+- Opticallimits (https://forum.opticallimits.com)
+-- Forum: Forums (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Canon EOS (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+--- Thread: Seriously Canon? (/showthread.php?tid=4992)
Seriously Canon? - Klaus - 02-07-2021
https://opticallimits.com/images/8reviews/lenses/canon_rf24105_471/ohmygod.jpg
BTW, this is a lens most youtubers rave about ...
Here's the sample gallery ... https://photozone.smugmug.com/Canon-RF-24-105mm-f4-71-IS-STM
I've yet to verify whether this is a valid sample. It's surely a stretch on the R5 but I can't believe that Canon releases such a piece of crap.
RE: Seriously Canon? - Rover - 02-08-2021
You ain't seen nuthin' yet... The 24-200 is reported to be that and much more.
But then again, auto correction should mask most of that.
RE: Seriously Canon? - Klaus - 02-08-2021
Based on what I can see under lab conditions, it is a valid sample.
Brace for an "interesting" rating ...
RE: Seriously Canon? - faint - 02-08-2021
That post makes me donate to the site
What an unusual way to bring Nikon audience back
(BTW I like Canon, especially their printers)
RE: Seriously Canon? - wim - 02-08-2021
The sample gallery looks quite good ....
Kind regards, Wim
(02-08-2021, 07:45 AM)Rover Wrote: You ain't seen nuthin' yet... The 24-200 is reported to be that and much more.You mean the 24-240 I assume?
But then again, auto correction should mask most of that.
If so, according to the tests I have seen, ity actually is slightly better than the RF 24-105 IS STM.
Kind regards, Wim
RE: Seriously Canon? - goran h - 02-08-2021
A good lens for those who like soft borders and corners.
RE: Seriously Canon? - wim - 02-09-2021
(02-08-2021, 09:53 PM)goran h Wrote:Actually better than the old EF version, based on the tests I have seen so far.
RE: Seriously Canon? - toni-a - 02-09-2021
Well at the end of the day, what is important is a happy user rather than a happy reviewer.
if the lens doesn't break records yet it has a acceptable performance and is reliable that's the most important.
IMHO the big DONTs for a lens in my book are frequent failure and unreliable focus all the remaining flaws are acceptable to a certain degree.
Canon 17-85 was a very bad lens with a lot of distortions and CA yet plenty were happy with it
RE: Seriously Canon? - faint - 02-09-2021
(02-08-2021, 09:53 PM)goran h Wrote:
Fuji-X users, willing to go FF, should feel at home then
RE: Seriously Canon? - wim - 02-09-2021
(02-09-2021, 12:55 PM)toni-a Wrote: Well at the end of the day, what is important is a happy user rather than a happy reviewer.The question of the matter is indeed whether an end user is happy with it.
if the lens doesn't break records yet it has a acceptable performance and is reliable that's the most important.
IMHO the big DONTs for a lens in my book are frequent failure and unreliable focus all the remaining flaws are acceptable to a certain degree.
Canon 17-85 was a very bad lens with a lot of distortions and CA yet plenty were happy with it
Considering the price of the RF non-L lenses considering they are new designs and all that, I think they are still good value for money.
And as to the dark corners Klaus documented, what I find strange is that I have seen no lens reviews yet which have shown this at all, and that includes a bunch of testers who did indeed switch of in-camera correction.
I nonestly do think there is something wrong with this specimen.
As to remarks about the "24-200", which I assume is the 24-240: that actually is quite a good lens based on reviews and SOOC photographs I have seen so far. In tests it appears slightly better than the 24-105 IS STM. I actually got a specimen of the 24-240, to experience how it felt to have a more than acceptable good superzoom, as a general run-around lens.
So far no complaints for the intended purpose, although my other RF lenses are better when you look at larger magnifications
. And neither can it do F/1.2 or F/2 .Kind regards,Wim