# Review: Canon RF 24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 22, 2020)

> Bryan over at The-Digital-Picture has completed his review of the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM, a lens that will likely become quite popular with Canon EOS R6 buyers when the grab the camera with the lens included.
> This is the first f/7.1 lens we’ve seen from Canon, which may be offputting to some, but for a lot of shooters, it’ll be a worthwhile trade-off for the lightweight design and affordable price.
> 
> *From The-Digital-Picture:*
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Maarten (Jun 22, 2020)

Depending on what the f4 version will do I think many people buy the f4 over this ine


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 22, 2020)

not sure I quite understand the excitement:

distortion at 24mm end and f/8

"... Brace yourself. We're going to look behind the curtains, and this is going to be painful. Here are the uncorrected test results from our standard distortion test (captured at f/8)..."


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 22, 2020)

It is cheaper and reasonably smaller. Sure it is interesting. But more to the EOS RP buyers.
If I was going for an R6 (expected north of 2000 $/€) I wouldn't grab that combo.
For me the f/7.1 @105mm would be the dealbreaker and I would definetly prefer the f/4 lens.


----------



## janhalasa (Jun 22, 2020)

I think it's a very nice lens for 200€ in a kit. Especially for cases when you want something lightweight or when there is a risk of the lens getting damaged (sand and such).


----------



## tron (Jun 22, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> It is cheaper and reasonably smaller. Sure it is interesting. But more to the EOS RP buyers.
> If I was going for an R6 (expected north of 2000 $/€) I wouldn't grab that combo.
> For me the f/7.1 @105mm would be the dealbreaker and I would definetly prefer the f/4 lens.


Exactly what I was thinking while reading TDP review!


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 22, 2020)

janhalasa said:


> I think it's a very nice lens for 200€ in a kit. Especially for cases when you want something lightweight or when there is a risk of the lens getting damaged (sand and such).


However it is a £459.99 / €549.99 Lens.


----------



## Th0msky (Jun 22, 2020)

For videographers among us this lens wouldn't really be interesting anyways.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 22, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> not sure I quite understand the excitement:
> 
> distortion at 24mm end and f/8
> 
> "... Brace yourself. We're going to look behind the curtains, and this is going to be painful. Here are the uncorrected test results from our standard distortion test (captured at f/8)..."



Yikes! The 24-240 all over again!

Yeah, I'll stick with the f/4 L.


----------



## miketcool (Jun 22, 2020)

Supposedly this lens is good for macro. I’d like to see some examples if and when anyone gets a copy.


----------



## Gino_FOTO (Jun 22, 2020)

Hey Canon, wrong way!
What a crappy performance, even compared with 24-105mm IS STM which was introduced somewhen in the early stone age.


----------



## magarity (Jun 22, 2020)

"Focus" vs "Control" ? What committee decided that "On" vs "Off" just had to be changed?


----------



## Joules (Jun 22, 2020)

magarity said:


> "Focus" vs "Control" ? What committee decided that "On" vs "Off" just had to be changed?


It isn't on or off. It is a switch to use the ring either as manual focus override or as the control ring that is a separate ring on more expensive lenses. At least that is my understanding.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Jun 22, 2020)

Right at the moment, with the current Canon sale going on through next Sunday, the EOS RP body is $899, one hundred dollars off, and the RP kit with this 24-105 is $400 off, at $999. Which in effect means that the lens is free, since $999 is the normal body price. From a technical standpoint, it's not the best lens by any measure. But it's a cost-effective entry into the full-frame market for a lot of folks, and that's important as well.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jun 22, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> not sure I quite understand the excitement:
> 
> distortion at 24mm end and f/8
> 
> "... Brace yourself. We're going to look behind the curtains, and this is going to be painful. Here are the uncorrected test results from our standard distortion test (captured at f/8)..."



The whole point is that you shoot this lens corrected, all the time. I don't understand the disconnect here. 

Sure, the f/4 is better uncorrected. It also costs a lot more and is way heavier. Doesn't invalidate the approach here.


----------



## Whowe (Jun 22, 2020)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> Right at the moment, with the current Canon sale going on through next Sunday, the EOS RP body is $899, one hundred dollars off, and the RP kit with this 24-105 is $400 off, at $999. Which in effect means that the lens is free, since $999 is the normal body price. From a technical standpoint, it's not the best lens by any measure. But it's a cost-effective entry into the full-frame market for a lot of folks, and that's important as well.


I agree. This lens is most likely not for the people that follow forums like this, but for people starting out as a hobby. With "lens corrections" in software or in camera, a lot of these problems go away. 

OK, you can't fix the softness at the corners, but if that is the only problem left, for 1/3 the cost and half the size and weight, I do think this lens will fit the needs of a lot of people. It's just that you may not be the target purchasers...


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 22, 2020)

For portraits, I actually prefer some pincushion. Softness in corners isn't a problem for me either. Neither is some vignette. I doubt I'd buy this lens, but we need to remember which market this is for and the low price. I often find that running lenses uncorrected appeals to me more than corrected results. It's all personal taste, I guess. If I want a completely flat plane I reach for a macro.


----------



## magarity (Jun 22, 2020)

Joules said:


> It isn't on or off. It is a switch to use the ring either as manual focus override or as the control ring that is a separate ring on more expensive lenses. At least that is my understanding.


So a lens aimed at the casual user doesn't have manual focus but does have programmable control ring... That doesn't seem like the right option to offer.


----------



## AJ (Jun 22, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Yikes! The 24-240 all over again!
> 
> Yeah, I'll stick with the f/4 L.



If I were looking for light and convenient, I'd probably pick the 24-240 over the 24-105/4-7.1








Canon RF 24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com




Similar IQ, but the 24-240 has more range


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 22, 2020)

Joules said:


> It isn't on or off. It is a switch to use the ring either as manual focus override or as the control ring that is a separate ring on more expensive lenses. At least that is my understanding.


Users need to go through menu if they want to switch from AF to MF and vice-versa. That switch just selects whether the 2nd ring will be used a control ring or focus control. Removing AF On/Off switch is the stupidest decision on non-L RF mount lenses. Saving pennies on that switch doesnt make sense.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 22, 2020)

AJ said:


> If I were looking for light and convenient, I'd probably pick the 24-240 over the 24-105/4-7.1
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, now that does make sense--if those are your options (which going for light and convenient, they would be).

Granted, I'd be going to crop mode doing this but I could always stick my old Tamron 18-400 (for APS-C) on the thing (with adapter--oh the humanity!) Even more range.


----------



## deleteme (Jun 22, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> not sure I quite understand the excitement:
> 
> distortion at 24mm end and f/8
> 
> "... Brace yourself. We're going to look behind the curtains, and this is going to be painful. Here are the uncorrected test results from our standard distortion test (captured at f/8)..."


Buyers of this lens are scarcely doing architecture. This is a lens for the snapshooter who will be surprised the whiskers on their cat are so sharp.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jun 22, 2020)

This looks like something that is historically a money maker for Canon. Cheap lens for the masses. But they don't have the body to match it. It's akin to a kit lens for a Rebel body. The RP at the bottom end is still too expensive for that market. It's for the people who buy a 500 dollar kit from big box stores which has been the money maker for Canon's camera division. I don't think they'll have a APS-C RF line, so unless they come out with an even more entry level body than the RP for 500 bucks, I don't see them having the volume that Rebel DSLR's have.

I suppose it could mean, they are using the EF-M line to fill that need.

Or cheap DSLR's will continue to occupy this market.

Or even sadder, this market disappears because of camera phones.


----------



## Joules (Jun 22, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Users need to go through menu if they want to switch from AF to MF and vice-versa.


I think that's what I wrote. Control, or manual focus override. Sure, if it is set in the menu toF only there's nothing to override.

I don't think it is stupid. I like using MF, but there's a lot of people that probably are happy with the degree of 'manual' offered by tapping on the touchscreen to focus. For special cases like focussing on stars at night or the like, there's still the menu.

As somebody else already pointed out, you can basically get this lens for free with certain RP bundles right now. Can't complain about that.


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 22, 2020)

This is an inexpensive lens for those looking for cheaper, lighter and smaller. It's almost 1/2 the weight of the RF 24-240mm. Less than 1/2 the cost of both the RF 24-240mm and the RF 24-105 f/4. That's why I ordered mine. As a general purpose lens, I will do the job more than adequately.

For those that don't get the automatic in-camera or automatic in-software correction, that is the way of mirrorless and has been for some time. Sony, Olympus and others have been doing it for years, with no outcry. Canon takes the same approach, and suddenly it's shocking! The correction is automatic. If you are using any of the popular softwares to convert your RAW files, the correction is automatic. If you shoot JPG you will never see the uncorrected version. It's a non-issue with my Olympus 12-100mm lens (perhaps the best lens I have ever owned in terms of quality and versatility). It's a non-issue with my RF 240 lens. It will be a non-issue for this lens as well. Get over it!


----------



## secant (Jun 22, 2020)

Between this kit and the 35/1.8 kit with the RP, I'd get the 35. But I can see people getting this just for versatile use such as travel and what not.


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Jun 22, 2020)

Hey Everyone,

I have this lens for a month now. I did family shooting and was in the Netherlands on vacation.
I made both stills and videos. (Family and landscape)

For this price point an awesome lens! 

I also compared it to my 24-105 STM EF version. 
Yes EF is sharper in the corners but the RF makes more up for it with smaller size and weight (also no adapter needed)

Generally at home, I have no problem with 7.1, because if I need shallow depth of the field, I use my EF85mm 1.8 (might buy the new one which comes this year)

But being on vacation, having (with the Canon RP) such a small and light package... 

Comparing it to the F4 L version is like comparing a Fiat to Mercedes. 

