when the sun rises).
@@tonineffling9308 I am thinking of getting this lens for a gimbal I have but never use because my lenses are too heavy lol. What are your thoughts for gimbal usage? I have a R5 body as well.