People who can afford will get the F4 and people which can or do not want to will get the STM version.
And on the last note:

Today most people are looking at photos on their smartphones or 17'' screens the most. For that purpose this lens is plenthy good enough. For making A0 prints I would also not choose the RF F4 version.

Anyways, Canon will sell tons of these!

Happy shooting!


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 22, 2020)

Sure makes the humble rf 24-105mm f/4L IS look like a super-hero! (BTW, I LOVE that f/4 lens.)


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 22, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Sure makes the humble rf 24-105mm f/4L IS look like a super-hero! (BTW, I LOVE that f/4 lens.)


If I had to make the choice, I'd take the RF 24-105mm f/4 also. Great lens. On the other hand, I can fully remember when I bought my XSi years ago and how I thought spending $300 on a lens was very expensive.  It does not surprise me that this lens doesn't get a warm reception here. However, when I look at buyer ratings at Adorama or Amazon for much maligned lenses on this forum, I see a lot of happy buyers. Canon will sell a lot of these and those folks will be happy. They aren't pixel peeping their corners or fretting about uncorrected distortion like many of us do. They generally don't care about a manual/auto switch either. They would probably think we are all crazy.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 22, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> For those that don't get the automatic in-camera or automatic in-software correction, that is the way of mirrorless and has been for some time. Sony, Olympus and others have been doing it for years, with no outcry. Canon takes the same approach, and suddenly it's shocking!



Because we *expect* schlock from those other companies. 

Seriously, yes I see a market for such lenses (though it'd be nice if they were labeled as such so someone with higher ambitions will know to avoid them), but that market almost certainly won't be me.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Jun 22, 2020)

I don't think that it's a fair comparison to say that the 24-105 and 24-240 distortion/vignetting issues are the same or even similar. The 24-240 flat does not project an image circle that covers the sensor at wider angles. It requires the image corrections to be turned on in order to do its job. The 24-105 has some pretty severe problems, but it is still delivering a full image. I think the 24-105 non-L is optically challenged, but not like the 24-240.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 23, 2020)

Joules said:


> I think that's what I wrote. Control, or manual focus override. Sure, if it is set in the menu toF only there's nothing to override.
> 
> I don't think it is stupid. I like using MF, but there's a lot of people that probably are happy with the degree of 'manual' offered by tapping on the touchscreen to focus. For special cases like focussing on stars at night or the like, there's still the menu.
> 
> As somebody else already pointed out, you can basically get this lens for free with certain RP bundles right now. Can't complain about that.


Removing the AF/MF switch is clever! People who are inexperienced with manual focus get upset when they inadvertently bumped the switch and all their photos were out of focus. Having the option in the menus reduces that risk although if they change it there accidentally....
I remember getting annoyed with a borrowed 5Div (I had 5Diii) when my shots were out of focus because the last user had setup back button focus and didn't set it back!


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 23, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> The whole point is that you shoot this lens corrected, all the time. I don't understand the disconnect here.
> 
> Sure, the f/4 is better uncorrected. It also costs a lot more and is way heavier. Doesn't invalidate the approach here.


The whole point is that so called correction here is destructive. Image quality suffers in result considerably. Some folks will be happy with such a toll / penalty. and other would not. 
Personally, I would not recommend this product to anyone. It is a rubbish in my opinion.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 23, 2020)

Normalnorm said:


> Buyers of this lens are scarcely doing architecture. This is a lens for the snapshooter who will be surprised the whiskers on their cat are so sharp.


Well, LOL. Thank you.
however at 550 euro or even USD 400 a pop, seems a bit to rich for what it is.
US$250? Yeah, may be... it will get to that price point on grey market rather quickly, I think.


----------



## esglord (Jun 23, 2020)

At the moment, for roughly the price of the RP + 24-105 f/4L, you could pick up the RP + this kit lens + the RF 35 + 600ex speedlite. I already have the f/4L, but it seems reasonable to me that someone shopping today without unlimited funds might choose the latter route.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 23, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> Removing the AF/MF switch is clever! People who are inexperienced with manual focus get upset when they inadvertently bumped the switch and all their photos were out of focus. Having the option in the menus reduces that risk although if they change it there accidentally....
> I remember getting annoyed with a borrowed 5Div (I had 5Diii) when my shots were out of focus because the last user had setup back button focus and didn't set it back!



I like what Canon did on the M6II: an AF/MF lever around the back-button-focus button. Switching AF/MF doesn't require me to search for the button on the lens, I can keep my eye on the EVF. The downside is that it doesn't work for lenses with an actual AF/MF switch


----------



## yeahright (Jun 23, 2020)

magarity said:


> So a lens aimed at the casual user doesn't have manual focus but does have programmable control ring... That doesn't seem like the right option to offer.


That's not true. The 'Focus'-setting is exactly the same as the 'MF' setting on other lenses. Use the ring to manually control focus. The 'Control' setting is identical to the 'AF' setting on other lenses PLUS the option to use the ring for another function (while the focus ring on other lenses is useless in AF mode), so there is actually MORE functionality than there is on EF-lenses. There is only less functionality when you compare these cheaper RF-lenses to high-end RF lenses (because you can't simultaneously use manual focus and the control ring for changing e.g. ISO or aperture). I think it's a smart choice.

edits: incorrect assumptions on my side


----------



## CaMeRa QuEsT (Jun 23, 2020)

It's a better $100 kit lens than Sony's, and neither Nikon or Panasonic have anything remotely as inexpensive. Otherwise, it's not worth paying a penny more than $100. Since the R6 has only 20Mp, the pairing actually makes sense, resolution-wise.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 23, 2020)

Those who want cheap, small, light, slow camera, and care only for the corrected jpeg, can use a smartphone.

Roger Cicala reports correcting the EF 24-105mm f/4L loses 15% resolution in the corners. The new lenses lose even more. Why not buy an older DSLR & lenses from ebay? I knew a wedding photographer who made a living with such lenses as an EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4L from ebay.


----------



## Joules (Jun 23, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> Those who want cheap, small, light, slow camera, and care only for the corrected jpeg, can use a smartphone.
> 
> Roger Cicala reports correcting the EF 24-105mm f/4L loses 15% resolution in the corners. The new lenses lose even more. Why not buy an older DSLR & lenses from ebay? I knew a wedding photographer who made a living with such lenses as an EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4L from ebay.


Calm down. Canon is offering a new choice for budget minded customers here. For those who can spend more or bear the weight there are already better options in the focal range available, native as well as EF and third party.

A smartphone is still equipped with a tiny sensor. Only phones with multiple lenses even stand any chance of competing with a FF zoom. By the time you get to the smartphones that have these, you aren't saving much if any money compared to the RP kit. And you are using a smartphone. There is more to the joy of photography than the end result. Noteworthy examples are Ergonomics and the flexibility to change the lens when better quality is desired or your skills outgrow what you started with.

No offense to you, but reading some responses on this forum to the newer approaches Canon takes is quite concerning. The "go big or go home" attitude of some folks doesn't help anybody. The market isn't just about pros. Especially in these times, the people who are in for the fun of it should matter a lot to Canon. As you said, a pro can get what they need with a variety of gear. An enthusiast may spent even in a time where demand for professional photography is low. But they need to start somewhere.

Without customers on the low end, fewer people enter the system and there's no cash for pushing forward L and big whites. Canon isn't Leica.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 23, 2020)

Joules said:


> Calm down.



Thanks, I was already calm.



Joules said:


> Canon is offering a new choice for budget minded customers here.



I doubt there's a market there, but time will tell.



Joules said:


> No offense to you, but reading some responses on this forum to the newer approaches Canon takes is quite concerning. The "go big or go home" attitude of some folks doesn't help anybody.



Someone who bought a full frame camera over EOS-M or smartphone is going big.



Joules said:


> The market isn't just about pros.



I know, I'm not a pro.


----------



## fingerstein (Jun 23, 2020)

I had a lot of issues with C100 mk II when I moved from interior to exterior and I had to change very fast the ND filter related to an open aperture/shallow DOF, because I had only 4 stops left (f4, f5.6, f8, f11)... as everything else is softening the image and is unusable. But going fron f7.1 to f40... is insane if you look at the loss of image quality. For video, I would find it nicer to have a more extended usable f stops whatever the focus range is (as Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM). I still wonder why would someone buy this lens and not the Canon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM or Canon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.
This lens is for beginners. For those who know nothing about cameras.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 23, 2020)

yeahright said:


> That's not true. The 'Focus'-setting is exactly the same as the 'MF' setting on other lenses. Use the ring to manually control focus.


Are you sure that it fully disables autofocus and not just allows manual focus override?

Can you use it do disable autofocus to keep the camera prefocused or do you need to use camera menu settings for that?


----------



## BurningPlatform (Jun 23, 2020)

fingerstein said:


> I had a lot of issues with C100 mk II when I moved from interior to exterior and I had to change very fast the ND filter related to an open aperture/shallow DOF, because I had only 4 stops left (f4, f5.6, f8, f11)... as everything else is softening the image and is unusable. But going fron f7.1 to f40... is insane if you look at the loss of image quality. For video, I would find it nicer to have a more extended usable f stops whatever the focus range is (as Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM). I still wonder why would someone buy this lens and not the Canon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM or Canon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.
> This lens is for beginners. For those who know nothing about cameras.


Well, I think people tend to buy full frame lenses for full frame cameras. Although, if you only consider 4k video with EOS R, those lenses you suggest could make sense. For full frame you also encounter diffraction limits later. Super35 at 5.6 is quite near full frame @ 7.1.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jun 23, 2020)

Well if you are targeting m4/3 buyers and trying to get them into an RP instead I guess it makes sense. RF goes from the sublime to the ridiculous.


----------



## yeahright (Jun 23, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Are you sure that it fully disables autofocus and not just allows manual focus override?
> 
> Can you use it do disable autofocus to keep the camera prefocused or do you need to use camera menu settings for that?


You are right, I was wrong. Twice, even: In Focus-mode it's FTM autofocus override by default, which of course has been present on higher-end EF lenses also.
It's described here, for the 24-240.
So it's slightly more cumbersome to switch to full manual, because you also have to set it in a camera menu.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jun 23, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> The whole point is that so called correction here is destructive. Image quality suffers in result considerably. Some folks will be happy with such a toll / penalty. and other would not.
> Personally, I would not recommend this product to anyone. It is a rubbish in my opinion.



Shooting in JPG is "destructive" too. Most of the shooters using this lens are going to do that and not bother with raw.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jun 23, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> Those who want cheap, small, light, slow camera, and care only for the corrected jpeg, can use a smartphone.
> 
> Roger Cicala reports correcting the EF 24-105mm f/4L loses 15% resolution in the corners. The new lenses lose even more. Why not buy an older DSLR & lenses from ebay? I knew a wedding photographer who made a living with such lenses as an EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4L from ebay.



At what print size are you going to see that difference, and why would you be shooting THIS lens to make such a print? This type of corner resolution issue just does not matter for snapshooters at web resolutions or 8x10's at the largest as normal people print. Guaranteed that "destroyed" corner on an RP still is vastly superior to an iPhone 11 or Pixel 4.

Also not sure what your link is supposed to be, but it goes to this same thread, and says nothing about the f/4. I also don't see anything in your profile (despite nearly 3,000 posts here) showing the HQ/high resolution work that would demonstrate this issue, and judging by your tagline, you don't even shoot RF, so seems like you're just trolling at this point.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 23, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> Shooting in JPG is "destructive" too. Most of the shooters using this lens are going to do that and not bother with raw.


Obviously destructive shooting JPGs or not. And you are correct: Many won’t bother or notice the trickery. That’s a BS though.


----------



## gruhl28 (Jun 23, 2020)

I don't understand why, if the 24 - 240 is f/6.3 at the long end, they had to make the 24-105 f/7.1 at 105. I think f/6.3 would have been more palatable on the 24-105 and f/7.1 on the 240.

From the specs of the R6 it sounds like it will be pretty expensive, more than either the RP or R, so I don't see R6 buyers wanting a cheap 24-105 f/7.1. Seems like maybe this would be a better match for the RP. Granted, f/7.1 on full frame is still shallower depth of field and more light than f/5.6 on crop, and light weight is nice. But the RP even with the 24-105 L f/4 is lighter than an 80D with 15-85 f/3.5 - 5.6. That is actually what finally got me to get a full-frame camera - I finally have a general purpose L lens with constant f/4 on full frame, and it weighs less than my 80D and 15-85 combo.

As for the casual shooter, how many of them care about going to full frame instead of crop?


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 23, 2020)

Joules said:


> I think that's what I wrote. Control, or manual focus override. Sure, if it is set in the menu toF only there's nothing to override.
> 
> I don't think it is stupid. I like using MF, but there's a lot of people that probably are happy with the degree of 'manual' offered by tapping on the touchscreen to focus. For special cases like focussing on stars at night or the like, there's still the menu.
> 
> As somebody else already pointed out, you can basically get this lens for free with certain RP bundles right now. Can't complain about that.


In order to use the macro mode on this lens users will have to enter MF mode and thats not a straightforward process as it could have been. Otherwise its a good value for money lens which might get a following among herpers especially a decent wide angle macro.


----------



## Eclipsed (Jun 23, 2020)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> I don't think that it's a fair comparison to say that the 24-105 and 24-240 distortion/vignetting issues are the same or even similar. The 24-240 flat does not project an image circle that covers the sensor at wider angles. It requires the image corrections to be turned on in order to do its job. The 24-105 has some pretty severe problems, but it is still delivering a full image. I think the 24-105 non-L is optically challenged, but not like the 24-240.


Who cares? Any lens correcting barrel distortion is discarding some corner pixels. Who cares whether those pixels were illuminated or not?


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 23, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> At what print size are you going to see that difference, and why would you be shooting THIS lens to make such a print? This type of corner resolution issue just does not matter for snapshooters at web resolutions or 8x10's at the largest as normal people print.



Sanpshooters who print 8x10 can buy an EOS-M, or any decade old rebel on ebay. Saying 'oh, he bought an overkill camera, no problem in mounting a cheap under performing lens' isn't much of an argument.



twoheadedboy said:


> I also don't see anything in your profile (despite nearly 3,000 posts here) showing the HQ/high resolution work that would demonstrate this issue, and judging by your tagline, you don't even shoot RF, so seems like you're just trolling at this point.



Nothing like good old ad hominem. I may talk about RF lenses only after proof of shooting with RF lenses (is this an RF mount issue, or image quality issue?), and resolution only after proof of shooting high resolution.

Feel free to skip my posts, snobby troll.


----------



## Joules (Jun 23, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> Sanpshooters who print 8x10 can buy an EOS-M, or any decade old rebel on ebay.


I think Canon is working to shape the RF ecosystem so that it can effectively replace EF and EF-S, while avoiding confusion caused by a crop exclusive line of lenses.

This lens is a kit lens option for newcomers into the system. Keep in mind that the RP is already extremely well priced. Once the sales go up and they release a model without EVF, they may go even lower.

I'm not sure while you suggest using a smartphone, or an M or a Rebel is the same as entering the RF system with a cheap lens. With the former options, you sacrifice on ergonomics and can't have access to the newest FF lenses in the future. This on the other hand lowers the barrier to entry for the FF ecosystem. As I said before, people have to start of somewhere. The market is changing. Eventually, that somewhere may not be Rebel SLRs anymore.


----------



## Joules (Jun 23, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> In order to use the macro mode on this lens users will have to enter MF mode and thats not a straightforward process as it could have been. Otherwise its a good value for money lens which might get a following among herpers especially a decent wide angle macro.


Somebody suggested the switch actually is for MF once it is set to focus. So that the lens basically doesn't have AF override, but the control ring feature instead. If that is correct, I see absolutely nothing wrong here. AF override is something I only use very rarely and I don't think with the DOF of this lens it is a necessity.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 23, 2020)

Regarding auto to manual focus - for the 24-240, I just made it the first choice in my custom menu. Easy to find. I know it's not as easy as a straight override lens switch, but I'm not planning on paying more than $2,000 for a lens anytime soon either.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 23, 2020)

Joules said:


> I think Canon is working to shape the RF ecosystem so that it can effectively replace EF and EF-S, while avoiding confusion caused by a crop exclusive line of lenses.
> 
> This lens is a kit lens option for newcomers into the system. Keep in mind that the RP is already extremely well priced. Once the sales go up and they release a model without EVF, they may go even lower.
> 
> I'm not sure while you suggest using a smartphone, or an M or a Rebel is the same as entering the RF system with a cheap lens. With the former options, you sacrifice on ergonomics and can't have access to the newest FF lenses in the future. This on the other hand lowers the barrier to entry for the FF ecosystem. As I said before, people have to start of somewhere. The market is changing. Eventually, that somewhere may not be Rebel SLRs anymore.



I see your point, but it seems like you're expecting Canon to kill the EOS-M line, which sounds problematic, PR wise.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jun 23, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> Who cares? Any lens correcting barrel distortion is discarding some corner pixels. Who cares whether those pixels were illuminated or not?



If you read the review, which it seems you didn't, the corrected "24mm" is truly "24mm", meaning the uncorrected pic is actually wider than 24mm.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jun 23, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> Sanpshooters who print 8x10 can buy an EOS-M, or any decade old rebel on ebay. Saying 'oh, he bought an overkill camera, no problem in mounting a cheap under performing lens' isn't much of an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's not an ad hominem - I said the issue you raised 1. has no qualitative impact for the target market/the way they shoot, and 2. you have not demonstrated anything to the contrary, whether considering explicitly in this thread, or in any other post you have made. Considering the matter at hand is a particular lens on a particular mount and what it looks like, and your opinion is contrary to that of reviews/etc., then it is not unreasonable to expect you to provide actual evidence that can be independently scrutinized in support of your claim.


----------



## Joules (Jun 23, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> I see your point, but it seems like you're expecting Canon to kill the EOS-M line, which sounds problematic,


I don't think they'll kill it off. But so far they have really restricted themselves to the tiniest of lenses for that system. They all have the same outer diameter. If they keep that up, there's only so much room to evolve for the M system. No fast zooms, no fast Tele lenses. No compatibility with the RF system and compromised ergonomics with most adapted EF lenses.

To me, that system currently looks like a world of its own. It is meant exclusively for people who value size and weight.

RF meanwhile has the potential to become what EF and EF-S currently are: A really diverse system where you can start with moderate lenses and a small body and upgrade to more expensive lenses and bodies as your skills grow and you find out which aspects of the hobby (or profession) are worth the investment.

But I may be completely wrong here. There was a rumor a while back that the future of EF-M was going to be addressed this year. And that a higher end M was coming. I have a hard time believing that it will be a 7D replacement. But some think that. Hopefully Canon will fill us in on the bigger picture rather sooner than later.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jun 23, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Obviously destructive shooting JPGs or not. And you are correct: Many won’t bother or notice the trickery. That’s a BS though.



It's not BS when there is no qualitative difference. Pixel peepers and those printing humongous gallery-sized prints and people submitting to Arizona Highways will buy a different lens and shoot in a different file format to get unadulterated quality, and pay the penalty in terms of price, weight, and file size to get it. Snapshooters will buy this cheaper and lighter lens and shoot in JPG and not realize that their lens is actually shooting a very distorted 23mm (or whatever) which is then corrected and becomes 24mm. Their friends and family and social medial won't realize it, either. And if you told them they wouldn't care.


----------



## degos (Jun 23, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> Their friends and family and social medial won't realize it, either. And if you told them they wouldn't care.



Yet Tamron can produce decent amateur-budget optics, without this in-camera correction that Canon has started using for cheapo lenses on the 'miraculous' RF mount.

Stop making excuses for Canon's shoddy output. I'd hoped this sort of junk has been consigned to history like the crappy EF 80-200s and 35-80s. But it seems that Canon just can't stop treating the low-end customers as dumb schmucks who won't know better... But these days, they will.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jun 23, 2020)

degos said:


> Yet Tamron can produce decent amateur-budget optics, without this in-camera correction that Canon has started using for cheapo lenses on the 'miraculous' RF mount.
> 
> Stop making excuses for Canon's shoddy output. I'd hoped this sort of junk has been consigned to history like the crappy EF 80-200s and 35-80s. But it seems that Canon just can't stop treating the low-end customers as dumb schmucks who won't know better... But these days, they will.



Again, you have failed to demonstrate how anyone is being negatively impacted, let alone bilked.

If I buy 55,000 mile-rated tires for my car instead of 65,000 mile-rated tires, am I buying shoddy crap? What about a copier that has a duty cycle of 300 pages per month instead of 3,000? What about a pair of microphones only matched to within 1 dB instead of 0.25 dB? All of these are "worse" products which may have not qualitative impact on the work product produced depending on the application. Certain people will need the better products, and pay for them - same as here. And that Tamron lens is probably fine, but the user will either need an adapter for RF, or use a bigger full frame non-mirrorless camera, or switch to APS-C which has its own challenges, and the lack of resale value for 3rd party lenses compared to 1st party needs to be considered.


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Jun 23, 2020)

Dude, this only a new lens, stop hating each other.

Plp gonna buy this lens, stop wining about how bad it is for you, if you can afford other options.
Better be proud of your L-Glass 

Cheers


----------



## SteveC (Jun 23, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Obviously destructive shooting JPGs or not. And you are correct: Many won’t bother or notice the trickery. That’s a BS though.



The point is the raw file will be unusable as-is and MUST be corrected.

Sure someone who shoots jpg (without raw) is being destructive, but in this case you're effectively FORCED to do so.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jun 23, 2020)

SteveC said:


> The point is the raw file will be unusable as-is and MUST be corrected.
> 
> Sure someone who shoots jpg (without raw) is being destructive, but in this case you're effectively FORCED to do so.



No one's forced to do anything. You can shoot a different lens without this caveat. If Canon is wrong about the marketability of this design, sales will be dismal and you'll never see them try it again.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 23, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> No one's forced to do anything. You can shoot a different lens without this caveat. If Canon is wrong about the marketability of this design, sales will be dismal and you'll never see them try it again.



Well, yeah, I meant "If using this lens" of course (either this 24-105 or the 24-240).


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 23, 2020)

Oh, how the baloney flows when the high and mighty photographers and gear-heads on this forum get a chance to slam Canon. 

Canon produces a lens that is much lighter and smaller. It is an alternative to a lens that they have already released with the same focal lengths. People on here react as if this new lens is the only RF option for a 24-105mm lens. If you are not looking for a cheaper, lighter lens that obviously doesn't perform to "L" standards, don't buy it. You have the high-level option.

Mirrorless lenses that could not otherwise be made with the same size, weight, and cost, are being made with in-camera distortion correction. People react as if this a crime. Other companies are doing it - and in some cases, even pro level lenses are made this way. The correction is automatic. Unless you are going out of your way to see the uncorrected version, you will never have to deal with it. Never. Again, you have the choice to not buy this type of lens. As I mentioned, earlier, Olympus' 12-100mm M.Zuiko lens is made with auto-correction. Check out some reviews and you won't even see a mention of it in most reviews. A few review do mention it - almost in passing. It is not an issue - unless, of course, it happens to be Canon and you are a high and mighty Canon forum warrior. If you actually take photos with the lens - as one member here has reported, -the lens seems to be a good value for the cost. Needless to say, those complaining the most will never have had any intention of buying the lens. What they want is a lens that performs equally to the RF 24-105mm f/4 and costs half as much. How dare Canon for not giving people that lens!

Only beginners will buy the lens! Well, I just bought one. Have sold photos over the years, but not a pro. But not a beginner. In fact, have over 40 years experience. And experience tells me that unless you are a pixel peeper, you won't see much difference between lenses. My best selling photo was shot using a crop camera and the 18-55 kit lens. And guess what, you can't see any difference between an 8 x 10 print using that camera and lens than there is with shots taken with my 6D and "L" EF 24-105mm lens. That type of talk is blasphemy on a forum where unless you shoot FF, with "L" lenses, and a camera with at least 30mkp (soon to be 45mp) you are a beginner, or ignorant. 

This is an inexpensive lens, with an emphasis on being smaller and lighter. Based on comments from those interested in mirrorless cameras, some folks (perhaps many) are looking for lighter and smaller lenses as an alternative. Why is that beyond the understanding of people on his forum?


----------



## Skux (Jun 24, 2020)

Yeah no one is buying a $2500 camera to use this failure of a lens. Anyone who cares will get a used EF 24-105mm f4L, and those who don't aren't buying the R6 with its kit lens.

Apart from the 35mm f1.8, Canon's non-L RF glass has been painfully disappointing.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jun 24, 2020)

Skux said:


> Yeah no one is buying a $2500 camera to use this failure of a lens. Anyone who cares will get a used EF 24-105mm f4L, and those who don't aren't buying this camera.
> 
> Apart from the 35mm f1.8, Canon's non-L RF glass has been painfully disappointing.



Good thing the RP isn't, and has never been, $2500.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 24, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> If I had to make the choice, I'd take the RF 24-105mm f/4 also. Great lens. On the other hand, I can fully remember when I bought my XSi years ago and how I thought spending $300 on a lens was very expensive.  It does not surprise me that this lens doesn't get a warm reception here. However, when I look at buyer ratings at Adorama or Amazon for much maligned lenses on this forum, I see a lot of happy buyers. Canon will sell a lot of these and those folks will be happy. They aren't pixel peeping their corners or fretting about uncorrected distortion like many of us do. They generally don't care about a manual/auto switch either. They would probably think we are all crazy.


I think my first DSLR was an XSi, or something in that same line. I took some good pictures with it and its kit lens, but mainly it taught me that I wanted a better camera. It was very noisy at low ISO, and that was my main problem with it. It also came with a $100 75-300mm lens that was pretty bad until stopped down to f/11.

So maybe this lens for some folks will be all they want or need. For others, it will be a starter lens that helps them realize they want something better. That can help lower resistance to spending more money. After my experience with the 75-300mm, I could see spending almost $2,000 on the 100-400mmL II.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 24, 2020)

SteveC said:


> The point is the raw file will be unusable as-is and MUST be corrected.
> 
> Sure someone who shoots jpg (without raw) is being destructive, but in this case you're effectively FORCED to do so.


I’m unaware of any Raw files that are usable “as is.”


----------



## Skux (Jun 24, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> Good thing the RP isn't, and has never been, $2500.


I mean the R6 kit.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 24, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> It's not BS when there is no qualitative difference. Pixel peepers and those printing humongous gallery-sized prints and people submitting to Arizona Highways will buy a different lens and shoot in a different file format to get unadulterated quality, and pay the penalty in terms of price, weight, and file size to get it. Snapshooters will buy this cheaper and lighter lens and shoot in JPG and not realize that their lens is actually shooting a very distorted 23mm (or whatever) which is then corrected and becomes 24mm. Their friends and family and social medial won't realize it, either. And if you told them they wouldn't care.


Yeah, not sure what are you arguing about here. Obviously, 90% of users won’t notice however my point being:
Canon forced in camera distortion correction for the lens to hide the issues.
Nowhere in the documentation or marketing material being mentioned that distortions being forcibly corrected. “A high image quality” being claimed by Canon. An Another word for this BS is:
Product misrepresentation. There are three types of misrepresentations exist.

innocent misrepresentation is out of question
Therefore there are two types left to choose from:
Fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation

nice and simple.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 24, 2020)

stevelee said:


> I’m unaware of any Raw files that are usable “as is.”



Yes, I was unclear. All RAW files need, at the very least some sort of translation of the data into colors. If that's ALL you have to do, then that's what I meant by a "usuable as is" RAW file. These lenses require that you ALSO do a geometric transformation of the image to make it look as it should. That means interpolations, etc., and some (more) detail will be lost.

In fact the 24-240's distortion is so severe at 24mm that what should be the corners of the image are drawn towards the center enough that the camera image doesn't even cover the entire sensor. Fortunately the field of view DOES cover the sensor even if the projected image of it does not.

On another note:

Since some here seem to imagine the critics of this lens are elitist types who think it's worthless...I will stand up and say I do believe SOME people will find value in it, maybe even a LOT of people. I just won't be one of them, and I give my reasons here. But please don't mistake my saying it's not for me for me allegedly claiming it's not for anyone.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 24, 2020)

SteveC said:


> The point is the raw file will be unusable as-is and MUST be corrected.
> 
> Sure someone who shoots jpg (without raw) is being destructive, but in this case you're effectively FORCED to do so.


Yup... and I am arguing that but not letting clients know, Canon have misrepresented the product. 
negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 24, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Yup... and I am arguing that but not letting clients know, Canon have misrepresented the product.
> negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation.



Given what I know, I tend to agree--it's weasely at the very least. Unless someone can find where Canon owns up to what they're doing.

I suppose at some point I should take a photo of a grid with my Tammy 18-400 to see how bad its distortion is, to see if it's actually better than the central part of the 24-240 grids (I have to do that because the Tammy is for APS-C). If it turns out to be better then I will wonder why Canon's 10X zoom distorts worse than tammy's 22+X zoom


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 24, 2020)

I can tell you what: with what we are seeing here we have entered an “unchartered territory”, a brave new world of in camera correction. With DLO you can switch it off. Right? So you have options. With this optical marvel of the world it is all swept under the carpet and kept mum at it. and that’s what I call BS.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 24, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Given what I know, I tend to agree--it's weasely at the very least. Unless someone can find where Canon owns up to what they're doing.
> 
> I suppose at some point I should take a photo of a grid with my Tammy 18-400 to see how bad its distortion is, to see if it's actually better than the central part of the 24-240 grids (I have to do that because the Tammy is for APS-C). If it turns out to be better then I will wonder why Canon's 10X zoom distorts worse than tammy's 22+X zoom








Tamron 18-400 mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD review - Distortion - LensTip.com


Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.




www.lenstip.com





Done here.


----------



## shawn (Jun 24, 2020)

Canon knows what they're doing. They're not pretending that people who buy the L version are gonna buy this lens so stop acting like this is an affront to your sensibilities when it was never meant for you. This is a lens that will be free with an RP. It's a giveaway lens that is probably still good for vlogging at 4k and lower resolutions. Not everybody is into photography and video the way people who attend rumor websites about the industry are. Even so, photography and video are integral to a lot of people and companies who have online workers or online business of some sort. On top of that, there are people who are only able to afford X amount of dollars and this lens is a great opportunity for them to get into FF for the price of an RP. This lens will meet all those needs at the lowest possible price of FREE.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 24, 2020)

FamilyGuy said:


> Tamron 18-400 mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD review - Distortion - LensTip.com
> 
> 
> Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.
> ...



It took a little bit of digging, but I found this (the uncorrected 24-240) https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/ins...1/Distortion-24mm-Uncorrected-Raw-533x400.jpg

It looks worse, of course, but it's projecting a much wider image. So one should look at the central APS-C sized part of it. Just eyeballing the innermost 1/1.6 of it at 24mm it appears to be comparable to the Tamron--I suppose one could take that image and crop it down, then make it the same size as the other one...but I see little point. Of course if you compare it CORRECTED to the Tammy uncorrected, it's going to kick the Tamron's ass.

The designers at Tamron clearly expected it to be zoomed in a lot more than zoomed out; the grid looks pretty darned good at 400 mm.

I don't know about sharpness, etc, but from a sheer distortion standpoint I would prefer the Tammy--after all it's a 22x zoom, vs the 24-240.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 24, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Yes, I was unclear. All RAW files need, at the very least some sort of translation of the data into colors. If that's ALL you have to do, then that's what I meant by a "usuable as is" RAW file. These lenses require that you ALSO do a geometric transformation of the image to make it look as it should. That means interpolations, etc., and some (more) detail will be lost.
> 
> In fact the 24-240's distortion is so severe at 24mm that what should be the corners of the image are drawn towards the center enough that the camera image doesn't even cover the entire sensor. Fortunately the field of view DOES cover the sensor even if the projected image of it does not.
> 
> ...


It's all computational photography, so it is a matter of degree. Nobody looks at the little Bayer thingies. It's not like the little silver halide clumps we had on film. I've been used to this for quite a while. Long ago Canon decided to use software corrections instead of adding another couple of pounds of glass. I think it is a good tradeoff. I had a couple of S-series cameras and now am on my second G camera for traveling. The quality that can come out of a camera that fits in my pocket is remarkable. A lot goes on for them to turn out JPEGs, but I almost always shoot Raw.

The corrections take place on the computer instead. On the wide end, there is still sometimes noticeable barrel distortion and vignetting. I can still tweak them manually in ACR. Sometimes leaving in a bit of the distortion looks more natural than conforming to the grid lines, and a bit of vignetting is often desirable. It offends me not at all that Canon uses the same approach for lenses costing hundreds and hundreds of dollars. It's not like there were some pristine pixels or clumps of silver salts that got lost in the process.

None of the RF lenses are for me. I'm not ready to give up the OVF. If I bought another body at this point, it would be a reduced-price 5D IV. I might have ordered it already if it had a tilty screen. The G5X II takes care of my mirrorless needs for now, and maybe it or a successor will do that for me for years to come. There is nothing inherently snobbish in stating that a particular piece of gear is not for you.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 24, 2020)

shawn said:


> Canon knows what they're doing. They're not pretending that people who buy the L version are gonna buy this lens so stop acting like this is an affront to your sensibilities when it was never meant for you. This is a lens that will be free with an RP. It's a giveaway lens that is probably still good for vlogging at 4k and lower resolutions. Not everybody is into photography and video the way people who attend rumor websites about the industry are. Even so, photography and video are integral to a lot of people and companies who have online workers or online business of some sort. On top of that, there are people who are only able to afford X amount of dollars and this lens is a great opportunity for them to get into FF for the price of an RP. This lens will meet all those needs at the lowest possible price of FREE.


++++ This is a lens that will be free with an RP. It's a giveaway lens...
++++ This lens will meet all those needs at the lowest possible price of FREE.

A.M. : no, it won’t be given away for free. Let’s be realistic here . It will be offered at the full RRP included in kit or with a very minor discount of $50 -ish.

The RRP of the lens however:

The *Canon RF 24*-*105mm* F4-7.1 IS *STM* is officially priced at £459.99 / €549.99 / $399.99 in the UK, *Europe* and the USA respectively.


----------



## Joules (Jun 24, 2020)

SteveC said:


> If it turns out to be better then I will wonder why Canon's 10X zoom distorts worse than tammy's 22+X zoom


That's pretty simple. The 24-240mm is a FF lens and goes much wider than the Tamron. Being a FF lens with basically the same F-numbers means it also has over a stop of an advantage in ISO across the range. The Tamron on the other hand has a big reach advantage. You are really comparing apples and oranges.

Keep in mind these new lenses have the strong distortion only at the wide end. Wide lenses are difficult. But compared to not having to option to go as wide, like with your Tamron, that is still a greater degree of flexibility. And they offer it at prices that are very reasonable, especially as kit. I don't get the complaints.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 24, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> I said the issue you raised 1. has no qualitative impact for the target market/the way they shoot



The target market *you* think this lens is targeted for.



twoheadedboy said:


> 2. you have not demonstrated anything to the contrary, whether considering explicitly in this thread, or in any other post you have made.



Cicala showed loss of resolution for a lens with less distortion. This one ought to lose more.



twoheadedboy said:


> Considering the matter at hand is a particular lens on a particular mount



The mount is immaterial. The discussion is about the lens' IQ.



twoheadedboy said:


> and what it looks like, and your opinion is contrary to that of reviews/etc.



Oh, you may rely on reviews, but I must actually use the equipment in hand? That's double standard.


----------



## geffy (Jun 24, 2020)

canon make great glass at a price and make do glass at a price, the key is price, it would be better to buy a tamron


----------



## Dantana (Jun 24, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> ++++ This is a lens that will be free with an RP. It's a giveaway lens...
> ++++ This lens will meet all those needs at the lowest possible price of FREE.
> 
> A.M. : no, it won’t be given away for free. Let’s be realistic here . It will be offered at the full RRP included in kit or with a very minor discount of $50 -ish.
> ...



Nobody will buy this lens for full price. It's currently being offered by Adorama with the RP for $100 more than body only. It's a throw in kit lens. Maybe the add on goes up to $200 at some point. It still makes the camera usable right out of the box for someone with no other glass. It's the full frame version of the 18-55 that ships with a Rebel. It's not meant to be sold on its own.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 24, 2020)

Dantana said:


> Nobody will buy this lens for full price. It's currently being offered by Adorama with the RP for $100 more than body only. It's a throw in kit lens. Maybe the add on goes up to $200 at some point. It still makes the camera usable right out of the box for someone with no other glass. It's the full frame version of the 18-55 that ships with a Rebel. It's not meant to be sold on its own.



I had the reverse with the EF-M15-45mm. I wanted that lens, but I already had a camera, so I didn't want the kit. Then I realized that the grey market kit of the M10+15-45 was €5 more than just the lens. I sold the M10 a few years later for much more


----------



## Adam Shutter Bug (Jun 25, 2020)

cant really recommend this one when the f/4 version is such a good lens.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 25, 2020)

magarity said:


> So a lens aimed at the casual user doesn't have manual focus but does have programmable control ring... That doesn't seem like the right option to offer.



No, it has the choice of either manual focus or a control ring at just the flick of a switch..




Chaitanya said:


> Users need to go through menu if they want to switch from AF to MF and vice-versa. That switch just selects whether the 2nd ring will be used a control ring or focus control. Removing AF On/Off switch is the stupidest decision on non-L RF mount lenses. Saving pennies on that switch doesnt make sense.



It's not like all STM lenses do not have the ability to use manual focus override when AF is turned 'on'.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 25, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Well, LOL. Thank you.
> however at 550 euro or even USD 400 a pop, seems a bit to rich for what it is.
> US$250? Yeah, may be... it will get to that price point on grey market rather quickly, I think.






Skux said:


> I mean the R6 kit.



The RP + this lens is currently only $100 more than the RP body only.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 25, 2020)

Joules said:


> That's pretty simple. The 24-240mm is a FF lens and goes much wider than the Tamron. Being a FF lens with basically the same F-numbers means it also has over a stop of an advantage in ISO across the range. The Tamron on the other hand has a big reach advantage. You are really comparing apples and oranges.
> 
> Keep in mind these new lenses have the strong distortion only at the wide end. Wide lenses are difficult. But compared to not having to option to go as wide, like with your Tamron, that is still a greater degree of flexibility. And they offer it at prices that are very reasonable, especially as kit. I don't get the complaints.



That's why I was trying to compare the inner part (not the whole) image from the 24-240 to the full image from the Tamron--to correct for the difference in size of the sensor.

Mistakenly comparing the whole sensor to the whole sensor, the 24-240 would absolutely SUCK next to the Tamron.


----------



## lawny13 (Jun 25, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> It is cheaper and reasonably smaller. Sure it is interesting. But more to the EOS RP buyers.
> If I was going for an R6 (expected north of 2000 $/€) I wouldn't grab that combo.
> For me the f/7.1 @105mm would be the dealbreaker and I would definetly prefer the f/4 lens.



Then get the f4. That is why we have options.

It is useful to try to have a big picture attitude while canon hasn’t yet finished its lens line up.

If we consider that canon may very well be done with APS-C (oly I going down, market is shrinking). Then this move makes sense.

For which people might this be Lens for? Those who would buy an entry level or mid level dslr and kit lens. Except this lens is sharper and better than most kit lenses for canon DSLRs.F6.3 isn’t too far off from f7.1 either. Now is it.

I have a feeling that those who would buy an f4 lens over this f4-7.1 lens would also likely buy the f4 over a f4-6.3 version. My guess is that canon thinks that as well.

Howwever, this lens might still be good for some experienced photographers. You can take this on long trips, along with 1-2 small primes for low light.

Also let’s not forget we have yet to see the AF capabilities and sensor performance of the new cameras. The low light focus capabilities of the R is extremely good, showing that the sensor can work surprisingly well with little light. ISO and bokeh difference between f6.3 and f7.1 is small.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 25, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> [..]
> If we consider that canon may very well be done with APS-C (oly I going down, market is shrinking). Then this move makes sense.
> [..]



I'd phrase that as "Canon may very well be making APS-C exclusive to EF-M". From the various sales reports the M line seems to be doing very well, even if it doesn't have many 'exciting' lenses for us internet snobs


----------



## Joules (Jun 25, 2020)

SteveC said:


> That's why I was trying to compare the inner part (not the whole) image from the 24-240 to the full image from the Tamron--to correct for the difference in size of the sensor.
> 
> Mistakenly comparing the whole sensor to the whole sensor, the 24-240 would absolutely SUCK next to the Tamron.


Good point. But, if you crop to compare the inner part, there's still a loss in resolution.

I think the fair comparison would be if the 24-240 mm was zoomed in to match the FoV of the Tamron on crop. On a Canon, that should be 29 mm.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 25, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> No, it has the choice of either manual focus or a control ring at just the flick of a switch..


"AF with manual focus override" is not "manual focus (without AF trying to interfere)".


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 25, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> If we consider that canon may very well be done with APS-C (oly I going down, market is shrinking). Then this move makes sense.


If we acknowledge the fact that Canon make the best selling APS-C system on earth it makes comments like these seem rather foolish.

M system is APS-C, R system is 135 format, two systems, two sensor sizes, no crossover and no confusion.


----------



## lawny13 (Jun 25, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> If we acknowledge the fact that Canon make the best selling APS-C system on earth it makes comments like these seem rather foolish.
> 
> M system is APS-C, R system is 135 format, two systems, two sensor sizes, no crossover and no confusion.


I should have elaborated. I don’t see a RF crop. EF-M as you state is completely segmented. It might not exist as far as RF is concerned. And it’s purpose is completely different.


----------



## lawny13 (Jun 25, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I'd phrase that as "Canon may very well be making APS-C exclusive to EF-M". From the various sales reports the M line seems to be doing very well, even if it doesn't have many 'exciting' lenses for us internet snobs



I know. I should have been more clear, on DSLR you had the EF and EF-S and the link between them.

Here even though canon has the EF-M mount is I completely separate from the RF. Absolutely no lens interchangeability. You choose a mount and go for it.

Before people still had the choice of getting EF lenses to “upgrade“ later one. So you had the rebels as the dirt cheap option and lineups all the way to the 1D system. Now the RF just has RF. And though cameras have gotten cheaper, FF is sill not rebel cheap. Canon is obviously trying to extend the RF down market as well. You choose between the two different design intents.

1. Go small, with the EF-M
2. Go with the “superior” RF lines. But the entry can be daunting. 1k for the RF body and 1k for the 24-105 f4 isn’t exactly cheap and light.

With the RP and 24-105 f4-7.1 at least you have cheaper, good IQ anyway, and light and relatively small. 

some of us snobs (me included) would prefer the f4 over this lens. But translate everything to how it would be on crop and you have f2.8-5 equivalent on crop, both in terms of light gathering and DOF. If, you look at it that way it isn't so bad.

So to me it is the AF performance that is of concern. That is already good on the R. I have shot video at f11, meaning that it would be focusing with the aperture stopped down and it did well. I can only guess that the focus will be even better on the new cameras.


End of the day... do any of us really think that canon hasn’t thought this through. I for one am aiming to buy the 100-500 and that has a f7.1 on the long end. When I think about it, it still expect it to perform better than my sigma 150-600 and will likely be sharper, faster the focus, and of course lighter and smaller to boot, And if it also does better close focus it would be icing on the cake.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 25, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> I should have elaborated. I don’t see a RF crop. EF-M as you state is completely segmented. It might not exist as far as RF is concerned. And it’s purpose is completely different.


I agree, I do not see a crop RF ever. I believe Canon have laid out what they see are the advantages of the crop camera and lenses, size, and believe pretty much all previous EF buyers are going to be into FF with a wide variety of body specs and features and price points. Meanwhile we will also get a similarly wide choice of lenses from bargain non L kit zooms to the highest quality fast L primes.

With the frame rates and pixel density coming out I see no real justification for the concept of RF APS-C, especially;ly if we get crop modes in the high pixel density bodies.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 25, 2020)

Canon users: "Why can't Canon make small, affordable, sharp lenses like Panasonic, Olympus, and third parties do for Micro Four-Thirds cameras, or like Sony and third parties do for Sony APS-C mirrorless cameras? If they don't, Canon is *******!"

Canon: "Here, try these new low cost, compact lenses that leave the correction to post processing like the Micro Four-Thirds and Sony APS-C lenses do."

Canon users: "What, you're making the same kind of crappy, uncorrected lenses that the Micro Four-Thirds cameras and Sony APS-C cameras have been using for years?!?!?! CANON IS *******!!!!!"


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 25, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> I know. I should have been more clear, on DSLR you had the EF and EF-S and the link between them.
> 
> Here even though canon has the EF-M mount is I completely separate from the RF. Absolutely no lens interchangeability. You choose a mount and go for it.
> 
> ...



Currently B&H is selling the RP for $899 body only, $999 with the RF 24-105/4-7.1, and $1,799 with the RF 24-105/4. $999 isn't quite Rebel territory, but it is a LOT closer than $1,799 is!


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 25, 2020)

Kit. said:


> "AF with manual focus override" is not "manual focus (without AF trying to interfere)".



That option is also available. Once the menu item has been changed from AF to MF, a flick of the switch changes the ring from control wheel to MF.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 25, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> That option is also available. Once the menu item has been changed from AF to MF, a flick of the switch changes the ring from control wheel to MF.


So, is there the choice of these 3 camera body options: "AF always on", "AF always off", and "AF on only when the lens is switched to Control"?

Or is one of these options missing?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 25, 2020)

Kit. said:


> So, is there the choice of these 3 camera body options: "AF always on", "AF always off", and "AF on only when the lens is switched to Control"?
> 
> Or is one of these options missing?



If the AF/MF menu option is set to MF, then the physical switch alternates the ring between 'Control wheel' and 'MF'. If the AF/MF menu option is set to AF, then the physical switch alternates between 'Control wheel' and 'AF (with manual override)'. It's really not that hard to understand.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 25, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> If the AF/MF menu option is set to MF, then the physical switch alternates the ring between 'Control wheel' and 'MF'. If the AF/MF menu option is set to AF, then the physical switch alternates between 'Control wheel' and 'AF (with manual override)'. It's really not that hard to understand.


Actually, it is.

If the AF/MF menu option is set to MF,
and I switch the lens to Focus and prefocus,
and then switch the lens to Control to use the ring as a control ring,
will I lose the prefocused distance setting or not?


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 25, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Actually, it is.
> 
> If the AF/MF menu option is set to MF,
> and I switch the lens to Focus and prefocus,
> ...



Your focus won’t change once you’ve set the ring to control. It’s effectively locked in unless you adjust your zoom or your subject moves or you move.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 25, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Actually, it is.
> 
> If the AF/MF menu option is set to MF,
> and I switch the lens to Focus and prefocus,
> ...



If the AF/MF menu option is set to MF, the camera will not AF, no matter which position the physical switch is in. You're making this a lot more complicated than it is. Why would you think you would lose the prefocused distance if you use the ring as a control ring?


----------



## tron (Jun 25, 2020)

Too much trouble seems to come out of one less switch that Canon chose to. It seems to me that a simpler lens with no control ring but normal af/mf switch would be a better choice.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 26, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> I know. I should have been more clear, on DSLR you had the EF and EF-S and the link between them.
> 
> Here even though canon has the EF-M mount is I completely separate from the RF. Absolutely no lens interchangeability. You choose a mount and go for it.
> 
> ...



I completely agree with this. Not having an upgrade option or possibility to mount the new 100-500 RF on a M6 II is not ideal.
But the market is changing and the remaining customers probably are more willing to spend a little bit more on an RP than in the past. 

In a year the RP might drop further and get close to $500 price range and with the 24-105 STM it's way better than any Rebel ever was.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 26, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> not sure I quite understand the excitement:
> 
> distortion at 24mm end and f/8
> 
> "... Brace yourself. We're going to look behind the curtains, and this is going to be painful. Here are the uncorrected test results from our standard distortion test (captured at f/8)..."



This isn't a bad thing. Distortion is much easier to fix in software than other issues such as chromatic aberration and of course lack of sharpness.

In the past budget lenses had to try to compromise on all areas in order to get an image that was mostly OK. 

Now Canon are able to move beyond this, and allow greater distortion in order to concentrate their design efforts in reducing the other issues.

Fixing distortion of course brings its own issues but the proof is in the quality of the images overall after the digital corrections have been applied.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 26, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I completely agree with this. Not having an upgrade option or possibility to mount the new 100-500 RF on a M6 II is not ideal.
> But the market is changing and the remaining customers probably are more willing to spend a little bit more on an RP than in the past.



Previously if I had a 80D with a mixture of EF-S and EF lenses and I wanted to upgrade to full frame I'd have to ditch all my EF-S lenses but I could keep the EF lenses.

Now, if I have an M6 II with a mixture of EF-M and EF lenses and I wanted to upgrade to full frame I'd have to ditch all my EF-M lenses but I can keep my EF lenses.

It's not really any different other than there are new lenses available that I can't use until I upgrade to the new body.

This would make me want to upgrade sooner rather than later. Obviously this fact isn't lost on Canon.


----------



## lawny13 (Jun 26, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Previously if I had a 80D with a mixture of EF-S and EF lenses and I wanted to upgrade to full frame I'd have to ditch all my EF-S lenses but I could keep the EF lenses.
> 
> Now, if I have an M6 II with a mixture of EF-M and EF lenses and I wanted to upgrade to full frame I'd have to ditch all my EF-M lenses but I can keep my EF lenses.
> 
> ...




Sorry, but I don't agree with your comment about it being the same. EF lenses are transitionary. Once canon is full on MILC those EF options essentially disappear. It might take a while, but in the "ideal" situation, as in once the transition has passed, the EF lens won't be a consideration. Unless you are saying you would buy lenses for a dead mount because you just may upgrade to RF?? 

EF will then be relegated mostly to the used market. Not to mention spare parts, and repairs and all that might become an issue. EF-M and RF simply do not have any direct link what so ever. And there is another thing you failed to realise, or mention. 

Someone with a FF system, could buy a smaller EF-S body, and use their FF lenses on it. For example the 50, or the 85 f1.8, or even some of the f4 zooms. All of them without any adapter what so ever. You simply don't have that here. NO RF FF LENS will fit on the EF-M. 

So in summary. The EF glass IS ONLY a supplement for the RF mount as long as the RF lens line up is lacking. The vast majority of people won't buy EF glass once the RF lens is fully fleshed out, and canon's usual pricing kicks in (lens prices alway drops generously). The message is... go small or go RF. Cause those EF-M lenses with FF EF glass adapted to them...


----------



## stevelee (Jun 26, 2020)

Everything is transitory.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> Sorry, but I don't agree with your comment about it being the same. EF lenses are transitionary. Once canon is full on MILC those EF options essentially disappear. It might take a while, but in the "ideal" situation, as in once the transition has passed, the EF lens won't be a consideration. Unless you are saying you would buy lenses for a dead mount because you just may upgrade to RF??
> 
> So in summary. The EF glass IS ONLY a supplement for the RF mount as long as the RF lens line up is lacking. The vast majority of people won't buy EF glass once the RF lens is fully fleshed out, and canon's usual pricing kicks in (lens prices alway drops generously).



I don't think anyone is saying most folks would continue to buy EF lenses after buying an R body.

I think most folks are saying they can _*keep using the EF lenses they already own*_ after they buy an RF or EF-M body, the exact same way folks kept using the EF lenses they already owned when they moved up from an EF-S body to an EF body.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Everything is transitory.



Except love.

"There is a land of the living, and a land of the dead, and the bridge is love, the only survival, the only meaning."


----------



## SteveC (Jun 27, 2020)

Joules said:


> Good point. But, if you crop to compare the inner part, there's still a loss in resolution.
> 
> I think the fair comparison would be if the 24-240 mm was zoomed in to match the FoV of the Tamron on crop. On a Canon, that should be 29 mm.




Resoultion? Not on the lens, surely. On the sensor, sure, but I'm taling about trying to determine how much the lenses distort.


----------



## lawny13 (Jun 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I don't think anyone is saying most folks would continue to buy EF lenses after buying an R body.
> 
> I think most folks are saying they can _*keep using the EF lenses they already own*_ after they buy an RF or EF-M body, the exact same way folks kept using the EF lenses they already owned when they moved up from an EF-S body to an EF body.



I didn’t say they wouldn’t. But canon doesn’t do plans on what ifs. Eventually they will stop making EF lenses.

Let me put it this way. What you are saying would be good for users, but not for canon. Its great for you if you will keep using your EF glass. But that isn’t a sale for canon.

TheEF-S+ EF dynamics was great for business. But that doesn’t work that way in a RF + EF + EF-M situation in the long run.

I am betting they will expand on EF-M lenses so people won’t need EF glass. The combo is just too big anyway. Long term both systems will have a full line up. And the only real reason to get EF if you have either system would be cost... and that would be from the 2nd hand market. Which Isn’t a sale for canon, not directly anyway.

You either choose to go APS-C, because you don’t ever need FF. This is perfectly fine.FF costs an arm and a leg after all andIf the EF-M Mount had a full lineup and I was doing this all over again I would really consider going with it.

Or you go the more “pro” way with the RF mount. Canon will still give you budget options, but you also have some high end, costs a liver option.

Most people going FF don’t need it. It is GAS affecting them, or attraction to the high end stuff. And canon is fine with that I am sure.


----------



## brad-man (Jun 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Except love.
> 
> "There is a land of the living, and a land of the dead, and the bridge is love, the only survival, the only meaning."


I know a couple of divorce attorneys that are ROTFL right now...


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> I didn’t say they wouldn’t. But canon doesn’t do plans on what ifs. Eventually they will stop making EF lenses.
> 
> The EF-S + EF dynamics was great for business. But that doesn’t work that way in a RF + EF + EF-M situation in the long run.
> 
> I am betting they will expand on EF-M lenses so people won’t need EF glass. The combo is just too big anyway. Long term both systems will have a full line up. And the only real reason to get EF if you have either system would be cost... and that would be from the 2nd hand market. Which Isn’t a sale for canon, not directly anyway.



Maybe Canon sees the EF-M market and the RF market as two distinct groups with very little overlap?

I'm sure the folks here at this forum tend to grossly overestimate the number of photographers who started with an EF-S camera and EF-s lenses ( or at least mostly EF-S lenses ) before beginning to buy EF lenses to use with an EF-S body in anticipation of the time when they would move to an EF body. That's because the typical shooter who hangs out at these forums very likely followed that path.

But that is not the same thing as saying the typical customer who has bought either an EF-S body and lenses or the typical customer who has bought an EF body and lenses followed that path. For every one of "us", there are hundreds of folks who bought an EF-S camera and EF-S lenses (plus maybe the nifty-fifty) and never bought a FF camera or an "L" lens. For every one of us, there were (yes, "were", as in once upon a time there "were") many pros who came to their first FF digital camera directly from 135 format film.

All of that was in the past, though, before smartphones really took off as the average person's primary photo and video capturing device. So what happened and worked then for Canon may not necessarily work now for Canon.

Canon seems to see the EF-M series and the R series as two completely separate markets. Perhaps they will eventually expand the EF-M space to include more enthusiast oriented lenses, but I wouldn't bank on it anytime soon. They seem committed to pouring all of their consumer product (as opposed to medical imaging or other business units that do not encompass ILCs) R&D, production, and marketing resources into the RF line of products. At least for now, they seem to think that the current EF-M offerings will suffice for the customers at which they are aiming the EF-M products.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

brad-man said:


> I know a couple of divorce attorneys that are ROTFL right now...



The reason most marriages end prematurely is because the participants mistake several different emotions for actual love. 

If you recognized the quote, you would know that none of the principal characters in the novel that ended with that sentence were concerned with marriage. They were concerned with the love a parent or grandparent feels for a child, the kind of love an Abbess feels for orphans and the poor, or the kind of love twin brothers might have for one another.


----------



## lawny13 (Jun 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Maybe Canon sees the EF-M market and the RF market as two distinct groups with very little overlap?
> 
> I'm sure the folks here at this forum tend to grossly overestimate the number of photographers who started with an EF-S camera and EF-s lenses ( or at least mostly EF-S lenses ) before beginning to buy EF lenses to use with an EF-S body in anticipation of the time when they would move to an EF body. That's because the typical shooter who hangs out at these forums very likely followed that path.
> 
> ...


+1

however the M6II is an enthusiest level camera for sure. Though I am an RF user my hope for the EF-M group is that canon does show them some love as their attention pivots DSLRs to MILC.

not much is needed right? 1-3 lenses to give the sign of... “here’s a bone or two or three, out attention is mostly on RF but we will get to you”. Something like a trinity f2.8-f4 good set of lenses for EF-M would already be great, and likely sell very well, don’t you think?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> +1
> 
> however the M6II is an enthusiest level camera for sure. Though I am an RF user my hope for the EF-M group is that canon does show them some love as their attention pivots DSLRs to MILC.
> 
> not much is needed right? 1-3 lenses to give the sign of... “here’s a bone or two or three, out attention is mostly on RF but we will get to you”. Something like a trinity f2.8-f4 good set of lenses for EF-M would already be great, and likely sell very well, don’t you think?



No, I don't think a trinity set of f/2.8 or f/4 lenses for the EF-M series would sell very well at all. There would be a few EF-M owners, most of whom also own EF or RF cameras, that would be interested. But the typical EF-M buyers wouldn't give a hoot about such lenses any more than the typical Rebel buyer would have given a hoot about a new version of the T/S-E 24mm f/3.5 L back in 2009.


----------



## lawny13 (Jun 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> No, I don't think a trinity set of f/2.8 or f/4 lenses for the EF-M series would sell very well at all. There would be a few EF-M owners, most of whom also own RF or RF cameras, that would be interested. But the typical EF-M buyers wouldn't give a hoot about such lenses any more than the typical Rebel buyer would have given a hoot about a new version of the T/S-E 24mm f/3.5 L back in 2009.


No. Not f2.8 or f4 lenses, but variable f2.8-f4 like some of Fuji’s offerings. And targets for enthusiests. And that was just an example z canon lacks some lenses to leverage the M6II. I would consider it as a small light body and also for some sports/wild life. But it hardly has lenses to do it justice.

I think M6II users would give it hoot. Except for the lack of dual cards it is on par with a 7D line if you ask me. After all the RF lacks “reach”. My comment isn’t about existing users but attracting new ones.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 27, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> Most people going FF don’t need it. It is GAS affecting them, or attraction to the high end stuff. And canon is fine with that I am sure.



Exactly. And most people who buy a APS-C EF-M mirrorless body will never need RF lenses.

Perhaps a new M7 will appear in the lineup with a larger body (LP-E6Nx battery) and a more modern APS-C sensor as an APS-C equivalent of the R6/R5.

Along with some new lenses specifically tailored for this, probably a 17-55 or so f/2.8 zoom and most importantly this:

https://www.canonwatch.com/canon-patent-100-400mm-f-5-5-7-1-lens-for-aps-c-camera/

There's no point making an APS-C R mount camera and then relying on heavy & expensive full-frame lenses when there's already a lineup specifically for APS-C on the M mount - expanding that mount is the sensible option.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> No. Not f2.8 or f4 lenses, but variable f2.8-f4 like some of Fuji’s offerings. And targets for enthusiests. And that was just an example z canon lacks some lenses to leverage the M6II. I would consider it as a small light body and also for some sports/wild life. But it hardly has lenses to do it justice.
> 
> I think M6II users would give it hoot. Except for the lack of dual cards it is on par with a 7D line if you ask me. After all the RF lacks “reach”. My comment isn’t about existing users but attracting new ones.



Most EF-M buyers - past, present, and future - are not interested in an arsenal of lenses.

They're interested in the kit lens they buy with the camera and maybe a cheap, fast prime like the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM. Maybe they're interested in a longer focal length lens like the EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM if they didn't buy the "all-in-one" 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM as the kit lens with their camera body.

As far as being on par with the 7D line goes, I don't think any EOS M body, including the M6 Mark II, has a magnesium alloy body, the same amount of extensive weather sealing, nor a shutter with a 200,000 actuation rating. Nor does any EOS M body have the same battery life as the 7D series in addition to the lack of dual card slots.

How long do you think the external EVF attached to the hot shoe of an M6 Mark II would last on the sideline of an American football game?


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 29, 2020)

Based on what the system consists of, the EOS M camera and lenses are designed for and marketed to users who want an ILC - but want it light and small. VERY small. Any lens that doesn't fit that strategy is likely not happening. The 11-22mm is an excellent lens in my opinion and covers all the wide angle needs of the target market. I had an 18-55mm (which was fine) which I ultimately replaced with the 18-150mm - which worked out excellently for my needs. I tried - and did not like using - any EF or EF-S lens with adapter on the M6 that I owned. I know some folks do so, but for me, those lenses were too large, too unbalanced, and defeated the whole purpose of the system.

I think it is far more likely that Canon will produce an R crop camera if they believe there is enough market for the 7D users going forward, rather than make a bigger M camera. If that happens, I think - based on some of the lens patents that we see (like the 17-70mm) - that RF lenses will be made that will work as "standard" lenses on the crop camera and wide angle lenses on the FF cameras. I don't think we will see any lenses made specifically for a crop R camera.

I think before Canon goes the crop R route, they will release the high megapixel FF R camera - hoping that those 7D users wanting more reach and the ability to use their EF-S lenses in crop mode will buy that camera going forward, as it should have plenty of MPs even in crop mode to be a potential successor to the 7D line.


----------



## ashmadux (Jun 29, 2020)

Today has been nice and peaceful, would be a shame to go all in on this shabby excuse for a lens. 7.1....POS.


----------



## ashmadux (Jun 29, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Most EF-M buyers - past, present, and future - are not interested in an arsenal of lenses.
> 
> They're interested in the kit lens they buy with the camera and maybe a cheap, fast prime like the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM. Maybe they're interested in a longer focal length lens like the EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM if they didn't buy the "all-in-one" 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM as the kit lens with their camera body.
> 
> ...



*What a a bizzare set of assumptions of the M line/users.* 
I still have the original M, currently planning to sell the m50 to get the m6mkii. I really despise these kinds of uniformed assumptions about "most" users...I dont fit your user profiles at all. Yeah, crazy stuff, who would have thought?

That sad, I dont need nor want any of the cheap trash M-consumer zooms lenses on offer (f6.3...trash). The 22f2 is a gem, and there is no equivalent for rebels. The 11-22 is okay, likely will sell it too (that 1mm missing means a lot in the long run).

I've used my M's on locations shoots, portrait sessions, and more. I have a suite of EF lenses, so i adapt what I need. *Amazing, right?* Oh, and get this...an adapted 35mmF2 IS lives on it! WOW, huh? 

As for the body quality...yes they are not metal anymore (m50 is a bit too cheap with the plastic), but they do what they do well. _All without trash lenses and pictures of cats or old tires in the street._ Actual, real shoots! Im sure youre point was valid...or, um..what point was that again?


----------



## lawny13 (Jun 30, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Most EF-M buyers - past, present, and future - are not interested in an arsenal of lenses.
> 
> They're interested in the kit lens they buy with the camera and maybe a cheap, fast prime like the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM. Maybe they're interested in a longer focal length lens like the EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM if they didn't buy the "all-in-one" 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM as the kit lens with their camera body.
> 
> ...




I have no idea. It has been said that the M6II replaces both the M5 and M6. So I don't know if this is the case or not. I know a lot of people don't shoot with flash these days, but I do. I can't imagine having to only choose between EVF or flash. If the thing at least had a flash trigger built it... but it doesn't does it?


----------



## mppix (Jul 5, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Yeah, now that does make sense--if those are your options (which going for light and convenient, they would be).
> 
> Granted, I'd be going to crop mode doing this but I could always stick my old Tamron 18-400 (for APS-C) on the thing (with adapter--oh the humanity!) Even more range.



I find the direction of Canon, i.e. introducing low cost FF systems instead of crop systems, highly interesting.

They might be onto something because FF sensors surely came down in cost over the last 20y as waver sizes and yield improved. Also, APS-C is more or less on a dead end because you cannot significantly increase pixel density anymore without diffraction becoming a problem between f4-f5.6 (new systems live for decades...). To mitigate this, they seem to take a direction of introducing lower end FF bodies and lenses (f7.1 is better than f5.6 on APS-C).

This might kill the entire APS-C lineup outside of compact formats like EF-M if they are able to introduce an FF body around the $500 price point. Also, Canon wins because they don't have to introduce RF-S lenses (the EF-S lens lineup was never really good), and the consumer wins because you don't have to use RF lenses on a RF-S body.

This idea would also justify the f11 teles. These lenses will likely give better IQ at the same equivalent focal length than for example a Sigma 150-600 5-6.3mm on APS-C (that is not that much brighter either).


----------



## SteveC (Jul 5, 2020)

mppix said:


> I find the direction of Canon, i.e. introducing low cost FF systems instead of crop systems, highly interesting.
> 
> They might be onto something because FF sensors surely came down in cost over the last 20y as waver sizes and yield improved. Also, APS-C is more or less on a dead end because you cannot significantly increase pixel density anymore without diffraction becoming a problem between f4-f5.6 (new systems live for decades...). To mitigate this, they seem to take a direction of introducing lower end FF bodies and lenses (f7.1 is better than f5.6 on APS-C).
> 
> ...



Interesting thoughts, thank you!


----------



## lawny13 (Jul 5, 2020)

mppix said:


> I find the direction of Canon, i.e. introducing low cost FF systems instead of crop systems, highly interesting.
> 
> They might be onto something because FF sensors surely came down in cost over the last 20y as waver sizes and yield improved. Also, APS-C is more or less on a dead end because you cannot significantly increase pixel density anymore without diffraction becoming a problem between f4-f5.6 (new systems live for decades...). To mitigate this, they seem to take a direction of introducing lower end FF bodies and lenses (f7.1 is better than f5.6 on APS-C).
> 
> ...



Though I agree. You will get push back from people. Some simply want continual gains.

Like a sensor with increased high ISO performance coupled with a f7.1 lens might perform on par with a previous gen sensor with a f6.3 lens. This gain and loss might irritate some who just want f6.3 lenses. So to speak.

The same goes for a lot of other gear that will be introduced. However I think I see and get what canon is doing.As usual it will irritate people and they will complain, but in the end canon will probably achieve the balancing act.

Take this 24-105 with the f7.1 on the long end vs the f4. Some will complain about the f7.1, and the fact that the aperture ring doubles as the focus ring. I get what they are saying but I would practically point out they can get the f4, RIGHT? But then they will complain about the price, size, weight of the f4. They would almost go as far as suggest canon should produce a third, to their liking and price. As silly as that actually is.

The fact though is that in the end it is canon that will have these options. They are masters at market differentiation as far as I am concerned.

Though Sony has pushed MILC tech, I always say that canon will catch up in a split second when unleashed from the DSLR chains and they will differentiate. While Sony essentially did the same ol’ same ol‘. It you look at their lenses they are just DSLR equivalents with whatever gains MILC allows. Gains that nikon and canon stated they would also have right out the gate.

So ya... we will see it. Market and price differentiation. Gear differentiation, and a new take on everything.


----------



## shawn (Jul 15, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> ++++ This is a lens that will be free with an RP. It's a giveaway lens...
> ++++ This lens will meet all those needs at the lowest possible price of FREE.
> 
> A.M. : no, it won’t be given away for free. Let’s be realistic here . It will be offered at the full RRP included in kit or with a very minor discount of $50 -ish.
> ...


 Turns out I was right, they had a sale and gave the lens away for free with the RP... I didn't say *always* I meant during sale periods. LOL


----------

